HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 12, 2002 AGENDAVir inia Beach
CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At-Large
VICE MAYOR WILLIAM D. SESSOMS, JR., At-Large
LINWOOD O. BRANCH, II1, Beach - District 6
MARGARET L EURE, Centerville - District 1
WILLIAM W. HARRISON, .IR., Lynnhaven - District 5
BARBARA M. HENLEY, Princess Anne - District ?
LOUIS R. .IONES, Bayside - District 4
REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall - District $
ROBERT C. MANDIGO, ,IR., Kernpsville - District 2
NANCY K. PARKER, At-Large
ROSEMARY WILSON, At-Large
JAMES K. SPORE, City Manager
LESLIE L. HI.,LEE City Attorney
RUTH HODGES-SMITH, MMC, City Clerk
"COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME"
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY HALL BUILDING I
2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-9005
PHONE: (757) 427-4304
FAX: (757) 426-5669
EMAIL: Ctycncl@city. virginia-beach, va. us
February 12, 2002
I. CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFING
- Conference Room -
3:30PM
Ao
MULTIPLE BENEFITS CONSERVATION
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC)
John M. Carlock, Deputy Executive Director, Physical Planning
II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS
ITl. 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. Oberndorf
B. INVOCATION:
Reverend James C. Ullian
Scott Memorial Methodist Church
and Police Chaplain
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
February 5, 2002
G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION
H. RESOLUTIONS
Resolution to AUTHORIZE the issuance and sale of $95-Million General Obligation
Public Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2002, of the City of Virginia Beach,
heretofore authorized, re refunding of certain general obligation bonds of the City for
capital projects.
Resolution to AUTHORIZE the Hampton Roads Partnership to carry out the re-
certification provisions of the Commonwealth Regional Competitiveness program
01CP) and APPROVING the fund distribution methodology proposed by the
Partnership.
I. ORDINANCES
Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $883,536 in anticipated revenue fi.om the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to the Fire Department's FY 2001-2002 operating
budget re supporting FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Team, Virginia Task Force
Number 2 at the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $478,692 from the Tourism Advertising program's
special revenue fund to the FY 2001-2002 operating budget of Convention and Visitor
Development re expanding the City's tourism, advertising and promotional campaigns;
and, establish revenues to ensure quality programs in the event of a natural disaster or
serious economic condition.
Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $31,000 grant fi.om the Virginia
Environmental Quality to the FY 2001-2002 operating budget of Museums and Cultural
Arts re maintaining a statewide stranding network.
J. PLANNING - NON-ACTION
Application of B JR ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. for a conversion of a nonconforming use
at 1636 Industrial Park Road, containing 1.11 acres.
(DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN)
No action necessary due to modified use in the proposal
K. PLANNING
Application of HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. for a
MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS on their application for the closure of Waring
Street, on the west side of Avalon Avenue, granted on October 10, 2000.
(DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE)
Recommendation:
APPROVAL
Application orR&T, L.L.C. for a MODIFICATION OF PROFFERS for a Change of
Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to
Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District at 2972 Holland Road approved on January 9,
2001.
(DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE)
Recommendation:
APPROVAL
Application for H. B. & SANDRA BROOKS to alter a nonconforming use to add a
new porch with a roof and relocate the dwelling entrance on the south side of 54th Street,
east of Atlantic Avenue (114 54th Street), containing 6,625 square feet.
(DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN)
Recommendation:
APPROVAL
Application of SHADOW ISLAND ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. for a Variance to §4.4b of
the Subdivision Ordinance re minimum lot width at 605 Arctic Avenue.
(DISTRICT 6 - BEACH)
Recommendation:
APPROVAL
Application of BIL-MAR CONST. LTD for a Conditional Use Permit re independent
living for senior and disabled persons at the northwest extremity of Oconee Avenue,
containing 5.25 acres.
(DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) :
Deferred:
Deferred:
Recommendation:
December 11, 2001
January 22, 2002
DENIAL
Application of LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES, INC., for a Conditional Use
Permit for housing for seniors and disabled persons at the northern extremity of Old
Donation Parkway east of Camelot Drive (1604 Old Donation Parkway), containing
2.044 acres.
(DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN)
Recommendation:
APPROVAL
o
Application of NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS for a Conditional Use Permit for a
wireless communications antenna on property of Dominion Virginia Power on the
north side of Ansol Lane, west of Landmark Square, containing 994 square feet.
(DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL)
Recommendation:
APPROVAL
Applications of VOICE STREAM WIRELESS for a Conditional Use Permits for a
communication towers:
ao
on the south side of 5740 Bayside Road, containing 4.842 acres.
(DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE)
on the west side of North Witchduck Road, north ofi-264, containing 1.8 acres
(DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE)
Recommendation:
APPROVAL
Application of OCEAN BAY VENTURES, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District
Classification from I-1 Light Industrial and R-SD Residential Duplex to Conditional A-24
Apartment District on the northwest corner of the Norfolk & Southern Railroad fight-of-way
and Cypress Avenue, containing 2.89 acres more or less.
(DISTRICT 6 -'BEACH)
Deferred:
Deferred:
Recommendation:
OCTOBER 2, 2001
OCTOBER 23, 2001
APPROVAL
APPOINTMENTS
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
PERSONNEL BOARD
VIRGINIA BEACH CRIME TASK FORCE
M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
N. NEW BUSINESS
O. ADJOURNMENT
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 - Telephonic Device for the Deaf)
02/07/02slb
AGENDA\02/12/02
www.vbgov.com
2002-2002 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN SCHEDULE
EVENT [] TOPIC II LOCATION II DATE
City Manager's FY 2002-2003 Proposed Resource Management Plan Council Chamber March 26th
Presentation
Council Workshop Economic Vitality, Safe Community, Policy and Decision Support Council Conference April 2nd
room
Council Workshop Quality Education for Lifetime Learning Council Conference April 9th
room
Council Workshop Quality Physical Environment & Operational Support Council Conference April 16th
room
Public Hearing Public Comment on Proposed FY 2002-2003 Resource Management Frank W. Cox High April 18th
Plan School
Council Workshop Cultural & Recreational Opportunities, Family & Youth Council Conference April 23rd
Opportunities room
Council Workshop Reconciliation of ontstanding resource issues Council Conference May 7th
room
Public Hearing Public Comment on Proposed FY 2002-2003 Resource Management Council Chamber May 7th
Plan
Adoption of FY 2002-2003 City Council Vote on Resource Management Plan Council Chamber May 14th
Resource Management
Plan (will include Public
Hearin~
February l2,2002
I. CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFING
- Conference Room -
3:30PM
Ao
MULTIPLE BENEFITS CONSERVATION
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC)
John M. Carlock, Deputy Executive Director, Physical Planning
11. 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 James C. Ullian
Scott Memorial Methodist Church
and Police Chaplain
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
Febmary5,2002
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 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the
governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby
certifies that, to the best of each member°s knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Closed Session to
which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were
identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by
Virginia Beach City Council.
H. RESOLUTIONS
Resolution to AUTHORIZE the issuance and sale of $95-Million General Obligation
Public Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2002, of the City of Virginia Beach,
heretofore authorized, re refunding of certain general obligation bonds of the City for
capital projects.
Resolution to AUTHORIZE the Hampton Roads Partnership to carry out the re-
certification provisions of the Commonwealth Regional Competitiveness program
(RCP) and APPROVING the fund distribution methodology proposed by the
Parmership.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
Resolution providing the issuance and sale of General Obligation Public
Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series of 2002 in the maximum
amount of $95,000,000
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2002
Background: Based on a review of capital project expenditures and future CIP needs,
the Department of Finance has begun preparations for a general obligation bond sale.
The new money portion of the sale is $65 million and is composed of portions of 1998,
1999, 2000 and 2001 Charter Bond Authorizations previously approved by Council. A
project listing is enclosed. The new money portion of this sale represents the City's
annual general obligation bond sale. The remaining portion of the sale, up to $30
million, represents a potential refunding issue. As Council is aware, the actual size of
the refunding will vary, depending upon market conditions at the time of pricing,
including interest rates on both debt and investment instruments in the escrow.
Considerations: The City's Bond Counsel, Hunton & Williams, has prepared the enclosed
resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of up to $95 million of General Obligation Public
Improvement and Refunding Bonds. The bonds will be sold by competitive bid on March 5,
2002, with the actions of the City Manager being conclusive, provided that the bonds shall
have a true interest cost not to exceed 7 percent. Preliminary estimates from the City's
financial advisors indicate that the proposed refunding portion of the issue will provide gross
debt service savings of approximately $500,000. A large portion of the City's outstanding debt
was refunded in 1993 and 1998 at substantial savings. If this proposed refunding is
accomplished, its savings will not be as large as in the past.
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 odginal Charter 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 enclosed resolution providing for the sale of the bonds is
recommended for City Council Approval.
Attachments:
Project Listing
Resolution Authorizing the Bond Sale
Draft of the Preliminary Official Statement
Draft of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement
Draft of the Official Notice of Sale
Recommended Action: Approval of Resolutions,) .~
Submitting Department/Age~c.y: F~ance
City Manager~~..~ ~_, ~)~
PROJECT
School Projects:
1001 Renovations & Replacements - Energy Management
1046 Landstown High School
1062 ADA School Modifications
1074 Renovations & Replacements - Vadous
1083 Renovations & Replacements - Reroofing
1084 Renovations & Replacements - HVAC Systems
.1201 Renovations & Replacements - Grounds
1208 Advanced Technology Center
1213 Thalia Elementary School Modernization
1217 Woo~,stock Elementary School Modernization
1218 Kempsville Meadows Elern School Moderniation
1219 Louise Luxford Elementary School Modernization
1220 Kempsville Elementary School Modernization
1221 Malibu Elementary School Modernization
1223 Lynnhaven Elementary School Modernization
1224 Trantwood Elementary School Modernization
1226 Arrowhead Elementay School Modernization
1238 Kempsville Landing Conversion
Sub-Total Schools
City Projects:
2018 Major Intersection Improvements
2031 Street Reconstruction
2067 Sandbddge Road Safety Improvements
2074 Lynnhaven Pkwy Interchange at Great Neck Rd (VDOT)
2076 Laskin Road Gateway
2089 Southeastern Parkway & Greenbelt (Partial)
2090 Nimmo Pkwy - Phase I/west Neck Road Ext
2091 Nimrno Parkway - Phases II & III (VDOT)
2096 Ferrell Parkway - Ph V (Partial) (VDOT)
2107 Seaboard Road
2128 Upton Drive/Nimmo Parkway
2137 Great Neck IV/London Bridge III (VDOT)
2140 London Bridge Road - Phase II (VDOT)
2149 Birdneck Road - Phase II (VDOT)
2156 Laskin Road - Phase I (VDOT)
2157 Lynnhaven Parkway - Phase IX (VDOT)
2165 Laskin Road - Phase II (VDOT)
2285 Traffic Safety Improvements - Phase II
2305 Ferrell Parkway-Phase II (VDOT)
2930 Salem Road (VDOT)
3004 Recovery Center - Detoxificafion Program
3020 ADA Building Modifications
3024 Virginia Beach Juvenile Detention Center
3038 Various Buildings Rehabilitation & Renewal
3100 Various Buildings HVAC Rehabilitation & Renewal
3413 Bayside Library and Police Precinct
3441 Corrections Ctr Add lll/Bldg & Landscape Relocation
4004 Open Space Program Site Acquisition
9016 Town Center Infrastructure
9704 Beach Erosion Control & Hurricane Protection
Sub-Total City Projects
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
$65,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS
SERIES OF 2002
t998 t999 2000
Charter Charter Charter
2001
Charter
Total
Sale
272.400 1.299.900 1.572.300
2.333.862 2.333.862
700.000 450.000 1.150.000
2.291.246 3.425.900 5.717.146
783.355 3.313.250 4.096.605
3.132.100 1.695.502 4.827.602
800.000 800.000
2.497.518 2.497.518
381.728 381.728
2.171.441 2.729 1.850.000 4.024.170
800.000 400.566 1.200.566
1.260.050 1.260.050
150.000 150.000
3.803.132 3.803.132
458.625 458.625
500.000 500.000
575.000 575.000
125.000 125.000
$ 2.171.441 $ 5.165.330 $
1.540.000
1.000.000
122.806
1.000.000
96,305
377.877
142.257
94.745
961.285
58.393
259.596
250.000
757.898
225.241
125,000
100,000
500,000
100,000
795,767
828,958
48,000
84.549
16.136.533
250.000
144.900
200.000
4.909.269
270.000
375.000
775,000
232.000
759.162
248.136
50,000
2.150.000
$ 10.363.467
$ 26.500.000
Totals
694.552
12,000,000
3,000,000
145,000
450,000
50,000
1,692,567
400,000
80,000
1,005,433
$ 3.681.152 $ 6.482.077
2.177.000
$ 9.000.000
$ 21,000,000
35.473.304
$ 5.852.593 $ 11.647.407
250,000
377,877
144,900
1,740,000
5,909,269
3.535,063
1,375,000
145,000
94,745
450,000
775,000
50.000
96,305
232,000
1,692,567
400,000
984,403
961,285
306,529
384,596
180.000
250.000
757.898
50.000
84.549
500.000
1.105.433
1.490.319
828.958
4.375.000
$ 29.526.696
65,000,000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF
GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND
REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES OF 2002, OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF
$95,000,000, HERETOFORE AUTHORIZED, AND PROVIDING FOR
THE FORM, DETAILS AND PAYMENT THEREOF, AND
PROVIDING FOR THE REFUNDING OF CERTAIN GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
WHEREAS, the issuance of $53,800,000 of bonds of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
(the "City"), was authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council of the City (the "City Council")
on May 12, 1998, without being submitted to the qualified voters of the City, to finance various
public improvements, including schools, roadways, coastal, economic and tourism and building
projects, $38,447,407 of which bonds have been issued and sold; and
WHEREAS, the issuance of $56,700,000 of bonds of the City was authorized by an
ordinance adopted by the City Council on May 11, 1999, without being submitted to the qualified
voters of the City, to finance various public improvements, including schools, roadways, coastal,
economic and tourism and building projects, $29,500,000 of which bonds have been issued and sold;
and
WHEREAS, the issuance of $49,700,000 of bonds of the City was authorized by an
ordinance adopted by the City Council on :May 9, 2000, without being submitted to the qualified
voters of the City, to finance various public improvements, including schools, roadways, coastal
projects, economic and tourism projects, building and parks and recreation projects, $5,000,000 of
which bonds have been issued and sold; and
WHEREAS, the issuance of $57,700,000 of bonds of the City was authorized by an
ordinance adopted by the City Council on May 15, 2002, without being submitted to the qualified
voters of the City, to finance various public improvements, including schools, roadways, coastal
projects, economic and tourism projects, building and parks and recreation projects, none of which
bonds have been issued and sold; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the City can effect considerable savings by issuing bonds to
refund all or a portion of the following bond issues (collectively, the "Refunded Bonds"):
General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series of 1991C;
General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series of 1992;
General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series of 1992;
General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series of 1993A;
General Obligation Public Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series of 1994; and
General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series of 1995;
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it is in the City's best interest to issue and sell
$5,852,593 of the bonds authorized on May 12, 1998; $11,647,407 of the bonds authorized on May
11, 1999; $26,500,000 of the bonds authorized on May 9, 2000; and $21,000,000 of the bonds
authorized on May 15, 2001; and
WHEREAS, it has b6en recommended to the City Council by representatives of Government
Finance Associates, Inc. and Government Finance Group, Inc. (the "Financial Advisors") that the
City issue and sell a single issue of public improvement and refunding bonds in the maximum
principal amount of $95,000,000; and
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
6O
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA:
1. Issuance of Bonds. There shall be issued, pursuant to the Constitution and statutes
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the City Charter and the Public Finance Act of 1991,
general obligation public improvement and refunding bonds of the City in the maximum principal
amount of $95,000,000 (the "Bonds") as follows: (a) a maximum of $65,000,000 to provide funds
to finance, in part, the cost of the various public, school, road and highway, coastal, economic and
tourism and building improvements as more fully described in the ordinances authorizing the Bonds
adopted on May 12, 1998, May 11, 1999, May 9, 2000, and May 15, 2001 (collectively, the
"Proj eot"), (b) a maximum of $30,000,000 to provide funds to refund the Refunded Bonds, including
funds to pay principal of and premium and interest on the Refunded Bonds until their redemption
and costs incurred in connection with such refunding and (c) costs incurred in connection with
issuing the Bonds.
