OCTOBER 8, 2002 AGENDACity of Virginia Beach
"COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME"
CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR MEYEtL,I E. OBF_,RNDORF, At-Large
VICE MAYOR ROBERT C. MANDIGO, JR., Kempsvitle - District 2
MARGARI:TT L. EUI~E, Cen terville - District 1
LOUIS R. JONES, Bays~de -Distrtct 4
REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall - District $
RICHARD A. MADDOX. Beach - District 6
JIM REEVE, Princess Anne - D~strict 7
PETER I{5 SCHMIDE At-Large
RO,VA. V1LLANUEVA, At-Large
ROSEMARY WII_~ON. At-Large
JAMrES L. FLOOD. Lynnhaven -District 5
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
JAMES K. SPORE, City Manager
LESLIE L. LILLEY, City Attorney
RLrfH HODGES SMITH, M3,(C, City Clerk
CITY HALL B[/1LDIN(
2401 COURTHOUSE DRI~
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-800
PHONE: (757) 427-430.
F,4X (757) 426-566:
E MAIL:Cty'cncl~vbgov. co~
October 8, 2002
I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
- Conference Room -
1:30PM
Co
AMENDMENT TO R-5S DISTRICT
Karen R. Lasley, Zoning Administrator
COMMUNITY LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
Robert R. Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager
SANDBRIDGE ROAD/NIMMO PARKWAY CORRIDOR
E. Dean Block, Director - Department of Public Works
II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS
III CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
IV. INFORMAL SESSION
- Conference Room -
4:30PM'
A. CALL TO ORDER'- Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf
B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
V. FORMAL SESSION
- Council Chamber -
6:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
B. INVOCATION:
Reverend Richard J. Keener
Bayside Presbyterian Church
C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
F. MINUTES
1. INFORMA~L AND FORMAL SESSIONS
October 1, 2002
G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION
H. MAYOR'S PRESENTATIONS
1. PROCLAMATION
a. Captain Cary A. "Dollar" Silvers Day, October 8, 2002
2. RESOLUTION
a. Harold Heischober Field
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
1. Ordinances re the City Code:
a. AMEND § 18-72 re business license taxes on coin-operated machines
AMEND and REORDAIN § 21-321.2 re adding certain neighborhoods subject to
maximum speed limits ("Traffic Calming") and providing penalties in those
neighborhoods:
(1) Stratford Chase
(2) Bayville Park
Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments into portions of the City's rights-of-
way within Linkhom Shores: (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN)
WAYNE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE re maintenance of an existing timber
retaining wall at 1200 Gloucester Lane.
PAUL D. and MARIANNE WARREN re construction and maintenance of a split rai;
fence, willow arbor and landscaping at 1517 Duke of Windsor Road.
Resolution referring to the Planning Commission proposed amendments to §502 of the City
Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re dimensional requirements for nonconforming lots in the R-5S
residential district.
Resolution to AUTHORIZE the issuance and sale of $28-Million Water and Sewer Revenue
Bonds, Series of 2002, heretofore authorized, re reimbursement for previous capital
expenditures and funding for future water and sewer projects; and, AUTHORIZE the
distribution of the preliminary Official Statement and other related actions.
J. PLANNING
Application of MOTHERS, INC. for the reconstruction and conversion of a nonconformin~
garage apartment into a nonconforming single family residence at 16th Street and Baltic Avenu
(417 ½ 16th Street), containing 5,000 square feet
(DISTRICT 6 - BEACH)
Recommendation:
DENIAL
Application of DAVID ELGIN for modification of acreage allowed by the Conditional Use
Permit for a church at Providence Road and Waring Street (5724 Providence Road) (approved
June 26, 1965), containing 2.02 acres
(DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE)
Recommendation:
APPROVAL
Applications of HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. at North Landing
and West Neck Roads, containing 65.1 acres:
(DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE)
Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to
Conditional R-30 Residential re single family lots no less than 30,000 sq. ft.
b. Conditional Use Permit re Open Space
Variance Appeal re certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 4.4(b), that
requires all newly created lots meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance
(CZO) and reduce required street width
Deferred:
Recommendation:
July 9 and August 13, 2002
INDEFINITE DEFERRAL
Application of TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP for a Conditional Use Permit re a
church at Challedon and South Parliament Drives (5245 Challedon Drive), containing
16,247.88 square feet.
(DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE)
Recommendation:
APPROVAL
Ko
APPOINTMENT
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
L. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
M. NEW BUSINESS
N. ADJOURNMENT
10!03/02
AGENDA 10/0$t02\gw
If you are physically disabled or visually impaired
and need assistance at this meeting,
please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303
Hearing impaired, call: TDD only 427-4305
(TDD - Telephorfic Device for the Deaf)
I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
- Conference Room -
· 1:30PM
Ao
AMENDMENT TO R-5S DISTRICT
Karen R. Lasley, Zoning Administrator
COMMUNITY LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
Robert R. Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager
Co
SANE}BRIDGE ROAD/NIMMO PARKWAY CORRIDOR
E. Dean Block, Director - Department of Public Works
II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS
III CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 4:30PM
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf
B. INVOCATION:
Reverend Richard J. Keener
Bayside Presbyterian Church
C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
Fo
MINUTES
1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS
October 1, 2002
G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION
CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION,
pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The
Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and,
WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the
governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council
hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters
lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed
Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters
as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or
considered by Virginia Beach City Council.
MAYOR'S PRESENTATIONS
1. PROCLAMATION
a. Captain Cary A. "Dollar" Silvers Day, October 8, 2002
2. RESOLUTION
a. Harold Heischober Field
cgVhereas:
Captain Cary A. "Dollar' Si£vers, Commanding Officer, finitedStates Havy,
is re£inquishing commandof Hava£Air Station Oceana; and
Captain Si£vers received a $acheFor of $usiness Administration degree from
the finiversity of Georgia in 1977 and was commissioned throuahAviation
Officer Candidate Schoo£ in 1978, becoming a Havaf Avia tor in 1979; and
c[~he reas :
C~herea$:
Captain Si£vers servedin q/T-24 as an instmctorpiLot, reported to VY-101for
training in the ~-14A aircraft, andservedin V~-143 as Line Divia'on,
TraininB, andAssistant Operations Officer as a TOPGZ)Hgraduate, making
two Mediterranean deployments aboardthe ~)SS Dwight D. Bisenhower, and
Captain Silvers ~ecame an adversary instructorpifot flying the B 3 8, P-5, A-4
and the P-2 I (K~FI~ aircrafts, being the first to train in the KPIR Israefi'
aircraft and being the first HavalAir Training and Operating qYocedures
Standardization Officer for the same; and
Ne later completed a deployment in support of Operation Desert Shied on
boarg the fiSS Owight D. Bisenhower, and
¢Vhereas:
He servedas the ffvcecutive Officer of VP-101 andof V~-3 2, where he became
the 46¢~ Commanding Officer of the Sworgsmen in 1994; and
Captain SiFvers served on the fi)SS Independence as Air 05oss and after
numerous deployments, reported to Commander Operational Test and
Wovafuation ~orce asAssistant Chief of Staff forSpecia£qrograms; and
Captain Silvers assuraed the duties of Bxecutive officer of HAS Oceana in
q:ebruary 2001 andassumedCommanding Officer later that same year, and
During his career, Captain Silvers has accumulated more than 4,000flight
hours and688 carrier arrested landings; and
Whereas:
His awards include the Meritorious Service Nedal, Air NedalStri~ q~light
Award, Navy Commendation Medal, Air q~orce Commendation Nedal, Joint
Neritorious ~Onit Award, and various unit service medals; and
Whereas:
Captain Silvers' new assignment beginning April2003 will be as Captain,
Z;nitedStates Navy, Retired; and
Whereas:
Captain Silvers is recognizedfor his masteUculleadership andmanagement of
the east coast's Master Jet Sase, HAS Oceana, for his tremendous cooperation
in workin8 with the Oty of Virainia Seach through the day-to-day operations
of HAS Oceana, the successful 2002 Heptune BestivalAir Show, and the
response to the terrorism attacks on September 11th; and
Whereas:
Captain Silvers is a warrior, a patriot, a tremendously loyalAmerican citizen,
anda tribute to the ~OnitedStates Havy:
Ho~;, Therefore, L Meyera B. Oberndo~, Nayor of the Oty of Virginia Seach, Virginia, do
hereby ackno~vledge andcelebrate the service of Captain Cary A. "q)ollar"Silvers, 'USgs, to
America and Virtlinia Seach, and do hereby Proclaim
October 8, 2002
Dollar Silver's Oay
In Virginia $each, and I call on all citizens to join the Virginia $each City Council in
wishing Captain Silvers and his family the best of success in retirement, andwe thank him
for his commitment to his country as a Patriot, a Wardor, andan Officer anda Gentleman.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my handand caused the Offi~qalSealof the Oty
of Virginia $each, Virginia, to be affi~ed this Eighth day of October, Two Thousand-Two.
Neyera B. Oberndo9c
Mayor
WHEREAS: Harold Heischober was elected to membership on the Virginia Beach
City Council in 1980;
WHERE~4$: Councilman Heischober served two years and was elected by his peers
as the Vice Mayor, which he served 1980-1982;
WHEREAS: Vice Mayor Heischober was elected by the Virginia Beach City Council
to serve as Mayor 1984-1986. This represented the first time a member of City Council had been
elevated each two years to the higher office from Councilman to Mayor;
N~IEREAS: Mayor Heischober, with many years of professional leadership
experience, exhibited his wisdom with vision to guide Virginia Beach, the largest city in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, in its growth as a major American municipality;
WHEREAS: Harold Heischober, formerly a professional baseball player, has
throughout his long career of service consistently given of his unlimited talents for the enhancement
of whatever community he was privileged to call Uhome'~
WHEREAS: After bis tenure as Mayor, Councilman Heischober continued to serve
as a member of the City Council with a particular vision for a world-class sports facility to serve as a
venue for a variety of participatory sports;
WHEREAS: Harold Heischober's tenacity saw that vision become a reality in the
form of the Virginia Beach Sportsplex; and,
WHEREAS: The City of Virginia Beach continues to benefit, on a daily basis, the
enhancement this Sportsplex has brought to local sports, school activities and economic benefit.
NO~, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That, in recognition of these untiring
achievements, the playing field at the Virginia Beach Sportsplex hereby be named and henceforth be
known as the:
HAlt OLD HEIS CHOBER FIELD
Given under our hands and seals this Eighth day of October Two Thousand and Two.
Margaret I~ Eure
Richard A. Maddox
Ron A. Villanueva
Louis R. Jones
Jim Reeve
Rosemary W'dson
Reba S. McClanan
Peter W. Sckmidt
James L. Wood
Vice Mayor Mayor
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
1. Ordinances re the City Code:
a. AMEND § 18-72 re business license taxes on coin-operated machines
bo
AMEND and REORDAIN § 21-321.2 re adding certain neighborhoods subject to
maximum speed limits ("Traffic Calming") and providing penalties in those
neighborhoods:
(1) Stratford Chase
(2) Bayville Park
o
Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary, encroachments into portions of the City's rights-ol
way within Linkhom Shores: (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNI4_AVEN)
ao
WAYNE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE re maintenance of an existing timber
retaining wall at 1200 Gloucester Lane.
bo
PAUL D. and MARIANNE WARREN re construction and maintenance of a split rail
fence, willow arbor and landscaping at 1517 Duke of Windsor Road.
°
Resolution referring to the Planning Commission proposed amendments to §502 of the City
Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re dimensional requirements for nonconforming lots in the R-5S
residential district.
°
Resolution to AUTHORIZE the issuance and sale of $28-Million Water and Sewer Revenue
Bonds, Series of 2002, heretofore authorized, re reimbursement for previous capital
expenditures and funding for future water and sewer projects; and, AUTHORIZE the
distribution of the preliminary Official Statement and other related actions.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
An Ordinance To Amend the City Code Pertaining to Business License Taxes
on Coin-Operated Machines
MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002
Background:
The City of Virginia Beach requires persons operating coin-operated machines to obtain a
business license. The City Code, at § 18-72, outlines how operators of coin-operated machines
are to be taxed, but its provisions are outdated and do not match the current state law on this
subject.
Considerations:
Currently, every operator of three or more coin-operated machines must pay a license tax of
two hundred dollars ($200) in addition to a license tax of 0.36 percent on the share of gross
receipts actually received by the operator. The proposed amendment to Section 18-72 (b)
reduces the license tax that operators of between three (3) and ten (10) coin-operated
machines shall pay to $150.00 (in addition to a license tax on gross receipts actually received
by the operator).
This amendment also makes clear that this tax is applicable only to coin-operated amusement
machines.
Recommendations:
Approval
Attachments:
Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Commissioner of the Revenue
City Manager: ~,~ ~' ~r~¢~,c/¢,~,,'
UF:\Data~ATY~Ord~\NONCODE\18-072arf.wpd
1
2
-- 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-' 13
14
15
-- 16
17
18
19
2O
-- 21
22
23
-- 24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
-- 32
33
34
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE
PERTAINING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES
ON COIN-OPERATED MACHINES
SECTION AMENDED: § 18-72
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That Section 18-72 of the City Code is hereby amended and
reordained to read as follows:
Sec. 18-72. Coin-operated amusement machines--Operators.
(a) For the purpose of ~his section, the term "amusement
operator" shall mean any person selling, leasing, renting or
otherwise furnishing or providing a coin-operated amusement machine
or device opezate~ w~ ~he coin ~-~=-~v~ principle, ..... ~,~ machine
oz device io ~=~== ~=~ in the city, whether or not such
operator has a fixed place of business within the city; provided,
however, that the term "operator" shall not include a person owning
less than three (3) coin machines and operating such machines on
property owned or leased by such person.
(b) (i) ~ Amusement operator~ with ten (10) or more
machines shall pay ~ an annual license tax of two
hundred dollars ($200.00), e~, in additionT to a
license tax of 0.36 percent on the share of gross
receipts actually received by %he operator [rom
such business for the preceding calendar year.
{ii) Amusement operators with at least %hree (3) but
less than ten (10) machines shall pay an annual
license tax of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00),
in addition to a license tax of 0.36 percent on the
share of qross receipts actually received by the
operator from such business for the precedinq
calendar year.
(c) The operator's license tax of $200.00 shall not be
applicable to operators of weighing machines, automatic baggage or
parcel checking machines or receptacles, nor to operators of
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
49
5O
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
6O
61
62
63
64
65
vending machines which are so constructed as to do nothing but vend
goods, wares and merchandise or postage stamps or provide service
only, nor to operators of viewing machines or photomat machines,
nor to operators of devices or machines affording rides to children
or for the delivery of newspapers.
(d) Upon making application for a license as an operator, the
applicant shall file with the commissioner of the revenue, in
duplicate, a list of the locations of all machines and devices
sold, leased, rented or otherwise furnished to or placed with
others and, during the current license year, every cperatcr shall
notify the cormr~issicner of the revenue, in writing in du~licane, of
all changes in locations of such machines and devices, within five
(5) days after such changes are made.
(e) Every operator, before com~encing doing business in the
city, shall register with the commissioner of the revenue and
deposit with him a bond in the amount cf one thousand dollars
I$1,000.00~, payable to the city, to insure the keeping of adequate
records, the filing of reports in such form and at such times as
may be prescribed by the commissioner of the revenue and the proper
payment to the city of the tax imposed by this section. The form
and surety of such bond shall be determined by the commissioner of
the revenue.
(f) Every coin machine covered by this section shall be
plainly marked by the owner thereof with the name and address of
such owner.
(g) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of not
less than fifty dollars (S50.00~ nor more than five hundred dollars
15500.00~ for each offense and the machine or other device shall
become forfeited to the city.
COMMENT
67
68
69
70
71
72
This ordinance provides for a reduced fiat license tax of $150 for operators of less than ten
coin-operated amusement machines (in addition to a license tax of 0.36 percent of the operator's share
of gross receipts from machines operated in the City). This makes the CiW ordinance consistent with
Virginia State Code § 58.1-3720, which requires that the fiat license tax for operators of less than ten
coin-operated amusement machines be less than $200. This ordinance also makes clear that this
section only applies to coin-operated amusement machines.
-- 73 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
74 Virginia, on this day of , 2002.
CA-8577
DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/18-072ord.wpd
R5
September 23, 2002
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS:
~venue
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
Department o~aw ' r
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
An Amendment to City Code Section 21-321.2 Pertaining to Maximum Speed
Limits in Designated Neighborhoods.
MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002
Background:
On February 13, 2001, an ordinance was passed to deter speeding on residential streets
identified and qualified by the Traffic Calming Program. That ordinance allows a court to
impose upon a driver convicted of speeding on these designated streets a fine up to $200.
Considerations:
Pursuant to § 46.2-878.2 of the Code of Virginia, the City of Virginia Beach can designate these
problem streets by ordinance, and provide that the fine for a speeding violation on such streets
is not prepayable. Consequently, if a person is charged with speeding on any such street, he
or she would have to appear before, and be sentenced by the court.
The Traffic Calming Program is designed as follows: Phase I is aimed at awareness and
education, and generally takes place during discussions between Traffic Engineering and the
neighborhood representative. In this phase, the neighborhood chooses the streets they want
evaluated for inclusion in the program. Phase II consists of speed studies of the chosen streets.
If the studies shows an 85 Percentile speed of at least 33 mph, or it shows an average speed
of at least 29 mph, in a posted 25 mph speed zone, then the Police Department will conduct a
series of selective enforcement on the designated streets, followed by follow-up traffic studies
at the end of each enforcement cycle. If the speeds persist or increase, the streets will be
eligible to enter Phase III of the program if at least 75% of the established neighborhood petition
area sign a petition requesting the implementation of Phase II1. Phase III of the Program
involves designated streets within a neighborhood being identified in the above-referenced
ordinance, therefore subjecting violators to a non-prepayable fine up to $200.00. And finally,
should this initiative fail, the neighborhood may request Phase IV, the installation of physical
devices to prevent speeding.
After advising all participating neighborhoods of the Program policies and the cdteria for
inclusion in the Program, the streets added by this amendment have qualified for inclusion in
the Program by meeting the minimum qualifications at the time they entered the Program.
Stratford Chase and Bayville Park have submitted a petition showing at least 75% agreement
from the petition area.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the attached ordinance amendment, which adds new streets in Stratford
Chase and Bayville Park to the street listing in § 21-321.2, be adopted. All of these streets were
identified through the Traffic Calming Program. It is anticipated that these new streets will
participate in the Program under Phase III for two years, after which time they will need to re-
apply for the Program under the current Program policies.
Public Information:
This ordinance will be advertised in the same manner other Council agenda items are
advertised.
Attachments:
Ordinance
Map
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Depal~ment/Ag.en,.cy: Polic, e/Public Work~
City Manager ~ /',~ ~//~
,j/ ' O~E'Auyang\Traffic Calming Oct8th.wpd
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
-- 15
16
17
-- 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-~ 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
-- 33
34
35
AN ORDINANCE TO ADD A NEW SECTION
TO THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO
MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS IN DESIGNATED
NEIGHBORHOODS
SECTION ADDED: 21-321.2
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, is
hereby amended and reordained to read as follows:
Sec. 21-321.2. Traffic Calming via Maxim%un speed limits in
certain residential districts; penalty.
Pursuant to section 46.2-878.2 of the Code of Virginia,
any person who operates a motor vehicle in excess of the maximum
speed limit established for any portion of the following highways
located within the designated neighborhoods, on or after the
effective date, shall be guilty of a traffic infraction punishable
by a non-prepayable fine of not more than $200, in addition to
other penalties provided by law:
Effective as of February 12, 2001:
1. L & J Garden: Norwich Avenue; Tajo
Avenue; Fairlawn Avenue; Dulcie Avenue.
2. Acredale: Andover Road; Langston Road;
Bonneydale Road; Olive Road, Alton Road; Old
Kempsville Road.
3. Lake Shores: Jack Frost Road; Lake
Shores Road.
4. Little Neck: Harris Road.
Effective as of August I4, 2001.
1. Lake Shores: Oak Leaf Lane, Tern Road; Lake Road S;
Regina Lane; Meredith Road, School Road, Mosby Road,
Frizzel Drive; Finn Road; Charla Lee Lane; Smith Farm
Road.
2. Brighton on the Bay: Templeton Lane; Wivenhoe Way;
Starr Way.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
3. Baylake Pines/Baylake Beach: Ben Gunn Road; Indian
Hill Road; Baylake Road; Rampart Avenue; Bayville Road;'
Lookout Road; Sandy Bay Drive.
4. Country Haven: Stewart Drive.
Effective as of April 9, 2002:
1. Fairfield: Lord Dunmore Drive.
2. Bellamy Manor: Homestead Drive.
44
45
46
Effective as of May 28, 2002:
Church Point: Church Point Road; Church Point
Place; Timber Ridge Drive.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Effective as of October 8, 2002:
1.~.. Stratford Chase: Stratford Chase Drive; Minden
Road; Violet Bank; Kittery Drive.
2. Bayville Park: Greenwell Road (From Shore Drive to
First Court Road).
Comment
The streets indicated under the heading "Effective as of October 8, 2002" will
become part of the Traffic Calming Program. Drivers caught speeding on those designated streets
can be fined up to $200.00.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on the day of , 2002.
CA8524
F:\ordin\noncode\21-321.2.ord.wpd
September 19, 2002
R3
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
P'O li~partmen~//
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Public Works
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
Cit~y' ~tt'orney' s Offi~e'
of the Traffic Calming Program, Ordinance 2619
Bayville Park *
~ ' ~ ~i~l Baylake Pines/
..~;~. ~ ~?, t ~ ~ ~.~.,.,.~,,~.
~F.'~" Lnke Shores ~ .:' ['~:~'~
~ '='~ Baylake Beach
~.~,. ,.. .... ~.,~..~, ., e~ · .
-~,~;~.~u~.~.'=~, '~.~.:,'::~x '~=~X--'~.~n=~ ,'t'=~' ~= ~,L'~ ;'~:'"t~'~;4..['~'.~~
~,:=~,~.l:~::.~,~,~=?:. ~ ~ ~(~ ~~ Little Neck: ~'.... I [ ~......[ ~:.~=.,~..,..,..,.==~ ~~.
~ ?:' "~=,, ~ Hnrr~ Road ..,~?
';"- :' ..... ' ' ~".",'..' ~" ~ · 3 ~ '~'~' ~ '::'~-~'~ g'~'~...,:.~t.-:~.-,~+~ ~-~'~.
' ~gl~- :~'.. ~Lc' :'~.d~=.'~'-;.~:,: 0 '~:"' [ ' : '~.~"
'
i ',:=~'~'~"~-' /'~.~.:~'".'~' ~ ~'~, E'" .... ~': ® Ch.r.h Po~.t ;..~:'~'. :~? ~-~'~ ~~.~.,.'.,,~.,.,:,,:.,,...~......,.~,.,:...~:?~.~..~....
?,,....:~,~ ~.'~, .................... :,.,,..:,.==t=:~,,,,,.:_~ , .... ...,,....~ ................. ,.,...
........ .. , A} ~ . ' ,.~ ~.~,~,:,..,. ...?. ~];,,...~,4,"
: ~,,.;:.. .... ..: ;..~..:. ~ ... . .'¥~?~.~'.~;...:
~:, . .... ~--.'~.'.~..'~', ~,~..-...~.=~
;~/~ ' , ..~:~ ~-, :
~" ' . ..... '~'~~, ~ ~ ~A~'~ ¥'~" ,'~ '.-' -- ,I~,'~ ="'.:."'=~'" .....
.":":'.:.:.?... .: ~ ,.~ A~I, 'L : .... . -'"'"~ ''~ '
',s ....... ]I ~-~"',4'/~ '~,~'g:~." ' . ".' 20 ' .. :.v."::~*...:
.:.. ,.. ?......,~.,.., ~ ,.:.'. ~ · ~ · ~ ~ -'...:~,,:~,~ _--.---~ (~'..~' ~.~'~.%:' . ./- '~.,........~... '.:.',
'"~':'~ ::"~"~" ':"?':~':':'~':": ~ ~: '~t~ ' '~ /"~ ~'*'~' /,~:~. ,~,~""' ~ .~', "'"':~.:/~.::
~ ~:~Lg~ ~ ~ ~.~;~z '.'~ ...... / ." ~. '..' '".'.'":'.:..
~ '"'.': Count~ Haven ~"~:~"' :"~;'~',~ I z~ ~.k '~-~:;~ P~'~'~Z:"; ~::';:/ ' : ,..;.'.=~ ..-,"
"'~.~ "L ~:'""~: '~:~/: ~] ~ ~'. -~~ '~'/~ ' " / ~'~"~
~,4. ",' --~ ~,', ~ ,,":","=:"}:'::
.:.:~-.'~/.~:.,i: .~,:.. :. '~., . ..: ;.. ...'....'...;':.....:. :~ :,...~.. ~ k, , .~-'
· ~-'~::','.:t'.L ",:~::~g..":,:.~ ' · ':'.. j: ,. ." ~'..~:p"" . ;.,:'.:' ~,~-:] ". ~
.'~." '~'~'L:~:-:'.'~'.?.'~.:':'~ ~: .' "~:~: ~.:,~: .~:". :" ','~.'.. ~'.?:.~t~'~:'",. ",~':?~. :,.":~?...! ~:.:'~. ~E::':~.~.~ ~ ~ ~',. ,~ - _ .... I.A~ ', ~ ~. · ~' ' ~-. ~:..:'..
, . ....... .,,. .............. ....=, ........ ..~,,. ............. ~:..~,.::, .,...~. ............ .~. ~ ,
I~.'??':''.~..,.. ~=;~:.:~'::.:':".~'~:..,,~.,:: :.'?'"~:~..~.;:;~:.~'~:~'..~,~.;' :.,..:....,.:..:.?~....':~}.:~.~';~:::.~;,~.' .'~'~:~?.~:~:~:: ~ ,'. ~ ~~;. ~/·x-----,,,"- , ~.] .....':...~ s, ~.: .~x..~:., .,:~,~:...;A~..;.
~ ...................... , ...... ~ ~' ...'~:~:,:.~,~., .,~-?~,.
· , ~".:~:~.::".~: ~.. ;.?~.~,... ,-.
I ** '~:':~'~,:F{', ':'...:.~',~,...;..:,;/'
~ Brighton on the Bay will be '"'::-~ ": '"~'~ ~ ...... ,/ "" ~"i ": ':{~'''' '?;; :'1 ..~:. '
~..:: ..: - ~ ".
~ removed from the Program ~'i . :' "'[ ~'"'.~ J' .'-, ':.:]:"?:::.1 ~". '
~'~:'. ~.'.}' ~:;...' .:, .'~'" .: .'."::':: . .'.,': .:~ : .:. ;. "; .
_~..::?.:~..; ..;:..., ::::. .,.:.~...~ :~ ........~¥... {.:..:~.:~: ..... ~, ........."- ~.~
. 7~"~ "' ::.:'.: .:,.'. '~..'.:.'::~ .:~'E-"- .'~. ;.:. '...
.:'. '....'..~ .. ._'. .. .'.:~'.. ~ '~ ~'~'. . :'.. .....,: /' ~.~ :.....'..~ }../ - "~:;.'.:".:.'~ ".:'7.'.::~::' ."' "..::.
~. _ . ~ - '.."' .':" ~': . ...:~....,:.:...:... ,.. '....
/
.:. ...:... . ... ... ,.. ....
'.'?' . .... :;..... . ..: ..'/'. -'.'"- ) '
:..~..~ :..~.....
'" :re :.',~.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager
ITEM: Encroachment Request for Wayne Beagle and Kimberly A. Beagle at 1200
Gloucester Lane
MEETING DATE:
October 8., 2002
Background:
Wayne and Kimberly Beagle have requested permission to encroach into the right-of-way for
Gloucester Lane to maintain an existing timber retaining wall on their property in Alanton.
Considerations:
Staff has reviewed this request and has no objections to this encroachment from an operational and
maintenance standpoint.
The Department of Public Works supports the utilization of "hardened slope stabilization" revetment
methods including bulkheading, grouted rip-rap and rip-rap with filter cloth to minimize and prevent
soil loss along bank slopes associated with open drainage ditch, canal, and lake systems. These
methods are successful in areas with soil types classified as highly erodible, especially during major
rainfall events which create high velocities and wave action along bank slopes due to high winds.
Public Information:
Advertisement of City Council Agenda.
Alternatives:
Approve the encroachment as requested, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by
Council.
Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of this encroachment subject to the applicant complying with conditions
set forth in the agreement.
Authorize City Manager to sign agreement.
Attachments:
Ordinance
Location Map
Agreement with plat attached
Photos
Recommended Action: Approve request and authorize City Manager to sign agreement.
Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate~-/~
City Manage~ l~~.~/c.~
-- 2
3
4
-- 5
6
7
8
9
10
__ 11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
-- 18
19
2O
21
22
-- 23
24
25
26
27
-- 28
29
30
31
32
-- 33
34
35
36
Requested by Department of Public Works
AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A
TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A
PORTION OF THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY
OF GLOUCESTER LANE BY WAYNE BEAGLE
AND KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE, THEIR HEIRS,
ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE
WHEREAS, WAYNE BEAGLE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE, desire to
construct and maintain a timber retaining wall into the city's
right-of-way known as Gloucester Lane.
WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-
2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to
authorize a temporary encroachment upon the City's right-of-way
subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof
contained in §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, WAYNE BEAGLE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE, their heirs, assigns
and successors in title, are authorized to construct and maintain
a temporary encroachment for a timber retaining wall in the City's
right-of-way of Gloucester Lane as shown on that certain plat
entitled: "SKETCH SHOWING RETAINING WALL ENCROACHMENT LOCATED ON
SITE 45B-1 FOR WAYNE BEAGLE RESUBDIVISION OF SITE 45A AND 45B
RESUBDIVISION OF SITE 45 LINKHORNSHORES VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA",
a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works to
which reference is made for a more particular description; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment
is expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria
contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and
WAYNE BEAGLE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE (the "Agreement"), which is
attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his
authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be
in effect until such time as WAYNE BEAGLE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE
37
38
39
40
and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the
Agreement.'
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on the day of , 2002.
41
42
43
44
CA#-
TKENN\ENCROACH\BEAGLE.ORD
R-1
PREPARED: 8/26/02
APPRAVED AS TO CONTENTS
(~/ SIGNAYURE
DEPARTMENT
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY AND
CITY ATTORNEY
2
WOODHOUSEi RD $ .
/
I
COLONIAL
· '~\
LOCATION MAP
..' >-
SC&L[: 1" = 1,~00'
LOCATION MAP FOR
ENCROACHMENT FOR
WAYNE AND KIMBERLY BEAGLE
AT 1200 GLOUCESTER LANE
SCALE: 1" = 100'
PREPARED BY P/W ENG. DRAFT. 20-AUG-2002
PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER
SECTIONS 58.1-811 {a)(3) AND 58,1-811 (c}(4)
REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249
20 O~, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, ~IRGINIA, a
municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and WAYNE BEAGLE and
KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE, his wife, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS
IN TIT?.R, "Grantee", even though more than one.
W I T N E S S E T H:
That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain
lot, tract or parcel of land designated and described as "Site
45B-1, Subdivision of Linkhorn Shores" (Instrument No.
200207153001475), and being further designated and described as
1200 Gloucester Lane, Virginia Beach, VA 23454; and
That, WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to
construct and maintain a timber retaining wall, a "Temporary
Encroachment" in the City of Virginia Beach; and
WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary
Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a
portion of an existing City right-of-way known as Gloucester
Lane, "The Encroachment Area"; and the Grantee has requested that
the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachment
Area.
GPIN: 2408-87-4323
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises
and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for
the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to
the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth
grant to the Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for
the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary
Encroachment.
It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary
Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance
with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the city of
Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications
and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to-
wit:
A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment
Area as shown on that certain plat entitled:
"SKETCH SHOWING RETAINING WALL ENCROACHMENT
LOCATED ON SITE 45B-1 FOR WAYNE BEAGLE
RESUBDIVISION OF SITE 45A AND 45B
RESUBDIVISION OF SITE 45 LINKHORN SHORES
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", Revised date:
August 6, 2002; a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" to which reference is
made for a more particular description.
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 and hold harmless the City, its agents
and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and
2
expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be
necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the 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 and agreed that the
Grantee must submit and have approved a traffic control plan
before commencing work in The Encroachment Area. Also, the
Grantee agrees that the Temporary Encroachment must stay at least
three feet (3') from the edge of the existing pavement for
Gloucester Lane.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the
Grantee agrees that no open cut of the public roadway will be I
allowed except under extreme circumstances. Requests for
exceptions must be submitted to the Highway Operations Division
of Public Works for final approval.
of
the
Department
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the
Grantee must obtain a right-of-way permit from the Development l
Services Center of the Planning Department prior to commencing
any construction within The Encroachment Area.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior
to the issuance of a right-of-way permit the Grantee must post
sureties, in accordance with their engineer's cost estimate, with
the Development Services Center of the Planning Department.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the
Grantee must get an approved Joint Permit Application from the
Waterfront Operations Division of the Planning Department.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the
Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance
and general liability insurance, or such insurance as is deemed
necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the
city as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable.
The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability
insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single
limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will
provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written
notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of,
or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The
Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or
contingent~ with relation to 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
Grantee must submit, for review and approval, a survey of The
Encroachment Area certified by a registered professional engineer
or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the
Temporary Encroachment sealed by a registered professional
engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's office or the
Engineering Division of the Department of Public Utilities.
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 1
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 compensation and
penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of
local or state taxes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WAYNE BEAGLE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE,
his wife, the said Grantee has caused this Agreement to be
executed by their signatures and seals duly affixed. 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.
5
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
By
city Manager/Authorized
Designee of the City Manager
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
City Clerk
~ . (SEAL)
Wayne Beagle
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of , 20 , by
, CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED
DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER.
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
6
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY'OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of , 20 , by
RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF ~ '~~_~ w~
CITY/COUNTY OF 0 ~/~z~-'to-wit:
The foregoing ~nstrument was acknowledged before me
this /~ day of ~.~~ , 20zQ~__ , by
WAYNE BEAGLE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE, his wife.
! Notary Publ i~
My Commission Expires: ~~~
APPROVED AS TO
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
Y REAL ESTATE AGENT
7
~0.00'
N 80'44'10" E
THIS SKETCH WAS PREPARED TO BE A FfACHED TO ENCROACHMENT
APPLICATION AND IS NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT A BOUNDARY SURVEX
DUKE OF W/NDSOR ROAD
VALVE
45.5 WALL ~
ENCROACHMENT
,,& SITE 45A- 1
GPIN 24-08-87-6304
N 80'44'10' E
48. 12
50.7
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL,--
{SEE DETAIL SHEET 2 OF 2~.
SITE 4-5B- 1
GPIN 24-08-87-4-323
1200 GLOUCESTER LANE
SKETCH SHOWING
RETAINING ~/ALL ENCROACHMENT
LOCATED ON
SITE 4.5B- 1
FOR WAYNE BEAGLE
RESUBDIVISION OF SITE 45A AND 45B .
RESUBDIVISION OF SITE 45 '
LEG E N D L INKHORN SHORES
~ VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
PREPARED DY
-- ENCROACHMENT __ __ __
'B'E5
REVISED DATE.. AUG. G, 2002 T£C~Nm~ AN]] 'ENVIRBNHENTAL SERVICES
GRAPHIC ~'CALE
SCALE: 1"=20' ...
JOB NO. LINKENCR
REFERENCE PI_AT RECORDED IN
MAP BOOK 47, PAGE 2.7
INSTRUMENT // 20020715,.7001475
SURVEYING. DIVISION
Photo looking South showing retaining
wall encroachment and edge of pavement
for Gloucester Ln.; a distance of approx.
37'. Retaining wall encroaches into R/W of
Gloucester Ln. approx. 23' wayne Beagle
Photo looking North showing retaining wail
encroachment and edge of pavement for
Gloucester Ln.; a distance approx. 37'. End
of retaining wall encroaches into R/W of
Gloucester Ln. approx. 23'
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
Encroachment Request -Construct and Maintain a Split Rail Fence, Arbor,
and Landscaping
Applicant - Paul D. Warren and Marianne Warren
MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002
Background:
Mr. and Mrs. Paul Warren desire to construct and maintain a 4' X 188' split rail fence, 3" wide
willow arbor, and existing landscaping in the City's right-of-way on the eastern side of 1517
Duke of Windsor Road, which runs along Kent Lane. The landscaping, which has been in
place for approximately three years has not been authorized by the City. There is opposition
from the adjacent property owners.
Considerations:
City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended approval of
same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the agreement.
Roger R. Huff, Landscape Services Division has reviewed the request and supports the
existing landscaping and approves of the fencing and arbor.
There are authorized and unauthorized encroachments of similar nature in the Linkhorn
Shores section of the City. The adjacent property owners received Council approval in
February 2002 for similar encroachments.
Public Information:
There is opposition to this encroachment by the adjacent property owners. The Office of Real
Estate will notify the opposition as to the date and time of City Council hearing. This
opposition appears to stem from a difference in viewpoint between the two neighbors on a
number of issues, most of which are unrelated to this request.
Advertisement of City Council.
Alternatives:
Approve the encroachment as presented, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as
desired by Council.
Recommendations:
Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
Attachments:
Ordinance, Location Map, Agreement, Plat, and Pictures
Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance
Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works ~c~,
City Mana!
5
6
7
8
-- 9
10
11
_ 12
13
14
15
16
-- 17
18
19
-- 20
21
22
23
24
-- 25
26
27
-- 28
29
3O
31
32
Requested by Department of Public Works
AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY
ENCROACHMENTS INTO A PORTION OF THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY 1517 DUKE OF WINDSOR
ROAD BY PAUL D. WARREN AND MARIANNE
WARREN, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN
TITLE
WHEREAS, Paul D. Warren and Marianne Warren, desire to
construct and maintain a 4' X 188' split rail fence, 3" willow
arbor, and landscaping, into the City's rights-of-way located at
1517 Duke of Windsor Road.
WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §~ 15.2-
2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to
authorize a temporary encroachments upon the City's right-of-way
subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof
contained in §~ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended Paul D. Warren and Marianne Warren, assigns and successors
in title are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary
encroachment in the City's right-of-way as shown on the map
entitled: "ENCROACHMENT PLAT FOR 1517 DUKE OF WINDSOR ROAD," a copy
of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to which
reference is made for a more particular description; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments
are expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria
contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and
Paul D. Warren and Marianne Warren, (the "Agreement") which is
attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Manager or his
authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement.
33
34
35
36
37
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be
in effect Until such time as Paul D. Warren and Marianne Warren and
the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on the day of , 2002.
38
39
4O
CA-#
gsalmons/warren/ord.
R-1
PREPARED: 09.02.02
CIT~ A~To~
2
LOCATION MAP
SCALE: 1" = 1,600'
~ //
/
?/
x_/ /
2408-q8-5100 /
\
A. OSMANTHUS FORTUNES
B. ACUBA
C. CAMELIA
D. LEYLAND CYPRESS
E. HYDi~U',dGEA
F. RIVER BIRCH
!408-98-B1~
12
DUKE OF WINSOR. DGN M.J.S.
12
118
2408-R7-5488
28
EDGE
OF
MAP :,
IT EEQUES'~
N
26
1' -- 100'
R
PREPARED BY P,4N' ENG. CADD DEPT.
10-SEP-2002
PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH
CITY AITORNEY'S OFFICE
EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES
UNDER SECTIONS 58.1-81 l(a)(3)
AND 55.1-811(o)(4) REIMBURSEMENT
AUTHORJZED UNDER SECTION 25-249
THIS AGREEMENT, made this ~ day o_~~, 2002, by and between
the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and
PAUL D. WARREN AND MARIANNE WARREN, husband and wife, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS
AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one.
WlTNESSETH:
That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land
designated and described as "SITE 31 1.6 ACRES" as shown on "REVISED PLAT OF
LINKHORN SHORES PROPERTY OF LINKHORN SHORES, INC. LYNNHAVEN MAG.
DIST.-PRINCESS ANNE CO., VA. SCALE: 1" = 100' DECEMBER 16, 1953 SAMUEL W.
MILLER, JR. CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR VIRGINIA CERTIFICATE NO 405,"and being
further designated and described as 1517 Duke of Windsor Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454;
WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a 4' X 188' Split
Rail Fence, Arbor, and Landscaping, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach;
WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is
necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City right of way that is located on
the east portion of the property known as 1517 Duke of Windsor Road "The Temporary
Encroachment Area"; and
GPIN 2408-97-4860-0000
WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary
Encroachment within The Encroachment Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits
accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand
paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee
permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the
Temporary Encroachment.
It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be
constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the
City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more
particularly described as follows, to wit:
A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment
Area as shown on that certain plat entitled:
"ENCROACHMENT PLAT FOR 1517 DUKE OF
WINDSOR ROAD," a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made
for a more particular description.
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 Tempo~ Encroachment must be removed fi~om The Encroachment Area
by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold
harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and
expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action
arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment.
2
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 and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit
from the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department prior to commencing any
construction within The Encroachraent Area.
It is further expre~ly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep
in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by
the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee,
as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an
amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The
Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least 'thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior
to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The
Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the
Temporary Encroachment.
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 C_n'amee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of
3
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
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Paul D. Warren and Marianne Warren, the said Grantee
has caused this Agreement to be executed by their signature and seal duly affixed. Further, that the
City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreemem to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its
City Manager and its seal be hereunto afl, ed and attested by its City Clerk.
Further, that the City of Virginia has caused this agreement to be executed in its name
and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto aff~xed and attested by its Cit3' Clerk.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
(SE )
ATTEST:
By
City Manager/Authorized
Designee of the City Manager
City Clerk
4
Paul D. Warren
~Vl'~--~nne Warren
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrumem was acknowledged before me this
,2002, by
THE CITY MANAGER.
day of
, CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, m-wit:
The foregoing instnunem was acknowledged before me this day of
· 2002, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMC, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH.
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
5
STATE OF ~,} ~ t',: ;' ~_,'~ %
CITY/COUNTY 0_~ ~3,~:~:~. _l~o ~-- to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of ~u c ,~ t
-,?
,... 2002, by Paul D. Warren and Marianne Warren.
My Commission Expires:
Not~c
KATHLEEN'J. GIRDLER 1
NOTARY PUBUC
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 30, 2005
APPROVED AS TO
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
AL ESTATE AGENT
Rev. 07-24-02
Exhibit "A"
OUILIrT/
FAWCEI
DOC:*:
SITE 30
PIN,
FR. SHED
ELEC. OUll,.ET
· ~ PIN(f)
Z
PIN(f),
t
WA'II[R FA'~g£T -
· --: 4; Dm~WAY
I
~ ~AC[
~ ~ "~ '~ J n'c~ ~o.o'
t~ c~c.. T.~ RESD.
~j ~ ~CK
20.
29.62' ~ 11
PIN(f) S 16'06'30" E 132.00'
S 16'15'07'¢ E 131.48'(0
DUKE OF WINDSOR ROAD
LOCATION OF FLOOD ZONE LINE
AS SCALED FROM F.I.R.M. PAl' L
SITE 32
A/c c~
CONC.
PIN(f)
.(5o'
R/W)
ENCROACHMENT PLAT
FOR
1517 DUKE OF WINDSOR ROAD
PAUL D. AND MARIANNE WARREN
1517 DUKE OF WINDSOR ROAD
Kent Lane looking towards the back of 1517 Duke of Windsor Road.
will go on the outside of the encroaching landscaping.
Fencing
Three inch willow arbor will begin where the split rail fence ends and pick
back up with the matching fencing on the outside of encroaching
landscaping.
· Kent Lane Looking towards Duke of Windsor Road
PAUL D. AND MARIANNE WARREN
1517 DUKE OF WINDSOR ROAD
Eastern portion of 1517 Duke of Windsor Road looking towards Kent Lane
showing encroaching landscaping.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
A Resolution Referring to the Planning Commission Proposed Amendments
to Section 502 of the City Zoning Ordinance, Pertaining to Dimensional
Requirements for Nonconforming Lots in the R-5S Residential District
MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002
Background: Currently, Section 502 of the City Zoning Ordinance allows the creation of a 35
foot nonconforming lot when contiguous nonconforming lots are resubdivided in the R-5S
Zoning District.
Considerations: The proposed resolution refers to the Planning Commission amendments
to City Zoning Ordinance Section 502 which will delete the exception of a 35' lot in the R-5S
Zoning District when contiguous lots are resubdivided.
The Resolution also directs the Planning Commission to transmit its recommendation to
the City Council within 60 days of the date of adoption of the Resolution.
Public Information: The amendments themselves will be advertised as a regular planning
item before both the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings.
Recommendations: Adoption of Resolution referring the proposed amendments to the
Planning Commission.
Attachments:
Resolution
Proposed Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Requested by Councilmember Richard Maddox
City Manager:
1
2
3
4
5
A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 502
OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, PERTAINING TO
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NONCONFORMING
LOTS IN THE R-5S RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
-- 6
7
13
-- 14
15
16
_ 17
18
19
2O
21
-- 22
23
-- 24
25
-- 26
27
28
29
_ 30
WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare
and good zoning practice so require;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
VIRGINIA:
There is hereby referred to the Planning Commission, for its
consideration and recommendation, proposed amendments to Section
502 of the City Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to dimensional
requirements for nonconforming lots in the R-5S Residential
District. A true copy of such proposed amendments is hereto
attached.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That the Planning Commission be, and hereby is, directed to
transmit to the City Council its recommendation concerning the
aforesaid amendments no later than sixty (60) days after the date
of adoption of this Resolution.
COMMENT
The Resolution re~rs to the Planning Commissiona proposed amendments to § 502 of the Ci~
Zoning Ordinance. This amendment will delete the exception that allowed one substandard 35 ~ot
lot when other substandard lots were resubdivided in the R-$S Residential Zoning District.
The Resolution also directs the Planning Commission to transmit to the City Council its
recommend~ion concerning the proposed amendments within 60 days of the date of adoption of the
Resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on the day of , 2002.
31
32
33
34
CA-8626
noncode/CZO502(e) .res.wpd
R-1
September 26, 2002
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
Planning D~I~artrn~nt /
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
Depa,~ment of Law
1 Requested by Councilmember Richard Maddox
2
3
4
5
6
7
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY
ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR
NONCONFORMING LOTS IN THE R-5S
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
SECTION AMENDED: CZO ~502
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare
and good zoning practice so require:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That Section 502 of the City Zoning Ordinance is hereby
amended and reordained to read as follows:
Sec. 502 Dimensional Requirements
(e)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Nonconforming lots:
Where a lot has less than the minimum requirements for the
R-5S Residential District and said lot has continuously been
a lot of record, in single and separate ownership from
adjacent property, prior to and since the passage of this
ordinance, said lot may be developed for any purpose permitted
within the R-5S Residential District.
However, if the owner of a lot which does not meet the minimum
requirements of the R-5S Residential District, is the owner of
or becomes the owner of another substandard lot adjacent to it
and located in the same R-5S Residential District, he is not
entitled to the exception in (1) above. In this instance, the
owner of the two (2) or more adjacent substandard lots must
combine the two (2) or more lots to form one which will meet
or more closely approximate the frontage and area requirements
of the ordinance applicable within the R-5S Residential
District.
The owner of contiguous substandard lots is prohibited from
conveying one (1) or more of the substandard lots with the
35
36
37
38
41
--42
43
44
--45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
--53
54
55
_56
57
58
59
60
--61
62
63
-- 64
65
66
(4)
result that both the grantors and the grantee possess lots
entitled to an exception from the minimum lot requirements.
Status as a single and separate owner may not be acquired
after enactment of this ordinance by selling a parcel and
reducing the remainder below the minimum lot requirements nor
may an owner of several contiguous nonconforming parcels
combine them so as to leave a substandard lot, and assert the
right to exception in (1) above.
As an =~=~v.~ to (~)'~), ~
~ ~/ ~/ and .... 4) above,
~= oz more contlguou~ substandard lots ~n ~he I 5S
Residential ~= .......... = ...................... to ........ h
=.~,~ =~== == ~ ~.= d=~= of the passage of th~s oraznance,
.... '' substandard~'-~ to a separate owner and
may COhv6}- ~ %~/
s~ch ~ ...... '
~ ,,,=3 be developed for any purpose permitted zn the
..... that he lot has
~uv~=~ that a~=
satisfied as follows-
~ contiguous oubstandard loto in ~,,~,,~,, ownership
........................ describe than
substandard lot of not less than thirty five (35) f~et
..... ty f
.~,, and .............. ~hzz ~ve ,,~,,~=~ ,5~)~ square feet zn
area. The remaining contiguous substandard lots shall be
.................... to ....... : .... et lots '
conformity ................. ' ..... t'-- ~ ..........
...........................= - of -'' contlguous' substandard
lots in cobb, on ownership shall be described on one (1)
............. plat
0.~.=~ who o==k to~=~=~ ....... on substandard lots shai'
encouraged to adhere to ................... ~.= ~.~=~. ~=.~, infill
.................... = .................... :- the Compzehen .....
2
67
68
69
7O
71
72
73
74
75
76
eptl ................... = - -:-'- y rd
- -th- -k
'-=:-= : ........... pursuant to this subsection ............ '~'
For the purposes of this section, lots are not regarded as
adjacent where they form an "L", part of one being contiguous
to the other.
COUNT
This amendment will delete the exception that allowed one substandard 35 foot lot when
other substandard lots were resubdivided in the R-5S Residential ~ning District.
77
78
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on the day of , 2002.
CA-8626
Proposed\czo 502(e)
R-3
September 25, 2002
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
'Planning" ~
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
Cit~ Attorney's' Off~c-e
3
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
$28 Million Water & Sewer Revenue Bond Sale
MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002
Background: In the annual ClP process, City Council authorizes the issuance of Water &
Sewer Revenue Bonds as a means of financing improvements to the Water & Sewer System.
The Department of Public Utilities has indicated a need to issue $28 million of previously
authorized Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds to meet its funding requirements. There are
approximately 75 Water & Sewer projects associated with this bond sale. In some instances
the bond proceeds will be reimbursing previous capital expenditures and for some projects the
funding will be for future planned expenditures. After this issuance the City will have
approximately $22 million of authorized but unissued Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds.
Considerations: The City's Bond Counsel, Hunton & Williams, has prepared two
resolutions. Under the Master Bond Resolution (MBR) approved by City Council in 1992, each
bond sale is a supplement and amendment to the MBR. For this sale Bond Counsel has
prepared the Seventh Supplemental Resolution providing for the issuance of $28 million Water
& Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series of 2002. In addition, a second resolution authorizes the
distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement and outlines the terms and conditions for the
City Manager to award the bonds to the winning bidder. The bonds will be sold on a
competitive basis provided, however, that the bonds shall have a true interest cost not to
exceed 7% and a price not less than 99% of the principal amount. The bonds will be structured
with principal maturities between 2013 and 2027. This structure will further the effort to
produce annual level debt service for the outstanding debt of Water & Sewer Revenue Bond
Program which is in the long term interest of the ratepayers. The proposed bond structure
takes into consideration the FY03 debt service budget of the Department of Public Utilities.
The bond sale is scheduled for pricing on October 29, 2002. The City will employ an electronic
bidding system in accordance with the Official Notice of Sale. After today's Council action no
further vote of the City Council will be necessary. The final terms of the bond sale will be
provided to City Council.
Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council Agenda
process. The original Water and Sewer Revenue Bond authorizations were a part of the public
information process for the Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program.
Alternatives: There are no alternative funding sources at this time. This request follows
previously approved ClPs.
Recommendations: The two resolutions providing for the sale of $28 million Water & Sewer
Revenue Bonds are recommended for City Council Approval.
Attachments:
Seventh Supplemental Resolution Amending the Master Bond Resolution
Resolution Authorizing the Distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement (POS) and other
actions in connection with the issuance of the bonds
Draft of the Preliminary Official Statement
Draft of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement (Appendix G of POS)
Draft of the Official Notice of Sale (Appendix H of POS)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DISTRIBUTION OF A
PRELIMINA11RY OFFICIAL' STATEMENT AND OTHER
ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE BY THE
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, OF ITS WATER
AND SEW'ER SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES OF 2002
WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City"), proposes to issue its Water
and Sewer System Revenue Bonds, Series of 2002, in an amount not to exceed $28,000,000 (the
"Bonds"); and
WHEREAS, there have been presented to this meeting drafts of the following documents:
(a) Notice of Sale, draft dated September 30, 2002 (the "Notice of Sale"), of the City
relating to the advertisement of the public offering of the Bonds;
(b) Preliminary Official Statement, draft dated September 30, 2002 (the "Preliminary
Official Statement"), of the City relating to the public offering of the Bonds; and
(c) Continuing Disclosure Agreement, draft dated September 30, 2002, pursuant to which
the City agrees to undertake continuing disclosure obligations pursuant to Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule")
promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") for the benefit of the holders
of the Bonds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Council of the City (the "City Council") approves the following terms of the sale
of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be sold by competitive bid, and the City Manager shall receive bids
for the Bonds and award the Bonds to the bidder providing the lowest "me" or "Canadian" interest
cost, subject to the following limitations. The Bonds (a) shall have a "tree" or "Canadian" interest
cost not to exceed 7.0%, taking into account any original issue discount or premium, (b) shall be sold
to the purchaser at a price not less than 99% of the principal amount thereof and (c) shall mature no
later than the year 2027.
2. The City Manager, in collaboration with Government Finance Associates, Inc., and
ARD/Govemment Finance Group, the City's financial advisors (the "Financial Advisors"), is
authorized and directed to take all proper steps to advertise the Bonds for sale substantially in
accordance with the form of Notice of Sale attached hereto, which is approved, provided that the
City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisors, may make such changes in the Notice
of Sale not inconsistent with this Resolution as he may consider to be in the best interest of the City.
3. The City authorizes the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement in form
deemed "near final" as of its date, within the meaning of the Rule of the SEC, to prospective
purchasers of the Bonds, xvith such completions, omissions, insertions and changes as may be
approved by the City Manager. Such distribution shall constitute conclusive evidence of the
approval of the City Manager as to any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes and that
the City has deemed the Preliminary Official Statement to be near final as of its date.
4. The City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisors, is hereby authorized
and directed to approve such completions, omissions, insertions and other changes to the Preliminary
Official Statement necessary to reflect the terms of the sale of the Bonds and the details thereof
appropriate to complete it as an official statement in final form (the "Official Statement") and to
execute and deliver the Official Statement to the purchasers of the Bonds. Execution of the Official
Statement by the City Manager shall constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of any such
completions, omissions, insertions and changes and that the Official Statement has been deemed
final by the City as of its date within the meaning of the Rule.
5. The Mayor, the City Manager and such officer or officers of the City as either may
designate, any of whom may act, are hereby author/zed and directed to execute the Continuing
Disclosure Agreement, the form of which is approved, with such completions, omissions, insertions
and changes that are not inconsistent with this Resolution.
6. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bonds by manual or
facsimile signature, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to countersign the Bonds and
affix the seal of the City thereto or cause a facsimile thereof to be printed thereon, and the officers
of the City are hereby authorized and directed to deliver the Bonds to the registrar and paying agent
for authentication and delivery to the purchasers of the Bonds.
7. The officers of the City are hereby author/zed and directed to execute, deliver and file
all certificates and documents and to take all such further action as they may consider necessary or
desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds, including without limitation (a)
execution and delivery ora certificate setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds
2
of the Bonds to show that such expected use and investment will not violate the provisions of
Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and regulations
thereunder, applicable to "arbitrage bonds," (b) making any elections that such officers deem
desirable regarding any provision requiring rebate to the United States of"arbitrage profits" earned
on investment of proceeds of the Bonds, and (c) filing Internal Revenue Service Form 8038-G. The
foregoing shall be subject to the advice, approval and direction of bond counsel.
8. Any authorization herein to execute a document shall include authorization to deliver
it to the other parties thereto.
9. All other acts of the officers of the City that are in conformity with the purposes and
intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of the issuance and sale of the Bonds are hereby approved
and ratified.
10. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
Adopted bythe Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ~
2002.
day of October,
CA-8637
noncode/VAB 2002 W&S POS.res.wpd
October 1, 2002
R1
Approved as to Content:
Finance Depmmel~ '
Approved as to Legal Sufficiency:
City Attorney's Offie¥
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
SEVENTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION SUPPLEMENTING AND
AMENDING RESOLUTION ADOPTED FEBRUARY 11, 1992, ENTITLED
"MASTER WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BOND RESOLUTION
PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE FROM TIME TO TIME OF ONE OR
MORE SERIES OF WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS
OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH," AS PREVIOUSLY
SUPPLEMENTED AND AMENDED, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE
AND SALE OF UP TO $28,000,000 OF WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM
REVENUE BONDS, SEI~W~S OF 2002, AND PROVIDING FOR THE
FORM, DETAILS AND PAYMENT THEREOF AND THE FINANCING
OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY'S WATER AND
SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES
ADOPTED ON OCTOBER__, 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARTICLE I
SEVENTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION
Pace
Section 7.101. Seventh Supplemental Resolution ........................................................................... 2
Section 7.102. Meaning of Terms; Definitions ................................................................................ 2
Section 7.103. Reference to Articles and Sections .......................................................................... 2
ARTICLE
2002 PROJECT
Section 7.201. Authorization of 2002 Project .................................................................................. 3
ARTICLE III
Section 7.301.
Section 7.302.
Section 7.303.
Section 7.304.
Section 7.305.
Section 7.306.
Section 7.307.
ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SERIES OF 2002 BONDS
Issuance and Sale of Series of 2002 Bonds ............................................................. 3
Details of Series of 2002 Bonds ............................................................................... 3
Book Entry System .................................................................................................. 4
Registrar ................................................................................................................... 5
Form of Series of 2002 Bonds ................................................................................. 5
Security for Series of 2002 Bonds ........................................................................... 5
Application of Proceeds ........................................................................................... 5
ARTICLE IV
REDEMPTION OF SERIRS OF 2002 BONDS
Section 7.401. Optional Redemption Provisions ............................................................................. 6
Section 7.402. Mandatory Redemption ........................................................................................... 6
Section 7.403. Manner of Redemption ............................................................................................ 6
Section 7.404. Notice of Redemption .............................................................................................. 6
ARTICLE V
FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS
Section 7.501. Limitation of Use of Proceeds ................................................................................. 7
Section 7.502. Rebate Requirement ................................................................................................. 8
Section 7.503. Calculation and Payment of Rebate Amount ........................................................... 8
(i)
ARTICLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 7.601. Limitation of Rights ................................................................................................. 9
Section 7.602. SNAP Investment ..................................................................................................... 9
Section 7.603. Severability .............................................................................................................. 9
Section 7.604. Effective Date .......................................................................................................... 9
Appendix A - Description of the 2002 Project ........................................................................... A-1
Appendix B - Form of the Series of 2002 Bonds ......................................................................... B-1
(ii)
SEVENTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION SUPPLEMENTING AND
AMENDING RESOLUTION ADOPTED FEBRUARY 11, 1992, ENTITLED
"MASTER WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BOND RESOLUTION
PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE FROM TIME TO TIME OF ONE OR
MORE SERIES OF WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS
OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH," AS PREVIOUSLY
SUPPLEMENTED AND AMENDED, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE
AND SALE OF UP TO $28,000,000 OF WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM
REVENUE BONDS, SERIES OF 2002, AND PROVIDING FOR THE
FORM, DETAILS AND PAYMENT THEREOF AND THE FINANCING
OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY'S WATER AND
SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the Council (the "Council") of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the
"City"), adopted a resolution on February 11, 1992 (the "Master Resolution"), providing for the
issuance from time to time of water and sewer revenue bonds to finance the cost of
improvements and extensions to its water and sanitary sewer system; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to issue pursuant to the Master Resolution up to
$481,001 of the $14,560,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance
adopted by the Council on December 6, 1990, up to $1,880,179 of the $13,770,000 water and
sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on November
12, 1991, up to $228,208 of the $5,450,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by
an ordinance adopted by the Council on November 23, 1993, up to $5,773,442 of the
$14,080,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the
Council on May 10, 1994, up to $1,464,354 of the $6,593,000 water and sewer system revenue
bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 9, 1995, up to $1,023,216 of
the $6,960,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by
the Council on May 14, 1996, up to $1,580,331 of the $12,730,000 water and sewer system
revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 13, 1997, up to
$5,069,187 of the $11,600,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an
ordinance adopted by the Council on May 12, 1998, up to $3,116,281 of the $9,513,000 water
and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 11,
1999, up to $3,186,381 of the $7,890,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by
an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 9, 2000, up to $2,475,513 of the $11,000,000 water
and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 15,
2001, and up to $1,721,907 of the $6,930,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized
by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 14, 2002, and to sell such bonds as a single
issue in a collective amount equal to $28,000,000; and
WHEREAS, the City is not in default under the Master Resolution or in payment of the
principal of or interest on the Outstanding Bonds (as defined in the Master Resolution);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
ARTICLE I
SEVENTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION
Section 7.101. Seventh Supplemental Resolution.
This Seventh Supplemental Resolution is adopted pursuant to and in accordance with
Section 1101(g) of the Master Resolution. All covenants, conditions and agreements of the
Master Resolution shall apply with equal force and effect to the Series of 2002 Bonds (as
hereinai~er defined) and to the holders thereof, except as otherwise provided herein.
Section 7.102. Meaning of Terms; Definitions.
All capitalized terms used herein, and not defined either in this Section or elsewhere in
this Seventh Supplemental Resolution (including the recitals hereto), shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Master Resolution. The following terms shall have the following
meanings in this Seventh Supplemental Resolution.
"2002 Project" shall mean the acquisitions, improvements, extensions, additions and
replacements to the System as described in Article "II".
"DTC" shall mean The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, a securities
depository, as holder of the Series of 2002 Bonds, or its successors or assigns in such capacity.
"Rebate Amount" shall mean the excess of (a) the future value of all nonpurpose
receipts with respect to the Series of 2002 Bonds over (b) the future value of all nonpurpose
payments with respect to the Series of 2002 Bonds, in each case calculated under Section 7.503
pursuant to the requirements of Section 148 of the Code, or such other amount of arbitrage
required to be rebated to the United States of America under Section 148 of the Code.
"Rebate Amount Certificate" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 7.503.
"Registrar" shall mean The Bank of New York, New York, New York, as paying agent
and bond registrar for the Series of 2002 Bonds.
"Series of 2002 Bonds" shall mean the Water and Sewer System Revenue Bonds, Series
of 2002, in the amount up to $28,000,000 to be issued in accordance with the provisions of
Article
"Seventh Supplemental Resolution" shall mean this Seventh Supplemental Resolution
which supplements the Master Resolution.
Section 7.103. Reference to Articles and Sections
Unless otherwise indicated, all references herein to particular articles or sections are
references to articles or sections of this Seventh Supplemental Resolution.
2
ARTICLE II
2002 PROJECT
Section 7.201. Authorization of 2002 Project.
The Council has authorized the acquisitions, improvements, extensions, additions and
replacements to the System described on Appendix A, which are pan of the approved capital
improvement program of the City.
ARTICLE HI
ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SERIES OF 2002 BONDS
Section 7.301. Issuance and Sale of Series of 2002 Bonds.
The City hereby provides for the issuance of water and sewer system revenue bonds in a
principal amount up to $28,000,000, consisting of up to $481,001 of the $14,560,000 water and
sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on December 5,
1990, up to $1,880,179 of the $13,770,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by
an ordinance adopted by the Council on November 12, 1991, up to $228,208 of the $5,450,000
water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on
November 23, 1993, up to $5,773,442 of the $14,080,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds
authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 10, 1994, up to $1,454,354 of the
$5,593,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the
Council on May 9, 1995, up to $1,023,215 of the $5,950,000 water and sewer system revenue
bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 14, 1995, up to $1,580,331 of
the $12,730,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by
the Council on May 13, 1997, up to $5,059,187 of the $11,500,000 water and sewer system
revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 12, 1998, up to
$3,115 281 of the $9,513,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance
adopted by the Council on May 11, 1999, up to $3,186,381 of the $7,890,000 water and sewer
system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 9, 2000, up to
$2,475,513 of the $11,000,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an
ordinance adopted by the Council on May 15, 2001, and up to $1,721,907 of the $6,930,000
water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on
May 14, 2002, which such bonds shall be issued and sold. The proceeds thereof shall be used to
pay the Cost of the 2002 Project. All such bonds shall constitute Bonds, as defined in the Master
Resolution.
Section 7.302. Details of Series of 2002 Bonds.
(a) The Series of 2002 Bonds shall be designated "Water and Sewer System Revenue
Bonds, Series of 2002," shall be numbered R-1 upward, shall be dated, shall be in an aggregate
principal amount not to exceed $28,000,000, shall bear interest at rates, payable semiannually on
such dates and shall mature in installments on such dates and in years and amounts, all as
determined by the City Manager to be in the best interest of the City.
(b) Principal of the Series of 2002 Bonds and the premium, if any, thereon shall be
payable to the holders upon the surrender of such Bonds at the principal corporate trust office of
the Registrar. Interest on the Series of 2002 Bonds shall be payable by check or draft mailed tO
the holders as of the 15th day of the month prior to each interest payment date, at their addresses
as they appear on the registration books kept by the Registrar.
(c) Except as otherwise provided herein, the Series of 2002 Bonds shall be payable,
executed, authenticated, registrable, exchangeable and secured, all as set forth in the Master
Resolution.
Section 7.303. Book Entry System.
Initially, one Series of 2002 Bond certificate for each maturity will be issued to DTC,
which is designated as the securities depository for the Series of 2002 Bonds, or its nominee, and
immobilized in its custody. Beneficial owners of the Series of 2002 Bonds will not receive
physical delivery of the Series of 2002 Bonds. So long as DTC is acting as securities depository
for the Series of 2002 Bonds, a book entry system shall be employed, evidencing ownership of
the Series of 2002 Bonds in principal amounts of $5,000 or multiples thereof, with transfers of
beneficial ownership effected on the records of DTC and its participants pursuant to rules and
procedures established by DTC and its participants. Interest on the Series of 2002 Bonds shall
be payable in clearinghouse funds to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Seres of
2002 Bonds. Principal, premium, if any, and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the
United States of America by the Registrar.
Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC shall be the
responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by
participants of DTC will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of
beneficial owners. The City and the Registrar shall not be responsible or liable for maintaining,
supervising or reviewing the records maintained by DTC, its participants or persons acting
through such participants.
In the event that (a) DTC determines not to continue to act as securities depository for the
Series of 2002 Bonds by giving notice to the City and the Registrar discharging its
responsibilities hereunder, (b) the Registrar or the City determines that DTC is incapable of
discharging its duties or that continuation with DTC as securities depository is not in the best
interest of the City, or (c) the Registrar or the City determines that continuation of the book entry
system of evidencing ownership and transfer of ownership of the Series of 2002 Bonds is not in
the best interest of the City or the beneficial owners of the Series of 2002 Bonds, the Registrar
and the City shall discontinue the book entry system with DTC. If the Registrar or the City fails
to identify another qualified securities depository to replace DTC, the Registrar shall authenticate
and deliver replacement bonds in the form of fully registered certificates to the beneficial owners
or to the DTC participants on behalf of beneficial owners, substantially in the form as set forth in
Appendix B with such variations, omissions or insertions as are necessary or desirable in the
delivery of replacement certificates in printed form. The Series of 2002 Bonds would then be
registrable and exchangeable as set forth in Section 204 of the Master Resolution.
4
So long as DTC is the securities depository for the Series of 2002 Bonds (a) it shall be the
registered owner of the Series of 2002 Bonds, Co) transfers of ownership and exchanges shall be
effected on the records of DTC and its participants pursuant to rules and procedures established
by DTC and its participants, and (c) references in this Seventh Supplemental Resolution to
holders of the Series of 2002 Bonds shall mean DTC or its nominee and shall not mean the
beneficial owners of the Series of 2002 Bonds.
Section 7.304. Registrar.
The selection of The Bank of New York as paying agent and bond registrar for the Series
of 2002 Bonds is approved.
Section 7.305. Form of Series of 2002 Bonds.
The Series of 2002 Bonds shall be in substantially the form set forth in Appendix B with
such variations, omissions and insertions as may be necessary to set forth the details thereof
pursuant to Article H of the Master Resolution and Article IH hereof.
Section 7.306. Security for Series of 2002 Bonds.
The Series of 2002 Bonds shall be issued pursuant to the Master Resolution and this
Seventh Supplemental Resolution and shall be equally and ratably secured under and to the
extent provided in the Master Resolution with the Prior Parity Bonds, any Bonds that may be
issued under the Master Resolution, any Parity Double Barrel Bonds that may be issued and any
Parity Debt Service Components that may be incurred, without preference, priority or distinction
of any obligations over any other obligations; provided, however, the Debt Service Reserve Fund
will secure only the Bonds.
Section 7.307. Application of Proceeds.
The proceeds of the Series of 2002 Bonds shall be apphed as follows:
(a) An amount representing accrued interest on the Series of 2002 Bonds from their
dated date to their date of delivery shall be paid to the Fiscal Agent and deposited in the Interest
Account in the Revenue Bond Fund.
Co) The amount of Series of 2002 Bond proceeds necessary, together with amounts on
deposit in the Debt Service Reserve Fund, to equal the Debt Service Reserve Requirement after
the issuance of the Series of 2002 Bonds shall be paid to the Fiscal Agent and deposited into the
Debt Service Reserve Fund.
(c) The balance of the proceeds shall be retained by the City and deposited in a
General Account in the Construction Fund to be used to pay the Cost of the 2002 Project and to
pay expenses incident to issuing the Series of 2002 Bonds.
ARTICLE IV
REDEMPTION OF sERIES OF 2002 BONDS
Section 7.401. Optional Redemption Provisions.
(a) The Series of 2002 Bonds may be subject to redemption prior to maturity at the
option of the City on or after dates, if any, determined by the City Manager, in whole or in part at
any time at redemption prices equal to the principal amount of the Series of 2002 Bonds,
together with any accrued interest to the redemption date, plus redemption premiums not to
exceed 2% of the principal amount of the Series of 2002 Bonds, as such redemption premiums
may be determined by the City Manager.
Section 7.402. Mandatory Redemption.
The Series of 2002 Bonds may be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption prior to
maturity in years and amounts, upon payment of 100% of the principal amount thereof to be
redeemed plus interest accrued to the redemption date, as may be determined by the City
Manager.
Section 7.403. Manner of Redemption.
If less than all the Series of 2002 Bonds are called for redemption, the maturities of the
Series of 2002 Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected in such manner as the City Manager or the
chief financial officer of the City may determine to be in the best interest of the City. If less than
all of the Series of 2002 Bonds of any maturity are called for redemption, the Series of 2002
Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by DTC or any successor securities depository pursuant
to its rules and procedures or, if the book entry system is discontinued, shall be selected by the
Registrar by lot in such manner as the Registrar at its discretion may determine. In either case,
(a) the portion of any Series of 2002 Bond to be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of
$5,000 or some integral multiple thereof and Co) in selecting Series of 2002 Bonds for
redemption, each portion of $5,000 principal amount shall be counted as one bond for this
purpose.
Section 7.404. Notice of Redemption.
(a) Notice of redemption of the Series of 2002 Bonds shall be given in the manner set
forth in Section 402 of the Master Resolution.
Co) In the case of an optional redemption, the notice may state that (1) it is
conditioned upon the deposit of moneys, in an amount equal to the amount necessary to effect
the redemption, with an escrow agent no later than the redemption date or (2) the City retains the
right to rescind such notice on or prior to the scheduled redemption date (in either case, a
"Conditional Redemption"), and such notice and optional redemption shall be of no effect if such
moneys are not so deposited or if the notice is rescinded as described herein. Any Conditional
Redemption may be rescinded at any time prior to the redemption date, and the Registrar shall
give prompt notice of such rescission to the affected Series of 2002 Bondholders. Any Series of
2002 Bonds subject to Conditional Redemption where redemption has been rescinded shall
remain Outstanding, and the rescission shall not constitute an Event of Default. Further, in the
case of a Conditional Redemption, the failure of the City to make funds available on or before
the redemption date shall not constitute an Event of Default, and the Registrar shall give
immediate notice to all organizations registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as
securities depositories or the affected Series of 2002 Bondholders that the redemption did not
occur and that the Series of 2002 Bonds called for redemption and not so paid remain
outstanding.
ARTICLE V
FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS
Section 7.501. Limitation of Use of Proceeds.
The City covenants with the holders of the Series of 2002 Bonds as follows:
(a) The City shall not take or omit to take any action or make any investment or use
of the proceeds of any Series of 2002 Bonds (including failure to spend the same with due
diligence) the taking or omission of which would cause the Series of 2002 Bonds to be "arbitrage
bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code, including without limitation participating
in any issue of obligations that would cause the Series of 2002 Bonds to be part of an "issue" of
obligations that are arbitrage bonds, within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.148-
10 or successor regulation, or otherwise cause interest on the Series of 2002 Bonds to be
includable in the gross income of the registered owners under existing law. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, the City shall comply with any provision of law that may require the
City at any time to rebate to the United States of America any part of the earnings derived from
the investment of gross proceeds of the Series of 2002 Bonds.
Co) The City shall not permit the proceeds of the Series of 2002 Bonds or the facilities
to be financed with such proceeds to be used in any manner that would result in either (1) 5% or
more of such proceeds or the facilities being financed with such proceeds being considered as
having been used in any trade or business carried on by any person other than a governmental
unit as provided in Section 141(b) of the Code, (2) 5% or more of such proceeds or the facilities
being financed with such proceeds being used with respect to any "output facility" (other than a
facility for the furnishing of water) within the meaning of Section 14I(b)(4) of the Code, or (3)
5% or more of such proceeds being considered as having been used directly or indirectly to make
or finance loans to any person other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(c) of
the Code; provided, however, that if the City receives an opinion of Bond Counsel that
compliance with any such covenant is not required to prevent the interest on the Series of 2002
Bonds from being includable in the gross income of the registered owners thereof under existing
law, the City need not comply with such restriction.
(c) The City shall not take any other action that would adversely affect, and shall take
all action within its power necessary to maintain, the exclusion of interest on all Series of 2002
Bonds from gross income for federal income taxation purposes.
7
Section 7.502. Rebate Requirement.
The City' shall determine and pay, from any legally available source, the Rebate Amount,
if any, to the United States of America, as and when due, in accordance with the "rebate
requirement" described in Section 148(f) of the Code and retain records of all such
determinations until six years after payment of the Series of 2002 Bonds.
Section 7.503. Calculation and Payment of Rebate Amount.
(a) The City selects October 1 as the end of the bond year with respect to the Series
of 2002 Bonds pursuant to Treasury Regulation Section 1.148-1.
(b) Within 30 days after the initial installment computation date, the last day of the
fifth bond year (October 1, 2007), unless such date is changed by the City prior to the date that
any amount with respect to the Series of 2002 Bonds is paid or required to be paid to the United
States of America as required by Section 148 of the Code, and at least once every five years
thereafter, the City shall cause the Rebate Amount to be computed. Prior to any payment of the
Rebate Amount to the United States of America as required by Section 148 of the Code, such
computation (the "Rebate Amount Certificate") setting forth such Rebate Amount shall be
prepared or approved by (1) a person with experience in matters of governmental accounting for
Federal income tax purposes or (2) a bona fide arbitrage rebate calculation reporting service.
(c) Not later than 60 days after the initial installment computation date, the City shall
pay to the United States of America at least 90% of the Rebate Amount as set forth in the Rebate
Amount Certificate prepared with respect to such installment computation date. At least once on
or before 60 days after the installment computation date that is the fifth anniversary of the initial
installment computation date and on or before 60 days every fifth auniversa~y date thereafter
until final payment of the Series of 2002 Bonds, the City shall pay to the United States of
America not less than the amount, if any, by which 90% of the Rebate Amount set forth in the
most recent Rebate Amount Certificate exceeds the aggregate of all such payments theretofore
made to the United States of America pursuant to this Section. On or before 50 days after final
payment of the Series of 2002 Bonds, the City shall pay to the United States of America the
amount, if any, by which 100% of the Rebate Amount set forth in the Rebate Amount Certificate
with respect to the date of final payment of the Series of 2002 Bonds exceeds the aggregate of all
payments theretofore made pursuant to this Section. All such payments shall be made by the
City from any legally available source.
(d) Notwithstanding any provision of this Article to the contrary, no such calculation
or payment shall be made if the City receives an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that (1)
such payment is not required under the Code in order to prevent the Series of 2002 Bonds from
becoming "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code or (2) such payment
should be calculated and paid on some alternative basis under the Code, and the City complies
with such alternative basis.
ARTICLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 7.601. Limitation of Rights.
With the exception of the rights herein expressly conferred, nothing expressed or
mentioned in or to be implied from this Seventh Supplemental Resolution is intended or shall be
construed to give any person other than the parties hereto and the holders of the Series of 2002
Bonds any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or in respect to this Seventh
Supplemental Resolution or any covenant, condition or agreement herein contained, this Seventh
Supplemental Resolution and all of the covenants, conditions and agreements hereof being
intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the holders of the Series of 2002
Bonds as herein provided.
Section 7.60:2. SNAP Investment.
The Council has received and reviewed the Information Statement (the "Information
Statement") describing the State Non-Arbitrage Program of the Commonwealth of Virginia
("SNAP") and the Contract Creating the State Non-Arbitrage Program Pool I (the "Contract").
The Council acknowledges the Treasury Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia is not, and
shall not be, in any way liable to the City in connection with SNAP, except as otherwise
provided in the Contract.
Section 7.603. Severabitity.
If any provision of this Seventh Supplemental Resolution shall be held invalid by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate any other provision hereof.
Section 7.604. Effective Date.
This Seventh Supplemental Resolution shall take effect immediately.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on this day of , 2002.
CA-8635
R-1
October 2,
2002
9
APPRO.~'ED ~AS TO
SIGNATUF..c-
D;?-~' LT:..:,'.!. !..r
Description of the 2002 Project
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Water and Sewer System Revenue Bonds
Series of 2002
APPENDIX A
The 2002 Project consists of extensions, improvements, enlargements, additions and
replacements to the plants, systems, facilities, equipment or property owned, in whole or in part,
acquired, operated or maintained by or on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in
connection with the collection, treatment or disposal of sanitary sewer and the supply, treatment,
storage or distribution of water. The water system improvements include but are not limited to
replacement of existing water mains, construction of new water mains, modification of existing
pump stations and small line improvements. The sanitary sewer system improvements include
but are not limited to construction of new gravity sanitary sewers, construction of new force
mains, modification of existing pumping stations and construction of new pumping stations.
A-1
APPENDIX B
FORM OF SERIES OF 2002 BOND
Unless this certificate is presented by an authorized representative of The
Depository Trust Company, a New York corporation ("DTC'), to the issuer or its agent for
registration of transfer, exchange, or payment, and any certificate is registered in the name
of Cede & Co., or in such other name as is requested by an authorized representative of
DTC (and any payment is made to Cede & Co. or to such other entity as is requested by an
authorized representative of DTC), ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE, OR OTHER USE
HEREOF FOR VALUE OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL
inasmuch as the registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein.
REGISTERED
REGISTERED
R- $
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
Water and Sewer System Revenue Bond, Series of 2002
INTEREST RATE
MATURITY DATE
DATED DATE
CUSIP
% October 1, __
October 15, 2002
REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO.
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT:
DOLLARS
The City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City"), for value received, hereby promises to
pay upon surrender hereof at the principal corporate trust office of The Bank of New York, New
York, New York (the "Registrar"), solely from the source and as hereinafter provided, to the
registered owner hereof, or registered assigns or legal representative, the principal sum stated
above on the maturity date stated above, subject to prior redemption as hereinafter provided, and
to pay, solely from such source, interest hereon semiannually on each April 1 and October 1,
beginning April 1, 2003, at the annual rate stated above, calculated on the basis of a 360-day year
of twelve 30-day months. Interest is payable (a) from October 1, 2002, if this Bond is
authenticated prior to April 1, 2003, or (b) otherwise from the April 1 or October 1 that is, or
immediately precedes, the date on which this Bond is authenticated (unless payment of interest
hereon is in default, in which case this Bond shall bear interest from the date to which interest
has been paid). Interest is payable by check or drai~ mailed to the registered owner hereof at his
address as it appears on the 15th day of the month preceding each interest payment date on
registration books kept by the Registrar. Principal, premium, if any, and interest are payable in
lawful money of the United States of America.
B-1
Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, this Bond is subject to a book entry system
maintained by The Depository Trust Company ("DTC") and the payment of principal and
interest, the providing of notices and other matters will be made as described in the City's
Blanket Letter of'Representations to DTC.
This Bond is one of an issue of $28,000,000 Water and Sewer System Revenue Bonds,
Series of 2002 (the "Bonds"), of like date and tenor, except as to number, denomination, rate of
interest, privilege of redemption and maturity, authorized and issued pursuant to ordinances and
resolutions adopted by the City Council including a resolution adopted on February 11, 1992, as
previously supplemented and as supplemented and amended by a resolution adopted on October
8, 2002 (collectively, the "Resolution"), and the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, including the City Charter and the Public Finance Act of 1991, to provide funds,
together with other available funds, to pay the cost of the acquisition and construction of
improvements and extensions to the City's water and sanitary sewer system (the "System"), as
more fully described in the Resolution.
The Bonds and the premium, if any, and the interest thereon are limited obligations of the
City and are payable solely from the revenues to be derived from the ownership or operation of
the System, as the same may fi.om time to time exist, except to the extent payable from the
proceeds of the Bonds, the income, if any, derived from the investment thereof, certain reserves,
income fi.om investments pursuant to the Resolution or proceeds of insurance, which revenues
and other moneys have been pledged as described in the Resolution to secure payment thereof.
The Bonds, the premium, if any, and the interest thereon are payable solely from the revenues
pledged thereto in the Resolution, and nothing herein or in the Resolution shall be deemed to
create or constitute an indebtedness of or a pledge of the faith and credit of the Commonwealth
of Virginia or of any county, city, town or other political subdivision of the Commonwealth,
including the City.
The Bonds are issued under and are equally and ratably secured on a parity with the
unpaid balance of the City's $5,100,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Notes, 1977 (P.A. Corp.),
$2,000,000 Drought Relief Revenue Bond, 1978, $2,200,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Notes,
1982 (County Utilities), $1,800,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Notes, 1982 (Kempsville
Utilities), $45,440,000 Water and Sewer System Revenue and Refunding Bonds, Series of 1993,
$1,405,031.35 Taxable Water and Sewer System Revenue Bond, Series of 1994, $7,500,000
Taxable Water and Sewer System Revenue Bond, Series of 1997, $5,200,000 Taxable Water and
Sewer System' Revenue Bond, Series of 1998, and $40,000,000 Water and Sewer System
Revenue Bonds, Series of 2000 (collectively, the "Parity Bonds"), to the extent set forth in the
Resolution. Reference is hereby made to the Resolution and all amendments and supplements
thereto for a description of the provisions, among others, with respect to the nature and extent of
the security, the rights, duties and obligations of the City, the rights of the holders of the Bonds
and the terms upon which the Bonds are issued and secured. Additional bonds ranking equally
with the Bonds and the Parity Bonds may be issued on the terms provided in the Resolution.
The Bonds are subject to redemption beginning October 15, 2012, in whole or in part at
any time, at the option of the City, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount
of Bonds to be redeemed plus interest accrued and unpaid to the redemption date.
B-2
Bonds maturing on October 1, , are required to be redeemed prior to maturity, in
part, in accordance with the sinking fund requirements of Section 7.402 of the resolution adopted
on October 8, 2002, on October 1 in years and amounts upon payment of 100% of the principal
amount thereof plus interest accrued to the redemption date, as follows:
Year Amount Year Amount
The amount of the Bonds required to be redeemed pursuant to the preceding paragraph
may be reduced in accordance with provisions of the Resolution.
If less than all the Bonds are called for redemption, the maturities of the Bonds to be
redeemed shall be selected in such manner as the City Manager or the chief financial officer of
the City may determine to be in the best interest of the City. If less than all of the Bonds of any
maturity are called for redemption, the Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by DTC or any
successor securities depository pursuant to its rules and procedures or, if the book entry system is
discontinued, shall be selected by the Registrar by lot in such manner as the Registrar in its
discretion may determine. In either case, (a) the portion of any Bond to be redeemed shall be in
the principal amount of $5,000 or some integral multiple thereof and (b) in selecting Bonds for
redemption, each portion of $5,000 principal amount shall be counted as one bond for this
purpose. If a portion of a Bond is called for redemption, a new Bond in principal amount equal
to the unredeemed portion thereof will be issued to the registered owner upon the surrender
hereof.
The Registrar will cause notice of the call for redemption identifying the Bonds or
portions thereof to be redeemed to be sent by registered or certified mail, not less than 30 nor
more than 60 days prior to the redemption date, to DTC or its nominee as the registered owner
thereof. The City will not be responsible for mailing notice of redemption to anyone other than
DTC or another qualified securities depository or its nominee unless no qualified securities
depository is the registered owner of the Bonds. If no qualified securities depository is the
registered owner of the Bonds, notice of redemption will be mailed to the registered owners of
the Bonds.
Provided funds for their redemption are on deposit at the place of payment on the
redemption date, all Bonds or portions thereof so called for redemption shall cease to bear
interest on such date, shall no longer be secured as set forth in the Resolution and shall not be
deemed to be outstanding under the provisions of the Resolution.
The registered owner of this Bond shall have no fight to enforce the provisions of the
Resolution or to institute action to enforce the covenants therein or to take any action with
respect to any Event of Default under the Resolution or to institute, appear in or defend any suit
or other proceedings with respect thereto, except as provided in the Resolution. Modifications or
alterations of the Resolution, or of any supplement thereto, may be made only to the extent and
in the circumstances permitted by the Resolution.
B-3
The Registrar shall treat the registered owner as the person exclusively entitled to
payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest and the exercise of all other fights and
powers of the owner, except that interest payments shall be made to the person shown as owner
on the 15th day of the month preceding each interest payment date.
All acts, conditions and things required to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and
in the issuance of this Bond have happened, exist and have been performed.
This Bond shall not be valid or be entitled to any security or benefit under the Resolution
until the Registrar shall have executed the Certificate of Authentication appearing hereon and
inserted the date of authentication hereon.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of V/rginia Beach, Virginia, has caused this Bond
to be signed by the manual signature of its Mayor, to be countersigned by the manual signature
of its Clerk, its seal to be impressed hereon, and this Bond to be dated October 15, 2002.
COUNTERSIGNED:
Clerk, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Mayor, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Date Authenticated:
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the within-mentioned Resolution.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK,
Registrar
By
Authorized Signature
B-4
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned hereby sell(s), assign(s) and transfer(s) unto
(please print or typewrite name and address including zip code of Transferee)
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF TRANSFEREE
the within-mentioned Bond and all fights thereunder, hereby irrevocably constituting and
appointing
Attorney, to t~ansfer said Bond on the books kept for the registration thereof, with full power of
substitution in the premises.
Dated:
Signature Guaranteed
NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed
by an Eligible Guarantor Institution such
as a Commercial Bank, Trust Company,
Securities Broker/Dealer, Credit Union
or Savings Association who is a member
of a medallion program approved by The
Securities Transfer Association, Inc.
(Signature of Registered Owner)
NOTICE: The signature above must
correspond with the name of the
registered owner as it appears on the
front of this bond in every particular,
without alteration or enlargement or any
change whatsoever.
B~5
PLANNING
Application of MOTHERS, INC. for the reconstruction and conversion of a nonconforming
garage apartment into a nonconforming single family residence at 16t~ Street and Baltic Avenu~
(417 ½ 16th Street), containing 5,000 square feet
(DISTRICT 6 - BEACH)
Recommendation:
DENIAL
°
Application of DAVID ELGIN for modification of acreage allowed by the Conditional Use
Permit for a church at Providence Road and Waring Street (5724 Providence Road) (approved
June 26, 1965), containing 2.02 acres
(DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE)
Recommendation:
APPROVAL
Applications of HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. at North Landing
and West Neck Roads, containing 65.1 acres:
(DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE)
Change of Zoning District Classification fi.om AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to
Conditional R-30 Residential re single family lots no less than 30,000 sq. ft.
b. Conditional Use Permit re Open Space
Co
Variance Appeal re certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 4.4Co), that
requires all newly created lots meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance
(CZO) and reduce required street width
Deferred:
Recommendation:
July 9 and August 13, 2002
INDEFINITE DEFERRAL
Application of TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP for a Conditional Use Permit re a
church at Challedon and South Parliament Drives (5245 Challedon Drive), containing
16,247.88 square feet.
(DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE)
Recommendation: APPROVAL
M~a~o M-6
~o~ No~ ~o ~c~le
Mother's, Inc.
Gpin 2427-06-6534
ZONING HISTOFIY
Rezoning (R-5S Residential to RT-4 Resort Tourist) and Conditional Use
Permit (Childcare) -Withdrawn 9-26-88
Conditional Use Permit (Commercial / Church Parking Lot) - Approved
8-14-01
Conditional Use Permit (Church / School Expansion) - Approved 5-9-95
Conditional Use Permit (School) -Approved 9-25-90
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
Mother's Inc., Expansion of a Non-Conforming Use
MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002
Background: '
Application of Mothers, Inc. for the demolition and construction of a nonconforming use on
the north side of 16th Street, 50 feet east of Baltic Avenue. Parcel is located at 417 ~ 16th
Street and contains 5,000 square feet (GPIN #2427-06-6534). DISTRICT 6 - BEACH.
Considerations:
The applicant has been cited by the City's Housing Inspector of this area for numerous
Housing Code violations on the exterior and the interior of the structure. The Housing
Inspector has granted two (2) extensions of the notice based on the applicant's
representation that she is receiving assistance from a local church to make the necessary
repairs to the structure. The applicant's application states that as they began to repair the
structure they realized "that due to poor drainage and ventilation this is a sick building". They
do not want to cover up or otherwise beautify the building and risk the illness of a child or
mother who may live there in the future. The applicant proposes to demolish the garage
apartment and reconstruct a single-family dwelling with similar floor space.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing garage apartment and build a single-family
dwelling in its place. The proposed structure is two stories with living area, kitchen, laundry
room, and bathroom on the first floor. The second floor will contain two bedrooms. The
applicant proposes to build the dwelling in the footprint of the existing garage apartment.
The Council of Amedcan Building Officials (CABO) 1 & 2 Family Building Code requires that
structures located less than three (3) feet from a property line have no unprotected
openings, such as doors and windows, and the walls must have a minimum one (1) hour fire
rating. Additionally the CABO 1 & 2 Family Building Code requires that all bedrooms have
egress windows. With the current submitted building configuration, the applicant will not be
able to meet the CABO 1 & 2 Family Building Code requirements.
Recommendations:
Pursuant to Section 105(e) of the City Zoning Ordinance, a nonconforming structure may be
enlarged only if the City Council finds that the proposed structure, as enlarged, will be
"equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than is the existing nonconformity."
Staff concludes that the proposed enlargement is not reasonable, because it will have a
detrimental impact on the surrounding area, and will not be as appropriate to the district as
Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial.
Submitting Dep~rtment/Ager~cy: Planning Department
City Manager: ~ ~/~-' _
Mother's Inc.
Page 2
the existing non-conforming use. Approval of the request, resulting in demolition of a garage
apartment and construction of a single-family dwelling unit in its place, would create more of
a non-conformity than currently exists on the site. Approval of a second dwelling on the site
would not be in keeping with the character of the immediate area and is not consistent with
the City Zoning Ordinance provisions for the A-12 Apartment District.
1
2
3
4
5
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RECONSTRUCTION
AND CONVERSION OF A NONCONFORMING GARAGE
APARTMENT INTO A NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING ON' PROPERTY LOCATED AT 417 ~ 16TM
STREET, IN THE BEACH DISTRICT
6
7
-- 8
9
10
-- 11
12
13
14
15
-- 16
17
18
-- 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
"27
28
29
__ 30
31
32
33
WHEREAS, Mother'S Inc., (hereinafter the "Applicant") has
made application to the City Council for authorization to
reconstruct and convert the use of a nonconforming garage apartment
into a nonconforming single-family dwelling situated on a certain
lot or parcel of land having the address of 417 ~ 16?~ Street, in
the A-12 Apartment Zoning District;
WHEREAS, the said garage apartment is a nonconforming
structure, in that the dwelling does not meet setback requirements
and garage apartments are not allowed in the A-12 Apartment Zoning
District, and single-family dwellings are also not allowed in the
A-12 Apartment ZonLng District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 105 of the City Zoning
Ordinance, the reconstruction and conversion of a nonconforming
structure is unlawful in the absence of a resolution of the City
Council authorizing such action upon a finding that the proposed
structure, as reconstructed and converted, will be equally
appropriate or more appropriate to the zoning district 5han is the
existing structure;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed
structure, as reconstructed and converted in use, will be equally
appropriate to the district as is the existing structure.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That the proposed reconstruction and conversion of the
Applicant's nonconforming garage apartment into a nonconforming
single-family dwelling is hereby authorized.
34
35
the
~dopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on
day of , 2002.
CA-8630
bkw/wor k/nonconmothers, wpd
R-1
September 25, 2002
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
-P!~nning '
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
De~'r~m~t ot~ Lgw '--
2
MOTHER'S INC.
October 8, 2002
General Information:
APPLICATION
NUMBER:
REQUEST:
ADDRESS:
M06 - 210 - NON - 2002
Change to a Non-Conforming Use
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing garage apartment
and to construct a single-family dwelling in its place.
417 16th Street, north side of 16th Street, 50 feet east of Baltic
Avenue
Mother's
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
24270665340000
6 - BEACH
5,000 square feet
Faith Christie
Gpin 2427-06-6534
Major Issues:
Insuring that the demolition of the nonconforming garage apartment and
construction of a single-family dwelling is no more detrimental to the
neighborhood, and is as appropriate to the district as the existing non-
conforming use. It is the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance to allow
Change to a Non-Conforming Use
MOTHER'S INC.
Page I
nonconformities to continue until they are removed; however, it is not the
· intent of the ordinance to allow nonconformities to be increased in magnitude
by enlargement or expansion except by resolution of the City Council.
Additionally, no nonconforming use shall be converted to another
nonconforming use, which does not conform to the ordinance, except, by
resolution of City Council. Single-family dwellings and garage apartments are
both nonconforming uses in the A-12 Apartment district.
The City Zoning Ordinance defines a garage apartment as "a structure above
a private garage in which provision is made for one (1) dwelling unit, requiring
an interior stairway to the second floor, provided that the living area does not
exceed eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area and the height does not
exceed twenty-eight (28) feet."
Background Information:
The applicant has been cited by the City's Housing Inspector of this area for
numerous Housing Code violations on the exterior and the interior of the
structure. The Housing Inspector has granted two (2) extensions of the notice
based on the applicant's representation that she is receiving assistance from
a local church to make the necessary repairs to the structure. The applicant's
application states that as they began to repair the structure they realized "that
due to poor drainage and ventilation this is a sick building", They do not want
to cover up or otherwise beautify the building and risk the illness of a child or
mother who may live there in the future. The applicant proposes to demolish
the garage apartment and reconstruct a single-family dwelling with similar
floor space.
Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics:
Existinq Land Use and Zoning
A single-family dwelling and a garage
apartment occupy the property. The site is
zoned A-12 Apartment District, Both
structures are nonconforming as single-
family dwelling and garage apartments
are not permitted either as a principal or
conditional use in the A-12 Apartment
district. Additions to exist~rig single-family
dwellings are permitted in the A-12
Apartment district.
Surroundinq Land Use and Zonin,q
NoAh:
South:
East:
West:
· Automobile sales and service and various small
service establishments/RT-3 Resort Toudst
District
· 16t~ Street
· Across 16th Street are single family dwellings with
garage apartments / R-SS Residential District
· Single-family dwellings with garage apartments /
A-12 Apartment District
· Single-family dwellings with garage apartments /
A-12 Apartment District
Change to a Non-Conforming Use
MOTHER'S INC.
Page 2
Zoning and Land Use Statistics
With Existing Any of the principal or conditional uses permitted in the
Zoning: A-12 APartment District
With
Proposed
Zoning:
Demolition of a nonconforming garage apartment and
construction of a single-family dwelling.
Zoninq History
The existing home was constructed around 1927 and is typical of the beach type homes
built in the early development of the oceanfront. The site was zoned R-3 Multiple-Family
Residence District until 1973. From 1973 to 1988, the site was zoned A-1 Apartment
District. The site has been zoned A-12 Apartment District since 1988. With the adoption
of the City Zoning Ordinance in April 1988 single family dwellings and garage
apartments were no longer permitted as principal or conditional uses in the A-12
Apartment district. All existing single-family dwellings and garage apartments in the
Apartment districts then became nonconforming.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The site is in an AICUZ area of 65-70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana.
Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics
A two story single-family dwelling and a garage apartment occupy the site. Mature trees
and shrubs exist on the site. The site is in the Owls Creek Watershed.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
Water:
There is a six (6) inch water main in 16th Street fronting the site.
The site has an existing 5/8-inch water meter that may be utilized.
No further connections will be allowed.
Sewer: There is a ten (10) inch sanitary sewer main in 16th Street fronting
the site. This site is already connected to City sewer.
Transportation
Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP):
16th Street is a local street. This is an old established neighborhood with little
through traffic. There are currently no projects in the Capital Improvement Program
to improve the roadway.
Traffic Calculations:
Street Nam~ Present Present Generated Traffic
Volume Capacity
Existing Land Use z_ 10
16th Street N/A ADT ~ 6,200 ADT ~
Proposed Land Use 3.20
Change to a Non-Conforming Use
MOTHER'S INC.
Page 3
Average Daily Trips
as defined by single-family dWelling and garage apartment
as defined by two single-family dwellings
Public Safety
Police:
Fire and
Rescue:
The applicant has been cited several times for code violations
including an unkempt premises, operating a business in an
apartment district, signs in the front yard, excessive traffic
being generated for the purpose of donations of items, and the
conduct of individuals living at and / or visiting the premises.
These problems have created several conflicts with residents
in the surrounding area.
The Fire Department has no comments at this time.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as Resort Area, an area planned for
resort uses including lodging, retail, entertainment, recreational, cultural, and other
compatible uses.
Summary of Proposal
· The site is 5,000 square feet,
occupied by a single-family
dwelling and a garage
apartment. There does not
appear to be any improved on-
site parking.
The site is in the 400 block of
16th Street. The area is a fairly
stable residential neighborhood,
with W. T. Cooke Elementary
School located just southwest
of the site. The homes in the
general area were built in the
1920s and 1930s, and are
typical of the beach style homes of that period. Mature trees and landscaping grace
the area.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing garage apartment and build a
single-family dwelling in its place. The existing garage apartment is 2.1 feet from the
east property line and 1.9 feet from the north property line. The existing structure is
two stories, with a garage occupying the first floor and living area on the second
floor. City real estate records indicate that the garage and the apartment are 420
square feet each.
The proposed structure is two stories with living area, kitchen, laundry room, and
bathroom on the first floor. The second floor will contain two bedrooms. The
applicant proposes to build the dwelling in the footprint of the existing garage
apartment. The Council of American Building Officials (CABO) 1 & 2 Family Building
Code requires that structures located less than three (3) feet from a property line
Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~'~~----'~
MOTHER'S INC.
Page 4 ........
have no unprotected openings, such as doors and windows, and the walls must
have a minimum one (1) hour fire rating. Additionally the CABO 1 & 2 Family
Building Code requires that all bedrooms have egress windows. With the current
submitted building configuration, the applicant will not be able to meet the CABO 1 &
2 Family Building Code requirements.
Evaluation of Request
The proposed enlargement is not reasonable, because it will have a detrimental impact
on the surrounding area, and will not be as appropriate to the district as the existing
non-conforming use. The request, therefore, is not acceptable for several reasons.
Approval of the request, resulting in demolition of a garage apartment and construction
of a single-family dwelling unit in its place, would create more of a non-conformity than
currently exists on the site. Although single family dwellings and garage apartments are
nonconforming uses in the Apartment districts, staff could not find any evidence of lots
in the immediate area that contain two separate single-family dwellings on one lot as
proposed. Several single-family dwellings with garage apartments do exist in the area
but not two single-family dwellings on one lot. Approval of a second dwelling on the site
would not be in keeping with the character of the immediate area and is not consistent
with the City Zoning Ordinance provisions for the A-12 Apartment District.
The Council of American Building Officials (CABO) 1 & 2 Family Building Code requires
that the structure have no unprotected openings, such as windows and doors, if it is less
than three (3) feet from a property line. Additionally the wails of the structure must be
constructed with a minimum of a one (1) hour fire rating. However, the CABO 1 & 2
Family Building Code also requires that the bedrooms have egress windows. The
applicant proposes to construct the single-family dwelling in the footprint of the existing
garage apartment, which is 1.9 feet from the rear property line and 2.1 feet from east
property line. The proposed location of the structure prohibits the applicant from
meeting the requirements of the CABO 1 & 2 Family Building Code.
Staff recommends denial of the request to demolish a garage apartment and replace it
with a single-family dwelling.
NOTE:
Further conditions may be required during the
administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans
submitted with this application may require revision during
detailed site plan review to meet ail applicable Cit~/ Codes.
Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~'~~
MOTHER'S INC. ~
Page5 ~'~'"
19
Existing Garage
~).0'IN / 0.2'0UT 16
4g.8'(CALC.) 1
2 STORY
FRAME
PIPE-FD
2. t'
WALL
> . ON PROP.
8g LiNE
50' TO
PtPE-FD
BA;-TIC AVENUE 16TM STREET iN WALL
(FORMERLY SOUTH CAROLINA AVENUE)
80' R/w
Mother's Inc
(Site Survey)
Change to a Non-Conforming Use
MOTHER'S INC.
Page 6
Mother's Inc.
(Alternative Building
Elevations)
Change to a Non-Conforming Use
MOTHER'S INC.
Page 7
t~ Az.-
Mother's Inc.
(Floor Plan)
Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~'~
MOTHER'S INC. ~~
Page 8
Change to a Non-Conforming Use
MOTHER'S INC.
Page 9
Applicant's Name:
List All Current
Property Owners:
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
ythe prope, rty owner is a CORPORa_ TION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary)
If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list
all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary,)
[~ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated
organization.
If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below:
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If'the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary)
If the applicant is a PARTNERSI~IP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all
members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary)
Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization.
CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate.
- - - ~;ignature
Print Name
.... Rev. 9/15/98
David !n
C~i. 1456-.~.-3577
ZONING HISTORY
1. Conditional Use Permit- Chumh - Granted 7/13/65
2. Street Closure - Granted - 10/10/00
Modification of Conditions for Street Closure - Granted - 2/12/02
3. Conditional Use Permit - Church - Granted 8/14/65
4. Conditional Use Permit - Lodge - Granted 8/12/68
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
David Elgin - Modification of Conditions
MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002
Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of David Elgin for a modification of conditions placed on a
conditional use permit for a church on June 26, 1965. Property is located at 5724
Providence Road and contains 2.02 acres (GPIN 1456843691 AND 1456843877).
DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE.
Considerations:
The Conditional Use Permit permitting the church on 3 acres was approved by the City
Council on June 26, 1965. There were no conditions attached to this use permit. The
applicant is requesting a modification to the conditional use permit to reduce the area for the
church use to 1.4 acres.
The southern portion of the site below Waming Street contains 1.9 acres. The applicant
proposes to subdivide the southern portion into two lots consisting of a 1.4 acre lot fronting
on Old Providence Road for the church and a 0.5 acre lot fronting on Warning Street for one
single-family home. The proposed residential lot exceeds the lot area and width for the
underlying zoning district of R-10. The lot area on the northem portion of the subject site,
above Warning Street, is 0.8 acres. The applicant is not proposing a subdivision of this lot,
but is asking to develop it with one single-family home. The proposed residential lot
exceeds the lot area and width for the underlying zoning district of R-10.
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because modification to
the lot area requirement for the church use appears to be reasonable, staff recommended
approval and there was no opposition to the request.
Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve
this request.
Attachments:
Staff Review
Planning Commission Minutes
Disclosure Statement
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission
recommends approval.
Submitting DepiartmentJAgency: Planning Department
· :
City of Virginia Beach
Points of Interests
Shopping Center
Schools
Parks & Recreation Centers
Libraries & Museums
Fire Stations
Subdivision
Abc
Water
Abc Water Label
.... Ches. Bay P.A.
~ Water Polygon
Storm Water
--- Storm Water Line
200 0 200 400 600
FEET
http://gis-server/amaplcvb.mwf Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:35,
DAVID ELGIN / # 9
September 11, 2002
General Information:
REQUEST:
ADDRESS:
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
PURPOSE:
Modification of Conditions placed on a conditional use permit for a
church on June 26, 1965.
5724 Providence Road
14568436910000 and 14568438770000
2- KEMPSVILLE
2.84 acres
Barbara Duke
To modify the lot area used for church purposes under the
conditional use permit approved in 1965. The remainder of the
area is proposed for two single-family homes in accordance with
the existing zoning.
Major Issues:
· The reduction in lot area for the church should not present any negative
impacts on the surrounding uses.
Planning Commission Agenda ~_~~.,~
September 11, 2002
DAVID ELGIN / # 9
Page 1
Land Use, Zoning,
and Site
Characteristics:
Existinq Land Use and Zoninq
The property is currently used as a
church and is zoned R-10
Residential District.
Surroundinq Land Use and
Zoning
North:
South:
East:
West:
· Single Family Homes/R-10 Residential District
· Providence Road
· Single Family Homes/R-10 Residential District
· Single Family Homes/R-10 Residential District
Zoning History
The subject site was approved for a use permit for a church on 3 acres on June 26,
1965. No conditions were attached to the use permit. In 1967, the right-of-way for
Warning Street was dedicated across the rear of the site, thereby reducing the lot area
to 2.84 acres and creating a separate lot on the north side of this right-of-way that is still
owned by the church.
In October 2000, City Council approved a street closure for Warning Street on property
to the east of this site. Warning Street to the east of the subject site has since been
replatted with a different alignment, slightly north of the original right-of-way, to serve a
new subdivision of 21 single family home sites. One condition of the 2000 street
closure was that access must be provided from the replatted right-of-way to the church
property. This condition was met when the subdivision was developed. The right-of-
way improvements completed with the new 21 lot subdivision abut the eastern boundary
line of the subject site, so that the road can be extended to serve the two lots that are
being proposed for single-family home construction within the area that will be
eliminated from the conditional use permit should this request be approved.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The site is in an AICUZ of 65-70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana.
Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics
There is a church building and parking lot fronting on Old Providence Road on the
southern portion of the site, below Warning Street. The northern portion of the site,
above Warning Street, the property is wooded.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
Water:
Sewer:
There is an 8 inch water line existing in Warning Street.
There is an 8 inch sewer line existing in Waming Street.
Planning Commission Ager~da
September 11, 2002
DAVID ELGIN ! # 9 ....
Page 2
Transportation
No increase in traffic' generation is anticipated with this request.
Public Safety
Police: No comment.
Fire and No comment.
Rescue:
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as a stable residential neighborhood.
The Plan further states that it is important to maintain the quality of existing
neighborhoods in the Kempsville area.
Summary of Proposal
Proposal
The Conditional Use Permit permitting the church on 3 acres was approved by the City
Council on June 26, 1965. There were no conditions attached to this use permit.
The applicant is requesting a modification to the conditional use permit to reduce the
area for the church use to 1.4 acres.
The southem portion of the subject site, below Warning Street contains
1.9 acres. The applicant proposes to subdivide the southern portion into two lots
consisting of a 1.4 acre lot fronting on Old Providence Road for the church and a 0.5
acre lot fronting on Warning Street for one single-family home. The proposed
residential lot exceeds the lot area and width for the underlying zoning district of R-10.
The lot area on the northern portion of the subject site, above Waming Street, is 0.8
acres. The applicant is not proposing a subdivision of this lot, but is asking to develop it
with one single-family home. The proposed residential lot exceeds the lot area and
width for the underlying zoning district of R-10.
Evaluation of Request
The modification to the lot area requirement for the church use appears to be
reasonable and is recommended for approval. The applicant has indicated that there
are no expansion plans for the church use. The property, is being sold to the applicant
by the present church organization which owns the property and:which currently
occupies the church. This church organization will continue to lease the building from
the new owner (the applicant) for a period of two to three years. Once the current
church organization vacates the property, the applicant hopes to lease the church
building to another religious organization seeking a place for worship. The reduction in
lot area for the church will not create any negative impacts on the surrounding uses.
The request is recommended for approval with no conditions.
Planning Commission Agenda
September 11~ 2002
DAVID ELGIN; # 9
Page 3
NOTE:
Further conditions may be required during the
administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan
submitted with this conditional use permit may require
revision during detailed site plan review to meet ali
applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be
activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See
Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further
information.
Planning Commission Agenda ~~'~'~.~
September 11, 2002
DAVID ELGIN ! # 9
Page 4
Item ~
David Elgi.n
Modification of conditions placed on a Conditional
Use Permit for a church
5724 Providence Road
District 2
Kempsville
September 11, 2002
CONSENT
Dorothy Wood: After I finish reading the item, Mrs. Atkinson will comment on that item
for us. The next item is Item//9 that is for David Elgin. Application for a modification
of conditions for a Conditional Use Permit placed on a church June 26, 1965. The
property is located at 5724 Providence Road in the Kempsville District and there are no
conditions.
David Elgin: My name is David Elgin and I approve of them.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Elgin.
David Elgin: Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: Is there any opposition to Item #9, application for modification of
conditions in the Kempsville borough? Hearing none. Mrs. Atkinson, would you please
review Item ~97
Betsy Atkinson: Yes ma'am. The first one is a modification of condition for a church
that was put on in 1965. And it's on Providence Road. It's three acres of land. And the
church is going to keep like 1.4 acres and they're going to make two building Jots. And
the building lots, one is .8 acres and the other is about .6. The area around there is zoned
R-10 and we felt that this was very acceptable and we agree with staff recommendations
that this should be on our Consent agenda.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mrs. Atkinson.
Betsy Atkinson: You're welcome.
Dorothy Wood: Since there is no opposition to the Consent agenda Mr. Ripley, I would
like to move that the item on the Consent agenda be approved, number 9 with no
conditions.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Do we have a second to the motion?
Betsy Atkinson: I'll second it.
Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Betsy Atkinson. Is there any other discussion on the
motion? Planning Commission's ready to vote.
AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSENT 0 ABS 0
ATKINSON AYE
BAUM AYE
CRABTREE AYE
DIN AYE
HORSLEY AYE
MILLER AYE
RIPLEY AYE
SALLE' AYE
STRANGE AYE
VAKOS AYE
WOOD AYE
Item g9
David Elgin
Page 2
Ronald Ripley:
By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes.
APPLICATION' PAGE 4 OF 4
MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
Applicant's Name:
List All Current
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
David Elgin
Property Owners: Trustees of the Church o£the Brethren
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below:
necessary)
(Attach list if
If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list
all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary)
Michael Bloom, Trustee
Jer~_ Dretsch, Trustee
[~l Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, parmership, firm, or other unincorporated
organization.
If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below:
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary)
If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all
members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary)
Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization.
CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate.
David Elgin
Print Name
Jerr}, Dretsch
Print Name
Rev. 9/15/98
July 9, 2002
to promote responsible growth in this area and to promote responsible
growth in this area and to promote the uniqueness that this area does
afford us.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
You made a motion to defer until
August 13th?
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
Yes, ma'am, I did.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
COUNCILMAN MADDOX:
Is there a second?
I second that.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Thank you.
Are we ready for the question?
CITY CLERK:
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
Mr. Villanueva and Mr. Reeve, may I have
your verbal?
Aye.
COUNCILM~NVILLANUEVA: Aye.
CITY CLERK:
The vote is 11 to 0, Your Honor.
MAYOR OBERNDORF
Thank you.
41
July 9, 2002
as a new Councilman to give me the information I request and I think
the Applicant has worked extremely well with the Staff to come up
with a plan'that they felt met the comprehensive requirements.
For that matter, I would like to defer it for 30 days with the notion
that I will make a motion at the next Presentation and I would like
to have it on the first available Meeting after our Work Session,
Ma'am.
CITY CLERK:
August the 13th is 30 days.
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
13th.
If can be on the 6th, I would appreciate
that, if the Agenda allows. If not, the
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Historically, we haven't done rezonings on
the first Meeting of the month.
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
Okay.
EDDIE BOURDON:
We would be very happy with the 13th.
COUNClLM;~N REEVE:
Great.
EDDIE BOURDON:
Councilman Reeve, we're fine.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Thank you.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: I also would like to talk about the Green
Line Policy. There's been a lot of talk
about moving the Green Line. We need to remember .the Green Line was
put in place as the urban services boundary. That was the intent.
It fulfilled its intent. It was well-done. I applaud what the Green
Line did.
We have to move beyond that. Every new development that has come
down in this area has paid its own way. This development will pay
its own way. We need to find new innovative ways to house our people
4O
July 9, 2002
tough decisions in front of us.
As I have spOken to many of you over the last week and as I have
spoken to the paper and as reported today, I'm in no hurry to make
decisions that we cannot in 20 years look back and be proud of. I
want to make sure that everyone is on board and everyone is
comfortable with where we're going, what we want to promote and what
we want to discourage.
As the Editorial Board of the Paper printed, "haste does make waste"
I agree with that, but this Council has to make decisions based on
facts, not on rhetoric, not on hyperboles and definitely not on
fearful speculation.
We have a lot of work to do and for that reason I am announcing
tonight that I will have my first Princess Anne Forum two weeks from
now on July 23rd at 6:00 p.m. in these Chambers. This Forum is an
Informal Session. It will be open to all Public, all Press, all
current and past Council People to come and be part of the process.
We want to hear from you. We want your ideas.
The fact of the matter is since this Comp Plan was adopted seven
years ago the City has changed. In the Comp Plan we asked for
Amphitheaters. We asked for golf Courses. We have that. We need
move beyond that. We need to find new ideas that promote where the
City wants to go and what it wants to be. The question is not
whether we grow or not. It's how we do we grow and what do we want
to promote.
For that reason, I would like to defer this for 30 days. I apologize
to the Applicant. This is y no means a reflection.of your
Application. I think it's a very strong Application. I believe if
it was pressed tonight it would pass, but that is not the point. The
point is that we need some time to talk amongst ourselves, to talk
with the residents as well as the landowners and potential
developers.
I also want to thank the Staff. They have been very courteous to me
39
July 9, 2002
lives, I can assure you as a lifelong resident who grew up and his
parents still live in Great Neck, there are no developments in Great
Neck that ar'e comparable to this in terms of the open space amenity
and the way it's been laid out. What's been put into it in terms of
dollars and cents doesn't exist in Kempsville or in Great Neck.
So, the only thing that's comparable is there are some houses in both
communities that are of comparable value, but not the kind of open
space in the development that we are talking about here.
The City is the biggest developer in the Transition Area. I guess
we're going to get $12-Million from Sentara for a nice sale of
property for a heath care, health center, in the Transition Area.
It's an area to live, work and play and I think that properties like
this one and others where living is a part of the Application. I
will certainly, as my client will, defer this as per the Body's
wishes tonight.
This is as good a plan as you're going to see. It has been borrowed
from some of the best planners in the country, but that doesn't mean
that it can't be made better. But, the problem is having all 11 of
you become planners and figure out, you know, what plan works.
That's going to be a difficult process. We will work with you, but
we need to move quickly.
With the contract that my clients have on the property, they have got
to close by the end of September. So, we would certainly expect to
be back before this Body in August, if this Body is going to defer,
which is what I am kind of hearing from the tone of the discussion.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Thank you. Mr. Reeve.
COUNCILM~N REEVE: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would first like
to thank the Applicant and Mr. Bourdon for
providing, what I believe is a superb new community for our area. I
think it would be one that will support this area in the high-end
home. I believe we need to support new economic development, but the
fact of the matter is we are a young Council and we have a lot of
38
July 9, 2002
EDDIE BOURDON:
moving the Green Line,
The first thing Mr. Byrne, who lives in Fox
Fire, in his rhetorical statement about
if we move the Green Line to Indian River 'Road
then we would be developing 3.5-units per acre above Indian River
Road.
No one is suggesting moving the Green Line, so that's 'way out in left
field.
The Planning Commission has a number of very, very experienced
Members who have been there for a long time, who have been involved
with the Comp Plan that is in place now and maybe even before that,
in the case of Mr. Baum. I'm sure he was and others. There are
people with a huge amount of experience with the Comp Plan, which has
a Transition Area, this Transition Area. As I said before, I think
it's well over 12, 15 years.
They have recommended approval of this plan unanimously, as they have
a couple of other plans that have been in the pipeline now for going
on three years, that they meet the Comp Plan Guidelines. So, you
know the idea that we're changing something that just doesn't ring
true. In fact, this Council may need some time to put their arms
around it, tweak it a little bit and appreciate that.
Indian River Plantation was ignored by Mr. Barrow whose comments
actually for the most part, you know, I found something that I would
be more than willing to talk to him about and don't disagree with a
lot of what he had 'to say. But, Indian River Plantation is an
existing one-unit per acre development that you can't distinguish
from this that was approved after the Green Line was put into place,
and he already acknowledged the one on Seaboard Road, which is, you
know, the same thing.
It doesn't even compare to this in terms of its quality.
approved in the old Transition Area Number III.
That was
So, yet Kempsville has a lot of wonderful great neighborhoods,
phenomenally nice neighborhoods, as does Great Neck where Mr. Barrow
37
July 9, 2002
Land owners who want to develop should be encouraged to hire land
designers who are innovative and able to put together projects that
really meet'our goals. The proposal before you today is just a
rezoning to one-unit per acre using fragmented open space.
Mr. Bourdon will surely state that the open space is generous. Bear
in mind that the stormwater management ponds, which the Staff refers
to as water amenities or utilities exist to control water on the site
and are presently counted towards open space.
Please view this project as a portion of the remaining 3,685 acres to
be developed in the Transition Area and be very careful about setting
any future densities and style and keep the taxpayers in mind and
keep our expectations -- our expectations are high for the Transition
Area. I would like you to know.