2. Bond Details. The Bonds shall be designated "General Obligation Public
Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series of 2002," or such other designation as maybe determined
by the City Manager, shall be in registered form, shall be dated such date as determined by the City
Manager, shall be in denominations of $5,000 and integral multiples thereof and shall be numbered
R-1 upward. Subject to Section 8, the issuance and sale of the Bonds are authorized on terms as
shall be satisfactory to the City Manager; provided, however, that the Bonds (a) shall have a "true"
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 98% of the principal amount
thereof (excluding any original issue discount) and (c) shall mature or be subject to mandatory
sinking fund redemptions in annual installments beginning no later than the year 2003 and ending
no later than the year 2022. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable annually and interest on the
Bonds shall be payable semiannually on dates determined by the City Manager.
Each Bond shall bear interest at such rate as shall be determined at the time of sale, calculated
on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months, and payable semiannually on dates
determined bythe City Manager. Principal shall be payable to the registered owners upon surrender
of Bonds as they become due at the office of the Registrar (as hereinafter defined). Interest shall be
payable by check or draft mailed to the registered owners at their addresses as they appear on the
registration books kept by the Registrar on a date prior to each interest payment date that shall be
determined by the City Manager (the "Record Date"). Principal and interest shall be payable in
lawful money of the United States of America.
Initially, one Bond certificate for each maturity of the Bonds shall be issued to and registered
in the name of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"), or its nominee. The
City has heretofore entered into a Blanket Letter of Representations relating to a book-entry system
to be maintained by DTC with respect to the Bonds. "Securities Depository" shall mean DTC or any
other securities depository for the Bonds appointed pursuant to this Section.
In the event that (a) the Securities Depository determines not to continue to act as the
securities depository for the Bonds by giving notice to the Registrar, and the City discharges its
responsibilities hereunder, or (b) the City in its sole discretion determines (i) that beneficial owners
of Bonds shall be able to obtain certificated Bonds or (ii) to select a new Securities Depository, then
the City's Director of Finance shall, at the direction of the City, attempt to locate another qualified
securities depository to serve as Securities Depository and authenticate and deliver certificated Bonds
to the new Securities Depository or its nominee, or authenticate and deliver certificated Bonds to the
beneficial owners or to the Securities Depository participants on behalf of beneficial owners
substantially in the form provided for in Section 5; provided, however, that such form shall provide
for interest on the Bonds to be payable (A) from the date of the Bonds if they are authenticated prior
to the first interest payment date, or (B) otherwise from the interest payment date that is or
immediately precedes the date on which the Bonds are authenticated (unless payment of interest
thereon is in default, in which case interest on such Bonds shall be payable from the date to which
interest has been paid). In delivering certificated Bonds, the City's Director of Finance shall be
entitled to rely on the records of the Securities Depository as to the beneficial owners or the records
2
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
of the Securities Depository participants acting on behalf of beneficial owners. Such certificated
Bonds will then be registrable, transferable and exchangeable as set forth in Section 7.
So long as there is a Securities Depository for the Bonds (1) it or its nominee shall be the
registered owner of the Bonds, (2) notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Resolution,
determinations of persons entitled to payment of principal and interest, transfers of ownership and
exchanges and receipt of notices shall be the responsibility of the Securities Depository and shall be
effected pursuant to rules and procedures established by such Securities Depository, (3) the Registrar
and the City shall not be responsible or liable for maintaining, supervising or reviewing the records
maintained by the Securities Depository, its participants or persons acting through such participants,
(4) references in this Resolution to registered owners of the Bonds shall mean such Securities
Depository or its nominee and shall not mean the beneficial owners of the Bonds, and (5) in the
event of any inconsistencybetween the provisions of this Resolution and the provisions of the above-
referenced Blanket Letter of Representations such provisions of the Blanket Letter of
Representations, except to the extent set forth in this paragraph and the next preceding paragraph,
shall control.
3. Redemption Provisions. The 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 a redemption pr/ce equal to the principal amount of Bonds, together with any interest
accrued to the redemption date.
Any term bonds may be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption upon terms
determined by the City Manager.
If less than all of the Bonds are called for redemption, the Bonds to be redeemed shall be
selected by the City's Director of Finance in such manner as he may determine to be in the best
interest of the City. If less than all the Bonds of a particular maturity are called for redemption, the
Bonds within such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by the 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 Bond shall be considered as
representing that number of Bonds that is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such Bond
by $5,000. The City shall cause notice of the call for redemption identifying the Bonds or portions
thereof to be redeemed to be sent by facsimile transmission, registered or certified mail or overnight
express delivery, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the redemption date, to the
registered owner of the Bonds. The City shall 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 shall be mailed to the
registered owners of the Bonds. 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 thereof.
4. Execution and Authentication. The Bonds shall be signed by the manual or
facsimile signature of the Mayor or Vice-Mayor, shall be countersigned by the manual or facsimile
signature of its Clerk or Deputy Clerk, and the City's seal shall be affixed thereto or a facsimile
thereof printed thereon; provided, however, that if both of such signatures are facsimiles, no Bond
shall be valid until it has been authenticated by the manual signature of an authorized officer or
employee of the Registrar and the date of authentication noted thereon.
5. Bond Form. The Bonds shall be in substantially the following form, with such
completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as may be
approved by the officers signing the Bonds, whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the
execution and delivery of the Bonds:
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.,
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
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
No. R-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
General Obligation Public Improvement and Refunding Bond
Series of 2002
INTEREST RATE
MATURITY DATE
DATED DATE
CUSIP
% March 1,__ ,2002
REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO.
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT:
DOLLARS
The City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City"), for value received, promises to pay, upon
surrender hereof 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 interest hereon from its date semiannually on each and
, beginning , at the annual rate stated above, calculated on the basis
of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. Principal and interest are payable in lawful money of
the United States of America by the City Treasurer, who has been appointed Registrar (the
"Registrar"). The City may appoint a qualified bank as successor paying agent and registrar for the
bonds.
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 shall be made as described in the City's Blanket Letter of
Representations to DTC.
This bond is one of an issue of $ General Obligation Public Improvement
and Refunding Bonds, Series of 2002, of like date and tenor, except as to number, denomination, rate
of interest, privilege of redemption and maturity, and is issued pursuant to the Constitution and
statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the City Charter and the Public Finance Act
of 1991. The bonds have been authorized by ordinances adopted by the Council of the City (the
"City Council") on May 12, 1998, May 11, 1999, May 9, 2000, and May 15, 2001, and are issued
pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on [February 12, 2002], to finance various
public, school, road, highway and bridge improvements, to provide funds to refund portions of
various series of general obligation bonds issued by the City between__ and__ and to pay costs
of issuance of the bonds.
Bonds maturing on or before , are not subject to redemption prior to
maturity. Bonds maturing on or after ., are subject to redemption prior to maturity
at the option of the City on or after ., in whole or in part at any time, upon payment
of 100% of the principal amount of bonds to be redeemed plus interest accrued and unpaid to the
redemption date.
4
195
196
197
198
[ Bonds maturing on .... , are required to be redeemed in part before maturity
by the City on in the years and amounts set forth below, at a redemption price equal to
the principal amount of the bonds to be redeemed, plus accrued interest to the redemption date:
Year Amount Year Amount
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
23O
If less than all of the bonds are called for redemption, the bonds to be redeemed shall be
selected by the City's Director of Finance in such manner as he may determine to be in the best
interest of the City. If less than all the bonds ora particular maturity are called for redemption, the
bonds within such maturity 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 Co) in selecting bonds for redemption, each bond shall be
considered as representing that number of bonds that is obtained by dividing the principal amount
of such bond by $5,000. The City shall cause notice of the call for redemption identifying the bonds
or portions thereof to be redeemed to be sent by facsimile transmission, registered or certified mail
or overnight express delivery, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the redemption date,
to DTC or its nominee as the registered owner hereof. If a portion of this bond is called for
redemption, a new bond in the principal amount of the unredeemed portion hereof will be issued to
the registered owner upon surrender hereof.
The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal of
and interest on this bond. ~
The Registrar shall treat the registered owner of this bond as the person or entity exclusively
entitled to payment of principal of and interest on this bond and the exercise of all other rights and
powers of the owner, except that interest payments shall be made to the person or entity shown as
the owner on the registration books on the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest
payment date.
All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and statutes of the
Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this
bond have happened, exist and have been performed, and the issue of bonds of which this bond is
one, together with all other indebtedness of the City, is within every debt and other limit prescribed
by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, has caused this bond to
be signed by its Mayor, to be countersigned by its Clerk, its seal to be affixed hereto, and this bond
to be dated ., 2002.
COUNTERSIGNED:
231
232
233
Clerk, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
(SEAL)
234 ASSIGNMENT
Mayor, City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia
235 FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned sell(s), assign(s) and transfer(s) unto
236
237 (Please print or type name and address, including postal zip code, of Transferee)
238
239
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF TRANSFEREE:
240
241 : :
242 : :
243 : :
the within bond and all rights thereunder, hereby irrevocably constituting and appointing
, Attorney,
244
245
246
247
248
249
to transfer said bond on the books kept for the registration thereof, with full power of substitution
in the premises.
Dated:
Signature Guaranteed
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
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.
6. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably
pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds. Unless other funds are
lawfully available and appropriated for timely payment of the Bonds, the City Council shall levy and
collect an annual ad valorem tax, over and above all other taxes authorized or limited by law and
without limitation as to rate or amount, on all locally taxable property in the City sufficient to pay
when due the principal of and interest on the Bonds.
7. Registration, Transfer and Owners of Bonds. The City Treasurer is appointed
paying agent and registrar for the Bonds (the "Registrar"). The City may appoint a qualified bank
or trust company as successor paying agent and registrar of the Bonds. The Registrar shall maintain
registration books for the registration and registration of transfers of Bonds. Upon presentation and
surrender of any Bonds at the office of the Registrar, at its corporate trust office if the Registrar is
a bank or trust company, together with an assignment duly executed by the registered owner or his
duly authorized attorney or legal representative in such form as shall be satisfactory to the Registrar,
the City shall execute, and the Registrar shall authenticate, if required by Section 4, and shall deliver
in exchange, a new Bond or Bonds having an equal aggregate principal amount, in authorized
denominations, of the same form and maturity, bearing interest at the same rate and registered in the
name as requested by the then registered owner thereof or its duly authorized attorney or legal
representative. Any such exchange shall be at the expense of the City, except that the Registrar may
charge the person requesting such exchange the amount of any tax or other governmental charge
required to be paid with respect thereto.
The Registrar shall treat the registered owner as the person or entity exclusively entitled to
payment of principal and interest and the exercise of all other rights and powers of the owner, except
that interest payments shall be made to the person or entity shown as owner on the registration books
as of the Record Date.
8. Sale of BondS. The City Council approves the following terms of the sale of the
Bonds. The Bonds shall be sold by competitive bid in a principal amount to be determined by the
City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisors, and subject to the limitations set forth
in paragraph 1, and the City Manager shall receive bids for the Bonds and award the Bonds to the
6
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
bidder providing the lowest "tree" or "Canadian" interest cost, subject to the limitations set forth in
paragraph 2. Following the same of the Bonds, the City Manager shall file a certificate with the City
Clerk setting forth the final terms of the Bonds. The actions of the City Manager in selling the
Bonds shall be conclusive, and no further action with respect to the sale and issuance of the Bonds
shall be necessary on the part of the City Council.
9. Notice of Sale. The City Manager, in collaboration with 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.
10. Official Statement. A draft of a Preliminary Official Statement describing the
Bonds, copies of which have been provided to the members of the City Council, is approved as the
form of the Preliminary Official Statement by which the Bonds will be offered for sale, with such
completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as the City
Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisors, may consider appropriate. After the Bonds
have been sold, the City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisors, shall make such
completions, omissions, insertions and changes in the Preliminary Official Statement not
inconsistent with this Resolution as are necessary or desirable to complete it as a final Official
Statement, execution thereof by the City Manager to constitute conclusive evidence of his approval
of any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes. The City shall arrange for the delivery
to the purchaser of the Bonds ofa reasonablenumber of copies of the final Official Statement, within
seven business days after the Bonds have been sold, for delivery to each potential investor requesting
a copy of the Official Statement and to each person to whom such purchaser initially sell Bonds.
11. Official Statement Deemed Final. The City Manager is authorized, on behalf of the
City, to deem the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement in final form, each to
be final as of its date within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule") of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), except for the omission in the Preliminary Official Statement
of certain pricing and other information permitted to be omitted pursuant to the Rule. The
distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement in final form shall be
conclusive evidence that each has been deemed final as of its date by the City, except for the
omission in the Preliminary Official Statement of such pricing and other information permitted to
be omitted pursuant to the Rule.
12. Preparation and Delivery of Bonds. After bids have been received and the Bonds
have been awarded, the officers of the City are authorized and directed to take all proper steps to
have the Bonds prepared and executed in accordance with their terms and to deliver the Bonds to the
purchaser thereof upon payment therefor.
13. Redemption of Refunded Bonds. The City Manager is authorized and directed to
determine which of the Refunded Bonds, if any, shall be refunded. The Escrow Agreement
(hereinafter defined) shall provide for notice of redemption to be given in accordance with the
resolutions providing for the issuance of the Refunded Bonds to the registered owners of the
Refunded Bonds.
14. Escrow Deposit Agreement. In the event the City Manager determines that it is in
the City's best interest that all or a portion of the Refunded Bonds should be refunded, the City
Manager and the Director of Finance, or either of them, are authorized and directed to execute an
escrow deposit agreement (the "Escrow Agreement") between the City and an escrow agent to be
appointed by the City Manager (the "Escrow Agent"). The Escrow Agreement shall be in the form
approved by the City Manager, in collaboration with the City Attorney and the City's bond counsel,
and shall provide for the deposit and investment of a portion of the Bond proceeds for the defeasance
of the Refunded Bonds. The execution of the Escrow Agreement by the City Manager or the
Director of Finance shall constitute conclusive evidence of such official's approval of the Escrow
Agreement. The Escrow Agreement shall provide for the irrevocable deposit of a portion of the
Bond proceeds (the "Refunding Portion") in an escrow fund which shall be sufficient, when invested
in noncallable, direct obligations of the United States Government (the "Government Obligations"),
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
to provide for payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Refunded Bonds;
provided, however, that such Bond proceeds shall be invested in such manner that none of the Bonds
will be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended, and regulations issued pursuant thereto (the "Code"). The Escrow Agent is authorized
and directed to execute an initial and final subscription form for the purchase of the Government
Obligations and such other contracts and agreements necessary to provide for the defeasance of the
Refunded Bonds as are approved by the City Manager or the Director of Finance, in collaboration
with the City Attorney and the City's bond counsel.
15. Deposit of Bond Proceeds. The City Treasurer is authorized and directed (a) to
provide for the delivery of the Refunding Portion to the Escrow Agent for deposit in the escrow fund
established by the Escrow Agreement, in an amount that will be sufficient, together with the interest
thereon when invested as provided in the Escrow Agreement, (i) to pay when due the interest on the
Refunded Bonds to the first date on which they may be redeemed at the option of the City and (ii)
to pay upon the earlier of maturity or redemption the principal of the Refunded Bonds, plus any
interest accrued and unpaid to such redemption date, plus the applicable redemption premium, and
(b) to provide for the deposit of the remaining proceeds of the Bonds in a special account to be used
to pay the costs of the Project and the costs incurred in refunding the Refunded Bonds and issuing
the Bonds. The City Treasurer is further authorized and directed to take all such further action as
maybe necessary or desirable in connection with the payment and refunding of the Refunded Bonds.
359
360
361
16. Arbitrage Covenants. (a) The City represents that there have not been issued, and
covenants that there will not be issued, any obligations that will be treated as part of the same issue
of obligations as the Bonds within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-1(c).
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
(b) The City covenants that it shall not take or omit to take any action the taking or
omission of which will cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148
of the Code, or otherwise cause interest on the Bonds to be includable in the gross income of the
registered owners thereof under existing laws. 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 any part of the earnings derived from the investment of the gross proceeds of the
Bonds, unless the City receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that such
compliance is not required to prevent interest on the Bonds from being includable in the gross
income of the registered owners thereof under existing law. The City shall pay any such required
rebate from its legally available funds.
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
17. Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Elections. Such officers of the City as may be
requested are authorized and directed to execute an appropriate certificate setting forth the expected
use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds in order to show that such expected use and
investment will not violate the provisions of Section 148 of the Code, and any elections such officers
deem desirable regarding rebate of earnings to the United States, for purposes of complying with
Section 148 of the Code. Such certificate and elections shall be in such form as may be requested
by bond counsel for the City.
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
39O
391
18. Limitation on Private Use. The City covenants that it shall not permit the proceeds
of the Bonds or the facilities financed or refinanced with the proceeds of the Bonds to be used in any
manner that would result in (a) 5% or more of such proceeds or the facilities financed or refinanced
with such proceeds being used in a trade or business carried on by any person other than a
governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(b) of the Code, (b) 5% or more of such proceeds or
the facilities being f'manced or refinanced 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 141 (b)(4)
of the Code, or (c) 5% or more of such proceeds being used directly or indirectly to make or finance
loans to any persons other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(c) of the Code;
provided, however, that if the City receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that
any such covenants need not be complied with to prevent the interest on the Bonds from being
includable in the gross income for federal income tax purposes of the registered owners thereof
under existing law, the City need not comply with such covenants.
392
393
19. SNAP Investment Authorization. The City Council has heretofore received and
reviewed the Information Statement (the "Information Statement") describing the State Non-
8
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
Arbitrage Program of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("SNAP") and the Contract Creating the State
Non-Arbitrage Program Pool I (the "Contract"), and the City Council has determined to authorize
the City Treasurer to utilize SNAP in connection with the investment of the proceeds of the Bonds,
if the City Manager and the Director of Finance, in consultation with the City Treasurer, determine
that the utilization of SNAP is in the best interest of the City. The City 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.
20. Continuing Disclosure Agreement The Mayor, the City Manager and such officer
or officers of the City as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a
continuing disclosure agreement setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the City and
containing such covenants as may be necessary to assist the purchasers of the Bonds in complying
with the provisions of the Rule promulgated by the SEC. Such continuing disclosure agreement
shall be substantially in the form of the draft dated January 31, 2002, copies of which have been
provided to members of the City Council, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes
that are not inconsistent with this Resolution.
21. Other Actions. All other actions of officers of the City and the City Council in
conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of the issuance and sale
of the Bonds are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. The officers of the City are authorized
and directed to execute and deliver all certificates and instruments and to take all such further action
as may be considered necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of the
Bonds.
22. Repeal of Conflicting Resolutions. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict
herewith are repealed.
23. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
418
419
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this __
February, 2002.
day of
420
421
422
423
CA-8383
ordin/noncode/bond95milres.wpd
R-1
January 31, 2002
424
425
426
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Finance Department 7
427
428
429
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
Law Departm~"~t ~ ir
9
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
This CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT dated as of March __, 2002 (the
"Disclosure Agreement"), is executed and delivered by the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the
"City"), in connection with the issuance by the City of its $ General Obligation Public
Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series of 2002 (the "Bonds"). The City hereby covenants
and agrees as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. This Disclosure Agreement is being executed and delivered by the
City for the benefit of the bolders of the Bonds and in order to assist the purchasers of the Bonds
in complying with the provisions of Section (b)(5)(i) of Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule") promulgated
by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by providing certain annual financial
information and material event notices required by the Rule (collectively, "Continuing
Disclosure").
Section 2. Annual Disclosure. (a) The City shall provide annually certain financial
information and operating data in accordance with thc provisions of Section Co)(5)(i) of the Rule
as follows:
(i) audited financial statements of the City, prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles; and
(ii) the operating data with respect to the City of the type described in the section
of the City's Official Statement dated March._, 2002, entitled "Operating Data."
If the financial statements filed pursuant to Section 2(a) are not audited, the City shall file such
statements as audited when available. :
(b) The City shall provide annually the financial information and operating
data described in subsection (a) above (collectively, the "Annual Disclosure") within 180 days
after the end of the City's fiscal year, commencing with the City's fiscal year ending June 30,
2002, to each nationally recognized municipal securities information repository ("NRMSIR")
and to the appropriate state information depository if any then exists ("SID").
(c) Any Annual Disclosure may be included by specific reference to other
documents previously provided to each NRMSIR and to the SID or filed with the SEC; provided,
however, that any final official statement incorporated by reference must be available from the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the "MSRB").
(d) The City shall provide in a timely manner to each NRMSIR or the MSRB
and to the SID notice specifying any failure of the City to provide the Annual Disclosure by the
date specified.
Section 3. Event Disclosure. The City shall provide in a timely manner to each
NRMSIR or the MSRB and to the SID notice of the occurrence of any of the following events
with respect to the Bonds, if material:
(a) principal and interest payment delinquencies;
(b) non-payment related defaults;
(c) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial
difficulties;
(d) unscheduled draws on any credit enhancement reflecting financial
difficulties;
(e) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform;
(f) adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the
Bonds;
(g) modifications to fights of Bondholders;
(h) bond calls;
(i) defeasance of all or any portion of the Bonds;
(j)
release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds;
and
(k) rating changes.
Section 4. Termination. The obligations of the City will terminate upon the
redemption, defeasance (within the meaning of the Rule) or payment in full of all the Bonds.
Section 5. Amendment. The City may modify its obligations hereunder without the
consent of Bondholders, provided that this Disclosure Agreement as so modified complies with
the Rule as it exists at the time of modification. The City shall within a reasonable time
thereafter send to each NRMSIR and the SID a description of such modification(s).
Section 6. Defaults. (a) If the City fails to comply with any covenant or obligation
regarding Continuing Disclosure specified in this Disclosure Agreement, any holder (within the
meaning of the Rule) of Bonds then outstanding may, by notice to the City, proceed to protect
and enforce its rights and the rights of thc holders by an action for specific performance of the
City's covenant to provide the Continuing Disclosure.
Co) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, any failure of the City to
comply with any obligation regarding Continuing Disclosure specified in this Disclosure
Agreement (i) shall not be deemed to constitute an event of default under the Bonds or the
resolution providing for the issuance of the Bonds and (ii) shall not give rise to any fight or
remedy other than that described in Section 6(a) above.
Section 7. Additional Disclosure. The City may from time to time disclose certain
information and data in addition to the Continuing Disclosure. Notwithstanding anything herein
to the contrary, the City shall not incur any obligation to continue to provide, or to update, such
additional information or data.
Section 8. Counterparts. This Disclosure Agreement may be executed in several
counterparts each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the
same instrument.
Section 9. Governing Law. This Disclosure Agreement shall be construed and enforced
in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
Mayor, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
RICHMOND 786261 v 1
City Manager, City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
$95,000,000'
GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES OF 2002
Electronic bids only will be received by the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City"), in accordance
with this Official Notice of Sale until i 1:00 a.m., Local Time, on Tuesday, March 5, 2002 (the "Date of Sale"). In
the case of a malfunction in submitting an electronic bid, facsimile bids will be allowed, as more fully described
below.
Immediately thereafter, the bids will be publicly announced, and thc City Manager will act upon the bids by
2:00 p.m., Local Time.
Bid Submission
Solely as an accommodation to bidders, electronic bids via PARITY (the "Electronic Bidding System")
will be accepted in accordance with this Official Notice of Sale. The City is using PARITY as a communication
mechanism to conduct the electronic bidding for the sale of $95,000,000' General Obligation Public Improvement
and Refunding Bonds, Series of 2002 (the "Bonds"), as described herein. To the extent any instructions or
directions set forth in PARITY conflict with this Official Notice of Sale, the terms of this Official Notice of Sale
shall control. Each bidder submitting an electronic bid agrees (i) that it is solely responsible for all arrangements
with PARITY, (ii) that PARITY is not acting as the agent of the City, and (iii) that the City is not responsible for
ensuring or verifying bidder compliance with any of the procedures of PARITY. The City assumes no responsibility
for, and each bidder expressly assumes the risks of and responsibility for, any incomplete, inaccurate or untimely bid
submitted by such bidder through PARITY. Each bidder shall be solely responsible for making necessary
arrangements to access the Electronic Bidding System for purposes of submitting its bid in a timely manner and in
compliance with the requirements of this Official Notice of Sale. Neither the City nor the Electronic Bidding
System shall have any duty or obligation to provide or assure such access to any bidder, and neither the City nor
PARITY shall be responsible for proper operation of, or have any liability for, any delays or interruptions of, or any
damages caused by, PARITY. For further information about PARITY, potential bidders may contact Dalcomp at
395 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014, telephone (212) 806-8304.
In the event of a malfunction of the Electronic Bidding System, facsimile transmission bids will be
accepted up to 11:00 a.m., Local Time, on the Date of Sale. Bidders choosing to submit bids in the case of a
malfunction by facsimile transmission shall use the following telecopier numbers for such transmission: (757) 427-
4302 or (757) 427-4135 (Attention: Patricia A. Phillips). Transmissions received after the deadline shall be rejected.
It is the responsibility of the bidder to ensure that the bid is legible, that the bid is received not later than 11:00 a.m.,
Local Time, and that the bid is sent to one of the telecopier numbers set forth above. Illegible transmissions shall be
rejected. The City's financial advisors (Government Finance Associates, Inc. and Government Finance Group, a
division of ARD Incorporated, collectively the "Financial Advisors") will verify receipt of each bid submitted
through facsimile transmission by contacting each bidder by telephone once the bid has been received. The City's
Financial Advisors will in no instance correct, alter or in any way change bids submitted through facsimile
transmission. Neither the City nor its Financial Advisors will be responsible for bids submitted by facsimile
transmission not received in accordance with the provisions of this Official Notice of Sale. Bidders electing to
submit bids via facsimile transmission will bear full and complete responsibility for the transmission of such bid.
' Preliminary, subject to change as described herein.
Each bid must be unconditional.
Principal Redemption
The Bonds will be general obligation bonds of the City, dated March I, 2002 (the "Dated Date"), and will
mature serially or be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemptions on March I in thc years and amounts shown
below.
Due March I Amount'. Due March ! Amount'
2003 $ 2013
2004 2014
2005 2015
2006 2016
2007 2017
2008 2018
2009 2019
2010 2020
2011 2021
2012 2022
Serial Bonds, Term Bonds and Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemptions
Bidders may provide in the bid form for all of the Bonds to be issued as serial Bonds or may designate
consecutive annual principal amounts of the Bonds to be combined into not more than two Term Bonds. In the
event that a bidder chooses to specify a Term Bond, each such Term Bond shall be subject to mandatory sinking
fund redemption commencing on March I of the first year which has been combined to form such Term Bond and
continuing on March I in each year thereafter until the slaled maturity of such Term Bond. The amount redeemed in
any year shall be equal to Ihe principal amount for such year set forth iu the amortizalion schedule above. Bonds to
be redeemed in any year by mandatory sinking fund redemption shall be redeemed at par and shall be selected by lot
from among the Bonds .of the maturity being redeemed.
Description of the Bonds; Book-Entry Only SyStem
Thc Bonds will be issued by means of a book-entry system with no distribution of physical Bond
certificates made to the public. One Bond certilicate for each maturity will be issued to Thc Depository Trust
Company, New York, New York ("DTC'), or its nominee, and immobilized in its custody. The book-entry system
will evidence beneficial ownership of the 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. Bond certificates registered in the name of Cede & Co. will be deposited.
with DTC. Interest on the Bonds will be paid semiannually on March I and September 1, beginning September i,
2002, and principal on the Bonds will be paid annually on March 1, beginning March 1, 2003, to DTC or its
nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. 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 will not be responsible or liable for maintaining, supervising or reviewing the records maintained by DTC, its
participants or persons acting through such participants.
DTC may discontinue providing its services as securities depository with respect to the Bonds at any time
' Preliminary, subject to change as described herein.
by giving reasonable notice to the City. Under such circumstances, in the event that a successor securities
depository is not obtained, Bond certificates are required to be prepared, executed and delivered.
The City may decide to discontinue use of the system of book-entry transfers through DTC (or a successor
securities depository), in that case, either a successor depository will be selected by the City or Bond certificates
will be prepared, executed and delivered.
Optional Redemption
Thc Bonds that mature or are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption on or before March 1, 2012,
are not subject to optional redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Bonds that mature on and after March 1,
2013, will be subject to redemption beginning March 1, 2012, in whole or in part at any time, at the option of the
City, upon payment of the par amount of principal so redeemed plus interest accrued and unpaid to the redemption
date.
If less than all of the Bonds are called for redemption, the Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by the
City's Director of Finance in such manner as may be determined to be in the best interest of the City. If less than all
of the Bonds of a particular maturity are called for redemption, DTC or any successor securities depository will
select the Bonds to be redeemed pursuant to its rules and procedures or, if the book-entry system is discontinued, the
Bonds to be redeemed will be selected by the City Treasurer, who has been appointed registrar (the "Registrar"), by
lot in such manner as the Registrar in its discretion may determine. In either case, each portion of the $5,000
principal amount is counted as one Bond for such purpose. The City will cause notice of the call for redemption
identifying the Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed to be sent by facsimile transmission, registered or certified
mail or overnight express delivery, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the redemption date, to the
registered owner thereof. The City shall 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 shall be mailed to the registered owners, of the Bonds. if a portion of a Bond is called for redemption, a
new Bond in principal amount equal to the unredeemed portion shall be issued to the registered owner upon the
surrender thereof.
Security
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City, secured by a pledge of the City's full faith and credit and
unlimited taxing power.
Use of Bond Proceeds
As described in more detail in the City's Preliminary Official Statement, dated February , 2002, the Bonds
are being issued for the purpose of providing funds for various public improvements, to refund certain bonds in'
advance of their stated maturities and to pay the costs of issuance related to the Bonds. While the City proposes to
issue Bonds for refunding purposes, it will do so only in such principal amounts as it determines will produce an
acceptable level of debt service savings on a present value basis. If the City determines, in its sole discretion, that
refunding all or a portion of such bonds is not in its best interests, the City will revise the amount of Bonds on which
it will receive bids pursuant to this Official Notice of Sale. See "Bidding Rules; Award of Bonds" for additional
information regarding adjustments in the principal amount of the Bonds.
Bidding Rules; Award of Bonds
Bidders may only bid to purchase all of the Bonds. Bidders are invited to name the rate or rates of interest
per annum which the Bonds are to bear in multiples of one-twentieth (l/20th) or one-eighth (l/8th) of one percent.
All Bonds maturing on the same date must bear interest at the same rate. Any number of rates may be named
provided that (a) the highest rate of interest may not exceed the lowest rate of interest by more than 3 percentage
points, and (b) the highest rate of interest stated for any maturity may not exceed 7% per annum. No bid for less
3
than 99% of par plus accrued interest (computed on the basis of a 360-day year and twelve 30-day months) from the
Dated Date to the delivery of the Bonds shall be considered. The City reserves the right to reject any or all bids
(regardless of the interest rate bid), to reject any bid not complying with this Official Notice of Sale and, so far as
permitted by law, to waive any irregularity or infornmlity with respect to any bid or the bidding process.
The preliminary aggregate principal amount of the Bonds and the preliminary annual principal payment on
the Bonds, each as set forth in the Official Notice of Sale (the "Preliminary Aggregate Principal Amount" and the
"Preliminary Principal Amount", respectively; collectively, the "Preliminary Amounts"), may be revised before the
receipt of bids. Any such revision made prior to receipt of the bids (the "Revised Aggregate Principal Amount" and
the "Revised Principal Amount", respectively; collectively, the "Revised Amounts") WILL BE PUBLISHED VIA
THE BOND BUYER NEWS WIRE AND INCLUDED IN THE PARITY BID PARAMETERS NO LATER THAN
4:00 P.M. (NEW YORK TIME) ON THE LAST BUSINESS DAY PRIOR TO THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF BIDS
(THE "SALE DATE"). In the event that no such revisions are made, the Preliminary Amounts will constitute the
Revised Amounts. Bidders shall submit bids based on the Revised Amounts and the Revised Amounts will be used
to compare bids and select a successful bidder.