And I want to throw out one other idea that perhaps at this point you
might consider hiring some outside consultants to help you achieve
the original goal. I think that when you have worthy projects that
they will receive the support of citizens.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Thank you, Ms. Constant.
GEORGETTE CONSTANT:
Thank you.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
That's all the speakers?
CITY CLERK:
Yes, Your Honor.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Thank you.
EDDIE BOURDON:
do need to respond to.
because I think I know where we are headed tonight; but,
clear up some misinformation.
Madam Mayor, I promise I will be brief, but
there are a few things that were said that I
I'm not going to respond to all of them,
I do want to
M~YOR OBERNDORF:
Mr. Bourdon. I'm listening.
36
July 9, 2002
chuckle. Mrs. McClanan, you might appreciate this. On Page 4 of the
Staff Report it says this project is not impacted by any proposal
found within the Master Transportation Plan. I think that's an
absurd and backward way of looking at it.
The development density-calculation Worksheet for the matrix devised
by Mr. Scott to help you decide the opinion questions A and B on
Page 74 of the Comprehensive Plan is scored too liberally. The only
example I have time to cite tonight is on Page 2, under natural
resources. It states that the only significant natural resource
existing on the cite is a stand of trees located at the northeastern
corner. You can see it it's at the end there. These trees are
retained to the extent that the only clearing is the envelope for the
houses and the area for the street. This is incorrect in that the
large clearing necessary for one of the stormwater management ponds
is not included and you can tell by looking at that and looking at
the aerial view. If you look at the concept plan, you will see what
I'm seeing.
Wi~h the houses, roads and stormwater management pond, would not you
agree' that at least half the trees would be removed? Now, I
understand that Proffer Number 1 states that this project, for
planting of trees, to have double the total canopy required. So,
this comment is not about trees. It's about how the matrix is
scored. If you read the other items under that part, lA on Page 2,
the score that's given for that is a .9 out of a possible 1.
I mean I find that frustrating. What should be done?
The Transition Area is big. The recreational mecca goals outlined in
the Comprehensive Plan are lofty and as desirable as the Town Center,
the Academic Village, Lake Gaston and Resort Beautification, the ARP
and the other projects requiring patience.
The Comp Plan is currently clear about what is and what is not
acceptable by giving examples on Page 75. Projects that intergrade
open space, not fragmented projects like the one before you today,
have a better chance of achieving a recreational goal. Let's use
imagination.
35
July 9, 2002
CHRIS CAROBINE:
Yes. Yes, I am.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: And are you aware that the traffic plan has
been reviewed on North Landing and can
support this development?
CHRIS CAROBINE:
Yes, I was.
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
As well as the schools can support the
number of children?
CHRIS CAROBINE:
(Nods head in the affirmative.)
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
Thank you.
CHRIS CAROBINE: There were two accidents at the Intersection
of West Neck and Indian River Road in the
last six weeks, very serious. Nightingale had to come in. The City
does not believe there's a traffic problem there either. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
Thank you.
CITY CLERK:
Georgette Constant.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Good evening.
GEORGETTE CONSTANT: Good evening. Thank you. I'm Georgette
Constant. I'm a resident of the North
Beach. This should be just at three minutes, but I think there are
some things that haven't been covered. I would like to state, first
of all, that Courthouse Estates was approved and built in 1982.
This Harbour Development Corporation is not a good proposal. The
flat density of one-unit per acre is too high. If you do the math,
you will see that if only two additional developments like this one
occurred on North Landing Road, you would be at the capacity of 9,900
average daily trips. There are no plans to improve this road and no
public funds planned for this improvement -- and I got a bit of a
34
July 9, 2002
arms around it and get some co~ununity participation'in what it is we
want to do with that area.
Ail people should have a choice of where they live, what kind of
neighborhood, how big the houses are and how small they are. That's
why we have a suburban area, a Transition Area and we have the farm
land. You can make a choice. You can go wherever you want, but we
have to define what we want in those areas, so that people can be
happy and live in the environments they want.
That development is beautiful. It looks like Kempsville. By pushing
it back away from the road and putting up a fountain and a lake, all
you're doing is hiding 65 houses on 65 acres. All of which will dump
onto the road that you-all come to work on everyday. We're not going
to be able to jog through here or next door, because you are going to
get hit by cars if you try to cross the street. The traffic is going
to be huge, the schools are going to be over-powered, the
infrastructure will not be able to support this many homes and this
will set a precedence. This is the first, and there will be more and
you're not going to be able to stop this once it starts.
So, I ask you to stop, think, read the Comprehensive Plan and help
guide your Planning people,, give them good criteria, give them a good
evaluation system so that you know what you want to pass, so that
they know what you want to pass and so that the developers know what
development to bring to you. Any questions?
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Mr. Reeve.
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
Which part of Kempsville does this look
like?
CHRIS CAROBINE:
Most of it.
COUNCII/~%N REEVE: Really. Okay. I need to go back to
Kempsville. Are you aware that water and
sewer is available to the site already?
33
July 9, 2002
of one-lot per acre and you would not be able to deny it from here on
out.
Mr. Block sent a memo to the Planning Department last February where
he was concerned about the density and speed of development in the
Transition Area that before the Southeastern Expressway was built
that need to be built into the plan. We have never done a scientific
study on the aquifers. Many of these houses will have their own
wells to irrigate with and we need to know the impact to the
aqUifers. This is the top end of the peninsula. It's surrounded by
brackish water and everybody below has wells. Before you go forward
we need to know about the aquifers and what they can do.
And I will stay to that shortness because I feel the folks are here
to do what I hope to accomplish this evening. Thanks for your
consideration.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Thank you, Mr. Eliassen.
CITY CLERK:
Chris Carobine.
CHRIS CAROBINE:
Munden Point Road.
I'm not here speaking for the civic league.
know who I am.
Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council,
my name is Chris Carobine and I live on
I am President of Back Bay/Pungo Civic League and
I just wanted you to
I am opposed to this development for a couple of reasons, most of
what you have heard from the other people speaking before me. But, I
wanted to hit a couple of things that we heard. There seems to be
confusion in the community and amongst you members .on what the
Comprehensive Plan says we should do with that Transition Area. Is
it public open space? Is it private open space? What does open
space mean? What should we be able to do? What shouldn't we be able
to do?
And I commend Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Maddox and Mr. Mandigo for saying that
maybe we need to stop, step back, read it, understand it, get our
32
July 9, 2002
pending developments coming out of the pipeline here in the next 90
days. Some of them good developments and some of them not so good.
I think that this is one of the good ones, but it just goes to show
us that we have got to be consistent in our approach here to how we
are going to deal with' it.
TIM BARROW:
Thank you.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Thank you.
CITY CLERK:
Jan Eliassen.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Mr. Eliassen, in all due respect --
JAN ELIASSEN:
I will be real short.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Okay.
JAN ELIASSEN:
be here this late.
I'm Jan Eliassen. Madam Mayor and Members
of City Council, I know you didn't expect to
I agree with much of what you have said and I'm pleased to think that
you're not going to make this decision hastily tonight. I look
forward to all of us being part of the dialogue that shapes where you
go in the future.
I was on the Planning Commission five years ago when this
Comprehensive Plan was drawn up. This is the first time I have ever
came back because this is the most important thing since then that
has borne real serious involvement to everybody in this community.
It's not just because it's this Application. It's because of the
serendipity of the timing of this Application and despite
Mr. Bourdon's assertions to the contrary, all of those other
developments were either grand-fathered and brought to us by Court
Order or have large recreational situations that are in compliance.
This is the first one that, if approved, would establish a precedent
31
July 9, 2002
street and maintenance of that and believe me it starts to add up.
It doesn't cost a whole lot for the first few years, but it cost a
bundle later on and we can cut it'off right now.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Mr. Maddox.
COUNCILMAN MADDOX: I would just like to make a comment. First
of all, I agree with a lot of what he said.
In Virginia Beach sometimes it's hard to find two people that agree
on anything. But after having just come through a campaign, I can
tell you that the thing that they do agree on is a genuine concern
for what we do south of the Green Line and in the Transition Area.
I think as developments go, this is a pretty-darn good development.
I think it has about 40% open space, over 25 acres, when only 15% is
required and 50% brick or stone finishes on the buildings, a
high-price point quality product. It has double the tree canopy
required and the post develop ten-year grow-out, tree canopies equal
to what it is now in the pre-development. It's got trails, park
benches and picnic areas. All of those things that if you were to
look at it as a normal development -- I think, you know, they have
done a great job.
I'm not prepared to vote for that today, because I don't have my arms
around exactly what I want to see in the Transition Area and I think
that once we build something it's there forever. I think we need to
be very, very careful about what we do. It's a great development and
we might bring it back here at some point and vote for it, but I
think that I need to do a little bit more homework and your example
is kind of enlightening that there is more than one way to look at
things.
TIM BARROW: And I'm sure there are a lot more ways to
look at it and I think it is very important.
There are 3,800 acres, I think, in the balance here and that's
important.
COUNCILM~NMADDOX:
I think, as you said there is some
30
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
July 9, 2002
And real quick, on your plan what size are
those lots?
TIM BARROW:
They range between 15 and 20,000 square
feet.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: And you mentioned Randal Arendt. In regard
to his last Presentation, the interesting
thing about his Presentation was he started at 20,000 square foot
lots and then reduced in size down to a 1/6 or even an 1/8 of an acre
lots in order to achieve the open space.
TIM BARROW: He's an advocate of clustering to reduce the
lot sizes individually and bring that into
common open space. I think in general among the planning community
you will find that that is very much supported almost across the
board.
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
But you could also agree that different
people have different likes.
TIM BARROW:
No question about it.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: I think it would be wise to give people
choices on where they could live, either be
larger lots or smaller lots.
TIM BARROW: That's absolutely correct. I think you
even could look at this plan if you wanted
to cluster even more closely. You could probably end up with 75% of
the land in open space versus that, but I've tried "to stay consistent
with the single-family lot pattern that the Applicant requested.
But I think the key thing here for Council to remember if you do this
kind of plan right, you can reduce the cost to taxpayers of this City
for years and years to come for each, you know, hundred feet of that
street that's in there that you don't need to have. You're paying
for the water. You're paying for the sewer. You're paying for the
29
July 9, 2002
Bourdon's client has to build and pay for, a 1,000 feet less that the
City has to maintain and work with in the future.
The amount of pavement area approximately would be four acres less
area paved in this quiCk concept sketch than is in that plan and I
think that -- and this is not to take any pride in authorship of this
because you can forget it. It is a very quick sketch. Bu~, I think
it shows that if we think about these things a little bit more we can
get the development we are looking for, the tax base expansion we
might look for and in a way that's consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan that you set up.
I would just urge you to defer the Application. I'm not suggesting
that you deny it, but I'm suggesting a deferral to allow the Council
at your Retreat or whenever you want to sit down and discuss more
fully what the Transition Area direction might be and how it can be
accomplished. Frankly a lot of the things that work against
accomplishing your Comprehensive Plan proposals are the result of
City requirements that, in fact, work against the very plan that
you're trying to do. I think it's something that this Council has a
chance to look at and see if you can get these things in sync, which
will ~educe cost to the development community, give us better
communities as we develop and also end up with a lot better plan in
the long term.
I apologize for taking extra time.
MAYOR OBERliDORF:
Thank you.
COIINCIIAfAN REEVE:
Madam Mayor.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Yes, Mr. Reeve.
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
Quick question, sir. I'm sorry. Can you
state your name again for the record.
TIM BARROW:
Tim Barrow.
28
July 9, 2002
us as taxpayers to support. That's one of the objectives in the
Transition Zones. The amount of pavement that is included in this
section, probably not at the Applicant's wish, but at the Staff's
wish is actually greater than you would get with the traditional
subdivision.
The width of the streets, the paved area and the sidewalks are
actually wider than you would get in an R-30 and more coverage
involved, meaning more runoff to our streams and more damage
potentially environmentally in the program. So, I think that there
are very real concerns about the plan.
Now, the question becomes are there other ways that we might look at
that that could accomplish the development and still do it? I think
that there are, without making a major plan. We have to look at some
of the work that -- Randall Arendt had a Presentation for Council a
short while ago that pointed out a number of ways that this might be
accomplished.
I will be try to be very brief, Madam Mayor, if I could.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
I saw some of my Council Members looking at
their watch.
TIM BARROW: I'm finished, but you I think there are
options that are available. I did have a
very quick sketch, and I will have to apologize. There was about an
hour spent on this.'
It took the same area, same program, 65 lots. This plan has -- 50%
of the area is devoted to open space, a 30-acre coffee, unity common is
provided in the center of the development that all of the lots in the
development have access to, can see and relate to. That common area
accounts for 50% of the space. It does become an open space
community.
That plan, this sketch, has 1,000 feet less street than is in that
alternative plan, which means it's 1,000 feet less than Eddie
27
July 9, 2002
that you would possibly consider would be for open space and/or
recreational use and that the residential component would be
secondary to the intended open space focus of the Plan.
Most of the other Applications which have been approved previously in
the Transition Zone, with the exception of that one small one, which
is a small acreage Application, have been centered on golf course
developments where there were very large open space components and I
think it could certainly be argued that they, in fact, did set up a
precedent of being primarily recreational or open-space focused.
This plan I think you simply have to look at it -- despite the fact
that I'm complimentary of the planning and the effort that went into
it. If you look at it, it is a residential subdivision. A good one?
Yes. If it were up in Great Neck where I live, it would be a very
positive subdivision; but, I don't think that is what the Transition
Zone Policies call for. It calls for us to do something better and
to do something that, in fact, provides that transition between
suburb and rural.
I don't think -- I'm already blinking. I don't think that this plan
accomplishes that despite the best effort of the Council -- not of
the Council, but of the City Staff and of the Applicant. I think
there has been a lot of work on it.
I just point out a couple of things that I think make that
problematic. One, the open space. That area that is in the plan is
only about 1/3 of the area that's involved, 39% including the
drainage lakes that are a part ot it.
The open space that is in it is fragmented by a number of roads that
divide the open space into several components. The open space over
almost half of the lots do not have any relationship to the open
space that's provided. They don't adjoin the open space. They are
across from it. They don't related to that space.
Also, one of the goals it said is to minimize the pavement areas and
the amount of streets so we have lower costs in the future for all of'
26
JIM KINCAID:
July 9, 2002
Thank you.
CITY C?.~.RK: ·
Tim Barrow.
TIM BARROW: Madam Mayor and Members of Council, I
apologize in advance for the staggered and
disjointed nature of these comments. But I speak tonight as a
planning consultant and development consultant and a lifelong
resident of the City of Virginia Beach.
The comments I bring are that I am very concerned about a number of
Applications, several Applications, that are pending before you in
the Transition Zone, this being one of that that will in affect
dramatically set the course for the development with the rest of the
Transition Zone, because impact -- contrary to what Mr. Burden
advanced, I think a precedent will be set in the course of this.
I think, also, that it will put into question depending on what
decisions you make the viability of the Council's Green Line Policy,
which is again critically important and part of what this Council and
what previous Councils have stood behind.
So, I think in that sense the decisions you will make here are
dramatically important. I think probably one of the most important
decisions that this Council makes setting the course for your entire
tenure on this Council. So, I think you should take it under great
advisement in terms of making this decision and making it right. I
think it's importan~ that the decisions that you make on these
Applications -- in fact we enforce the policy directive that is said
in the Comprehensive Plan, which I think has gotten very strong
support overall in terms of what we are looking to do in
accomplishing the Transition Zone.
Now, in reference to this particular Application, one of the key
criteria -- and this has been pointed out earlier -- is that
Applications should be considered for residential development in the
Transition one. That's allowed for and called for. However, it is
stated in the Comp Plan that the primary purpose of any Application
25
July 9, 2002
ROBERT SCOTT: No, it's not necessarily specified that
each piece of open space needs to be
publicly owned and publicly accessible, but I think that by the time
we are through with the development there ought to be a nice mixture
of the two. I think different opportunities lend themselves to
different solutions. What may be appropriate in one area may not be
in another.
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
Thank you, sir.
CITY CLERK:
Jim Kincaid.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Good evening.
JIM KINCAID:
Beach for 18 years.
Good evening, Madam Mayor, Councilmen and
Women. I've been a resident of Virginia
Almost as long as you have been here.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
You give me credit for more than I have
served.
JIM KINCAID: One of the most significant achievements of
the Council since I have been here is the
Green Line and, of course, the Transition Area. It's hasn't been too
many weeks ago since almost half of the Council, current Council, was
campaigning to get where you are. No one had any bad words about the
Green Line at that time. For that reason, I, as well' as quite a few
other citizens in Virginia Beach, have voted for you.
The Green Line is important. The Transition Area is important and
every one of you supported it in your campaign.
Ail I can say is that I certainly hope that you continue to support
it, continue to support the concept and refuse to compromise any
further. That's all I have. Do you have any'questions?
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Thank you very much.
24
TOM SHEARER:
July 9, 2002
Yes.
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
you say is recommended?
Are you aware that this proposal has over
39% open space as opposed to the 30% that
TOM SHEARER:
I understood.
Well, are we counting those drainage lakes
as well? I mean, he said six acres is what
COUNCILMAN REEVE: Six acres is the front, but the
Staff's review gives him 39% open space.
just wanted to make sure that you were aware of that.
TOM SHEARER: Okay. It may be. But are those people
going to allow me to park in front of their
house and walk through their yard to get to that trail? I don't
think they do. It doesn't look like it's public recreation area to
me. It looks like it's an open space somewhere in the middle that no
one could get to. There is no parking allowed for it. i think the
Plan is that it's made for public recreation. Transition Area is
public recreation. How are we going to get to it? Any other
questions?
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Thank you.
TOM SHEARER:
Thank you.
CITY CLERK:
James Kincaid.
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
Madam Mayor
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Mr. Reeve.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: Let me ask a quick question of Mr. Scott.
Is there an exact reference in the current
Comprehensive Plan of the requirement for public parking facilities
for Open Space Promotion in individual developments?
23
July 9, 2002
I live in Fox Fire.
COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN:
I thought -- yeah, I recognize the address.
Thank you.
CITY CLERK:
Tom Shearer.
TOM SHEARER:
Good evening, Madam Mayor --
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Good evening.
TOM SHEARER: -- Members of Council. I'm here in
opposition because when I see the
Comprehensive Plan that has been approved and the public has agreed
with, we are looking for the open space in this Transition Area and i
think if people who were aware that they are going to be shortchanged
of all this open space for this one development, we probably would
have a full Chamber here and a lot more speakers.
My understanding is that Transition Area should have close to 30% of
recreational area, something that Mr. Mandigo is alluding to. I live
well below the Green Line and I teach -- I've been teaching at a
middle school in the Transition Area for 23 years and I see every
development that happens around here impacts the quality of education
that we have and the traffic that we have to drive through everyday,
and I think that -- you know like you're saying, you have said our
arguments already. You're setting a precedent if this is approved
and I think you really need to look at this closely and make sure
that, you know, everything is done from now on. Let's follow the
Plan. Okay.
It's a good Plan. It's one we have all agreed on and, you know,
making allowances or provisions for the builder is not enhancing the
development. People like a bigger lot. It's not enhancing the
development. It's enhancing what people are putting into their
pocket. Ail right. Thank you.
VICE MAYOR MANDIGO:
Excuse me, sir.
22
BERNARD BYRNE:
July 9, 2002
Madam Mayor, I'm in.opposition to this.
Is there a time jeopardy?
M~YOR OBERNDORF:
Certainly.
You can be heard.
CITY CLERK:
Ail the rest of you are opposed according
to what you (Inaudible).
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Good evening.
BERNARD BYP/~E: Good evening. Madam Mayor and Members of
the City Council, my name is Bernard Byrne.
I am opposed to this rezoning proposal, because it is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Use Plan that this City has adopted and
consistently supported since the last Plan was enacted in 1997.
As has been pointed out by certain Councilmen, the primary use in
this project is housing, not public recreation, which is an essential
feature that's desirable in the Transition Area. In affect, these
developers want to abandon the Comprehensive Use Plan in the
Transition Area. If you accept this rezoning, you are essentially
changing the Plan and you will have to accept all similar proposals
that are coming before you for rezoning in the Transition Area.
Let's be honest about it. A new Comp Plan is in the works. If you
want to move the Green Line to Indian River Road, put that in the
plan and live with all the consequences, but don't adopt a back-door
approach by incrementally step by step rezoning properties in the
Transition Area. Any questions?
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Thank you, Mr. Byrne.
COUNCIL LADY McCI~AN: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor. Mr. Byrne,
BERNARD BYRNE:
Yes.
COUNCIL I~%DY McCLANAN: Which subdivision do you live in?
21
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
July 9, 2002
Sure.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: If you look at the scale, they are very
large. They dwarf the Bay Colony fields.
So, there's plenty of room for activities of all sorts.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
That would be nice for the children
in the area.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
As soon as you-all finish, I would like
to recognize Mr. Schmidt.
COUNCILMAN SCHMIDT: Are you-all finished? I don't have a
question, Eddie. Thank you. I'm not a
stranger to nor do I object to development in any fashion whatsoever.
I believe that the developer has worked hard to fashion a thoughtful
and comprehensive plan here.
But I, like Mr. Mandigo, am very concerned. You know we are going to
have one bite at this apple to do this right and as a Council we have
never had an opportunity to really get a sense of where we are in
this critically important issue.
I think we have got a lot of work to do. I think everyone is acting
in good faith, but I sure would hate to do it wrong coming out of the
box. I believe that I would certainly support backing off for just a
little while to get a sense of where we are on this issue before we
revisit. Thank you.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
heard.
With your permission, Council, I would
like to call the people who have not been
MAYOR 0BERNDORF:
Mrs. Smith, do you have the same list I do?
CITY CLERK:
I hope so. Bernard Byrne.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Okay.
that. I'm sorry.
July 9, 2002
COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I'm sort of intrigued by Mr. Mandigo's
suggestion about the ballfield. There's a
lot of children living in that area and there may be a lot of
children that will live in this neighborhood. I know Bay Colony has
a multipurpose field and a lot of times the kids go and they knock
the ball around and all that and that might be, you know, something
interesting. Maybe not to rent out to a league but --
EDDIE BOURDON:
Mrs. Wilson, clearly what --
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
If there's any way -- I don't think we are
going to approve this tonight.
EDDIE BOURDON: Let me suggest to you that what you're
speaking about that's what this does. It
does it and it does it in quadruplicate from that small, little field
that Bay Colony has. That is what this is times about ten. You can
do ballfields and you can do soccer, you know, impromptu; but, we're
putting the Plaza Little League there.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
Yeah.
EDDIE BOURDON: But the opportunity to have, you know,
ballfields for the people in the
neighborhood and the adjoining neighborhoods that's what that open
space absolutely does.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I don't think we are going to approve this
tonight. When you come back, maybe you
could sort of sketch out where we could have a field or something
like that that could be utilized in that way.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: You might still have your map, but if you
look in the middle there's a large -- he's
labeled them as community activity area.
19
~YOR OBERNDORF:
July 9, 2002
Mr. Mandigo then Mrs. Wilson.
VICE M]%YOR MANDIGO: I don't know if that's the right answer
either, Eddie. The whole issue that I have
is this Council hasn't had a chance to discuss that. We have a
scoring system that's in here. We've got a lot of things that we
haven't been over and my fear is that once we approve the first one,
you're going to expect us to do that for the next and that's a
reasonable expectation.
My only concern is that we haven't had a chance to sit down with this
guy.
EDDIE BOURDON: And I'm not going to try to deprive you of
the chance of having to discuss that. I do
point out that the plan on Seaboard Road that they talked about
earlier was approved on the Consent Agenda by the previous Council
with open space that had none of the amenities that this has.
VICE MAYORMANDIGO:
It wasn't this Council.
weren't on then.
Rosemary and I
EDDIE BOURDON:
That's true.
on.
It was right before you came
COUNCILM~N MANDIGO:
You are absolutely correct.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Mrs. Wilson.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
Mr. Bourdon, please don't go away yet.
EDDIE BOURDON:
signed up to speak.
Actually, I don't want to be rude. I do
believe that there are other people that are
M~%YOR OBEP~NDORF:
There are.
EDDIE BOURDON:
I'd didn't want that Council to neglect
18
open areas.
July 9, 2002
Well, that's' kind of what we're doing here and we are kind of not
doing it here, but if we take Applications like this in the
Transition Area, then we have lost the opportunity to do any of that
in the future because this Council will have said this is what we
want to do and we really haven't had a chance to sit down and discuss
this as a Council.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Mr. Reeve.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Mandigo makes
some goods points, but also I would like to
ask a question. If we did this by right, sir, on one-per 15, could
that support the construction of athletic fields for outside
purposes, economically?
EDDIE BOURDON:
guess correct something.
No, Councilman Reeve. You know I think I
know where this is heading, but I want to I
The entrance feature here is 18 inches
tall. You know we have got -- part of your Comprehensive Plan talks
about vistas from the street and having all this open area and that's
what we've done consistent with the Comp Plan. Now, there is a part
of it that's more than that, but the wall is only 18 inches. It's a
brick wall across. So, this isn't being, you know, blocked off.
It's totally -- it's going to have a beautiful vista from North
Landing Road as you enter. So, that part is false.
I think you would have to look at every piece of property and how it
fits in. Some pieces of property -- clearly providing ballfields can
be done. Others -- it doesn't fit. That's a discussion that I guess
you-all need to have and Staff needs to have. You know the idea of
having ballfields there where it's located I don't know you know that
that's the best use of that piece of property, but we can discuss
that further.
VICE MAYOR MANDIGO:
Can I make a clarification?
17
July 9, 2002
the pond is looking at the size -- it's probably an acre and-a-half.
I think you could basically put three lots in it. It's over and acre
in size.
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
Thank you.
MAYOR OBERNDO~tF:
Mr. Mandigo. Thank you, Mrs. Eure.
VICE MAYOR ~%NDIGO: Well, I just want to respond that I know we
raised taxes last year to finance
$50-Million worth of open space. Here we have an Applicant whose
agricultural.
We have an opportunity to have just exactly what the plan calls for
in the Comp Plan on Page 73. The Transition Area is to be seen as an
open space and recreational mecca with residential development
present only to the extent it supports the primary purpose of
advancing open space and recreational uses.
Well, we're taxing in buying land both south of the Green Line for
open space. You know we clearly have a need for fields. We have
groups that -- if we think innovatively, there are ways to accomplish
all of this and still have a development. But, I guess what I was
thinking is that if we're promoting open space and recreational use,
I don't see where that is going to add to the City.
You can't even see their open space because of the entrance monument
that they have. That's where I was going. We have an opportunity,
when someone wants to do a rezoning, an Application like this, to
figure out how to make that work together in some of the other
programs that we are trying to implement in the City.
Now, I'm not going to tell you who I think hasn't done this, but this
is 65 acres. It's too small for a golf course. But, is there a way
to squeeze a field hockey field or a soccer field out of this that
could be subleased? I know in Kempsville 30 years ago when
developers came in and rezoned a hundred acres, two hundred acres or
300 acres, they had to dedicate land for schools and parks and other
16
around lake.
park.
July 9, 2002
There is a path all the way around the lake with a
The public at-large is prohibited from swimming in the lake if you
are not a resident of the community, but they can use the public
streets and run around the park and use it like that.
But in this instance, you're really providing open space and
recreation more for the community of 65 lots and once it's adjoining
to another community, then, if you're a jogger or a biker they are
public streets you can use it.
I don't think the term open space -- there's a difference in the last
Application we heard. Open space can be owned by a Homeowners'
Association and restricted, but yet it's still open space. It's
passive open space. It's not buildable.
So, I think the term, "open space" doesn't necessarily mean it's
public open space. There is public open space and there is private
open space. And I think, Bob, you were trying to get at that. That
this is not generally considered public open space, bus they can
access it and they are public streets. Are they not?
So, I don't know what you could do with a piece of property that
would make it an entertainment center for the public like Mount
Trashmore or something. They have dedicated a lot of land, you know,
for that use and I'm real impressed with -- how large is that first
pond? Eddie, do you know? The oval pond?
EDDIE BOURDON:
I'm sorry, Mrs. Eure.
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
Out of the six acres --
EDDIE BOURDON:
Well, actually the six acres --
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
It's pretty sizable?
EDDIE BOURDON:
-- doesn't even include that. I would say
15
July 9, 2002
you don't have this traffic backed up and you sit and wait to get out
to go to school or work.
ROBERT SCOTT: I'm trying to convey that there isn't just
one thing that needs to be done to address
your concern. There are a whole lot of things that need to be done.
Yes, we are looking at connecting them, one to the other.
You know we have done that in other cases too. We think it's the way
to go. Future residents tend to object to that more than -- you know
we at the Staff level really think that's a good idea and we tried
very hard and have gotten, for instance, this particular street
lighting put in there.
We hope when the adjoining property comes into develop, there will be
a willingness to make that street connection; but, we have seen some
reluctance by residents to have that happen in the past. When that
happens, I think you have problems of the type you're talking about.
I think you have more streets coming out to the main road than you
really need and a lack of coordination as to how access is handled.
So, we do need to rely on these neighborhoods connecting with one
another, as has been provided for here. We need to remember that,
when we adjoin the properties who come in for development.
COUNCIL LADY EUl%E:
Madam Mayor.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Mrs. Eure.
COUNCIL LADY ED-RE: I like the plan. I think it's a
nice-looking plan, but I wanted to make a
further conunent about the open space. I happen to serve on that
Committee that is helping you decide, with your taxpayers' dollars,
what to do with $50-Million; which, we have already bought Stumpy
Lake and quite a few other properties.
But it was clearly in the plan that some of it would be passive.
happen to live in a development that has ll0-acre lake and it's
amazing to me that more people don't access our community to run
I
14
response from me.