As promptly as reasonably possible after the bids are received, the City will notify the bidder to whom the
Bonds will be awarded, if and when such award is made. Such bidder, upon such notice, shall advise the City of the
initial reoffering prices or yields to the public of each maturity of the Bonds (the "Initial Reoffering Prices or
Yields") and details regarding the anticipated use of a municipal bond insurance policy, if any, in connection with
the Bonds. The successful bidder must sell to the public 10% or more in par amount of the Bonds from each
maturity at the Initial Reoffering Prices or Yields. Such Initial Reoffering Prices or Yields, among other things, will
be used by the City to calculate the final aggregate principal amount of the Bonds and the final principal amount of
each annual principal payment on the Bonds (the "Final Aggregate Principal Amount" and the "Final Principal
Amount", respectively; collectively, the "Final Amounts"). In determining the Final Amounts, the City reserves the
right, in its sole discretion, to modify the Revised Amounts as necessary to effect the greatest economic advantage
of the refunding, or to accommodate other refunding objectives of the City, but will not increase or decrease the
Revised Aggregate Principal Amount and the Revised Principal Amounts, except with the express consent of the
successful bidder, by more than 10%. After such adjustments, the actual purchase price may be less than 99% of the
par amount of the Bonds, but this result will not affect award of the Bonds. The successful bidder may not withdraw
its bid or change the interest rates bid or the initial Reoffering Prices or Yields as a result of any changes made to the
Revised Amounts within these parameters. The dollar amount bid by the successful bidder will be adjusted to reflect
any adjustments made to the Revised Amounts. SUCH ADJUSTED DOLLAR BID AMOUNT WILL NOT
CHANGE THE BIDDER'S COMPENSATION PER $1,000.00 OF PAR AMOUNT OF BONDS (EXCLUDING
ANY PRO RATA FEES FOR BOND INSURANCE) FROM THAT WHICH WOULD HAVE RESULTED FROM
THE BID SUBMITI~ED. The interest rates specified by the successful bidder for each maturity will not change.
All bids will remain firm for a period of no less than five hours after the time specified for the opening of
bids. An award of the Bonds, if made, will be made by the City within such five hour period or, with the express.
consent of the bidders, such longer time period as deemed necessary. The Final Amounts will be communicated to
the successful bidder no later than 4:00 p.m. (New York Time) on the Sale Date.
Unless all bids are rejected, the Bonds will be awarded to the bidder complying with the terms of this
Official Notice of Sale and submitting a bid which provides the lowest "true" interest cost to the City. Tree interest
cost shall be determined for each bid by doubling the semiannual interest rate, compounded semiannually, necessary
to discount the debt service payments from the payment dates to the Dated Date and to the bid price, such bid price
excluding interest accrued to the date of settlement. If more than one bid offers the same lowest true interest cost,
the successful bid will be selected by the City Manager by lot. The City reserves the right to reject any or ali bids
and to waive any irregularity or informality with respect to any bid. After the Final Amounts are determined, it is
possible that a new TIC will differ from the TIC submitted on the Revised Amounts, but this result will not affect
award of the Bonds.
Bids for the Bonds shall not be conditioned upon obtaining insurance or any other credit enhancement. Ifa
bidder proposes to obtain a policy of municipal bond insurance or any other credit enhancement, any such purchase
4
of insurance or commitment therefor shall be at the sole option and expense of the bidder, and the bidder must pay
any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds as a result of such insurance or commitment. Any failure by the bidder
to obtain such a policy of insurance shall not in any way relieve such bidder of its contractual obligations arising
from the acceptance of its bid for tile purchase o1' the Bonds.
Good Faith Deposit
Each bid must bc accompanied by a certified or cashier's check for $650,000 drawn upon an incorporated
bank or trust company authorized to transact business in the Commonwealth of Virginia or in the City of New York
and payable unconditionally to the order of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to secure tile City against any loss
resulting from the failure of the successful bidder to comply with the terms of its bid. The check of the successful
bidder will be deposited and credited toward the purchase price, and no interest will be allowed thereon to accrue to
the benefit of the successful bidder. The proceeds of the check will be retained by the City as liquidated damages in
case the successful bidder fails to accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds. Checks of unsuccessful bidders will be
returned promptly upon award of the Bonds. Bidders must also clearly indicate to whom the check should be
returned in the event of an unsuccessful bid.
In lieu of the check described above, the deposit may be in the form of a Financial Surety Bond in the
amount of $650,000 payable to the City. The Financial Surety Bond must be from an insurance company acceptable
to the City and licensed to issue such a bond in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and such Financial Surety Bond
must be submitted to the City prior to thc opening of the bids and must be in a form acceptable to the City. The
Financial Surety Bond must identify each bidder whose deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the
Bonds are awarded to a bidder utilizing a Financial Surety Bond, then such successful bidder is required to submit
its deposit to the City in thc form of a cashier's check or certified check or wire transfer not later than 11:00 a.m.,
Local Time, on the next business day following the award. If such deposit is not received by such time, the
Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the deposit requirement.
Bidders submitting an electronic or facsimile bid must deliver the good faith check (or, in lieu thereof, a
Financial Surety Bond) by 10:00 a.m., Local Time, on March 5, 2002, to Patricia A. Phillips, Director of Finance,
Virginia Beach Municipal Center, City Hall Building, Room 220, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456.
Delivery of the Bonds
The Bonds will be delivered at the expense of the City in New York, New York, through the facilities of
DTC on or about March 19, 2002.
Concurrently with the delivery of the Bonds, the City will furnish to the successful bidder without cost (a) a
certificate dated the date of delivery of the Bonds, signed by the appropriate City officials and stating that no
litigation of any kind is then pending or, to the best of their information, knowledge and belief, threatened against.
the City to restrain or enjoin the issuance or delivery of the Bonds or the levy or collection of ad valorem taxes and
(b) certificates dated the date of delivery of the Bonds, stating that the descriptions and statements in the Official
Statement (except in the sections entitled "Book-Entry System" and "Tax Exemption" and in the column "Price/
Yield" on the cover), on the date of the Official Statement and on the date of delivery of the Bonds, were and are
true and correct in all material respects, did not and do not contain an untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make such descriptions and statements, in light of
the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. Such certificates will also state, however, that such
City officials did not independently verify the information indicated in the Official Statement as having been
obtained or derived from sources other than the City and its officers but they have no reason to believe that such
information is not accurate.
Certificate of Winning Bidder
The successful bidder must, by facsimile transmission or overnight delivery received by the City within 24
hours after receipt of the bids for the Bonds, furnish the following information to the City to complete the OffiCial
Statement in final form, as described below:
The offering prices for the Bonds (expressed as the price or yield per maturity, exclusive of any
accrued interest).
Bo
Selling compensation (aggregate total anticipated compensation to the underwriters expressed in
dollars, based on the expectation that ali Bonds are sold at the prices or yields described in Subpart
A above).
C. The identity of the underwriters if the successful bidder is a part of a group or syndicate.
Any other material information necessary to complete the Official Statement in final form but not
known to the City.
Prior to the delivery of the Bonds, the successful bidder shall furnish to the City a certificate in form
acceptable to bond counsel, to the effect that the successful bidder has made a bona fide public offering of the Bonds
at the initial public offering prices set forth in such certificate, that the successful bidder has complied with Rule G-
37 of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the "MSRB') with respect to the City and that a substantial
amount of the Bonds of each maturity were sold to the public (excluding bond houses, brokers and other
intermediaries) at such initial public offering prices. Such certificate shall state that (1) it is made on the best
knowledge, information and belief of the successful bidder and (2) 10% or more in par amount of the Bonds ofeach
maturity was sold to the public at the initial public offering price (such amount being sufficient to establish the sale
of a substantial amount of the Bonds).
CUSIP Numbers
It is anticipated that CUSIP identification numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to
print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto shall constitute cause for failure or refusal by the
successful bidder thereof to accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds in accordance with the terms of its bid. The
City will assume responsibility for the expense of the initial printing of CUSIP numbers; provided, however, that the
City assumes no responsibility for any CUSIP Service Bureau or other charges that may be imposed for the
assignment of such numbers. All expenses in connection with the assignment of CUSIP numbers shall be paid by
the successful bidder. It shall be the obligation of the successful bidder to furnish to DTC an underwriter
questionnaire and to the City the CUSIP numbers for the Bonds within two business days following the date of
award.
Official Statement
The City will furnish the successful bidder at the expense of the City up to 750 copies of the final Official
Statement within seven business days from the date of the award of the Bonds, as specified in Rule 15c2-12 (the
"Rule") of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and the rules of the MSRB provided that minor
delays in furnishing such final Official Statement will not be a basis for failure to pay for and accept delivery of the
Bonds. Additional copies will be made available at the successful bidder's request and expense. The City assumes
no responsibility or obligation for the distribution or delivery of the Official Statement to anyone other than the
successful bidder.
The successful bidder, by executing the Official Bid Form, agrees to provide one copy of the Official
Statement to at least one Nationally Recognized Municipal Securities Information Repository ("NRMSIR') within
the meaning of the Rule upon receipt of the Official Statement from the City and two copies of the Official
Statement (with any required forms) to the MSRB or its designee no later than ten business days following the Date
of Sale. The successful bidder shall notify the City as soon as practicable of (1) the date which is the end of the
6
underwriting period (such "undercaiting period" is described in the Rule), and (2) the date of filing the Official
Statement with a NRMSIR and MSRB or its designee.
if the Bonds are awarded to a syndicate, the City will designate the senior managing underwriter of the
syndicate as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Official Statement to each participating underwriter.
Any underwriter executing and delivering a bid form with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its bid is
accepted it shall accept such designation and shall enter into 'a contractual relationship with all participating
underwriters for the purposes of assuring the receipt and distribution by each such participating underwriter of the
Official Statement, unless another firm is so designated by the syndicate in writing and approved by the City.
Legal Opinion
The approving opinion of Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Virginia, with respect to the Bonds will be
furnished to the successful bidder at the expense oftbe City and will state that the Bonds constitute valid and legally
binding obligations of the City and that its Council is authorized and required by law, unless other funds are lawfully
available and appropriated for timely payment of the Bonds, to levy and collect an annual ad valorem tax, over and
above all other taxes authorized or limited by law and without limitation as to rate or amount, on all locally taxable
property in the City sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds as the same become due.
Federal and State Securities Laws
No action has been taken to qualify the Bonds under the federal securities laws or the securities blue sky
laws of any state.
Tax Exemption
The Official Statement relating to the Bonds contains a discussion of the effect of the lntemal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended, on the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and a discussion of the
opinion of Hunton & Williams insofar as it concerns such exclusion.
Continuing Disclosure
To assist the successful bidder in complying with the Rule, the City will agree, pursuant to the Continuing
Disclosure Agreement, to provide certain ammal financial information and operating data and notices of the
occurrence of certain events, if material. A description of this undertaking is set forth in the Preliminary Official
Statement for the Bonds and will also be set forth in the final Official Statement for the Bonds (See Appendix C of
the Preliminary Official Statement dated February 21, 2002).
Change of Date and Time for Receipt of Bids
The City expects to take bids on the Bonds on Mamh 5, 2002. However, the City reserves the right to
postpone the date and time established for the receipt of bids. Any such postponement will be announced by THE
BOND BUYER Newswirc, or any other such service. If the receipt of bids is postponed, any alternative date for
receipt of bids will be announced via THE BOND BUYER Newswire, or any other such service, at least three
business days prior to such alternative sale date. Any bidder must submit a bid for the purchase of the Bonds on
such alternative sale date in conformity with the provisions of this Official Notice of Sale, except for any changes
announced via THE BOND BUYER Newswire, or any other such service, as described therein.
Additional Information
For further information relating to the Bonds and the City, reference is made to the City's Preliminary
Official Statement. The City has deemed thc Preliminary Official Statement to be final as of its date within the
meaning of the Rule, except for the omission of certain pricing and other information permitted to be omitted
pursuant to the Rule. The Official Bid Form and the Preliminary Official Statement may be obtained from the
City's Financial Advisors, Government Finance Associates, Inc., 919 Third Avenue, 27th Floor, New York, NY
10022 (telephone 212-836-4819) and Government Finance Group, a division of ARD Incorporated, 1601 N. Kent
Street, Suite 800, Arlington, VA 22209 (telephone 703-807-5700).
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
By: James K. Spore
City Manager
Dated: February 21, 2002
8
OFFICIAL BID FORM
Electronic bids (or facsimile bids as provided in the Official Notice of Sale) must be submitted by ! 1:00 am, Local Time.
To: City Manager March 5, 2002
Office of the City Manager
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456
On behalf of the firm(s) listed below and pursuant to the terms and conditions listed in the City's Official Notice of Sale, we offer
to purchase the $95,000,000' General Obligation Public Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series of 2002 (the "Bonds"), of the
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, dated March I, 2002. This offer is made for all of the Bonds and for not less than all, maturing
on March i in the years shown below. The schedule of maturities and intei'est rates upon which this bid is based are as follows:
Preliminary Revised
Principal Principal
Maturity Amount* Amount Rate Maturity
2003 $ $ 2013
2004 2014
20O5 2O 15
2006 2016
2007 2017
2008 2018
2009 20 ! 9
2010 2020
201 i 2021
2012 2022
Preliminary Revised
Principal Principal
Amount* Amount
$ $
Rate
(CROSS OUT THE SERIAL BOND MATURITIES BEING BID AS TERM BONDS.)
Term Bonds (Optional - No More Than Two Term Bonds)
First Year of Mandatory Year of Maturity Total Principal Amounts Rate
Redemption
We will pay $
or premium of $
%
%
(LEAVE BLANK IF NO TERM BONDS ARE SPECIFIED)
", which is not less than $64,350,000 or not less than 99% of par (representing a discount
), plus accrued interest from the date of thc Bonds to the date of delivery and will accept
delivery of the Bonds by means of a book-entry system at The Depository Trust Company, New York, NY.
Please indicate the appropriate choice:
We have posted a surety bond in the amount of $650,000. If awarded the bid, we will deliver to the City $650,000 in
good faith money by I I:00 a.m., Local Time, on the next business day immediately following the date of award, or the
City will draw upon the surety bond and apply it in accordance with the Official Notice of Sale against any loss
resulting from the successful bidder failing to comply with the terms of this bid.
We enclose (or previously delivered) a certified or cashier's check for $650,000 drawn upon an incorporated bank or
trust company as detailed in the Official Notice of Sale and payable unconditionally to the order of the City of Virginia
Beach, Virginia, which is to be applied in accordance with the Official Notice of Sale against any loss resulting from
the successful bidder failing to comply with the terms of this bid.
The good faith money will be deposited and credited on the purchase price, and no interest will be credited thereon to the
successful bidder. The proceeds of the check will be retained by Ihc City as liquidated damages in case the successful bidder
fails to accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds. Checks of unsuccessful bidders will be returned promptly upon award of the
Bonds.
The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt and review of the Preliminary Official Statement referred to in the Official Notice
of Sale. Respectfully submitted,
(Name of Bidding Firm) (Authorized Signature) (Name & Phone
Contact Person)
The good faith check has been returned and receipt thereof is duly acknowledged.
NO ADDITION OR ALTERATION, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED ABOVE, SHOULD BE MADE TO THIS BID.
Number of
' Preliminary, subject to adjustment as provided in the Official Notice of Sale.
*' A~er adjustment, the actual purchase price may be less than 99% of par.
(NOTE - The following is stated for information only and is nol pan of this bid: Thc truc intcrcst cost of this bid, calculated in
accordance with the Official Notice of Sale, is .% (to six decimal places).
A list of the members of our syndicate is attached.)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
Virginia Regional Competitiveness Program - Hampton Roads Partnership
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2002
Background:
As explained in the attached letter from James L. Eason, President of the Hampton Roads
Partnership, the State's Regional Competitiveness Program requires a re-certification process
every five years to continue to qualify for funding under the program. The Partnership is
requesting that all cities in the region again adopt resolutions authorizing the Hampton Roads
Partnership to carry out the provisions of the Act.
Considerations:
Despite sharp reductions in the funding from the State of Virginia, the Regional
Competitiveness Act provides very important resources to the regional competitiveness
organizations throughout Virginia. The Hampton Roads Partnership has effectively leveraged
these funds to further the competitiveness and prosperity of the region.
Public Information:
Routine agenda notification process.
Alternatives:
Do not adopt the resolution.
Recommendations:
Adopt attached resolution.
Attachments:
January 14, 2002, letter from James L. Eason
Hampton Roads Partnership Modified Strategic Plan
Resolution Authorizing the Hampton Roads Partnership to carry out provisions of the Regional
Competitiveness Program
Recommended Action:
Submitting Department/Agency:_._
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HAMPTON ROADS PARTNERSHIP TO
CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS
PROGRAM (RCP) AND APPROVING THE FUND DISTRIBUTION
METHODOLOGY PROPOSED BY THE PARTNERSHIP
WHEREAS, in 1996, the Virginia General Assembly adopted the Regional
Competitiveness Act (The "Act"), Chapter 26.3 of Title 15.1 (§ 15.1-1227.1
through § 15.1-1227.5) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to encourage
counties, cities and towns to work together for their mutual benefit and that of the
Commonwealth of Virginia;
WHEREAS, to encourage regional strategic planning and cooperation, the
Act establishes an incentive fund administered by the Virginia Department of
Housing and Community Development (VDHCD) to be used to encourage and
reward regional strategic economic development planning and joint activities;
WHEREAS, The Act provides a monetary incentive, which totaled Ten
Million, Two-Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand, Two Hundred Dollars
($10,267,200) in 2002, for distribution among the State's regions for communities
to undertake new levels of regional activity to address obstacles to economic
competitiveness, by granting funds for five (5) years in accord with VDHCD
standards adopted pursuant to the RCP;
WHEREAS, incentive funds will be disbursed to eligible regions in an
amount equal to the percentage of the funds appropriated in incentive payments
for a fiscal year that represents the. region's percentage of the total population of
all eligible regions with a minimum of $300,000 (FY 2002);
WHEREAS, the Hampton Roads Partnership (the "Partnership") is a
Virginia non-profit, non-stock corporation comprised of leading representatives
from the public, business, education, and military communities whose mission is
to enhance regional cooperation and improve economic competitiveness in the
Hampton Roads Region (the "Region") which Region includes the Cities of
Chesapeake, Franklin, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson,
Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg, and the Counties of
Gloucester, Isle of Wight, James City, Southampton, Surry and York;
WHEREAS, the Partnership revised its strategic plan in 1999, and further
modified that plan in 2001 and as such has a clear strategic road map for
improving the economic competitiveness of the Hampton Roads Region;
WHEREAS, a copy of the Modified Strategic Plan is attached hereto as
Exhibit A to be read as a part hereof;
WHEREAS, the Partnership, in close cooperation with the Hampton
Roads Planning District Commission, will take responsibility for submitting the
Hampton Roads Region's Re-qualification application for incentive funding under
the RCP and for seeing that the Plan's joint activities are enacted;
WHEREAS, in recognition of the Partnership's role in implementing the
Plan's joint activities, the distribution of all RCP funds received by the Region
since the inception of the program have gone directly to the Partnership
("distribution methodology");
WHEREAS, prior to completing the application process, the RCP
guidelines require that each municipality designate by resolution, approval of the
Region's RCP incentive funds distribution methodology; and
WHEREAS, the Council of Virginia Beach, Virginia has reviewed the RCP
and supports the Partnership's efforts to carry out the provisions of the RCP and
apply for monetary incentives on its behalf.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That, on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, City Council hereby:
Recognizes the Hampton Roads Region as a region contemplated
by the Act, and declares itself to be a member of, and a participant
in, the Hampton Roads Region;
Supports the Partnership's efforts to carry out the provisions of the
RCP and apply for monetary incentives on its behalf; and
Approves the RCP fund distribution methodology, and authorizes
the Partnership to receive, on its behalf, all incentive funding for the
five year qualification period beginning in the 2003 fiscal year.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this
__ day of ,2002.
Co-Chairmen
William K. Butler, II
R. Bruce Bradley
HAMPTON/ .
ROADS
PART N E R S ~t i P
James L. Eason
President & CEO
Mr. James K. Spore
City Manager
City of Virginia Beach
Municipal Center
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
Dear Jim:
January 14,2002
The Hampton Roads Partnership has completed its first five years of
qualification with the Regional Competitiveness Program (RCP). We have begun
the process to re-qualify for another five-year period. While this re-qualification
process recognizes the progress we have made to date on activities that
encourage regional cooperation, it also requires us to reach for higher levels of
cooperation.
In order for our region to rs-qualify for RCP funding, several legislatively
set requirements must be met. These include revising and adopting a regional
economic development strategic plan (which our board did on December 14) and
scoring at least 20 points in the evaluation system assessing the impact of
existing and proposed regional activities. Since the rs-qualification process is
considered one of the most important things we will do in the next three months,
the staff has assigned a top pdodty to completing the various segments of the
application. We ask your help on two things necessary for us to re-qualifY:
(1)
Adopt a Resolution from the Virginia Beach City Council, very
similar to the one that was approved and included in our initial
application made in 1997. For your information and reference !
have attached a copy of the Resolution that was adopted by
Council on May 13, 1997. The same request will be made of
each locality in our region.
I have also attached an updated Resolution that can be
presented to the Council this year. Our application is due to the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development
on Mamh 29, 2002 and it is our hope to have ali of the
Resolutions adopted and forwarded to Donna Morris by
February 28.
430 World ~ad¢ CenTer [ No,.ffoJk, VA 23510 I 757.525.4696 I Fax 757.625.4684
Mr. James K. Spore
Page two
(2)
Designate a senior staff person that could attend possibly two or
three meetings with his peers in Hampton Roads for the
purpose of assisting us to identify those activities, which we are
doing together now and those we possibly could pursue in the
future. This exercise relates to the requirement of us obtaining
20 points for existing and proposed regional activities. For
illustrative purposes I have included Appendix A and B to give
you an idea as to scoring requirements.
We appreciate the support you continue to provide in so many ways to the
Hampton Roads Partnership. The Partnership would not exist without the strong
support offered by our localities. If you have questions, please feel free to contact
me or Donna Morris at 625-4696.
Sincerely,
Eason
Appendix A
Issue Areas and Point Weights
Issue Area Weight
Job Creation or Economic Development 10
Region Revenue Sharing or Growth Sharing Agreement 10
Education 10
Human Services 8
LOcal Land Use 8
Housing 8
Transportation 5
Law Enforcement. 5
Solid Waste 4
Water and Sewer Services 4
Corrections 3
Fire Services and Emergency Medical Services 3
Libraries 2
Parks and Recreation 2
Regional Competitiveness Program
Request for Re-qualification
August 2001
Page 8
Appendix B
Issue Areas and Point Weights
Criteria Weight
The significance of the activity as measured by its impact on
regional economic competitiveness 50%
The significance of the activity on improving or strengthening
cooperative working relatiofiihips among local govermnents 35%
The complexity or difficulty in carrying out the activity 5%
The amount of fiscal resources committed to implementing the
acti~ty 5%
The number of localities participating in the activity 5%
Regional Competitiveness Program
Request for Re-qualification
August 2001
Page 9
HAMPTON ROADS PARTNERSHIP
MODIFIED STRATEGIC PLAN
October 1, 2001
Transportation
Goal: Improve mobility in Hampton Roads
Objectives:
1. Gain more state support.
2. Attain ability to address revenue requirements on a regional basis for specific
projects.
3. Successful referendum.
Strategies:
1. Continue active participation in the Commonwealth Transportation Alliance.
Establish a relationship with other regions of the Commonwealth to better
understand their transportation needs and encourage collaboration on transportation
issues where feasible.
Assist, support and participate in the work of the two state legislative committees and
one commission - Joint Sub-Committee to Study Funding of Unfunded
Transportation Needs in Hampton Roads, Route 460 Communications Committee
and the Hampton Roads Third Crossing Study Commission.
4. Keep current the five-point position that serves as the basis of our transportation
strategy.
5. Expand membership in the Transportation Advocacy Group, enhance
communication among members of the group, their members and the legislators.
Develop a regional transportation communications strategy designed to build support
and momentum for the MPO package from the initial public awareness effort up to a
high profile region-wide referendum.
7. Provide funding for advocacy efforts.
Goal: Connect Hampton Roads to the northeast and southeast corridors of the High
Speed Rail Development on the east coast.
II.
Objectives:
1. Obtain connection from Newport News to Richmond.
2. Obtain connection from Norfolk to Richmond.
Strategy:
1. Monitor and support work of the lead advocacy organizations, Virginia High Speed
Rail Development Committee and Southeastern Economic Alliance.
T~-chnnlnn. y.R~_l~t~_d Fnnnn_ mic n~-v~ln,nm~_nt
Goal: Champion Hampton Roads' development into a major technology center.
Objectives:
Assist the development of physical infrastructure necessary to nurture technology
companies, especially the deployment of broadband telecommunications
infrastructure.
2. Create a culture supportive of technology entrepreneurs by developing a network - or
chain - of incubators throughout Hampton Roads.
3. Develop and maintain a competitive business climate by strengthening the region's
high technology business development services.
Build world-class research capabilities by encouraging a more comprehensive and
uniform means for the region's colleges and universities to cooperate with each other
as well as the regional community, particularly industry.
5. Increase regional technology commercialization capabilities.
6. Recruit private sector leadership to champion technology based economic
development, particularly to state and federal decision-makers.
Strategies:
Organize a team of business, university/lab, military, and government leaders to
develop a plan for developing a high-speed telecommunications backbone, or "grid",
among various academic, federal, military and commercial organizations in Hampton
Roads. Provide funding to organize the effort.
2. Provide funding to support the capabilities for regional technology business
incubation within the HRTI.
3. Provide funding to support the Hampton Roads Technology Council.
2
III.
Provide leadership, guidance and funding to support Smart Region Hampton Roads'
creation of a regional, virtual one-stop center for high technology business
development services.
5. Provide leadership, staff support and funding for the Hampton Roads Research
Partnership.
6. Provide funding to support a technology commercialization capability within the
context of the Hampton Roads Research Partnership.
7. Support Hampton Roads Partnership Directors interested in taking a leadership
position in technology based eCOnomic development.
Complete the position paper, TechnoloRy Based Economic Development In The
Commonwealth and Hampton Roads, and develop a strategy for broad distribution
and discussion.
Port of Hampton Roads
Goal: Enhance the Port of Hampton Roads' competitiveness.
Objectives:
1. Increase depth of the channel to accommodate mega-size vessels.
Support the development and implementation of an action plan for a fourth madne
terminal on the proposed eastward expansion of the Craney Island Dredge Matedal
Management Facility.
Aggressively advocate the construction of the third crossing connecting the north and
southside communities of the Hampton Roads region with the proposed fourth
madne terminal at Craney Island.
4. Serve as an advocate for the successful implementation of the Virginia Intermodal
Partnership Project.
Strategies:
1. Provide funding to the Hampton Roads Maritime Association for the Port
Ombudsman.
2. Monitor the progress of the Virginia Intermodal Partnership Project, serving in an
advocacy role when necessary.
Host a forum for individuals representing port-related interests to receive periodic
bdefings on the status of actionable items contained in this report as well as future
port issues requiring assistance or advocacy.
3
Goal: Enhance Maritime Economic Development
Objective:
1. Promote port-related customer expansion and re-location of corporate headquarters
to Hampton Roads.
Strategy:
1. Provide funding for targeted visits made by local and/or regional economic
development officials with current and prospective port customers.
Goal: Communicate the needs of Urban Core Cities
Objective:
1. Provide assistance and support to cities in the region in their effort to offset negative
impacts associated with a declining tax base.
Strategy:
1. Continue to advocate the need to address the problem of declining revenues that
urban cities throughout the Commonwealth are facing due to the negative impact of
government-owned and tax exempt properties.
IV. Wnrkfnre~ l~v~ln.nm~nt
Goal: Foster the development of a regional workforce development system in
Hampton Roads.
Objective:
1. Develop a cohesive, systematic, employer-driven approach to workforce
development.
Strategy:
1. Provide funding for the joint initiatives pursued by the two independent workforce
development organizations with the ultimate goal of encouraging a single workforce
development effort for the region.
Goal: Support development of Hampton Roads' "emerging workforce."
Objective:
1. Support the "emerging workforce" through a three pronged approach:
· Help children to be bom healthy and enter school ready to learn.
4
· Give disadvantaged children an opportunity to obtain the computer skills
necessary to compete in the world.
· Give high school students an opportunity to obtain a marketable technical skill
through certified training.
Strategies:
1. Provide funding to support the Square One Healthy Communities Project.
2. Provide funding to support the Hampton Roads Community Learning Center
Network.
3. Provide funding to develop and execute a pilot program for technical skills training at
the high school level.
Re ionalism and Regional Cooperation
Goal: Act like one region.
Objectives:
1. Define regionalism, what 'acting like one region" means and why is it important.
2. Improve cooperation in order to enhance regional competitiveness and operational
efficiencies and effectiveness.
3. Increase public knowledge and awareness of the benefits of acting like one region.
4. Identify projects that would facilitate progress being made in the goals and objectives
contained in this plan (MAPS Initiative).
5. Attain ability to address revenue requirements on a regional basis for the specific
projects.
6. Successful referendum.
Strategies:
Prepare a "position paper" on 'acting as one region" and obtain acceptance and
approval from the Partnership's Executive Committee and Board of Directors.
Include in the position paper a portion which "benchmarks" our region.
2. Develop a regional strategy designed to communicate the importance of 'acting as
one region," and encourage discussions among decision-makers.
Convene a committee of senior staff members representing each locality of the
region to assist in identifying existing cooperative efforts and potential future areas
and those projects which would facilitate progress on the strategic plan's goals and
objectives.
5
VII.
4. Develop a regional strategy to obtain support of the MAPS Initiative from each
locality, the state legislators and the public.
5. Provide funding for the efforts to "benchmark" our region, identify potential
cooperative efforts and for the MAPS Initiative.
6. Complete the position paper, Benefits of Preservin.q Open Space and develop a
strategy for broad distribution and discussion.
Pliflht of the Cities
Goal: Encourage a change in state Policy as it relates to localities.
Objective:
1. Promote the need to address the mismatch of revenue capacity and service
responsibilities between the state and local governments.
Strategies:
1. Seek opportunities to address General Assembly Committees or special
commissions created relative to the State-Locality relationship.
2. Prepare special mailings to the legislators and media highlighting the mismatch.
Tourism
Goal: Encourage the development of tourism product.
Objective:
1. Support the development of events, attractions and amenities that: · · Reflect the region's strengths as a tourism destination.
· 'Reduce tourism seasonality.
· Attract significant out-of-town visitorship.
· Build name recognition for the region.
· Bring additional marketing support to the region.
Strategies:
1.
Provide technical support for a regional effort to bring a major art exhibit to Hampton
Roads. Provide seed funding and leverage in soliciting funding from other sources.
2. Provide funding to support the Virginia Arts Festival.
6
VIII.
3. prOvide funding t° develop an annual regional festival promoting the maritime image
of Hampton Roads.
4. Provide leadership and funding for incidental meeting and marketing expenses in
attracting a Major League baseball or basketball team.
Goal: Support the Marketing of Hampton Roads as a Premier Tourism Destination
Objective:
1. Assist in building regional identity, name recognition and image as a premier tourism
destination. :
Strategy:
1. Provide funding to develop and maintain a Hampton Roads regional tourism web-
site.
Military Partnering
Goal: Maximize local economic returns from underutilized Department of Defense real
estate.
Objective:
1. Assist Hampton Roads municipalities in developing underutilized Department of
Defense real estate which has potential for private or other public use.
Strategy:
Provide funding to support CP3 for the purpose of organizing the cities of
Chesapeake and Portsmouth to develop St. Juliens Creek and the surrounding
community.
7
REQUESTED BY MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF
1
2
4
6
7
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HAMPTON
ROADS PARTNERSHIP TO CARRY OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE REGIONAL
COM~ETITIVENESS PROGRAM (RCP) AND
APPROVING THE FUND DISTRIBUTION
METHODOLOGY PROPOSED BY THE
PARTNERSHIP
8 WHEREAS, in.1996, the Virginia General Assembly adopted
9 the Regional Competitiveness Act (the 'Act"), Chapter 26.3 of Title
10 15.1 (SS 15.1-1227.1 through S 15.1-1227.5) of the Code of
11 Virginia, 1950, as amended, to encourage counties, cities and towns
12 to work together for their mutual benefit and that of the
13 Commonwealth of Virginia;
14 WHEREAS, to encourage regional strategic planning and
15 cooperation, the Act establishes an incentive fund administered by
16 the Virginia Department of Housing and Community D~velopment
17 (VDHCD) to be used to encourage and reward regional strategic
18 economic development planning and joint activities~
19 WHEREAs, the ACt provides a monetary incentive, totaling
20 Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) in 1997, for distribution among
21 the State's regions for communities to undertake new levels, of
22 regional activity to address obstacles to economic competitiveness,
23 by granting funds for five (5) years in accord with-VDHCD standards
24 adopted pursuant to ~he RCP, with applications for the first round
25 incentive f~nde being due on jUly 1, 1997~
26 WHEREAS, incentive funds will be disbursed to eligible
27 regions in an amount equal to the percentage of the funds
28 appropriated in incentive payments for a fiscal year that
29 rep. resents the region's percentage of the total population of all
30 eligible regions ~
31 WHEREAS, the Hmapton Roads Part~ership (the 'Partnership')
32 is a Virginia non-profit, non-stock corpora=ion comprised of
3'3 leading representatives from the public, business, education,
34 civic, and military communities whose mission is to enhance
35 regional cooperation and improve economic competitiveness in the
36
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
46
4'7
48
49
53.