July 9, 2002
VICE MAYOR MANDIGO:
No. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
You're welcome.
COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN:
Madam Mayor, may I ask Mr. Scott a
question?
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Please, Mrs. McClanan. Mr. Scott.
COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: My concern about -- and I noticed there's a
street connection here for adjacent future
development. My concern in this area has more to do with the traffic
on North Landing Road.
I think this is a very nice plan and I think the way the entrance is
done and, you know, the trails and all the other stuff. But at some
point -- and even going back to a few years ago when I represented
this District, the people on that road have a terrible road time
getting out in the morning and the evening, you know, that live in
those developments. Are you-all planning as these different
communities come in so that they do interconnect and at some point
there can be lights along there so the traffic can -- I know right
now you can't get down that road.
ROBERT SCOTT: Yeah, actually that particular road there
that is a legitimate concern and a concern
as to whether a development like this goes in or not. It's already
problematic.
Unlike most of the other roads in that area, there is a long-term
solution to this that you have on your Master Transportation Plan,
which is Nimmo Parkway that runs parallel to North Landing Road.
COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: But that reduces and gives an alternative.
I'm talking about in terms of looking ahead
and coordinating these so that where the lights will be -- so that
¢
13
July 9, 2002
the public, in other words, the communities that are around here.
Now, is there a parking lot where somebody is going to come and park
here and walk these trails? No, there is not.
But will there eventually be the opportunity to do that when all
these different developments connect and somebody says, you know, the
villages at West Neck and they go through here? Sure. Somebody at
the Municipal Center, you know rides their bike down. Sure, no
problem. That's what very much I'm sure will happen.
The intention is that all of the open spaces be connected and trails
be connected from one area to the next area over. That's why they
all go to the property lines.
VICE ~YOR MANDIGO: Ail right. I can't speak for the other
Members of Council, but one of the concerns
I have had with this is when you get into the Comprehensive Plan we
talked about this area in Transition being a recreational mecca.
Public space that's accessible and used by the public and with
residential housing only as kind of an add-on. It's not the primary
use and this is the first Application that this Council has seen.
The last Council, we had great debates, one at the Workshop and with
Planning.
The concern that I have -- and, again, I'm just speaking for me. Is
that this doesn't seem to be what we talked about in the Transition
Area. It's not useful, except to the residents; but, I mean others
may disagree. But, that's the issue that I have. The concern I have
is to make a decision on this really puts this Council in a position
where if we approve this then what we have said is, this is what we
want and we really haven't had an opportunity as a'Body to talk about
this. I know you have been through this, because we have done this
on another one of your Applications, Eddie, and that's Bob Mandigo's
concern.
So, I just wanted to bring that to the attention of Council.
EDDIE BOURDON:
I don't think you are looking for a
12
July 9, 2002
multipurpose field, then that would actually open up some public
space under that lease to another group and take away the Homeowners'
Association"s expense of maintaining it and it would also add to the
recreational value for the public.
EDDIE BOURDON:
VICE MAYOR~NDIGO:
EDDIE BOURDON:
I'm sure we wouldn't be opposed to looking
at that, if that's an option that is --
That's hypothetical.
-- desirable.
VICE M~YOR MANDIGO: I'm just talking about what could be versus
what is. What ~hat actually is is not
something the public would likely access, is it?
EDDIE BOURDON: I fully expect that members of the public
especially, you know. Folks who work in
this area, when this whole area is developed with the plans that are
in place, what we're going to see because we are going to have
interconnectivity of these park areas and these trails running
throughout as Mr. Foster has started with Indian River Plantation.
Villages of West Neck and Courthouse Estates and with what Staff and
what the people at LDR out of Columbia Maryland who have been -- you
know their ideas have been utilized. We have Steven Fuller from
Atlanta whose ideas are being utilized.
I think that we can -- I think clearly our vision is and has been
that we are going to do something totally different here and we are
going to have all these open space areas connected in these different
developments so that you will have the opportunity.to ride a bike,
jog or whatever from the Municipal Center and from these other
developments. These trails will connect because if you make them
that way to begin with people buy knowing that they are there versus
trying to put them in later when it doesn't -- then, people object to
them.
So, the intent is that these trails will be used by the members of
11
EDDIE BOURDON:
No.
July 9, 2002
VICE MAYOR ~%NDIGO:
Who owns the common area?
EDDIE BOURDON:
The Homeowners' Association owns the common
area and maintains the conunon area.
VICE MAYOR ~IGO:
So, is this open for public recreation?
EDDIE BOURDON: It would be open for public recreation in
all likelihood. I mean, if there were to be
a problem you get into some issues of, you know, of liability. If
there were a series of problems, you could have some issues arise
there, but that's certainly not been the history in Virginia Beach
that that's been necessary.
VICE MAYOR MANDIGO:
control the land.
It really isn't public area.
the Homeowners' Association.
It belongs to
They actually
EDDIE BOURDON:
They control the land, correct.
VICE MAYOR ~L~NDIGO: And it's available to public use unless they
decide it's not, which would be the case
with any use unless they decide it's not.
EDDIE BOURDON: Which would be the case with any open space
controlled by a Homeowners' Association,
unless there was some condition put on it to the contract.
VICE MAYOR MANDIGO:
Or if there was a lease cr some
other use that somebody was using it for.
EDDIE BOURDON:
You couldn't use it for any other purpose.
VICE MAYOR ~%NDIGO: Well, in this case if I had a field say in
the back and the Homeowners' Association and
wanted to sublease that to a recreational association to use it for a
10
July 9, 2002
depth, but the value of that bench there is that it allows wetland
vegetation to grow in there more aggressively and beneficial.
That's a technique that is used in many places. We call it the
"benching technique". It's a way of actually constructing your
wetlands area.
COUNCIL I2%DY EDI~E: I thought maybe it was some kind of bench
you sit on that was environmentally good for
you. Thank you, Mr. Scott. I have never heard that term.
EDDIE BOD-RDON: I understood wetland benches. That's why
when you used bio, I said, well, maybe
that's something I am not versed in.
COUNCIL L~Y EUI~E:
Thank you.
EDDIE BOIIRDON:
I knew what this was.
VICE MAYOR~%1~DIGO:
Can I ask a question, Mayor?
~YOR OBERNDOP. F:
Mr. Mandigo, please.
VICE MAYOR ~a/~DIGO: The open space that you have on this
particular part or this land is at the
center part and at least two of those are the stormwater management
retention ponds, aren't they?
EDDIE BOUP~ON:
They double as that.
VICE MAYORMANDIGO:
But you have to have them.
EDDIE BO%TRDON: Yeah, I don't know that we would
actually -- I actually don't think that we
would need that many, but that's correct.
VICEMAYORM~/~DIGO:
And they don't usually get counted as open
space?
July 9, 2002
there are features in the park area at the opening and there are
trails going from that. They cross the streets on both sides where
there will be stamped concrete -- you know the paver affect.
Then, the trails are elliptical in the front and then go around the
initial lake there at the beginning, tie into the sidewalk and then
they come back together in a triangular shaped area. Then, they go
back through the park. If you follow, it's the gray or brownish
color that goes all the way through the park and ties back in at four
different areas, both to the east and west with the sidewalk -- I
hope you-all can follow -- then, it goes to the west.
As you go down, there are stars there where benches will be, where
tables will be and there are also picnic shelters that are shown on
the plan. It goes all the way around the lake in the back and
eventually,goes through the woods back to the very lake in the far
south end of the property.
The trails are extensive. They will be improved trails, again as I
said, with benches and picnic shelters, picnic tables and eventually
there will be, you know, equipment that will go through Parks and Rec
review and subject to your review also will be included. But, where
that will be -- we didn't get into that much detail. This is more
detail than has previously been, that I'm aware of, submitted with an
Open Space Plan for the park areas beforehand.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Mrs. Eure.
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
What is a bio-retention ditch?
I have never heard of that.
EDDIE BOURDON:
take a shot at that.
That's probably a request that Staff could
better answer than me. I will let Stephen
ROBERT SCOTT: A bench in wetlands is where the immediate
area from the shore going out is extremely
shallow like just a few inches deep and then it drops off to a deeper
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
July 9, 2002
So, it's more of West Neck?
EDDIE BOURDON:
Yes, ma'am.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
and little club?
It's the townhouses? Are we talking about
those that you go in and go to a golf course
EDDIE BOURDON: It's one of the residential villages at the
villages at West Neck for active adults over
55. I do not know which -- there are a number of villages and
different types of housing within that. I don't know which one that
is.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
So, it's right here?
EDDIE BOURDON:
property on the --
Oh, no. I'm sorry. That property is
not -- I thought you were talking about the
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
No. It's been cleared.
EDDIE BOURDON:
NO, that's an adjoining -- I apologize.
That's an adjoining property owner who has
timbered his land. That property is not under development. I
apologize. I thought you meant the property that was denuded on
one of the --
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
That property between this one and the
Votech Center.
I apologize.
EDDIE BOURDON:
I have got a number of maps.
both sides of the roads have sidewalks. Ail right.
sidewalks on both sides of the road.
I misunderstood.
First of all,
There are
The second page really doesn't provide much in the way of any type of
illustration of the trails, but if we start at the beginning you see
7
are, Mr. Bourdon?
July 9, 2002
EDDIE BOURDON: I will try. In your packages, you-all did
not get the nice green -- I thought we had
given -- if you give me just one second, I will go and grab some out
of my file. I apologize.
COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: We only get the black ones.
VICE MAYOR MANDIGO:
very often.
It would be a perk if there are electronic
pictures available, but we don't get those
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Would it make a difference?
VICE MAYOR MANDIGO:
Yes .
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
May I ask a question of Mr. Scott while we
are waiting?
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Yes, please. Mrs. Wilson, Mr. Scott.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Mr. Scott, the property that is between this
piece of property and the VoTech Center
looks like there is a lot of land that was cleared on these aerials
that went a cross. What's going on there, do you know?
ROBERT SCOTT: Yes.
there.
the adjoining property to that.
That's part of the other development
That's Indian River Plantation and
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
Oh, that's part of the Indian River
Plantation?
EDDIE BOURDON:
around the golf course.
It's actually the Villages of West Neck.
I'm sorry. It's the residential development
6
July 9, 2002
open space. No proffer -- actually the monies were proffered here
and there. We have proffered 48-thousand plus for acquisition of
additional Open space for maintenance and preservation of open space
under our Outdoors Plan and we did the same thing with Seaboard
Woods, but no improvements to the open space here. There are tens of
thousands of dollars of improvements, hundreds of thousands of
dollars of improvements that are being made to the open space on this
piece of property to make it totally usable, to interconnect with the
adjacent properties when they develop.
That Seaboard Woods Application was approved on the Consent Agenda by
the City Council I think about three years ago. So, you know where
this became potentially controversial. I don't know. But, I would
simply say it is an excellent Transitional Area development. It is
keeping within your Comprehensive Plan to a "T". With the precedents
that already exist in the Transition Area, it's a great compliment to
the development that's occurring in this particular section of the
Transition Area.
A section of the Transition Area, by the way, the Agricultural
Reserve Program is not even available. This is not an area where %he
Ag Reserve Program is anticipated. It doesn't exist. You can't do
it here and that's because it wasn't deemed to be agriculturally
valuable and viable. I don't know what concerns would exist that
would cause this to become controversial, but we hope it isn't in
your mind. We don't think it is in ours. These developers have done
what they have been asked to do and have created a wonderful,
wonderful plan.
The entrance feature, which I neglected to mention -- this is a
rendering of it. This is, again, located in about six acres of land
as you look at the plan along -- all of this area here from North
Landing Road, you know back -- the first houses are way back in this
area, this six acres of land, and then obviously goes all the way
through. We have a central park all the way through with tie-ins to
the east and to the west with trails throughout the open space.
COUNCILMAN JONES:
Can you kind of show us where the trails
5
July 9, 2002
situation that doesn't exist elsewhere in the City of Virginia Beach.
We have a road section that is unique to the Transition Area that has
been recommended by Staff, and that's the reason for the Subdivision
Variance request.
The notion has been put forth -- and this comes to you with a
unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission and your
Planning Staff. The conununity has met and they have no objection.
That's the area here around the Courthouse. In fact, the lots all
along North Landing Road are an acre and some of them are smaller
than an acre. The density is no different than what you see right
along North Landing Road.
This project has not engendered any controversy whatsoever up un~il I
guess maybe now. It doesn't set any precedent. It complies with the
precedents that are already on the book. If we were suggesting to
build something like this with water and sewer, which are already
here, you are suggesting doing that below Indian River Road below the
blue lane, than the area that is you know agricultural area, then, it
would truly be a precedent. But when you compare this proposal to
Indian River Plantation, for instance, you know we are talking the
same density and we are talking actually more open space. We are
further from the red line or the blue line.
Down here we have Indian River Plantation at one-unit per acre.
Villages of West Neck at two-units, age-restricted per acre,
equivalent traffic Of one. Courthouse Estates is over three. Up
here we have Courthouse Woods on the north side of North Landing Road
at ten-units per acre. Here we are with Victoria Park at one-unit
per acre with an absolutely super plan.
The notion that there is something new and different occurring
here if that's -- if someone happens to believes that, it certainly
isn't the case. Over here on Seaboard Road Seaboard Woods -- it's
called Maple Ridge on here, but it's now called Seaboard Woods. That
plan was approved at 20,000 square-foot lots with Open Space
Promotion like we have here and really no improvements at all in the
July 9, 2002
Neighborhoods: Fox Fire, Highgate Greens, Three Oaks, Court House
Estates, neighborhoods that have been approved since there was a
Green Line, 'i.e., in the Transition Area such as Indian River
Plantation, Heron's Ridge, Seaboard Woods and the Villages of West
Neck.
This piece of property is located just to the East of VoTech and the
North Landing Elementary School. The aerial photos that I passed
around you will see that the property adjoins the Villages of West
Neck Community that is under development today. That development has
two-units per acre of age restricted, plus a small commercial
component and obviously the Arnold Palmer Signature Golf Course.
Just to the west of Votech is the Courthouse Estates Community, which
is over three-units per acre and then below us and below West Neck is
Indian River Plantation at one-unit per acre density. The property,
as you can see, is in a part of the Transition Area where there is
already significant residential development. The proposal is for a
plan that is completely in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan
recommendations to the Transition Area and is in keeping with the
precedents that exist. Those four developments that I have already
referenced: Indian River Plantation, Villages cf West Neck, Seaboard
Woods and Heron's Ridge.
The property is not large enough to build a golf course on. We have
a very beautiful community which features about six acres of parkland
at the entrance -- far more park land in total. We have a
development that includes putting in turn lanes on North Landing
Road, houses that will be 350 to a half a million dollars in price.
We have houses that do not back up to the other houses. We have a
Central Park running throughout the property along with many improved
trails, picnic shelters and benches. There are miles of trails
throughout the property.
The open spaces adjoin all the other properties that adjoin us so
that when those properties develop, those open spaces will be able to
be connected, so the houses in those developments won't backup to the
houses in ours. So, you have that sense of openness, that unique
3
going.on 20 years.
July 9, 2002
If it's not 20, it's well over a decade.
The property' is located -- I will give you a little bit of the
background. What is shown on here in blue is the Green Line.
that part of the City, we are talking about densities at three
and-a-half units per acre.
Above
What we have here shown in red for stop is actually the blue line
basically at Indian River Road. In between Indian River Road and the
Green Line is the Transition Area. This map shows the existing
developments both in place and that have been in the pipeline, some
things in the pipeline for close to three years.
The subject property right here, Victoria Park, the Applicants,
Harbour Development Group, are here this evening, Mr. Kinser and
Mr. Saddler.
The Transition Area already has significant development located in
it. As I said previously, there are 4,300 homes already in the
Transition Area, five existing elementary schools, plus one in the
CIP and Red Mill Elementary which is right on the line just North.
There is Landstown High School in the Transition Area, the Catholic
School, again right on the line North of the Transition Area right at
the Green Line, two middle schools in the Transition Area, plus this
entire Municipal Center Complex. Where we are this evening is in the
Transition Area, one of the biggest employment centers, one of the
largest employment centers in the City including the Fire Station
Precincts and the Landscape Services Center under construction. Our
entire Judicial Complex is again in the Transition Area, Hope Haven,
Food Lion Center down at Sandbridge Road and Princess Anne Road.
We have got a lot of roads coming through here, Princess Anne Road
being widened to four-lanes coming all the way down to the Municipal
Center, Nimmo Parkway coming through, West Neck Parkway, West Neck
Road in the Master Transportation Plan and work being done on those
projects as we speak, including the HRSD force main coming through
there.
2
July 9, 2002
CITY CT.RRK: The next Application is Harbour Development
Corporation at North Landing and West Neck
Roads in the Princess Anne - District 7, Change of Zoning from AG-1
and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R-30, a Conditional Use Permit
for open space and a Variance Appeal for lots meeting the
requirements of the CZO and reducing the required street width.
VICE MAYOR MANDIGO:
CITY CLERK:
EDDIE BOURDON:
VICE MAYOR M~NDIGO:
EDDIE BOURDON:
ascendancy -- Election.
Earlier on the Consent Agenda --
Mr. Bourdon is representing the Applicant.
Give me a minute to get set up.
Okay.
Mister Vice Mayor, I apologize. I have been
remiss. I haven't congratulated you on your
Congratulations.
VICE MAYOR MANDIGO:
Thank you, Mr. Bourdon. I think you did
mention something last week.
EDDIE BOURDON: I'm getting senile in my old age.
This is the Application of Harbour
Development Corporation for three things: A Change of Zoning
District Classification from AG-1 to AG-2 to a Conditional R-30
Residential, a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion and a
Subdivision Variance in and requirements of Section 4.1(m) of the
Ordinance dealing with street widths.
The proposal is an executive community of upper-end home sites,
them located within just a few hundred yards of where we sit and
stand tonight at the Municipal Center Complex. It's down North
Landing Road.
65 of
The subject property -- I've got a map of the Transition Area,
because the property is located in the Transition Area, the
Transition Area that we've had in our Comprehensive Plan now for
Virginia Beach City Council
July 9, 2002
7:50 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL:
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor
Robert C. Mandigo, Vice Mayor
Margaret L. Eure
Louis R. Jones
Reba S. McClanan
Richard A. Maddox
Jim Reeve
Peter Schmidt
Ron A. Villanueva
Rosemary Wilson
James L. Wood
At-Large
District 2 - Kempsville
District 1 - Centerville
District 4 - Bayside
District 3 - Rose Hall
District 6 - Beach
District 7 - Princess Anne
At-Large
At-Large
At-Large
District 5 - Lynnhaven
CITY MANAGER:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY CLERK:
STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER:
James K. Spore
Leslie L. Lilley
Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC
Dawne Franklin Meads
VERBATIM
Planning Application of Harbour Development Corporation, L.L.C.
Map 1 13
~o~ to $ca~e
AG'I ".
Harbour Development Corp.
', ',,AG-2
'~ '"'~ AG'2
~ AG-2
AG'I
AG'2
/
/
; AG-I
;
AG'2
C,l~in 1493-58-7581
ZONING HISTORY
Conditional Use Permit (preschool/daycare) - Granted 7-3-01
Conditional Use Permit (church/daycare) - Granted 9-9-97
Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to PD-H1 District) - Granted 5-11-99
Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to PD-H1 District) - Granted 5-11-99
Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to P-1 Preservation District) - Granted 5-11-99
Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to P-1 Preservation District) - Granted 5-11-99
Conditional Use Permit (communications tower) - Granted 10-13-98
Conditional Use Permit (communications tower) - Granted 7-3-89
Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District) - Denied 8-27-86
Amendment to the Land Use Plan - Granted 9-22-93
Change of Zoning (AG-I& AG-2 Agricultural District to PD-H1 District) - Granted 8-27-86
Change of Zoning (PDH - PDH-1 District) - Granted 1-11-82
Conditional Use Permit (home occupation) - Granted 5-14-91
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
Harbour Development Corporation, L.L.C.,
Change of Zoning District Classification
Conditional Use Permit (Open Space Promotion)
Subdivision Variance
MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002
Background:
CHANGE OF ZONING: An Ordinance upon Application of Harbour Development
Corporation, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, for a Change of Zoning
District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-30
Residential District on certain property located on the south side of N. Landing Road,
west of West Neck Road (GPIN #1493-58-7581). The proposed zoning to
Conditional R-30 is for single-family land use on lots no less than 30,000 square feet.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for appropriate growth
opportunities, consistent with the economic vitality policies of Virginia Beach. Said
property contains 65.1 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE.
OPEN SPACE PROMOTION: An Ordinance upon Application of Harbour
Development Corporation, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, for a
Conditional Use Permit for an Open Space Promotion on certain property located on
the south side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road (GPIN #1493-58-7581).
Said property contains 65.1 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE.
SUBDIVISION VARIANCE: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard
to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Harbour
Development Corporation. Property is located on the south side of N. Landing Road,
west of West Neck Road (GPIN #1493-58-7581). Said property contains 65.1 acres.
DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE.
These requests were deferred by the City Council on July 9, 2002 to August 13, to provide
the City Council with time to discuss the Comprehensive Plan's recommsndations regarding
the Transition Area, On August 13, these requests were deferred to the October 8 City
Council meeting in anticipation of a Transition Area study being conducted.
Attachments:
Staff Review
Planning Commission Minutes
Disclosure Statement
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends indefinite deferral.,
Submitting Depa~tmentJAgency: Planning Department~
City Manager: ~ v~'-
Harbour Development
Page 2 of 3
Considerations:
The applicant is requesting a Change of Zoning district classification from AG-1 and AG-2 to
Conditional R-30, a Conditional Use Permit for an Open Space Promotion, and a
Subdivision Variance to reduce the required street width.
The applicant proposes to develop a 65.1 acre site into 65 residential lots resulting in an
overall density of 1 dwelling unit per acre. The request consists of a Conditional Use Permit
for R-30 Open Space Promotion that allows the square footage of the home sites to be a
minimum of 18,000 square feet, although the actual size of the proposed lots ranges
between 20,000 and 25,000 square feet. This allows a greater percentage of the parcel to
remain in "open space" for park space (passive recreation in this case) and scenic vistas
with the goal of creating openness within the development as one travels through it.
Approximately 25 acres of land (39 percent of the total area) will be dedicated to passive
recreational open space. The minimum open space requirement of the R-30 open space
promotion option is 15 percent.
At the request of City Council, staff developed a set of criteria for assessing a
development's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan's policies for the Transition Area.
The result was the establishment of a "Transition Area Matrix" that is now used to calculate
the potential density of a development proposal in the transition area. Application of the
matrix to the submitted plan resulted in a final "rating" that would allow a maximum of 64
dwelling units on the property. The applicant is requesting 65 units. A factor that must be
entered into the equation, however, is the fact that the matrix calls for variation in lot size for
the purpose of clustering and gaining open space. This component of the plan scored
relatively Iow. A significant issue to be considered in this Iow score, however, is the opinion
expressed by several City Council members in the review of other rezoning requests in the
Transition Area during the last year that lots should have a minimum size of 20,000 square
feet. This applicant, knowing that several Council members expressed that opinion,
redesigned the proposed layout a number of times to increase the lot sizes to the desired
20,000 square feet while still trying to achieve the other objectives as expressed by the
Transition Area Density Matrix. The result is a plan that scores high on almost all of the
matrix items with the exception of the one calling for variation in lot sizes. Further details
regarding the plan and its scoring are provided in the attached staff report.
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the plan creates
a high quality neighborhood that has been designed to preserve a large amount of open
space, staff recommended approval and there was no opposition to the request.
Recommendations:
On August 13, these requests were deferred to the October 8 City Council meeting in
anticipation of a Transition Area study being conducted. The time frame for the study at that
point was not known, and thus the requests were deferred for approximately 60 days. Since the
August 13 meeting, the Transition Area Technical Advisory Committee (TA TAC) has been
created and appointed and meetings of the committee have commenced. The committee was
directed to submit any recommendations regarding the Transition Area to the Planning
Commission by November 30, 2002. As the work of the TA TAC is not yet complete, these
requests should be indefinitely deferred.
The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve
this request as proffered and with the following conditions:
When development takes place upon that portion of the property which is to be
developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more than 65
building lots and shall be landscaped substantially in conformance with the Exhibit
Harbour Development
Page 3 of 3
entitled "REZONING EXHIBIT OF VICTORIA PLACE, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,'
VIRGINIA, SHEET 2 OF 2", dated May 7, 2002, prepared by Hassell & Folkes, P.C.,
which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the
Virginia Beach Department of Planning. This includes adherence to: the species of
plants listed on the plan, the design of the bio-retention benches in the stormwater
management ponds, and all other notes on the said plan.
The entry feature shall be constructed substantially in conformance with the Exhibit
entitled "Entry Feature for Victoria Park", dated May 28, 2002, which has been exhibited
to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of
Planning.
The design and building materials for the proposed picnic shelters shall be of similar
style and quality of the specifications of the shelter entitled "The Timberland" design,
identified in the EnWood Structures catalog, a detail of which has been exhibited to the
City Couoncil and is on file with the Planning Department. The final design shall be
submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, L.L.C./# 27, 28 & 29
I I
June 12, 2002
General Information:
REQUEST:
ADDRESS:
27)Chanqe of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2
Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-30 Residential District
28)Conditional Use Permit for an Open Space Promotion
29) Subdivision Variance to Section 4.1 (m) for street width
Property is located on the south side of N. Landing Road, west of
West Neck Road
~'~ ~ ~ Harbour De'oelopment Corp.
C,~. 1495-5a-758]
Planning Commission Agenda ~;~'~
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29
Page I
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
PURPOSE:
#1493-58-7581
7 - PRINCESS ANNE
65.1 acres
Carolyn A. K. Smith
To subdivide and construct 65 single-family dwellings on the 65
acre parcel while providing approximately 25 acres of open space
Major Issues:
Degree to which the proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan's and
City Council's plans and policies for the Transition Area.
· Compatibility with the surrounding, existing uses.
Impact on City's infrastructure - roads, utilities, schools.
Land Use, Zoning, and
Site Characteristics:
Existing Land Use and Zonin,q
The property is currently vacant, but has
been under cultivation in the past. The 65
acre parcel is currently zoned both AG-1
and AG-2 Agricultural Districts.
Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning
North:
South:
East:
· Single family dwellings / AG-2 Agricultural District
· Wooded, proposed single family / PD-H1 Planned
Unit Development District
· Wooded / AG-1 Agricultural District
Planning Commission Agenda
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29
Page 2
West:
Single family, proposed single family / AG-1 & AG-
2 Agricultural Districts, PD-H1 Planned Unit
Development District
Zoning and Land Use Statistics
With Existing
Zoning:
Under the existing agricultural zoning, the 65 acre
parcel could potentially be developed into four (4)
single family lots or could continue to support uses
allowed by right under the agricultural district.
With
Proposed
Zoning:
The proposal allows up to 65 units on the 65 acre
parcel. The R-30 Open Space Promotion option allows
for a reduction in the minimum lot size from 30,000
square feet to 18,000 square feet. The lot sizes range
from 20,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet.
Zoninq History
On a large parcel to the south and southwest, City Council granted a Change of Zoning
from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District
and P-1 Preservation District in 1999 for a small lot (5,000 square feet) age-restricted
community. Further to the west, in 1982, City Council also approved a request to
rezone agricultural property for single-family development. Modifications to this original
request were later granted and the development is known today as "Courthouse
Estates."
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The
proposed use is compatible with this AICUZ district.
Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics
This property is within the Southern Watersheds Management Area. Soils consist of
predominately Acredale with areas of Tomotley along the northem portion of the
property. The southeast comer of the site, approximately 7.5 acres, exists as woods.
There are several existing wooded hedgerows on the property as the site has been
segmented into numerous farm fields. The majority of the site had been under
cultivation in the past and, as such, this proposal will remove approximately 60 acres of
farmland from the City's inventory of agricultural property.
Planning Commission Agenda
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. ! # 27, 28 & 29
Page 3
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
Water:
There is a sixteen (16) inch water main in North Landing Road that
fronts the northern property line. This subdivision must connect to
City water. Plans and bonds for construction of the water system
will be required.
Sewer:
There is a sixteen (16) inch sanitary sewer force main and a four
(4) inch force main in North Landing Road that fronts the northern
property line. This subdivision must connect to City sewer. Plans
and bonds will be required for construction of the sewer system.
Transportation
Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP):
This project is not impacted by any proposal found within the Master Transportation
Plan. This development is included, however, in the CIP 6-039 service area and
presently, construction of two (2) pump stations and associated sewer lines in the
North Landing Road right-of-way are underway.
Traffic Calculations:
Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic
Volume Capacity
Existing Land Use z_ 40 ADT
North Landing Road7,836 ADT 1 9,900 ADT ~
Proposed. Land Use 3_ 650 ADT
Average Daily Trips
as defined by the existing AG-1 & AG-2 zoning with 4 houses allowed by right
as defined by R-30 zoning with 65 dwelling units
Planning Commission Agenda
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29
Page 4
P~'o~ect ~ a~d Title:: 6-039 Norih L.m~ding Roa~Weet Neck Road Sewer Impro.v~ments
Responsible Oept.: Public Lltllltlea I guslneas Area.: Ouall~f Pllllralcal ErMrOfllrlant
Total Total Budget Uno F~roprfatld sul~eq uent years Future
Prograrnme~ Apl:fol3'lation" Year 1 year 2' ' year 3 Year 4 Y~ar 5 Year I~ Punalng
Funas To Date I:Y2002-03 FY 2003.-(34 FY 3304-06 FY 3305-0SI FY 330607 I:Y2C07-08 Requirement
3.520,[300 3,330,0B0 'llO.nnl CO T~ D O
Thio project F:o:widea ,eweroa~inetothe residential properties along por~om of North Landing Rda a wear an y
~:3nstructinn of gravity sewers, a I~mpino &ration, and eel,-,-iated E:me main leafed in ~o 1:3rir~e,~ Anr~ r'J~b.ict. ~ CordTact.