52
53
54
59
60
'$1
62
64
Hampton Roads Region (the Region') which Region includes the Cities
of Chesapeake, Franklin, Hampton, Newport News, NorfoLk, Poquoson,
Portsmouth, Suffolk, virginia Beach, and Williamsburg, and the
Counties of Gloucester, Isle of Wight, James City, Southampton and
York;
WHEREAS, the Partnership has formally adopted the Hampton
Roads Region's plan 2007 (the 'Plan') as its strategic plan and as
such has a clear strategic road map for improving the economic
competitiveness :of the Hampton Roads Region~
WHEREAS, a copy of the Plan 2007 Vision and Goal
Statement is attached hereto as Exhibit A to be read as a part
hereof ~
WHEREAS, the Partnership, in close cooperation with the
Hampton Roads Planning District .Commission, will take
respons~bility for submitting the Hampton Roads Region's application
for incentive funding under the RCP and for seeing that the Plan's
Joint activities are anacted~
WHEREAS, in recognition of the Partnership'e role in
implemanting the Plan's Joint activities, the Partnership's
Executive Committee' has formally requested that the Hampton Roads
Mayors and Chairs Caucus support the distribution of all 1997 RCP
funds received by the Region directly to the Partnership
('distribution methodologlW) ~
WHEREAS, prior to completing the application process, the
RCP guidelines require that each municipality designate by
resolution approval of the Region's 'RCP incentive funds distribution
methodology; and
WHEREAS, the Council of Virginia Beach, Virginia, has
reviewed the RCP and supports the Partnership's efforts to carry out
the provisions of the RCP and apply for monetary incentives on
waif.
2
67
68
69
70
71
'72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That, on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, V~rginia,
City Council hereby:
1. 'Recognizes the Hampton Roads Region as a region
contemplated by the Act, and declares i~self to be a m~er of, and
a par~icipant in, the Hampton Roads Region;
2. Supports the Partnership's efforts to carry out the
provisions of the RCP and apply for monetary incentives on its
behalf; and
3. Approves the RCP fund distribution methodology, and
authorizes the Partnership to receive, on its behalf, all 1997
incentive funding.
, Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on this 13th day of May , 1997.
82
83
84
85
C~-6639
ORDIN\NONCODE\RCP. RES
R-1
PREPARED: 5/7/97
CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
VIRGINIA, ON MAY 13, 1997
Smith, CMC/AAE
· Cl~y Clerk
I. ORDINANCES
Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $883,536 in anticipated revenue from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to the Fire Department's FY 2001-2002 operating
budget re supporting FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Team, Virginia Task Force
Number 2 at the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $478,692 from the Tourism Advertising program's
special revenue fund to the FY 2001-2002 operating budget of Convention and Visitor
Development re expanding the City's tour/sm, advertising and promotional campaigns;
and, establish revenues to ensure quality programs in the event of a natural disaster or
serious economic condition.
o
Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $31,000 grant from the Virginia
Environmental Quality to the FY 2001-2002 operating budget of Museums and Cultural
Arts re maintaining a statewide stranding network.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
Appropriation'of $883,536 in anticipated reimbursement revenues from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to deploy FEMA Virginia
Task Force 2, Urban Search and Rescue Team to Salt Lake City, Utah for the
2002 Olympic Winter Games.
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2002
Background:
The City of Virginia Beach is the sponsoring agency for Virginia Task Force 2 Urban
Search and Rescue Team (VA-TF2), which is one of twenty eight teams organized under the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These tasks forces aro not only deployed
to provide assistance in the aftermath of natural and man-made disasters, but are also pre-
positioned to provide more immediate response when exceptionally large crowds are
participating in events of national or international importance. When a team is activated, all
costs incurred by the sponsoring agency for activation are reimbursed by FEMA.
As with the Summer Olympics held in Atlanta, Georgia, VA-TF2 is again being activated
to pre-position for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt lake City over the time period of February
11-18, 2002. VA-TF2 will be one of six rotating teams that will be immediately available to
respond to a natural disaster or terrorist event. VA-TF2 also now brings an added dimension
of Weapons of Mass Destruction specialization, with enhanced training and equipment to deal
with chemical and biological events.
Considerations:
The Team is a significant asset to both the local community and the nation in that these
trained personnel can supplement local public safety personnel in resolving formidable, time
consuming and emotionally devastating tragic events. As with past activations, all expenses
for the deployment and replacement personnel needed to maintain adequate fire department
staffing for all involved jurisdictions are fully reimbursed.
Alternatives:
The City's designation as and participation in FEMA is a pro-arranged relationship and
obligation between the City of Virginia Beach and FEMA.
Attachments:
Ordinance
Deployment notification letter from FEMA.
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department
F:\Data~ATY~Ordin\N(~DE\FEMA_Olym~p[cs.Arf.wpdCity Manage~~w-~:~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $883,536 IN
ANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S FY
2001-02 OPERATING BUDGET TO SUPPORT THE
OPERATIONS OF THE FEMA URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE
TEAM, VIRGINIA TASK FORCE NO.2 AT THE OLYMPICS
IN SALT LAKE CITY
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA")
Urban Search and Rescue Team, Virginia Task Force No. 2, comprised
of personnel from the City of Virginia Beach and other Hampton
Roads localities, has been activated for deployment to the 2002
Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, from February 11-18,
2002; and
WHEREAS, under federal law and the agreement between FEMA and
the City, costs incurred to the City associated with the deployment
of the team are fully reimbursable from FEMA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That $883,536 in anticipated reimbursement revenue from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency is hereby appropriated to the
Fire Department's FY 2001-02 Operating Budget to fund personnel
costs, equipment, and supplies used in the deployment of the FEMA
Urban Search and Rescue Team to the Winter Olympics, with estimated
revenue from the federal government increased accordingly.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on the day of , 2002,
CA-8385
Noncode~fema-olympics.ord.wpd
February 4, 2002
R1
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFF I C I ENCY:
City
City of Virginia Flcach
OEPARTMENT OF FIRE
(757) 427-4228
FAX (757) 426-5676
MUNICIPAL CENTER
BUILDING #21
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23,0,56.9065
February I, 2002
Mr. James K. Spore
City Manager
Dear Mr. Spore:
The department is proud to inform you the FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Team,
Virginia Task Force 2, has been chosen to support national security efforts surrounding the
upcoming 2002 Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. Our team is one of six that
will rotate into a pre-positioning status over a three week period. This pre-positioning is the
same approach taken for the 1998 Olympic sUmmer Games in Atlanta, Georgia.
Normally, as the lead agency we would begin the Council Agenda process to initiate
and formalize the legal and fiscal procedures to facilitate the deployment. However, we have
yet to receive "official" Activation Orders from FEMA. We have initiated the Agenda Request
process anticipating these orders will arrive shortly. The Agenda item is not slated to go to
Council until February 12 at the earliest. The Team is scheduled to deploy on February 11.
Management Services has recommended we advise both you and Council at this time to insure
there is appropriate awareness of the Team's activities.
To summarize the. events that will take place regarding this deployment:
VA-TF2 is scheduled to deploy February 11, 2002 and remm on February 18,
2002. The team will be made up of 70 members, including a special
MD/Haz-mat component.
Five senior team members will be deployed over the three week period as
members of the Incident Support Team, a command and oversight group.
All expenses incurred by the Team and by participating localities to facilitate
this deployment will be reimbursed by FEMA. Reimbursements includes all
personnel costs associated with "backfilling" deployed members to insure local
emergency service staffing requirements are maintained.
The Public Information Office will assist in any associated press releases
pertaining to the deployment.
All agencies involved with Task Force 2 appreciate the support our Council has shown
since the Team's inception and we look forward to serving the community in whatever way we
are called upon to provide the highest level of public safety protection.
If you or Council have any questions regarding this deployment in the next few weeks,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
In serv~i~e to our comftaunity,
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
Appropriation of 2000-01 Tourism Advertising Program Special Revenue
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2002
Background:
In July 1996, the City Council of Virginia Beach established the Tourism Advertising Program Special
Revenue Fund. Together with revenues from one cent of the percentage-based portion of the transient
lodging tax and one-half cent of the restaurant meal tax, a "Flat Lodging Tax" of one dollar ($1.00) was
added to support the City's budget for its advertising and marketing program and related activities,
including the operation of the Visitor Center to promote and increase tourist visitation to this City.
Considerations:
The original ordinance estabhshed coUncil's intent to utilize the Tourism Advertising Revenue Fund
for the advertising program. At the close of FY 2000-01, the TAP Fund had an unappropriated fund
balance, which results from positive revenue performance and appropriation balances from Advertising
and the Visitor Information Center. An appropriation in the amount of $478,692 will carry out
Council's wishes and enable the Virginia Beach Advertising Committee and the Department of
Convention & Visitor Development to incorporate these funds into the current marketing plan. Funds
will be used in the following two ways:
to expand the City's advertising and promotional efforts for initiatives such as sports
marketing, regional cooperative advertising campaigns with the state and new market
opportunities.
bo
To establish reserves that will ensure quality advertising and marketing capacity in the event
of a natural disaster or serious economic conditions impacting the City' s tourism industry. The
Department of Convention & Visitor Development, together with the City's Advertising
Advisory Committee, annually dedicates a portion of the fund balance for reserves, an amount
determined to be appropriate given current trends and economic outlook in the tourism.
industry.
Attachments:
Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Convention and Visitor Development
City Manager:q~ ~ , (~~
F:~DataBa_lYXOrdin~lO1NCODE\Tourism Advertising.arf revised.wpd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $478,692
FROM FUND BALANCE IN THE TOURISM
ADVERTISING PROGRAM SPECIAL REVENUE
FUND TO THE FY 2001-02 OPERATING
BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONVENTION AND VISITOR DEVELOPMENT
TO EXPAND THE CITY'S TOURISM
ADVERTISING PROGRAM AND TO PROVIDE
IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO FUNDS IN CASE OF
EMERGENCIES
11
12
13
14
15
WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds within the fund
balance of the Tourism Advertising Program Special Revenue Fund to
provide $478,692 for the purpose of expanding the tourism
advertising program and providing reserve funds for advertising
purposes in case of emergencies.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That $478,692 is hereby appropriated from the fund
balance in the Tourism Advertising Program Special Revenue Fund to
the FY 2001-02 Operating Budget of the Department of Convention and
Tourism for the purpose of expanding the City's tourism advertising
efforts and providing reserve funds for advertising purposes in
cases of emergencies.
24
25
26
27
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on the day of , 2002.
Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members
of City Council
CA-8375
January 31, 2002
Noncode/Tourism Advertising. Ord
R2
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Management Services'
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY
C~ty Attorney'~ Offi~eTM
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
MEETING DATE:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate a $31,000 Grant from the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality to the FY 2001-2002 Operating
Budget of the Department of Museums and Cultural Arts to Maintain a
Statewide Stranding Network
February 12, 2002
Background: The Virginia Marine Science Museum has been awarded a Virginia Coastal Resources
Management Program Grant, from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality in the amount of
$31,000. The museum will be required to match this award with $31,000 in indirect and in-kind costs
of personnel and equipment. This grant will be used to maintain a statewide stranding response
network including a volunteer stranding response team and cooperating organizations. Virginia Marine
Science Museum Stranding Team (VMSM-SP) staff, volunteers and cooperators will respond to marine
mammal and sea turtle strandings occurring along the ocean coast, Eastern Shore and lower
Chesapeake Bay. Stranding response includes carcass recovery, external and internal examination
with photographs and/orvideo, human interaction analysis, stomach contents analysis, tissue sampling
and dissemination, coordination of carcass disposal, and database management.
Considerations: The VMSM-SP responds to more than 200 strandings each year. The VMSM-SP
recruits, trains, and coordinates a volunteer stranding team with over 100 members. Trainings are
conducted throughout the year with a heavy emphasis on the Spring season. The VMSM-SP maintains
the state marine mammal stranding database and submits reports to National Marine Fisheries
Services (NMFS) and other agencies. Sea turtle data is supplied to the state database managed by
the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). Through these ways, information regarding the status
of marine mammals and sea turtles in Virginia is presented to the agencies and individuals responsible
for the conservation and management of natural resources. The VMSM-SP is also dedicated to
educating the public. Each stranding event is viewed as an opportunity to educate the public about
Virginia's protected marine mammals and sea turtles.
Public Information: The public will be informed through the normal agenda process.
Alternatives: Do not accept grant.
Recommendations: Adopt Attached Ordinance
Attachments: Grant award letter and Ordinance.
Recommended Action: Appropriation of Grant Funds.
Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Museums And Cultural Arts
City Manager: ~~,~ ~L,
~ F:\Data~ATY~Ordin\NONCODE\Stranding Network Grant.Arf.wpd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE A
$31,000 GRANT FROM THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TO
THE FY 2001-2002 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS
TO MAINTAIN A STATEWIDE STRANDING NETWORK
WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach has been awarded a
$31,000 grant from the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality; and
WHEREAS, while an in-kind match is required, no City cash
is needed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That a $31,000 grant is hereby accepted and appropriated to
the FY 2001-2002 Operating Budget of the Department of Museums and
Cultural Arts to maintain a statewide stranding network, with
estimated revenue from the Commonwealth increased accordingly.
13
14
Accepted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia on the day of , 2002.
CA-8382
NoncodekStranding Network. Ord
February 1, 2002
R2
Approved as to Content:
Management
Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency:
Jo
Ko
PLANNING - NON'ACTION
1. Application of B JR ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. for a conversion of a nonconforming use
at 1636 Industrial Park Road, containing 1.11 acres.
(DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN)
No action necessary due to modified use in the proposal
PLANNING
Application.of HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. for a
MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS on their application for thc closure of Waxing
Street, on the west side of Avalon Avenue, granted on October 10, 2000.
(DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE)
Application ofR&T, L.L.C. for a MODIFICATION OF PROFFERS for a Change of
Zoning District Classification fi.om AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to
Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District at 2972 Holland Road approved on January 9,
2001.
(DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE)
Application for H. B. & SANDRA BROOKS to alter a nonconforming use to add a
new porch with a roof and relocate the dwelling entrance on the south side of 54th Street,
cast of Atlantic Avenue (114 54~ Street), containing 6,625 square feet.
(DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN)
Application of SHADOW ISLAND ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. for a Variance to §4.4b thc
Subdivision Ordinance re minimum lot width of at 605 Arctic Avenue.
(DISTRICT 6 - BEACH)
Application ofBIL-MAR CONST. LTD for a Conditional Use Permit re independent
living for senior and disabled persons at the northwest extremity of Oconee Avenue,
containing 5.25 acres.
(DISTRICT 6 - BEACH)
Application of LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES, INC., for a Conditional Use
Permit for housing for seniors and disabled persons at the northern extremity of Old
Donation Parkway east of Camelot Drive (1604 Old Donation Parkway), containing
2.044 acres.
(DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN)
Application of NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS for a Conditional Use Permit for a
wireless communications antenna on property of Dominion Virginia Power on the
north side of Ansol Lane, west of Landmark Square, containing 994 square feet.
(DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL)
Applications of VOICE STREAM WIRELESS for a Conditional Use Permits for a
communication towers:
ao
on the south side of Bayside Road, west of Baker Road (5740 Bayside Road),
containing 4.842 acres.
(DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE)
on the west side of North Witchduck Road, north ofi-264, containing 1.8 acres
(DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE)
Application of. OCEAN BAY VENTURES, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District
Classification from I-1 Light Industrial and R-SD Residential Duplex to Conditional A-24
Apartment District on the northwest comer of the Norfolk & Southern Railroad right-of-way
and Cypress Avenue, containing 2.89 acres more or less.
(DISTRICT 6 - BEACH)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
BJR Enterprises, LLC, Conversion of a Non-Conforming Use
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2002
Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of BJR Enterprises, LLC for a conversion of a nonconforming
use on property located at 1636 Industrial Park Road. Said parcel contains 1.11 acres (GPIN
#2407-88-8459). DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN.
Considerations:
The applicant has discussed the development proposal further with the staff and has modified
the proposed use of the property such that action by the City Council is no longer necessary.
Recommendations:
No action necessary.
Attachments:
Staff Review
Planning Commission Minutes
Disclosure Statement
Location Map
Recommended Action: No action necessary.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
City Manager: (~~ 1~, ~~
Ma~ B,C-8
Mop No't, t~ $cole
Harbour
LLC
Modification of Conditions
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
Harbour Development Corporation, LLC, Modification to Condition
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2002
Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Harbour Development Corporation, L.L.C., for a modification
of conditions placed on the application for a street closure for Waring Street, granted by City
Council on October 10, 2000. Property is located on the west side of Avalon Avenue, running
westerly a distance of 589 feet. DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE.