A includes 1he ~eaign en:l oonetructi3n ,'g' ,l.~,-.-= inlately 4,E~O ~ of 12' and 16' gravity amr and 3.800 Met of 10 ~rT:~ rr~ m
fern 1he pump stadicn Ne b3 the intefse~a~ of We~ Neck I~:~d and Norih Lending Road. (b) Conb-ac~ B ircludes the dedgn
and a3n~ruclion ~ a new pump Matbnfedlk'y~n We~t Na~. Rood. (c) Coff~'act C indudl d~a dMign a~l ,,',ne'cucdo.n of
al:~r~imately 6.500 feet ¢r B". lO" and 12' gravity egw~'~. ~ ~ho eno'ahaB of ~rlhou~e EeIaIaa fo ~a=rg~ Macon ~,~vanue.
Thi~ project ia -,cx3~linaad with the'wear ulJlity project as.Om2 'Wa=t Nook I~ad Water Improvemante.
Thi~ project area he~ bean idantiSed by the bcad HeaRh Oopm'0'ne~t ee · C~ P. h~allh pmbMm. Coneb~ciion o~
I~eCt ii needed t~ l:a~3vida aew~m ~3 ralde~g failing ~e~c ay~ern~with Fo3' repair potential and p~vant health hazan~a.
.~¢rc~imMaly BI3 lot= will be affecte.d, by o~n~'ucti~n of ~wer in .l~ie anco. With3Jt 1hie project, pell.~i.'on mn ba e~T)acted
rise in 1he future due to an e,rpecta¢l increase in eaplic e~iwtam fai~uraa. 1~3rab'uclion of'll'M [~roj~-t wi, ebahe pollution of ti'ia
area. CaMcit~in 1ha pump atatJa~ and gravity aew~r ay~tem will bo included fo maxJmi,,a em-vim omo etd rririmia~ b'~ nun'~ar
~d l:umpir~ f acilitiea in the area. The fa-ca main el(ag 'West Neck Rd ia needed fo l~c~ide an out t1~w ~r aftra and
: davebpmant.
Thig project fire appeared in the FY 1gG2-~3 CIP at en aetimefod co~t of $1,300;Q30. CO," mlimal~ have been re~ed in
FY 200243 CIP ~ mtleat ,Wlaanded a~pe d'~:~k end ,,~uol bid
Basis for E~dmetl ~:Y :~002-03 FY 2OC~-~I k"Y 201~1-0~ FY 2IOS,.O~ r'l' 2001..07 FY 2007-a9
0 0 0 0 {3 0
i
I.
· *-,, Munlcl~.. '?,~'gol1~ Total Budgetan/Ct:mt Eetimoto "3,520.000
:i ' -':'..'. · '~ -.
Re~rIJe Bondl
; ...... '~' -*, ':. I Total Pr~rem'aed Finendng
F~cal Year 2002..03 4 - 182
O.uality ~hyeical ]Ef~vi'mnmortt
Planning Commission Agenda
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. ! # 27, 28 & 29
Page 5
Schools'
School Name Current Capacity Generation
Enrollment
North Landing 590 651 20
.. Elementary School
Princess Anne
Middle School 1,424 1,615 11
Kellam High School 2,200 1,995 13
"generation" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning Lnd
under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer
students).
Public Safety
Police:
Fire and
Rescue:
Adequate - It is essential that the common area be visible by
adjacent residences. A review of the covenants reveals that
the height of any fencing adjacent to common areas will be
limited in terms of height and building style (no stockade). This
will help will visibility and safety. It is recommended that the
street trees be spaced no closer than ten (10) feet from a light
pole to help eliminate shadows and blockage of light. Shrubs
should not be planted any closer than eight (8) feet to the
proposed walking path.
Adequate - no additional comments.
Comprehensive Plan
The Courthouse / Sandbridge Issues and Policies section of the Comprehensive Plan
indicates that the land uses and densities must not be a continuation of either the
northern urban or the southern rural areas but a transition. (A transition by definition is a
change, evolution, shift, alteration or modification.) The Comprehensive Plan states "this
area of the City serves as a land use buffer between the clearly urbanizing area of the
north and the clearly rural area of the south. Land uses and densities must not be a
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 'i~
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 .......... '
Page 6
continuation of either form, but a transition from one to the other" (page 72). The Plan
recommends that residential, development in this area adhere to the following
guidelines:
Create high quality neighborhoods through careful planning of land uses,
transportation systems, landscape treatments and public improvements
(page 72 Policy Document).
Staff Comment: The goal is to create a sense of openness by
maintaining a large, landscape entrance (approximately 6 acres) and a
swath of open space through the interior of the site. The applicant has
proposed a neighborhood that maintains scenic vistas as one travels
through the development and incorporates an extensive pedestrian trail
system throughout with thought to future connections as we//. Along with
the well-planned pedestrian system, park benches and large picnic
shelters are proposed within the open space area.
Design with nature, making a special effort to preserve and showcase
significant environmental resources. Carefully integrate such natural
features and use them as a basis, where possible, to enhance and define
neighborhoods, recreation areas, open spaces, and views of special
natural areas (page 72).
Staff Comment: The amount of significant environmental features on this
site was limited. A stand of trees exists in the southeast corner of the site.
It was essential that this single environmental feature be incorporated into
the overall design of the subdivision in terms of the number of homes in
the wooded area, minimizing the size of the lots, particularly in this area of
the site, and forethought on the actual location of the proposed homes
within the woods so as to minimize disturbance. The design establishes a
means for an expectation that adjacent parcels, should they ever develop,
respect the efforts to maintain a natural buffer of value. In addition to
preserving the majority of the trees within this stand, open areas are
proposed in strategic locations along the roadway to establish a sense of
openness as one travels through the development.
Construct local roads with minimal pavement width, wide shoulders and
side swales. Include a well-planned pedestrian circulation system to
connect neighborhoods, recreational areas and open spaces. Minimize
through consolidation of the number of street accesses to artedal
roadways (page 73).
Planning Commission Agen¢la
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29
Page 7
Staff Comment: The proposed 50 foot right-of-way that serves as the
single access to North Landing Road is a departure from the typical.urban
interior road design of $0 feet of pavement. The road width wi//be 24 feet
with four (4) feet of paved shoulder on either side of the road. Beyond the
pavement, adjacent to the street, street/ights and street trees are
proposed. A five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed beyond the
trees and fights that serve as a buffer between the pedestrian and
vehicular traffic. A swale is then proposed within a ten (10) foot utility and
drainage easement. As discussed above, a network of trails and
sidewalks is proposed within the development with future potential
connections with adjacent properties.
Growth in this area should be viewed as a special type of development
with its own standards suitable to the character of the area. The
development standards should be environmentally sensitive, including
narrow streets with less pavement, rural drainage techniques and
appropriate aesthetic treatments. The transition area is to be seen as a
recreational mecca with residential development only if it supports the
primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses.
Residential uses without an open space element are not encouraged
(page 73).
Staff Comment: This development proposal consists of 25.2 acres or 39
percent of the 65. 1 acres as dedicated passive open space, in addition,
the applicant has proffered $750. O0 per lot for a total of $48,750. O0 to be
used for the purchase of open space pursuant to the City's Outdoors Plan.
The cash proffer, combined with the amount of open space and the
"usability" of the proposed open areas, lends support to the conclusion
that this project appears to qualify as one that will advance public
accessibility to open space and recreational uses with the residential
component as minor.
Development that takes place in the transition area should be fiscally
neutral. Fiscally neutral means that development must both a) generate
more in tax revenue than the public services cost to support it, and b) be
of such a density that, when coupled with existing and potential
development in the area, it will not generate the need for substantial
infrastructure improvements. As an alternative to fiscal neutrality, cash
proffers to offset negative fiscal impacts can be considered. In the
absence of a finding of fiscal neutral, there should be an extraordinary
public benefit to be derived from the project (page 74).
Planning Commission Agenda
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29
Page 8
Staff Comment: While the cash proffers could aid in balancing projects
that do not appear to be fiscally neutral, the proposed cash proffers in this
instance are specifically designated for the purchase of open space. In
light of this, upon examination of the quality of the building materials and
the value and amenities within the open space and the character of the
surrounding development, these houses wi//have a value of
approximately $350,000 to $450,000 and up. In addition, access to water
and sewer is available along North Landing Road; however, plans and
bonds for construction of both the water and sewer systems wi//be
required. The development wi//not generate the need for the City to incur
any substantial expense due to infrastructure improvements. The
Department of Public Utilities is currently upgrading the existing system
along this portion of North Landing Road.
The entire project should be developed at a density that is the lowest of
the following: 1. establishes the residential as secondary, 2. assures that
the project is in keeping with the character of the transition area, and 3.
generates no more traffic than the equivalent of one (1) dwelling unit per
developable acre (page 74).
Staff Comment: At the request of City Council, staff developed a 'set of
criteria for assessing a development's consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan's policies for the Transition Area. The result was the
establishment of a '~ransition Area Matrix" that is now used to calculate
the potential density of a development proposal in the transition area.
Application of the matrix to the submitted p/an resulted in a final "rating"
that would allow a maximum of 64 dwelling units on the property. The
applicant is requesting 65 units. A factor that must be entered into the
equation, however, is the fact that the matrix calls for variation in lot size
for the purpose of clustering and gaining open space. This component of
the plan scored relatively/ow. A significant issue, however, is the recent
opinion expressed by several City Council members to other rezoning
applicants in the Transition Area to have a minimum lot size of 20, O00
square feet. This applicant, knowing that several Council members
expressed that opinion, redesigned the proposed layout a number of times
to increase the lot sizes to the desired 20, 000 square feet while still trying
to achieve the other objectives as expressed by the Transition Area
Density Matrix. The result is a p/an that scores high on a/most all of the
matrix items except the one calling for variation in lot sizes.
The scored matrix is included at the end of this report.
Planning Commission Agenda ~'~.~-'~
June 12, 2002~'
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. ! # 27, 28 & 29
Page 9
The need for widening roads should not be necessary to accommodate
the proposed development. Projects of high merit and Iow density should
be favored.
Staff Comment: The construction of 65 homes on this property will not
necessitate modification to the existing roadway. Traffic Engineering staff
from the Department of Public Works have reviewed the plan and have
concluded that North Landing Road is under its capacity.
Summary of Proposal
Proposal
· The applicant is proposing to develop a 65.1 acre site into 65 residential lots
resulting in an overall density of 1 dwelling unit per acre. The request consists of a
Conditional Use Permit for R-30 Open Space Promotion that allows the square
footage of the home sites to be a minimum of 18,000 square feet. However, the
proposed lots range in size from 20,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet. The
reduction from 30,000 square feet as required under straight R-30 zoning allows a
greater percentage of the 65 acre parcel to remain in "open space" for park space
(passive recreation in this case) and scenic vistas with the goal of creating openness
within the development as one moves through it.
· In addition to the use permit, a rezoning application is required to change the
underlying zoning from AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District to R-30 Residential District.
A subdivision variance is also sought as the proposed and preferred road design is
atypical of City standards for a residential street. The proposed road section depicts
the use of swales for drainage and a smaller width of asphalt (24 feet rather than the
required 30 feet). In addition, the sidewalk is not directly adjacent to the roadway
but rather buffered from vehicular traffic with street trees and street lighting.
Site Design
· The concept plan depicts a single entrance into the proposed development off of
North Landing Road. Masonry walls parallel to North Landing Road on each side of
the entrance road are proposed. There are approximately six (6) acres of passive
open space, free from development, as one enters the site. A large entry feature is
proposed within this open space area. The rendering of the entry feature depicts a
predominately reddish brick outdoor pavilion with a cupola on the dark color roof and
dentil molding surrounding the top. The design of the pavilion is consistent with the
Planning Commission Agenda
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 ..........
Page10
Princess Anne Commons Guidelines and complementary to the municipal center
and the historic, rural character of the area.
The central feature of this subdivision plan is a swath of open green space within the
interior of the development. A'majority of all of the dwelling units will face or directly
back up to some form of open space - either passive recreational open space or a
lake (stormwater management pond). The homeowners' association will maintain
this open space.
Twenty-five (25) acres of total open space is proposed with six (6) foot wide mulched
pedestrian trails, park benches, and picnic shelters throughout. Included in the
development is a well-planned pedestrian circulation system that internally connects
the proposed neighborhood as well as future neighborhoods.
· Three (3) large stormwater management ponds are proposed and have been
incorporated into the design of the subdivision as visual amenities.
· Two (2) future street connections are proposed to accommodate potential
development of adjacent properties.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Access
· Vehicular circulation within the development is acceptable. Both the proffer
agreement and the concept plan indicate that right and left turn lanes from North
Landing Road will be constructed. The proposed streets within the development
reflect the rural character of the transition area as they propose less pavement
width, wide shoulders and side swales. The two (2) travel lanes are twelve (12) feet
in width with four (4) feet of paved shoulder on both sides of the street.
Included in the development is a well-planned pedestrian circulation system that
connects the dwelling units to the open space and provides future pedestrian
connections to adjoining properties as well. Five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalks
within the rights-of-way are depicted on both sides of the streets with the exception
of two (2) cul-de-sacs.
Architectural Design
· The Conditional Zoning Agreement states that visible exterior surfaces of the homes,
excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, must be no less than fifty percent (50%)
brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. Any one-story dwelling shall contain
no less than 2,400 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and
any two-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2,600 square feet of enclosed living
Planning Commission Agenda
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29
Page 11
area excluding the garage area. The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling
to have, at a minimum, a two (2) car garage.
The application states that the anticipated value of the homes should exceed
$300,000 although the applicant has stated verbally that the finished homes will
ultimately sell for $350,000 to $450,000.
Deed Restrictions, administered by a Property Owners' Association, will limit the
height and material of fencing so that all open space areas are easily visible and
safe. The Deed Restrictions also require that all outbuildings be constructed of the
same material and color as the principle dwelling and shall not exceed 200 square
feet in size. They also require that all front yards be sodded.
Landscape and Open Space
· The Conditional Zoning Agreement indicates that 25.2 acres of land (39 percent of
the total area) will be dedicated to passive recreational open space. The minimum
open space requirement of the typical R-30 open space promotion option is 15
percent. These landscaped parklands will feature walking trails, park benches, picnic
areas, and lakes outside the residential lots and roadways. Two (2) covered picnic
shelters (12 feet by 20 feet) with a concrete base are proposed.
Each building lot will be developed with double the total canopy cover specified in
the City of Virginia Beach's "Residential Tree Requirement Table." For example, a
20,000 to 29,000 square foot lot requires at least 900 square feet of tree canopy.
This can be accomplished by using all small, medium or large trees or a combination
thereof. Small trees, such as a dogwood or crape myrtle, are given 100 square feet
of canopy cover. Medium trees, such as river birch and American holly, are given
150 square feet of canopy cover. Large trees, such as bald cypress and Ioblolly
pine, are given 200 square feet of canopy cover. Small trees must be at least five
(5) feet in height at the time of planting and medium to large trees must be a
minimum of 1 1/2 inch caliper at the time of planting.
The pre-development tree canopy is 18 percent. With the proposed proffered
landscaping the estimated post-development tree canopy at 10-year grow out will
also be 18 percent.
Proffers
Planning Commission Agenda
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29
Page 12
PROFFER # 1
When development takes place upon that portion of the
Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single.
family residential community of no more than 65 building
lots substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled
"REZONING EXHIBIT OF VICTORIA PLACE", dated May
7, 2002, prepared by Hassell & Folkes, P.C., which has
been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on
file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning
("Concept Plan"). Each building lot shall be developed
with double (i.e. two times) the 'q'otal Canopy Cover
Required" as specified in the City of Virginia Beach's
"Residential Tree Requirement Table" published by the
Virginia Beach Department of Planning as of the date
hereof.
Staff Evaluation:
This proffer is acceptable. This development proposes a
centralized open space with additional pockets and
ribbons of open space that serve buffers to adjacent uses
and visual relief for both the pedestrian and motorist. The
proposal is at a density of 1.0 unit per acre. Because the
applicant is utilizing the R-30 open space promotion
option, the lots are required to be a minimum of 18,000
square feet. The proposed lots range in size from 20, 000
to 25,000 square feet. The use of smaller lots than the
typical R-30 30,000 square feet provide additional land
available for open space.
PROFFER # 2
When the property is developed, a central park containing
approximately 25.2 acres of landscaped parklands and
lakes featuring passive park areas, community activity
areas featuring an extensive pedestrian pathway system,
park benches, covered shelters and picnic areas lying
outside the residential lots and roadways depicted on the
Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and maintained by the
Property Owners' Association.
Staff Evaluation:
This proffer is acceptable. The applicant has proposed a
neighborhood that maintains scenic vistas as one travels
through the development and incorporates an extensive
pedestrian trail system throughout with thought to future
connections as well. Along with the well planned
pedestrian system, park benches and large picnic shelters
Planning Commission Agenda
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29
Page 13
PROFFER # 3
Staff Evaluation:
are proposed within the open space area.
When the property is developed, the pedestrian pathway
system and open space improvements shall be
constructed substantially as depicted on the Concept Plan.
This proffer is acceptable. The plan incorporates an
extensive pedestrian trail system including a six (6) foot
wide mulched trail within the open space areas and a five
(5) foot wide sidewalk throughout the subdivision. Future
connections to adjacent properties are also depicted on
the submitted plan.
PROFFER Cf 4
Staff Evaluation:
PROFFER # 4
Staff Evaluation:
At the entrance to the community, the Party of the First
Part will construct both right and left turn lanes from North
Landing Road and a brick wall, 18 inches in height parallel
to North Landing Road on each side of the entrance road
as depicted on the Concept Plan.
The proposed rezoning will generate sufficient turning
volumes to warrant left and right turn lanes on North
Landing Road. Department of Public Works standards
specify the storage and bay taper must each be a
minimum of 100 feet for the left and right turn lanes. The
entrance location may need slight adjustment to provide
for the turn lanes. This refinement will be determined
during final site plan review should these requests be
approved..
When the Property is subdivided it shall be subject to a
recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a
Property Owners' Association which shall be responsible
for maintaining all Common areas, including the community
owned open space with pedestrian pathway system, the
entrance feature and community activity area.
This proffer is acceptable. Beyond defining maintenance
responsibilities, the Deed Restrictions will also limit the
height and materials of fencing adjacent to open space
areas, restrict the building materials of accessory
Planning Commission Agenda
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 .....
Page14
structures, limit the placement of flags and other
decorative items, etc.
PROFFER # 5
All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall
have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim,
windows, and doors, which is no less than fifty percent
(50%) brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. Any
one stow dwelling shall contain no less than 2,400 square
feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any
two stow dwelling shall contain no less than 2,600 square
feet of enclosed living area excluding the garage area.
The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have,
at a minimum, a two (2) car garage.
Staff Evaluation:
This proffer is acceptable. The size of the proposed
homes and the quality of the building materials will
contribute to the high quality appearance of this
subdivision. The required two (2) car garage for each
dwelling will help alleviate the necessity for on-street
parking on the proposed street.
PROFFER # 6
The Grantor recognizes that the subject site is located
within the Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive
Plan of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted on November
4, 1997. The Comprehensive Plan states that
development taking place in this area should support the
primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational
uses. In addition to committing thirty-three percent (33%)
of the property to open space preservation, via the
dedication of the 20.6 acres to the Property Owners
Association as permanent open space the Grantor agrees
to contribute the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty and 11 / 100
Dollars ($750.00) per lot to Grantee to be utilized by the
Grantee to acquire land for open space preservation
pursuant to Grantee's Outdoors Plan. If the funds
proffered by the Grantor in this paragraph are not used by
the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for
the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds
paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any
other public purpose. Grantor agrees to make payment for
each residential lot as shown on any subdivision plat prior
to recordation of that plat.
Planning Commission Agenda
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29
Page15
Staff Evaluation:
PROFFER # 7
Staff Evaluation:
This proffer is acceptable. The cash proffer of $750.00 per
lot equates to a total of $48,750.00 for afl 65 lots.
Further Conditions may be required by the Grantee during
detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and
administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant
City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City
code requirements. Any references hereinabove to R-30
Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations
applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this
Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference
incorporated herein.
This proffer is acceptable as it reaffirms that all provisions
of the City Code must be met and that the rezoning
proposal does not eliminate the applicant's responsibility to
adhere to adopted rules and regulations.
City Attorney's
Office:
The City Attomey's Office has reviewed the proffer
agreement and found it to be legally sufficient and in
acceptable legal form.
Evaluation of Request
These requests are recommended for approval. The applicant proposes to develop a
65.1 acre site into 65 residential lots resulting in an overall density of 1 dwelling unit per
acre. The request consists of a conditional use permit for R-30 opens space promotion
that allows the square footage of the home sites to be a minimum of 18,000 square feet,
although the actual size of the proposed lots ranges between 20,000 and 25,000 square
feet. This allows a greater percentage of the parcel to remain in "open space" for park
space (passive recreation in this case) and scenic vistas with the goal of creating
openness within the development as one travels through it. The Conditional Zoning
Agreement indicates that 25.2 acres of land (39 percent of the total area.) will be
Planning Commission Agenda
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29
Page 16
dedicated to passive recreational open space. The minimum open space requirement of
the R-30 open space promotion option is 15 percent.
During the design phase of this development during discussions with staff, the applicant
recognized that it was essential that the important environmental feature (the large
stand of trees) be incorporated into the overall design of the subdivision in terms of the
number of homes in the wooded area, particularly in minimizing the size of the lots in
this area of the site. As a result, the actual location of the proposed homes within the
woods has been predetermined so as to minimize disturbance. The retention of a
majority of the trees dictates an expectation that adjacent parcels, should they ever
develop, respect the efforts to maintain a natural buffer of value. In addition to
preserving the majority of the trees within this stand, open areas are proposed in
strategic locations along the roadway to establish a sense of openness.
This development attempts to create a high quality neighborhood that has been
designed to preserve a large amount of open space and showcase the environmental
resources on the site. Staff approached the review of this plan in the Transition Area
differently than one for a subdivision typically found in the northern part of the City. This
development is a special type of project with its own development standards suitable to
the atmosphere and character desired for this area.
Development in the Transition Area should be associated with significant open space
and recreational amenities. This development builds off of a centralized open space as
well as additional pockets and "ribbons" of open space at the property's perimeter.
These ribbons of open space aid in preventing an undesirable scenario, atypical of the
rural character of the area, of back-to-back rear yards. A substantial amount of the
parcel (39 percent) will remain as undeveloped open areas, but perhaps equally
important to the amount of land reserved for open space is the actual accessibility and
usability of the proposed open areas. A vast majority of the homes will back up to or be
adjacent to either open space or forested areas. This includes lots 56 through 65 that
will back up to a platted ingress/egress easement to the property to the west that varies
in width from approximately 35 feet to 140 feet wide. This easement will serve as a
buffer to the existing uses to the west. Also included in the open space component is a
well-planned pedestrian circulation system with extensive internal connections. Along
with the pedestrian system, park benches and large picnic shelters are proposed within
the open space area. Approximately six (6) acres will be heavily landscaped as the
entrance into the community from North Landing Road as well that will also aid in
maintaining the rural vistas from the road.
At the request of City Council, staff developed a set of criteria for assessing a
development's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan's policies for the Transition
Area. The result was the establishment of a "Transition Area Matrix" that is now used to
Planning Commission Agenda
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29
Page 17
calculate the potential density of a development proposal in the transition area.
Application of the matrix to the submitted plan resulted in a final "rating" that would allow
a maximum of 64 dwelling units on the property. The applicant is requesting 65 units. A
factor that must be entered into the equation, however, is the fact that the matrix calls
for variation in lot size for the purpose of clustering and gaining open space. This
component of the plan scored relatively Iow. A significant issue, however, is the recent
opinion several City Council members expressed to other rezoning applicants in the
Transition Area to have a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. This applicant,
knowing that several Council members expressed that opinion, redesigned the
proposed layout a number of times to increase the lot sizes to the desired 20,000
square feet while still trying to achieve the other objectives as expressed by the
Transition Area Density Matrix. The result is a plan that scores high on almost all of the
matrix items with the exception of the one calling for variation in lot sizes.
The design of the subdivision and the amount of cash proffers set aside for acquisition
of open space demonstrate the promotion of open space within this proposal. Staff
concludes that the applicant's proposal meets the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area and recommends approval of these
requests subject to the conditions below as part of the Open Space Promotion.
Conditions
When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be
developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more than 65
building lots and shall be landscaped substantially in conformance with the
Exhibit entitled "REZONING EXHIBIT OF VICTORIA PLACE, CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA, SHEET 2 OF 2", dated May 7', 2002, prepared by Hassell &
Folkes, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is
on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. This includes adherence
to: the species of plants listed on the plan, the design of the bio-retention
benches in the stormwater management ponds, and all other notes on the said
plan.
The entry feature shall be constructed substantially in conformance with the
Exhibit entitled "Entry Feature for Victoria Park," dated May 28, 2002, which has
been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia
Beach Department of Planning.
The design and building materials for the proposed picnic shelters shall be of
similar style and quality of the specifications of the shelter entitled "The
Timberland" design, identified in the EnWood Structures catalog, a detail of
which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file with the Planning
Planning Commission Agenda ~~-~
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29
Page18
Department. The final design shall be submitted to the Planning Director for
review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
NOTE:
Further conditions may be required during the
administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans
submitted with this rezoning application may require
revision during detailed site plan review to meet all
applicable City Codes.
Planning Commission Agenda
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. I # 27. 28 & 29
Page 19
Planning Commission Agenda ~~.~
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29
Page 20
Planning CommissionJune 12, Agenda 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. ! # 27, 28 & 29
Page 21
Planning Commission Agenda ~..~~
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29
Page 22
Planning Commission Agenda
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29
Page 23
Proposed Shelter
Planning Commission Agenda of, ~
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 ............
Page 24
Planning Commission Agenda
June 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. ! # 27, 28 & 29
Page 25
TRANSITION AREA DEVELOPMENT DENSITY CALCULATION
For Harbour Development, N. Landing.Road, June, 2002
The purpose of the following is to provide a means for evaluating a development
that has been proposed against criteria based on the stated policies of the
Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area.
Criteria
" Total comments
Natural Resources
Degrees to which the
project preserves and
integrates into the overall 2.0
project the natural
resource amenities on the
site.
Amenity
Nature and degree of the 4,0
,amenity
Design
Degree to which the 4.6
project incorporates good
design into the p..roject
(A) TOTAL:
(c)
(D)
TOTAL / 11 possible points
TOTAL / 11 * 0.5 =
Line (C) + 0.5 du/acre =
(E) Line D * total
10.6
0.96
0.48
.98 du/acre
developable acres (65.1 acres) =
I64 units
Line A --
Line B--
Line C --
Line D --
Line E --
total number of points from the worksheets on the following pages.
total divided by the total number of possible points, which is 11
total from Line B multiplied by 0.5, which is the amount between the
baseline density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre and the possible 1
dwelling unit per acre (alu/ac).
total from Line C added to 0.5 du/ac (the baseline density) tc obtain
the maximum density for the site.
total from Line D multiplied by the number of developable acres on
the site, thus providing the maximum number of units for the site.
Transition Area Development
Density Calculation
Page 1 of 7
The following worksheets judge the development proposal according to the
proposal's consistency with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the
Transition Area, particularly in regard to natural resources, amenity, and design.
As appropriate, sketches, pictures and narrative are provided to clarify the
concepts as a means of helping to make the determination of consiency with the
criteria.
(1) Natural Resources: existing forests, wetlands,
meadows, cultivated fields, and related features Total
a) Are natural resources protected?
Comments:
· The site consists of abandoned farmfields, : YES (0 to 1
broken up by wooded windbreaks. The 1.0
northeastern corner of the site possesses the point)
only substantial stand of trees.
· There are no other significant natural
resources. ,
· The stand of trees in the northeast comer is
retained to the extent that the only clearing is
the 'envelope' for the houses and the area
for the street.
· The windbreak at the front of the site, which NO (0 points)
provides a nice screen that helps in
preserving the rural vista, is not preserved. I
b) Are natural resources integrated into project?
Comments: YES (0 to 1
· The woodedarea in the rearcomeris 1.0
retained except for building envelopes and point)
streets.
· Tree windbreaks are removed. '
NO (0 points)
TOTAL (NATURAL RESOURCES) i 2.0
I
Transition Area Development
Density Calculation
Page 2 of 7
(2) Amenity: a feature that increases the attractiveness or
value of the site consistent with the goals and objectives Total
of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area.
a) Is the amenity, if present, visually or
operationally available to those who do not
own property in the development?
' Comments: I YES (0 to 1
· Yes, the amenity, in the form of the open ' point) 1.0
space and trails that run through it, is both I
visually and operationally available to those
who do not own property in the development.
~ NO (0 points)
b) Does the amenity consist of active
recreational components?
! Comments: YES (0 to 1
· Yes, but only to the extent that walking and 1.0
I running on trails and within the open space is point)
! considered 'active.'
~ · A factor to be considered, however, is that on
a parcel less than 1 O0 acres, it is difficult to
provide a significant active recreational
, component while still achieving the other
objectives expressed in this Matrix.
NO (0 points)
Transition Area Development
Density Calculation
Page 3 of 7
c) Are physical improvements made that
improve access to the natural resources on
the site OR does the amenity consist of
physical improvements to the property? YES (0 to 1
1.0
, point)
Comments:
· Trails
· Picnic shelters
I
i NO (0 points)
d) Is there connectivity linking any open space
and/or amenities between this development
and adjacent existing or future developments?