Considerations:
The applicant is requesting a modification of Condition I of the October 10, 2000 approval
of the street closure for this portion~of Waring Street. The modification revises the wording to
allow dedicated right-of-way associated with a recent subdivision plat for a residential
development at this location to be used as payment for the closed "paper" street. As
currently worded, Condition #1 requires outright purchase rather the method of dedication of
new right-of-way in lieu of purchase. The suggested revision to the condition allows the
dedication rather than direct purchase.
Recommendations:
Approval of the revision with the following conditions:
The City Attorney's office will make the final determination regarding ownership of
the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined
according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant
to Street Closures", approved by City Council and provided further that if the City
receives dedicated public right-of-way equal to or greater in area to that being
closed, no payment or conSideration for the area being closed shall be required.
2. Conditions 2 through 5 of the street closure of Waring Street approved by City
Council on October 10, 2000 remain in effect.
Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
City Manager~,,~ .~
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT
February 12, 2002
General Information:
REQUEST:
ADDRESS:
Modification of Conditions placed on a street closure for Waring
Street on October 10, 2000.
Waring Street beginning on the west side of Avalon Avenue and
running westerly a distance of 589 feet.
Map B,C-8
~o~ ~o~ ~o ~o~ Harbour Develo LLC
Modification of Conditions
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
PURPOSE:
1 - CENTERVILLE
34, 333 square feet
Barbara Duke
To modify the condition regarding purchase price of the property.
Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics:
Existinq Land Use and Zoninq
The subject site consists of several undeveloped residential lots zoned R-10 Residential
District.
Surroundin,q Land Use and Zonin.q
All property surrounding the subject site to the north, east and south is developed as
single family home lots consistent with R-10 Residential District zoning. There is a
February 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT
Page I
church existing to the west of the subject site that is also zoned R-lO Residential
District.
Summary of
Proposal
The property owners sought
to close this paper street in
order to facilitate a more
appropriate right-of-way
alignment across their
property so as to permit
development of their land
consistent with its zoning
and consistent with other
development surrounding
the property.
The street closure of Waring
Street was approved by City Council on October 10, 2000 with the following conditions
attached:
The City Attomey's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership
of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be
determined according to the "Policy Regarding purchase of City's Interest in
Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of said
policy are available in the Planning Department.
The applicant is required to resubdivide the property and vacate interior lot lines
for Lots 18-23 and Lots 25-30 to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining
parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final
street closure approval. The resubdivision plat shall provide a public right-of-way
connection to the property immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the
resubdivided property, or altematively, the resubdivision plat shall be approved
and signed by the owner(s) of the property immediately adjacent to the western
boundary of the resubdivided property for the sole purpose of evidencing consent
to the closure of that portion of Waring Street closed by this Ordinance.
The applicant is required to verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-
way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to
the utility company must be provided.
A 30-foot public utility easement must be dedicated to the City over the existing
6-inch water line in the Waring Street right-of-way. This easement must be
shown on the resubdivision plat.
Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above
conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If all conditions noted
above are not accomplished and a final plat is not approved within 365 days of
City Council's vote to close the roadway, this approval will be considered null and
void.
A resubdivision plat that meets all of the above conditions was recorded on October 4,
2001 in Map Book 299, pages 69-71. The resubdivision plat shows a newly dedicated
street of approximately 62,604 square feet, almost double the original right-of-way that
was closed, which measured 34, 333 square feet.
The applicant is requesting a reconsideration of Condition #1 to revise the wording to
allow the newly dedicated right-of-way to be used as payment for the closed paper
street. As currently worded, Condition #1 requires outright purchase rather the method
February 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT
Page 2
of dedication of new right-of-way in lieu of purchase. The suggested revision to the
condition allows the dedication rather than direct purchase.
Evaluation of Request
The Viewers Committee considered the modification to Condition #1 and it appears to
be reasonable and is recommended for approval as noted below.
Conditions
The City Attorney's office will make the final determination regarding ownership of
the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined
according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to
Street Closures", approved by City Council and provided further that if the City
receives dedicated public right-of-way equal to or greater in area to that being
closed, no payment or consideration for the area being closed shall be required.
Conditions 2 through 5 of the street closure of Waring Street approved by City
Council on October 10, 2000 remain in effect.
February 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT
Page 3
AVALON TERRACE
'17
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT
(Recorded Subdivision
Plat)
February 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT
Page 4
NOTE: L OT5 25-$0 AND LOTS t8-23 ARE OWNED BY THE APPLICANT.
R-£t~.14,
~-21o03'53'
A-77,99'
T-3g. 44'
¢-7Z.55'
R-262.14'
~-2;'06'oo- 23
C-95.99'
Z2
NOW OR FORMERLY
HELEN M. FtSK
26
27
':8
"~ 11~ /~
A-1& 03'
T-t0..33'
C-H.37'
S 24°$7'00. VI
,,, 29g,94~
21
IOOJY
S 24'57'00' W
18 .
R-tO'
~-gt'52'00'
389,89'..
AVALON AVE t'SOJ
EXHIBIT 'A'
STREET CLOSURE OF WARING STREET (M.B. 36. P. l)
AVALON TERRACE, SUBDIVISION OF TRACT NO. 2
AND SOUTH PORTION-TRACT NO. 3
VIRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA
FOR
HELEN M. FtSK. TRUSTEE
ff/~EN G i 'I~MARK
LN',ID TdJRV£YING 1
t2o~ SPARROV/ I'iOAD. CI. tE$~, VA 2]325
COI'¥RIC4-t'T tg~5 BI=h~Ct-t MAR[,[. iNC.. BE0lJ~llV~ POINT OF 0EV[LOPIdlF. HT
DATE :~
PLAT RECORDED IN: ....
PROJ. NO.: 2K-lB5
DRAWN BY: EJ
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT
(Plat Submitted with Street
Closure)
February 12, 2002
HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT
Page 5
Applicant's Name:
List All Current
Property Owners:
Harbour
DISCLOSURF, STATEMENT
Development Corporation, L.L.C.
Harbour Development Corporation, L.L.C.
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary)
If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, Hst
ail members orpartnersinthe organization below: (Attachl~t~necessary)
Robert R. Kinser, Mana i~Member
Ed Sadler, Member
Preston Fussell, Member
Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, finn, 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 ail 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~tained herein is true and accurate.
Harb°ur e~. 7ment Co~.~ration, L.L.C.
Signature
Print Name
Map H-10
Map Not to Scale
ROT. LLC
1,700
Rd.
AG-I
AG-2
OO2
Gpin - 1495-23-9523
ZONING HISTORY
5.
6.
7.
Change of Zoning AG-1 Agricultural District to I-1 Light Industrial District - Granted
12-5-83
Change of Zoning AG-1 Agricultural District to I-1 Light Industrial District - Granted
- 12-5-83
Conditional Use Permit (bulk storage/contractor storage yard) - Granted 12-5-83
Change of Zoning AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2 Community District - Denied 8-4-
86
Change of Zoning AG-1 Agricultural District to I-1 Light Industrial District - Denied 8-
Granted 9-22-86
(animal hospital, shelter, kennel) - Granted 12-22-86
(church) - Granted 5-12-92
(church expansion) - Granted 4-11-95
(church expansion) - Granted 6-18-97
8. Conditional Use Permit (telecommunications antenna) - Granted 6-9-98
9. Change of Zoning AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District
- Granted 1-12-99
Conditional Use Permit (contractor storage yard) - Granted 1-12-99
10. Conditional Use Permit (communication antenna) - Granted 2-23-99
11. Change of Zoning (AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional I-1 Light
Industrial District)- Granted 1-9-01
4-86
Subdivision Variance-
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
R&T, LLC, Modification of Conditions,
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2002
Background:
An Ordinance upon application of R&T, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company for a
Modification of Proffers for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2
Agricultural District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District on January 9, 2001. Property is
located at 2972 Holland Road. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE.
Considerations:
The applicant is requesting a modification of a conditional rezoning from AG-1 & AG-2
Agricultural Districts to Conditional I-1 Industrial District and a conditional use permit for a
building contractor's yard.
A change of zoning district classification was granted on this parcel by City Council on January
8, 2001, from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District. In
addition, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit on the same date for a
contractor's storage yard on this parcel. The applicant, however, desires to delay the
development of the site as originally proffered until Holland Road is improved or three (3)
years, whichever is earlier.
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the modified
proffer agreement will limit the uses on the site, staff recommended approval, and there was
no opposition to the request.
Recommendations:
A motion was passed by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 9 for the motion with
2 abstentions to approve this request as proffered.
Attachments:
Staff Review
Planning Commission Minutes
Disclosure Statement
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission
recommends approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
City Manager~~=.~
R&T, L.L.C./# 16
January 9, 2002
General Information:
REQUEST:
ADDRESS:
Modification of a conditional rezoning from AG-1 & AG-2
Agricultural Districts to Conditional I-1 Industrial District and a
conditional use permit for a building contractor's yard.
2972 Holland Road
Map ti-lO
No. to Scene
R~T, Lz.C
AG-I
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
#1495-23-9573
7- PRINCESS ANNE
3.87 acres
Crl~n - 1495-23-9523
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
,&T, L.L.C. ! # 16
Page I
STAFF
PLANNER:
PURPOSE:
APPLICATION
HISTORY:
Carolyn A.K. Smith
To modify the proffer agreement to allow the applicant to
operate an office out of the existing building as well as to utilize
a portion of the site for a contractor's storage yard.
This request was deferred at the December 12, 2001 public
hearing to provide staff time to work with the applicant on
revised language for the modified proffer.
Major Issues:
· Consistency of the requested modification with the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan and the City's development ordinances.
Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics:
Existinq Land Use and
Zonin,q
There is an existing single-family
dwelling on the property. Several
permits were issued by the
Building Official's office to
upgrade the existing residence to
commercial standards. This site
was recently rezoned, in January
2001, to Conditional I-1 Light
Industrial District.
Surrounding Land Use and
Zoning
North:
South:
East:
West:
· Wooded area / AG-1 Agricultural District.
· Single-family dwelling / AG-2 Agricultural District.
· Vacant grassy site / AG-2 Agricultural District.
· Single-family dwelling / AG-2 Agricultural District.
Planning Commission Agenda ~'~_~~
January 9, 2002
R&T, L.L.C. / # 16
Page 2
Zonin.q History
In January 2001, this property was rezoned to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District
and a Conditional Use Permit was granted for a contractor's storage yard. As one
travels south from Dam Neck Road to Princess Anne Road, the area transitions from
office and industrial to reSidential in character. On two sites to the east, City Council
denied a request for a change of zoning from AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2
Community Business District and AG-1 Agricultural District to I-1 Light Industrial District.
These parcels are closer to the residential area at the southem end of the corridor.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The site is in an AICUZ area of greater than 75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana and
within the Accident Potential Zone 2. The area to the north and west is covered by
easements restricting the use of the property to those uses compatible with high noise
and accident potential zones.
Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics
This site is located within the Southern Watersheds Management Area.. There is
currently a one-story, brick, single-family dwelling on the property. The southern two-
thirds of the property has been cleared. The northem one-third of the property is
wooded.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
Water: There is a 16-inch City water line in Holland Road. The site has an
existing 5/8 inch water meter that may be used or it may be
increased in size.
Sewer:
There is an 8-inch City force main but no gravity sewer in Holland
Road. This site may utilize a private force main.
Transportation
Traffic Calculations:
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
R&T, L.L.C. / # 16
Page 3
Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic
Volume Capacity
Holland Road 17,600 16,200
ADT 1 ADT ~
ri=il:, T~.ir,~. Proposed Land Use 2 _ 200 ADT
ge
2
as defined by office warehouse and contractor's storage yard
,Public ,Safety
Police:
Fire and
Rescue:
Adequate.
Adequate.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recommends the use of this parcel for business parks, offices
and appropriately located industrial and employment support uses in accordance with
other Plan policies.
Summary of Proposal
Proposal
The Conditional Rezoning and the Conditional Use Permit permitting the construction of
a 12,000 square foot building, 30 space parking lot, and a gated gravel storage lot was
approved by the City Council on January 9, 2001. The Conditional Zoning Agreement
has 6 proffers:
The Property shall be rezoned and developed substantially in accordance with
that certain site plan entitled, Conceptual Site Layout and Landscape Plan of
Holland Road Property, dated September 20, 2000, and prepared by MSA, P.C.,
a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council of the City of Virginia
Beach and is on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (the
"Site Plan"). The property is to be rezoned from existing AG-1 and AG-2 (3.87
acres) to I-1 Conditional 3.87 Acres, more specifically set forth in the Site Plan.
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
R&T, L.L.C./# 16
Page4
o
The architectural design of the principal structure on the Property shall be
substantially as shown on that certain exhibit consisting of a drawing entitled
Plan of Hitt Electric Corporation, dated October 2, 2000, prepared by Reich
Design Associates, P.L.C., copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council
of the City of Virginia Beach and is on file in the Planning Department of the City
of Virginia Beach (the "Rendering"). In addition, the exterior building materials
and colors of the principal structures on the Property and for all portions of the
principal structures on the Property shall be substantially as shown on the
Rendering. There are two primary structures proposed for the site - the office
and the warehouse facility. The office, which will be the only structure visible
from the street, will be steel framed with the primary materials of the street
fagade being brick, painted wood siding, EIFS and aluminum storefront. The two
side walls of the office will be primarily brick. The warehouse facility, which will
be located behind the office and not visible from the street, will be a steel framed
building with prefinished metal panels for the exterior walls. The rendering
depicts the proposed quality level and architectural theme for the building,
intended to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
The uses permitted on the Property shall be restricted to office-warehouse with a
contractor's storage yard; the said storage yard being a fenced area for vehicle
storage and storage of electrical supplies which will fenced to eight feet and
landscaped with Category IV materials.
Any exterior mechanical equipment located on the roof of the office and
warehouse shall be screened from the view of public right-of-way by the front
canopy treatment and parapet walls on the side.
A freestanding monument sign erected on the Property shall not exceed a height
of eight feet. No portion of the signage on each sign shall protrude beyond the
sign face area and the sign face area shall be the same width as the monument
base of the sign. Any freestanding sign constructed on the Property shall be of
substantially the same extedor building materials and colors as the front facade
on the retail structures.
6. Site lighting on the Property shall be internal focus metal halide.
The applicant proposes to modify the agreement as follows:
Proffer numbered 1 of the Original Agreement is hereby amended and
restated as follows: "The Property shall be rezoned from AG-1 and AG-2
(3.87 acres) to I-1 Conditional. Not later than three years after the date of
approval of this agreement by the City, the Grantor shall obtain final site plan
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
R&T, L.L.C. / # 16
Page 5
("Final Plan"). approval from the City, substantially in accordance with that
certain site plan entitled, "Conceptual Site Layout and Landscape Plan of
Holland Road Property", dated September 20, 2000, and prepared by MSA,
P.C., a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council of the City of
Virginia Beach and is on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia
Beach (the "Site Plan"); provided however that the contractor's storage yard
may be presented on the Final Plan with a size substantially as shown on that
certain "Exhibit of Hitt Electric 2972 Holland Road, Virginia Beach, Va." Dated
12/05/01 and prepared by MSA, P.C." (the Intedm Exhibit).
The Grantor must commence construction as specified in the Final Plan no
later than three years and one month from the date of approval of this
Agreement by the City.
Proffers Numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Original Agreement shall remain
unchanged.
The Grantor may develop and utilize the Property on an interim basis (the
"Interim Uses") until such time as construction has been completed consistent
with the Final Plan. The Interim Uses shall be limited to office uses and a
contractor's storage yard, and shall be developed substantially as shown on
that certain "Exhibit of Hitt Electric 2972 Holland Road, Virginia Beach, Va."
Dated 12/05/01 and prepared by MSA, P.C." (the Interim Exhibit).
The Interim Uses shall not include the storage of any truck or equipment
larger than a standard pick-up truck.
Category VI landscaping shall be installed around the perimeter of the
contractor's storage yard except for the ingress and egress areas, as required
by Section 228(a) of the City Zoning Ordinance.
If the Grantor does not obtain the approval of a Final Site Plan within a time-
frame as specified in condition number 2 as listed above, none of the above
referenced Interim Uses shall be permitted on the Property.
Evaluation of Request
At the December 12, 2001 Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission
instructed the staff to work with the applicant to develop language for the proffers to be
modified that was acceptable to the staff. Staff has worked with the applicant to develop
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
R&T, L.L.C. / # 16
Page 6
such language. While staff is not satisfied that there is any valid rationale for the
requested modification, staff is satisfied with the language as being enforceable.