YES (0 to I
1.0
Comments: I point)
· Yes
I NO (0 points)
TOTAL (AMENITY) 4.0
Transition A;ea Deve;opment
Density Calculation
Page 4 of 7
(3)
Design: creation or execution in an artistic or highly-
skilled manner consistent with the goals and objectives of
the Compressive Plan for the Transition Area.
Are natural or manmade water features
incorporated into the development in a way
that they serve as amenities?
a)
Comments:
· Yes
b) Is there an attempt to integrate units with
amenities within the development?
Comments:
· Yes, the open space and trails run around
clustered areas of residential tots.
YES (0 to1
point)
NO (0 points)
YES (0 to 1
point)
NO (0 points)
Total
1.0
1.0
Transition Area Development
Density Calculation
Page 5 of 7
c) Does the development retain or create views
or scenic vistas that can be seen from the
road? YES (0 to 1
point)
Comments: ,
· The existing vista at the front of the
development created by the treed windbreak
is removed and replaced by a formalized
landscaped open space area.
· An entry feature anchors the entrance, with
the homes to be built in the development
seen in the background.
· The 'rural' vista is replaced by a formal, more
suburban/exurban vista. NO (0 points)
d) Are a mixture of lot sizes and the clustering of
homes used to achieve a primarily open
space development?
YES (0 to 1
Comments: point) 0.6
· Mixture of lot sizes is not used.
· Homes are clustered into four areas,
providing open space and trail opportunities.
NO (0 points)
Transition Area Development
Density Calculation
Page 6 of 7
e) Does the develop~nent use distinct roadway
and "hard infrastructure" that fits the image of
the existing rural community?
Comments: 1 YES (0 to 1
: point) 1.0
yes ,
I
NO (0 points)
TOTAL (DESIGN) 4,6
Transition Area Development
Density Calculation
Page 7 of 7
Item #27, 28 & 29
Harbour Development Corp.
Change of Zoning District Classification from AG- 1 and AG-2
Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-30 Residential District;
Conditional Use Permit for an Open Space Promotion;
Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain
Elements of the Subdivision Ordinance
South side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road
District 7
Princess Anne
June 12, 2002
CONSENT AGENDA
Dorothy Wood: We'll go to Items 27, 28 & 29. Number 27 is a Change of Zoning
District Classification from AG-I and AG-2 to Conditional R-30 Residential; number 28,
is a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion; and number 29, is an Appeal to
Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision
Ordinance. This is for Harbour Development Corporation. The property is located on the
north -- excuse me, on the south side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road in the
Princess Anne District and there are three conditions. Mr. Bourdon?
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mrs. Wood. Again, for the record, my name is Eddie
Bourdon representing the applicants Mr. Kensler, Mr. Sadler, who are here today. All the
conditions -- the three conditions are'all acceptable. On behalf of my clients, we want to
briefly thank Carolyn Smith, Stephen White and the Planning staff for all their work on
this application. My clients have worked very closely with them and I think, as you said
at the informal session this morning, this a first rate plan. It's an excellent plan not like
anything else that's been done in the City. And we appreciate you recognizing that by
putting it on the Consent agenda.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon.
John Baum: I wanted to ask a question. There's another parcel in between that and the
Vo Tech School. Is that right? Do you know who owns that?
Eddie Bourdon: There's a - John, I have an aerial of that if that would be of any use to
you.
John Baum: Yes.
Robert Miller: John, there it is.
John Baum: Well.
Eddie Bourdon: Oh, there we go. We got it here to. One that's been timbered?
John Baum: Yes.
Item 4/27, 28 & 29
Harbour Development Corp.
Page 2
Eddie Bourdon: I just asked mY clients. I do not know who owns that parcel that's been
timbered that's between us and at Vo Tech.
John Baum: You know, you drive by frequently you see something happen and one
reason why I wanted to bring that up, our crazy government -- Wetlands definition --
Wetlands by their definition. There's nothing wrong with developing it in my opinion,
but it's been so erratic that I just wish people would notice some of these go up, some go
down. Who knows who approves? The reporters have no interest in Freedom of
Information Act. I love to read the language when they approve these and when they
disapprove, so that's not your client's fault.
Eddie Bourdon: I do know Mr. Baum and from my personal experience, you have forest
a piece of property in this area and you timber it without taking the proper precautions
and having delineation to go first, it all becomes Wetlands once you timber it.
John Baum: Right. Well, if it delineated before the tree's cut it's not Wetlands.
Eddie Bourdon: That's correct.
John Baum: In last October, they become no longer Wetlands and you could do anything
you want to and soon as you work it, it looks greasy and wet and everything else, but,
that's government reasoning.
Eddie Bourdon: You're absolutely correct.
Ronald Ripley: Mr. Scott. So much time and effort has been spend developing
additional guidelines, additional approaches to properties in the Transition Area that are
up for development. This property seems to - it seems to meet the criteria and I think,
from my opinion, that the developer and the staff have done an excellent job in putting
this together. Would you like to comment on this because this is a little more sensitive
area then we typically deal with here.
Robert Scott: I would. I appreciate the opportunity. I can't think of an area that's been
more difficult for us to deal with than in the policy areas related to the developing of the
Transition Area over the last nine months or so. In fact, some people would say longer
than that. But recently, we've developed with the Planning Commission's help, a matrix
for evaluating these applications and we've consistently applied them to applications that
have come in over the last several months now. In this case, first of all, let me say that
the matrix takes into account a number of different factors. It takes inte account ,'.he
design of the subdivision. It takes into account the appearance from the street. Takes
into account protection of natural resources. It takes into account the design and the
layout and the relationship of open space to the development. In all of those cases, two
things can be said. First of all, I do affirmatively believe that Council is comfortable with
the direction we are heading from a policy point of view on every one of those issues.
They expressed that through their words and through their actions. And also, I can say,
that the application here rate very high no every one of those points. It does not rate
Item #27, 28 & 29
Harbour Development Corp.
Page 3
particularly high on the issue of lot sizes and the way lot sizes are employed throughout
the subdivision but I can in good faith say I have the same degree of comfort about
Council's view on that point. Council has not express to us as they have with those other
points a level of comfort with our approach to lot sizes. And I think the fact is something
that we need to work on further and we are working on further. And we hope that we can
bring to a truthful conclusion with all the parties involved. The difficulty that our staff in
this is asking the developer to amend his plans to accommodate a policy we're not sure
Council is comfortable with. I would really have a difficulty with that. So, I think it just
needs to be noted that where as the matrix one when applied as drafted - I think 62 lots
on its property. We are recommending the 66 because the short comings is in an area of
doubt that we have about how solid everybody is on the policies related to lot size in that
area. We felt that it was probably inappropriate to hold an applicant responsible for
building or complying with the condition that evidentially lacks a level of confidence.
And I just think that needs to be noted so that everybody knows where were coming
from. I do have a great deal of faith generally in the approach of applying this matrix. I
think it does some good. I think it provides clarity. I think it provides some points that
people can see and understand and relate to easily. And I think it's something that we
would like to continue to do. By enlarge, this application has matched up very well
against it and my write up reflects that. But I did want to make sure that the Planning
Commission knows about that one point and why we differed on that one point regarding
the matrix and what our reason behind that was. If you feel that our reasoning is not
sound and that we should have gone in a different direction, well you have the facts here
at your disposal to do that. But I felt it was encumbered upon us to explain why we did
what we did with the matrix and as it relates to this application. I appreciate the chance
to explain that.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Dot?
Eddie Bourdon: I just want to add one thing I forgot to add. My clients also met with the
group out there on N. Landing Road, one of the primary members being another former
Chairman Dick Cockrell. We've met with all the folks who live out in that area. I
wanted to let the Commission know that as well.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon: Again, number 27, 28 & 29 is Harbour
Development Corporation. A Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and
AG-2 to R-30, number 28, it's a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion;
number 29, it' s an Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain
elements of the Subdivision Ordinance. This property is located on the south side of N.
Landing Road, west of West Neck Road. Are there any objections to items 27, 28 & 29?
If not, I would move to approve number 27, 28 & 29 with three conditions.
Ronald Ripley: So we have a motion. Do we have a second?
Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it.
Ronald Ripley: Motion by Dot Wood, seconded by Eugene Crabtree. We're ready to
vote.
Item #27, 28 & 29
Harbour Development Corp.
Page 4
AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0
ATKINSON AYE
BAUM AYE
CRABTREE AYE
DIN AYE
HORSLEY
MILLER AYE
RIPLEY AYE
SALLE' AYE
STRANGE AYE
YAKOS AYE
WOOD AYE
Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes.
ABSENT 1
ABSENT
.... .. APPLICATION. PAGE 4 OF 4
· . .: .: ...... C gI IONAL.... .ZONING
':.':::':..:;.:?:::..:.:...: .::'....: :.:: :'i::'.'.' '-: '.':::i':.."::::'::.': : ::':. "':: . :..'.. '::..'.::::.
Applicant's Name:
L List All Current
Property Owners:
Harbour
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Development C.orporation, L.L.C.
Butch Family Ltd. Partnership
L
Arline M. Rosenmier~ Successor Trustee
Michael J. Stafford, Sr., Trustee
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
-ff the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary)
m
.f the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list
._~1 members or partners in the organiz~ion below: (At.ch list ~necessary)
Timothy A. Butch, Sr., General Partner
Pearl S. Butch, Partner
James H. Butch, Partner
Nancy Mikutowicz, Partner
Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated
organization.
the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below:
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary)
I the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all
members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary)
_~obert R. Kinser
_d Sadler
_~.reston Fussell
Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization.
C-ERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate.
Bt ch Fam±lv Ltd. Partnership Harbouf~Dlfvelopment Corporation, L.L.C.,
~ ~ ~///~/ ~C! L ~a Virj~~ed liablity company
' S'gn t
Timothy A.~;h, Sr., General ~
Partner
Robert R. Kinser, Managing Member
Print Nam~
Rev. 9/15/98
F'O~M /40. F).'c:. lq
City of Virginia Beach. ":'
In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5542
DATE: June 26, 2002
TO:
PROM:
Leslie L. Lilley
B. Kay Wilson~k'*~
DEPT: City Attorney
DEPT: City Attorney
Conditional Zoning Application
Harbour Development Corporation, L.L.C., et als
The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the
City Council on July 9, 2002. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated May
21,2002, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy
of the agreement is attached.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter
further.
BKW
Enclosure
tEPARED BY:
i_. K[$, I~O[~RDON.
: AII~N ti t.[VY.
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C., a
company,
BURCH FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP,
ARLINE M. ROSENMEIER, Successor Trustee of the Joseph
Revocable Trust
MICHAEL J. STAFFORD, SR., Trustee of the ROBERT E.
REVOCABLE TRUST
Virginia limited liability,.
TO {PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS)
H. Howlett, Jr.,
STAFFORD, SR.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth
Virginia
of
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 21st day of May, 2002, by and between
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability
company, Grantor, party of the first part; BURCH FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP,
ARLINE M. ROSENMEIER, Successor Trustee, and MICHAEL J. STAFFORD, SR.,
Trustee, Grantor, parties of the second part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a
municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the third
part.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the parties of the second part are the owners of that certain parcel
of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach,
containing a total of approximately 65.1 acres and described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel is hereinafter referred
to as the "Propertf'; and
WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of the Property
and 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 Property from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to
Conditional R-30 Residential District with a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space
Promotion; and
GPIN: 1493-58-7581
RETURN TO:
SYKES, BOURDON, AHERN & LEVY, P.C.
PEMBROKE ONE BUILDING, THE FIFTH FLOOR
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462
PREPARED BY:
WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly developmen,t,.
of la_nd for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation;
and
WHEREAS, the. Grantor acknowledges that the competing a_nd sometimes
incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on e_nd in the
area of the Property end at the same time to recognize the effects of change, e_nd 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 la~d
similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning
application gives rise; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of
and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed
amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for t. he R-30
Zoning District by t. he existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable
conditions related to the physical development, operation, end use of the Property to
be adopted as a part of said ~mendment 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 Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal
representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest,
voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its
governing body and without e_ny 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 govem
the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant
and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property,
which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming
under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns,
grantee, and other successors in interest or title 'and which will not be required of the
Grantor until the Property is developed:
1. When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which
is tO be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more
'~':IEPARED BY:
i'lES. I:IOUI,~I)¢}~'.
~\II[I,~N & LEW. p.l:.
than sixty-five (65) building lots substantially in confo~-,e, nce with the Exhibi~.[
entitled ~REZONING EXHIBIT OF VICTORIA PARK", dated May 7, 2002, prepared by
Hasseil & Folkes, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia ]~each City Council
a_nd is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (~Concept Plan"). Each
building lot shall be developed with double (i.e. two times) the '~I'otal Canopy Cover
Required" as specified in the City of Virginia Beach's ~Residential Tree Requirement
Table" published by the Virginia Beach Department of Planning as of the date hereof.
2. When the property is developed, a central park containing
appro:~mately 25.2 acres of landscaped parklands and lakes featuring passive park
areas, community activity areas featuring an extensive pedestria~ pathway system,
park benches, covered shelters and picnic areas lying outside the residential lots and
roadways depicted on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and malnt~r~ed by the
Property Owners Association.
3. When the property is developed, the pedestrian pathway system and
open space improvements shall be constructed substantially as depicted on the
Concept Plan.
4. At the entrance to the community the Party of the First Part will
construct both right arid left turn lanes from North Landing Road and a brick wall,
18 inches in height parallel to North Landin§ Road on each side of the entrance road
as depicted on the Concept Plan.
5. When the Property is subdivided it shall be subject to a recorded
Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (~Deed
Restrictions") administered by a Property Owners Association which shall be
responsible for maintaining all common areas, including the community owned open
space with pedestrian pathway system, the entrance feature and community activity
area.
6. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible
exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, which is no less than
fEW percent (50%) brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. Arty one story
dwelling shall contain no less than 2400 square feet of enclosed living area excluding
§aral~e area and any two-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2600 square feet
PREPARED BY:
ISY[L~, [}OURDON.
AII[I~N & LEVY. RC.
of enclosed living area excluding garage area. The Deed Restrictions shall require,.
each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two (2) car garage. ·
7. The Grantor recognizes that the subject site is located within the
Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach,
adopted on November 4, 1997. The Comprehensive Plan states that development
taking place in this area should support the primary purpose of advancing open
space and recreational uses. In addition to committing thirty-nine percent (39%) of
the Property to open space preservation, via the dedication of 25.2 acres to the
Property Owners Association as pe~,,,anent open space the Grantor agrees to
contribute the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty and 00/100 Dollars ($750.00) per lot to
Grantee to be uHli~.ed by the Grantee to acquire land for open space preservation
pursuant to Grantee's Outdoors Plan. If the funds proffered by the Grantor in this
paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty {20} years for
the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be
used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. Grantor agrees to make payment
for each residential lot shown on any subdivision plat prior to recordation of that
plat.
8. Further conditions may be required by thc Grantee during detailed Site
Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all
cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code
requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-30 Zoning District and to the
requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date
of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference
incorporated herein.
The above conditions, having been proffered by thc Grantor and allowed and
accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall
continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning
of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall
continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the
subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or
substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions,
4
1EPAREO BY:
i'o ;MIS. ItOURDON.
AIlI:RN & [LsVY. P.C
however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in
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 15.9.-2204 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said
instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said
instrument shall be void.
The Grantor covenants and agrees that:
(1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall
be vested with al/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 pei-aiits as may be
appropriate;
(3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made
pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the
review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and
{4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the
existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances
and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public
inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning DeparLuient,
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 Grantor and the Grantee.
5
PREPARED BY:
ISY[[S. I~O[~DON.
~ql~ & LL:'VY. P.C
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
., to-wit:
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
L.L.C.~ginia limited liability company
By: Managing Mem(~eErAL)
June
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 10th day of 1~
2002, by Robert R. Kinser, Managing Member of Harbour Development Corporation,
L.L.C., a limited liability company, Grantor.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: August 31, 2002
5
REP~RED BY:
I~ f[l:~;. I~OUiIDON.
AIIEI~N & LEVY.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
BURCH FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP
STATE OF VIRGINIA ~ '
~PPY/COUNTY OF /~-~/~.d.r~, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
2002, by Timothy A.
Partnership, Grantor.
~.'~O'l~day of May,
Burch, Sr., General Partner, of the Butch Family Ltd.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: '~-~C0mrd~i~n E,:p[r~ r,s, czch 3~o 2055
PREPARED BY:
iSYK[$. I~OURDON.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
the Joseph H. Howlett, Jr. Revocable Trust
STATE OF ~
CITY/COUNTY OF ~2k~L,~ E-. ., to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ - day
2002, by Arline M. Rosenmeier, Successor Trustee of the Joseph H. Howlett, Jr.
Revocable Trust, Grantor.
My Commission Expires:
'"~IEPARED BY:
'[[$. t~OURDON.
Allk'P.N & LEVY. P.C
WITNESS the following signature and seal: .,.
GRANTOR: ....
(SEAeLrt)
l~lichael J. ~_affo~-d,-~., Trustee of the Rob
E. Stafford, Sr., Re-go,able Trust
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged/~efore
2002, by Michael d. Stafford, Sr.,F~xrustee/a~ the I~obert
Trust, Grantor. r~
My Commission Expires: O~- ~L~-0'[
me this q.*d ~k day of May,
E. Stafford, Sr. Revocable
9
ExHr~IT "A'
PREPARED BY:
All of that certain piece or parcel of land situate near Princess Anne Courthouse in
the Seaboard Magisterial District in the County of Princess Anne, Virginia, and mqre
particularly described by metes and bounds as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the southern side of State Highway Route 165 known as
North Landing Road, as evidenced by the dedication of a fifteen (15} foot strip of land
to Princess Anne County, where same intersects the eastern line of the lane to the
Boomer residence, as shown on the plat entitled "Survey of M. W. Flora Property,
Seaboard Magisterial District, Princess Anne County, Virginia", dated December 5,
1961, made by Wilfred P. Large, Certified Land Surveyor, said plat to be recorded
simultaneously with this deed; and running thence easterly along the southern side
of North Landing Road, N. 70° 15' E. a distance of 419.47 feet to a point and running
thence S. 23° 19' E. a distance of 279.01 feet to a point; and running thence N. 66°
41' E. a distance of 189.39 feet to a point; and running thence S. 32° 01' E. a
distance of 365.79 feet to a point; and running thence S. 32° 32' E. a distance of
733.05 feet to a point; and running thence S. 32° 37' E. a distance of 997.11 feet to
a point; and running thence S. 32° 27' 45" E. a distance of 402.31 feet to a point;
and running thence S. 49° 56' 35' W. a distance of 1144.41 feet to a point; and
running thence N. 32° 24' 51' W. a distance of 1483.87 feet to a point; and running
thence N. 26° 40' 06 W. a distance of 102.86 feet to a point; and running thence N.
13° 48' 31" W. a distance of 107.93 feet to a point; and running thence N. 8° 37"24" .
W. a distance of 553.62 feet to a point; and running thence N. 11° 59' 58' W. a
distance of 909.02 feet, to the point of beginning.
GPIN: 1493-58-7581
CONDR. E~ / F,~'~BOUR/PROFFER?
REV.5/2 ~/02
10
Map D-08
Map ,%:t so Sc~e
Christian
C, pin 1466-58-2655
ZONING HISTORY
1. Conditional Use Permit (church expansion) - Granted 12-11-01
Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 2-13-01
2. Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 5-25-93
3. Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) -Granted 5-12-92
4. Change of Zoning (B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-18
Apartment District) - Granted 5-27-97
Change of Zoning (R-10 Residential District to Conditional A-18 Apartment
District) - Granted 5-27-97
5. Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 7-3-89
6. Change of Zoning (Ro5 Residential District to B-lA Business District) -
Granted 5-23-88
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
Trinity Christian Church - Conditional Use Permit
MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002
Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Trinity Christian Fellowship for a Conditional Use Permit
for a church on the south side of Challedon Drive, 642.54 feet east of S. Parliament Drive
(GPIN 1466582655). Said parcel is located at 5245 Challedon Drive and contains 16,247.88
square feet. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE.
Considerations:
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a 40 member church with related
activities within an existing building.
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because this request is
compatible with the existing surrounding land uses, staff recommended approval and there
was no opposition to the request.
Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve
this request, subject to the following conditions:
1. The parking lot shall be re-striped so as to clearly delineate all parking spaces,
including the required handicap space.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Official prior to
occupancy.
Attachments:
Staff Review
Planning Commission Minutes
Disclosure Statement
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission
recommends approval. ~
S.u. bmitting D.~rtment/Agency: Planning Department ~
TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP / # 10
September 11, 2002
General Information:
REQUEST:
ADDRESS:
Conditional Use Permit for a church.
South side of Challedon Drive, 642.54 feet east of S. Parliament
Drive. Said parcel is located at 5245 Challedon Drive.
~ ~ Christian
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
PURPOSE:
Gi~n 1466-5~-2655
14665826550000
2 - KEMPSVILLE
16,247.88 square feet
Carolyn A. K. Smith
To use this property for a 40 member church and related activities.
Major Issues:
Degree to which the proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses.
Planning Commission Agenda
September 11, 2002
TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP / # 10
Page 1
Land Use, Zoning, and
Site Characteristics:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
There is a vacant 4,950 square foot,
one-story office building with 14
parking spaces on this property
currently zoned B-2 Community
Business District.
Surrounding Land Use and
Zoninq
North:
South:
East:
West:
· Challedon Drive, office, mixed retail/B-2
Community Business District
· Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River
· Office, retail/B-2 Community Business District
· Office, warehouse / B-2 Community Business
District
Zonin,q History
There have been several requests for Conditional Use Permits for churches in the
vicinity of this property. The most recent request for a church was approved by City
Council in December 2001 within a shopping center to the north. Several rezoning
requests have been approved near this site as well.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana.
Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics
This site is located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and more specifically within the
Resource Protection Area, the most stringently regulated portion of the Chesapeake
Bay Preservation Area. The rear of the building is located at the top of the bank that
ultimately slopes down to the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River. Additional review
by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board is not required, as the applicant does
not have plans to expand the existing structure.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
Water:
Sewer:
There is an eight (8) inch water main in Challedon Drive. This site
has an existing meter that may be used.
There is an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer main in Challedon Drive.
Planning Commission Agenda =~'~.-~~=.. ~
September 11, 2002
TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP / # 10
Page 2
This site is cOnnected to City sewer.
Transportation
Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP):
Challedon Drive is a two (2) lane undivided collector. It is not designated on the
Master Transportation Plan nor are any upgrades to this facility planned at this time.
Traffic Calculations:
Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic
Volume Capac. ity
Existing Land Use z_ 46 ADT
Challedon Drive No counts 7,400 ADT ~
available Proposed Land Use 3_ 46 ADT weekday
183 ADT Sunday
Average Daily Trips
as defined by 5,000 square foot office/warehouse
3as defined by 5,000 square foot church
Public Safety
Police:
Fire and
Rescue:
Adequate - no further comments.
Adequate - no further comments.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as planned for retail, service, and office
uses. Page 52 states that when desired by the community, support proposals for new
or readapted development that carefully integrate residential, commercial, employment
and other acceptable uses for the purpose of achieving a complementary, well-
organized, efficient and attractive arrangement of land uses are acceptable.
Summary of Proposal
Proposal
The applicant is requesting to operate a church with a small office, a nursery,
and rooms for other related activities within an existing 4,950 square foot
building. A Conditional Use Permit is required for this use.
Site Desi,qn
The site plan depicts an existing one-story, 4,950 square foot building on a
0.373 acre site.
Planning Commission Agenda
September 11, 2002
TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP / # 10
Page3
There is a roll-up (garage style) door with ramp access on the west end of the
.building.
The plan also depicts 14 parking spaces with access off of Challedon Drive.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Access
· Both vehicular and pedestrian access is adequate.
Architectural Design
· No modifications to the exterior of the existing building are proposed.
The existing building is a white, one-story structure and appears to be
constructed of masonry block units with dark trim around the windows and
doors and along the roof.
· There is a roll-up (garage style) door with ramp access on the west end of the
facade facing the right-of-way,
Landscape and Open Space Design
· No interior parking lot, foundation or streetscape landscaping exists on the
site.
· The site plan depicts small shrubs to be installed along the street in front of
the parking lot.
· Staff has conditioned the approval subject to the installation of foundation
landscaping as well.
Evaluation of Request
This request is acceptable as conditioned. The church plans on holding services and
other gatherings within the existing 4,950 square foot building. The church is also
proposing a small office, a nursery, and rooms for other related activities such as Bible
study, etc. The typical hours that the building will be occupied are Sunday from 9:00
a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and Thursday evenings from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Currently, the
church does not have any employees. There are 40 active members (adults and
children). The 14 parking spaces can adequately accommodate this size congregation.
The request is compatible with the existing surrounding land uses and is in keeping with
the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff is recommending approval
subject to the conditions listed below.
Conditions
The parking lot shall be re-striped so as to clearly delineate all parking spaces,
including the required handicap space.
Foundation landscaping within planters shall be installed along at least 50
percent of the front fa(;:ade facing Challedon Drive.
Planning Commission Agenda
September 11, 2002~....~.~i~..~:-.: .~" Y7
TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP / # 10 ~
Page 4
3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Official prior to
occupancy.
NOTE:
Fu~her conditions may be required during the
administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan
submitted with this conditional use permit may require
revision during detailed site plan review to meet ail
applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be
activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See
Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further
information.
Planning Commission Agenda
September 11, 2002
TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP / # 10
Page 5
Planning Commission Agenda
September 11, 2002
TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP / # 10
Page 6
Item #10
Trinity Christian Fellowship
Conditional Use Permit for a church
South side of Challedon Drive, east of S. Parliament Drive
5245 Challedon Drive
District 2
Kempsville
September 11, 2002
CONSENT
Dorothy Wood: After I finish reading the item, Mrs. Atkinson will comment on that item
for us. The next is Item #10, which is Trinity Christian Fellowship. It's an application
for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on the south side of Challedon Drive, east of S.
Parliament and it is in the Kempsville District and it has two conditions.
Lucien Thompson: Hi. I'm Lucien Thompson, Associate Pastor with Trinity Christian
Fellowship and we are in agreement with the stipulations.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Thompson.
Lucien Thompson: Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: Is there any objection to Item #10, Trinity Christian Fellowship? Mrs.
Atkinson, would you please review Item #107
Betsy Atkinson: Yes ma'am. The item is for a 40-member church on Parliament Drive
and it's in a very industrial area and we felt this was very appropriate use. The staff had
also recommended landscaping planters in front of it and the Commission felt in our
informal session that this was not really necessary unless the church chose to put the
planters in. And again, we agree with staff that this should be on our Consent agenda.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mrs. Atkinson.
Betsy Atkinson: You're welcome.
Dorothy Wood: Since they're no opposition to the Consent agenda Mr. Ripley, I would
like to move that the item on the Consent agenda be approved, number 10 with two
conditions.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Do we have a second to the motion?
Betsy Atldnson: I'll second it.
Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Betsy Atkinson. Is there any other discussion on the
motion? Planning Commission's ready to vote.
AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSENT 0 ABS 0
ATKINSON AYE
BAUM AYE
CRABTREE AYE
DIN AYE
HORSLEY AYE
MILLER AYE
RIPLEY AYE
SALLE' AYE
STRANGE AYE
VAKOS AYE
WOOD AYE
Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes.
.' USE 'PERMIT
! .ONAL. '"
CITY OF VIRGINIA. BEACH
O/:
Applicant's Name:
List All Current
Property Owners:
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below:
(Attach list (f neccs.~
If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION
ali members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list iJ'necessa~-y)
x~Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated
organization.
If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section belo,
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers.of the Corporation below: (Attach list ifnecessao,)
If the applicant is a PARTNERSItIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list al'
members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ~
here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organizatie'
CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true attd accurate.
Signature
Print Name
Activity Report
Trinity Christian Fellowship
5245 Challedon Dr.
V~rinia Beach, VA 23462
(757) 420-8210
8/19/2002
11) Trustee
-- Member
Phone
Jack Haga
1948 Blue Knob Rd.
Virginia Beach, VA 23464
Ray Shourds
1028 Sherry Ave.
V/rgin/a beach, VA 23464
Lucian Thompson
Ig0$ Guadal Ct.
Chesapeake, VA 23320
Ed Wasson
1712 River Rock Arch
Virginia Beach,. VA 23456
479-1901
420-1369
420-8210
471-1703
APPOINTMENT
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
L. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
M. NEW BUSINESS
N. ADJOURNMENT
, Ruth Smith - Docl_.doc Page 1
Dear Madam Mayor and fellow Counciimembers,
Thank you for your consideration of the resolution to expedite the school personnel's
raises from January 2003 to November 15, 2002.
I am sending a video of the School Board Meeting of October 1, 2002 for your
information. Under discussion (immediately after the Consent Agenda) is the vote on
reversion funds. In that discussion Vicky Lewis is asked about using some of this money
to move up the timing of the pay raises. She states that the City will look at it like they
did when the schools asked for 18 new security guard positions, that it would be a
recurring expense. New positions in a budget is a recurring expense.
Moving the pay raises to an earlier date is not a recurring expense, the raises are already
in the budget. This Council voted at its July 9, 2002 meeting to allow the schools to use
$400,000 in reversion monies for salaries (please see accompanying documentation). I
think it is very important that we as a Council not be used as an excuse for not expediting
the teachers and other personnel a raise earlier than January, 2003 especially when it is a
small portion of the $18.2 million of reversion money. I also believe the School Board did
not ask us for this use of the reversion money because they were told by staff that it
would be against our policy.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me, I'll be happy to discuss it with
you.
With highest regards to you,
And with pride in our city,
Rosemary Wilson