A change of zoning district classification was granted on this parcel by City Council on
January 8, 2001, from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional I-1 Light
Industrial District. In addition, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit on
the same date for a contractor's storage yard on this parcel.
On March 29, 2001, the Permits and Inspections Office issued a Commercial Alteration
Permit to modify the existing home for commercial uses. The Building Official, however,
explained to the applicant's representative that a Certificate of Occupancy would not be
issued until an approved site plan from the Development Services Center as well as an
asbestos report were submitted to that office. The Building Official noted that these
were conditions of the building permit and they were noted on the permit. The Building
Official further explained that the applicant would be operating at his own risk. The
applicant's representative inquired about the possibility of a waiver to the site plan
requirement. Section 2.2(A) of the Site Plan Ordinance requires that when a residential
use changes to a commercial use, a full site plan review is required; therefore, the
request for a waiver was not granted.
On June 13, 2001, a site plan was submitted to the Development Services Center and
routed to several City agencies for comment. Staff retumed the comment during the
review that this parcel had recently been conditionally rezoned and that a specific plan
of development was proffered. The plan submitted to the Development Services Center
was not the plan approved by City Council in January 2001, and was therefore
disapproved. The applicant then submitted an application for a modification of proffers
on August 15, 2001. This application was deferred at the October and the December
Planning Commission meeting to provide the applicant time to revise the submitted
proffers.
The applicant's original rationale for the requested modification of the Conditional
Zoning Agreement was that neither the final alignment nor a funding source have been
determined for the Holland Road improvements and that the installation of curbing and
asphalt would not be economical at this time. There does not appear to be a clear
nexus between the applicant's desire to delay the construction of the new business as
depicted on the originally proffered plan and the alignment and acquisition of the
necessary right-of-way for Holland Road. As such, the revised proffer agreement does
not include any reference to the future acquisition or improvements to Holland Road.
Holland Road in the vicinity of this application is currently a two lane undivided minor
suburban arterial and is designated on the Master Transportation Plan (MTP) as a
divided facility within a 100 foot wide right-of-way. There is a Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) project programmed to improve this facility to a four-lane divided
roadway. The site plan reviewed by City Council in January 2001, depicted a future
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
R&T, L.L.C./# 16
Page 7
right-of-way reservation along Holland Road consistent with the MTP. The proposed
alignment and the amount of property desired within the reservation have not changed
since January when City Council approved the proffered plan. In sum, the plan as
already proffered took into account the necessary reservation for Holland Road. Staff
has also informed the applicant that it will work with the applicant during site plan review
to defer or waive improvements in the front of the parcel with the reservation area.
The Department of Public Works has verified again, as they verified in January, that an
adequate amount of property has been reserved to accommodate the necessary land
for the Holland Road improvements and that acquisition is scheduled to begin in the
Spring of 2002. The originally proffered site plan depicted all proposed development
beyond the setback requirements found in the City of Virginia Beach Zoning Ordinance
when the fight-of-way improvements are complete as well as only one entrance. Traffic
Engineering staff has stated that only one ingress/egress point shall be allowed for this
parcel.
The modified proffer agreement will limit the uses on the site to only office use and the
contractor's storage yard. The new agreement also prohibits storage of any trucks or
equipment larger than a pick-up truck. The property will eventually be converted to
office-warehouse with the stipulation that the existing building be removed and replaced
with a new building originally approved by City Council in January 2001. Construction
must commence within three years and one month of approval by City Council on the
new building. These changes provide the applicant use of the property without
significant investment as originally proffered. If the Holland Road project does not come
to fruition within three years, the applicant may consider selling this parcel and continue
operations at their current location.
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
R&T, L.L.C. ! # 16
Page 8
!
HOLLAND ROAD ROUTE 627
PROFFERED PLAN
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
R&T, LL.C. ! # 16
Page9
iCURRENT PROPOSAL
Planning Commission Agenda ~~'~'~
January 9, 2002
R&T, L.L.C. / # 16
Page 10
Planning Commission Agenda [~~~
January 9, 2002~~~.~
R&T, L.L.C. / # 16 ~
Page 11
Item #16
R & T, LLC
Modification of Proffers for a Change of Zoning District Classification
2972 Holland Road
District 7
Princess Anne
January 9, 2002
CONSENT AGENDA
Dorothy Wood: The next item is item #16, R & T Limited. Modifications of proffers for a
Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional I-1 Light
Industrial. Located on 2972 Holland Road, District 7, Princess Anne.
Sam Scott: Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission my name is Sam Scott. I
represent the applicant and we have reviewed the comments and are in full compliance.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Scott. Is there any opposition to this consent agenda item? Mr.
Ripley, I would move to approve the thirteen consent agenda items. Number one with two
conditions.., remove that, sorry. Number three with six conditions, #5 with four conditions, #7
with seven conditions, #8 with 10 conditions,//9 with five conditions, #11 with four conditions,
#12 with three conditions, #14 with four conditions, #16, #17 with four conditions and/V23 with
seven conditions.
Ronald Ripley: Did you get 18 and 19 also?
Dorothy Wood: Seventeen, 18 and 19 with four conditions.
Ronald Ripley: That is the motion, did we have a second?
Betsy Atkinson: I have to abstain on item #16. I am related to the applicant.
Robert Miller: And I need to abstain from items number 8, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 23. My firm is
working on those projects.
Ronald Ripley: Anything else? Call for the question.
AYE9 NAY0 ABS2 ABSENT0
ATKINSON
BAUM AYE
CRABTREE AYE
DIN AYE
HORSLEY AYE
ABS
Item//16
R & T, LLC
Page 2
MILLER
RIPLEY AYE
SALLE AYE
STRANGE AYE
VAKOS AYE
WOOD AYE
ABS
Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10 to 0 with Bob Miller abstaining on items 8, 12, 16, 17, 18 and 19,
23 and Betsy on item #16. Thank you. (Vote was 9 to 0 with Betsy Atkinson and Bob Miller
abstaining).
APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 4
MODIFICATIONOF..'CONDITIONS
CITY:OF VIRGINIABEACH i..:~ii:'::::.':' : '~ ?'~ '~:' '
Applicant's Name:
List All Current
Property Owners:
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
R&T, LLC .and/or Hitt Electric Company
R&T, LLC and/or Hitt Electric Company
R. Thomas Hitt & Robert B. Hitt
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: ~ttach list ~necessa~)
Hill Electric Corp. (R&T, LLC Va. Limited-Liability Co.)
Robert B. Hitt, President
R. Thomas Hitt, Secretary
ff the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list
all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary)
N/A
[~ 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)
Robert B. Hitt, President
R. Thomas Hitt, Secretary
If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all
members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary)
N/A
I~ 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.
R&T, LLC A VA Limited Co. and/or Hitt Electric
Signature
Cc
R. Thomas Hi~
Print Name
City of' Virginia Be. ach
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5465
DATE: January 30, 2002
TO:
FROM:
Leslie L. Lilley .~
B. Kay Wilsotl~'~
DEPT: City Attorney
DEPT: City Attorney
Conditional Zoning Application
R & T, LLC
The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the
City Council on February 12, 2002. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated
December 21, 2001, 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
MODIFICATION OF
PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS
THIS MODIFICATION OF PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND
CONDITIONS, made this ~./ day of December, 2001, by and between, R & T, LLC, a Virginia
limited liability company ("Grantor") and the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal
corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Grantee");
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of the real property described on EXHIBIT A attached
hereto (the "Property"), which Property is currently zoned I-1 Conditional and subject to certain
recorded covenants, restrictions, and conditions; and
WHEREAS, in November 2000, the Grantor proffered certain covenants, restrictions, and
conditions as part ora rezoning of the Property, as set forth in the Declaration dated November 20,
2000, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
in Deed Book 4346, at page 559 (the "Original Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, Grantor desires to develop the Property in a manner that differs somewhat from
the development plans as specified in the Original Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Grantor desires to amend and modify the covenants, restrictions, and conditions
set forth in the Original Agreement, in a manner compatible with the development plans for the
Property; and
WHEREAS, the conditions set forth in the Original Agreement may only be amended or
varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office and executed by the record owner of the
Property, provided that said instrument is consented to by the City in writing as evidenced by a
certified copy of an ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of the City, after a public
hearing before the City advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of
Virginia of 1950, which said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with the amendment as
conclusive evidence of such consent.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor for itself, its successors, assigns, grantees, and other
successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the City
or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or guid_ ~ro fl_qg_ for zoning, rezoning,
site plan, building permit or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of
GPIN # 1495-23-9523-000
Prepared by Troutman Sanders Mays & Valentine LLP
2525 Dominion Tower
999 Waterside Drive
Norfolk, VA 23510
conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation and
use of the Property, and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants
running with the said Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and
persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its heirs, personal representatives, assigns, grantees
and other successors in interest Or title, namely:
All of the covenants, restrictions and conditions proffered as part of a rezoning of the
Property in January 2001, as recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia in Deed Book 4346, at page 589 are hereby amended and restated as
described below.
1. Proffer numbered 1 of the Original Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows:
"The property shall be rezoned from AG-1 and AG-2 (3.87 acres) to I-1 Conditional.
Not later than three years after the date of approval of this Agreement by the City, the
Grantor shall obtain final site plan (the "Final Plan") approval from the City, substantially
in accordance with that certain site plan entitled, "Conceptual Site Layout and Landscape
Plan of Holland Road Property" dated September 20, 2000, and prepared by MSA, P.C. a
copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach and is
on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (the "Site Plan");
provided however that the contractors storage yard may be presented on the Final Plan
with a size substantially as shown on that certain "Exhibit of Hitt Electric 2972 Holland
Road, Virginia Beach, Va." Dated 12/05/01 and prepared by MSA, P.C." (the "Interim
Exhibit").
2. The Grantor must commence construction as specified in the Final Plan no later than
three years and one month from the date of approval of this Agreement by the City.
3. Proffers Numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, of the Original Agreement shall remain unchanged.
4. The Grantor may develop and utilize the Property on an interim basis (the "Interim
Uses") until such time as construction has been completed consistent with the Final Plan.
The Interim Uses shall be limited to office uses and a contractor's storage yard, and shall
be developed substantially as shown on that certain "Exhibit of Hitt Electric 2972
Holland Road, Virginia Beach, Va." Dated 12/05/01 and prepared by MSA, P.C." (the
"Interim Exhibit").
5. The Interim Uses shall not include the storage of any truck or equipment larger than a
standard pick-up truck.
6. Category VI landscaping shall be installed around the perimeter of the contractors storage
yard except for the ingress and egress areas, as required by Section 228(a) of the City
Zoning Ordinance.
7. If the Grantor does not obtain the approval of a Final Site Plan within a time-frame as
specified in condition number 2 as listed above, none of the above referenced Interim
Uses shall be permitted on the Property.
Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or
subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies
and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements.
All references herein to zoning districts and to regulations applicable thereto refer to the
City Zoning Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date the
modification of proffered covenants, restrictions and conditions is approved by the Grantee.
The covenants, restrictions and conditions set forth above, having been proffered by the
Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee, shall continue in full force and effect until a
subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the Property covered by such conditions;
provided, however that such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment if the
subsequent amendment is part of the comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially
revised zoning ordinance, unless, notwithstanding the foregoing, these conditions are amended or
varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia and executed by the record owner of the subject Property at the time of
recordation of such instrument; provided further that said instrument is consented to by the
Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or resolution adopted by the
governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee advertised pursuant to
the provisions of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2204, which said ordinance or resolution
shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent.
The Grantor covenants and agrees that (1) the Zoning Administrator of the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia shall be vested with all necessary authority on behalf of the governing
body of the City of¥irginia Beach, Virginia to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions,
including (i) the ordering in waiting of the remedying of any noncompliance with such
conditions, and (ii) the bringing of legal action or suit to ensure compliance with such conditions,
including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages or other appropriate action,
suit or proceedings; (2) the failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the
issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) if
aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator made pursuant to the provisions of the
City Code, the Zoning Ordinance or this Agreement, the Grantor shall petition to the governing
body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) the Zoning Map
show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of
the Subject Property on the map and that the ordinance and the conditions may be made readily
available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the
Planning Department and that they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and indexed in the name of the Grantor and Grantee.
WITNESS THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURE AND SEAL.
R & T, LLC, a Virginia limited
liability company
By:
!,(...7-~.-\_--~ ::'--.~._X (SEAL)
R. Thomas Hitt, Managing Member
By:
~ ~~- (SEAL)
Robert S. Hitt, Managing Member
CITY/COUNTY OF .
..... , to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was sworn to and acknowledged before me this ~. [.. day of
December 2001, by R. Thomas Hitt and Robert S. Hitt, as Managing Members of R & T, LLC, a
Virginia limited liability company, on bel~alf ~-~ ~mpany.
My Commission Expires: ~/,$(~ 4
Notary Public
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION '
All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and
improvements thereon, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia
Beach, Virginia, and known, numbered and designated as "3.8? ac.
Total", as shown on that certain plat entitled "Survey of Property in
Landtown, Princess Anne Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Fletcher
L. Roberson, Jr.", dated June 19, 1663, made by C.A., Bamforth, C.L.S.,
which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk*s Office of the Circuit
Court o£ the City Of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 59 at Page
25.
GIN #1495-23-9523-0000
It being the same property conveyed to R & T, LLC, a Virginia Limited
Liability Company, by deed from LEONA S. ROBINSON, dated January 15,
2001, and filed for record January 17, 2001 in the aforesaid Clerk's
office in Deed Book 4345, Page. 786.
H.B. & SANDRA BROOKS
February 12, 2002
General Information:
REQUEST:
ADDRESS:
Alteration and addition to a Non-Conforming Use
114 54th Street
Map ~4 H.B. & Sandra Brooks
Mop Not to 5cole
G~in 2418-89-4910
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
2418-89-4910
5 - LYNNHAVEN
6,625 square feet
Faith Christie
Major Issues:
Insuring that the proposed addition and alteration to the nonconforming single-family
dwelling unit is no more detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, and is as
appropriate to the district, as the existing structure.
Non-Conforming Use
H.B. & SANDRA BROOKS
February 12, 2002
Page I
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
H. B. and Sandra Brooks, Alteration of a Non-Conforming Use
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2002
Background:
An Ordinance upon Application for H. B. & Sandra Brooks for an alteration in a nonconforming
use on the south side of 54th Street, east of Atlantic Avenue. Property is located at 114 54th
Street and contains 6,625 square feet. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN.
Considerations:
The applicant proposes the addition of a new front porch. The new porch will be
approximately 165 square feet in area, extending 4.5 feet out from the existing house. A roof
over the porch will extend the entire length of the front of the house. Ionic style columns will
support the roof. A decorative porch railing ties into the columns. With the addition of the
new front porch, the entrance into the dwelling will be relocated to the eastem end of the
existing dwelling. A new entry door with sidelights will be installed. In addition to these
additions, new windows and siding will be installed on the dwelling. Details of the alterations
are provided in the attached report.
Recommendations:
The proposed enlargement is reasonable, will have a minimal impact, and should be as
appropriate to the district as the existing non-conforming use. The proposed porch and
renovations to the dwelling will enhance the surrounding area. Approval of the request is
recommended with the following conditions:
The porch addition and relocation of the front entrance shall be in substantial accordance
with the submitted site plan titled "RENOVATIONS + ADDITIONS TO 114 54TM STREET,
VIRGINIA BEACH", prepared by Folck, West & Savage Architects, dated 01/07/02. Said
plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department.
2. The porch addition and relocation of the front entrance shall be in substantial accordance
with the submitted elevation plans, Sheets 2 & 3, titled "RENOVATIONS + ADDITIONS
Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
City Manager:
H. B. and Sandra Brooks
Page 2
TO 114 54TM STREET, VIRGINIA BEACH", prepared by Folck, West & Savage
Architects, dated 01/07/02. Said plans are on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning
Department.
1
2
3
4
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ENLARGEMENT OF A
NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 114 54th STREET, IN THE DISTRICT
OF LYNNHAVEN
S
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
WHEREAS, H. B. and Sandra Brooks (hereinafter the "Applicants") have made
application to the City Council for authorization to enlarge and alter a nonconforming single-family
dwelling situated on a certain lot or parcel of land having the address of 114 54th Street, in the R-5R
Residential Resort District; and
WHEREAS, the said single-family dwelling is a nonconforming use, in that there is
a single-family dwelling and a garage apartment on the same lot; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 105 of the City Zoning Ordinance, the enlargement
and alteration 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 enlarged and altered,
will be equally apprOpriate or more appropriate to the zoning district than 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 enlarged and
altered, 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 enlargement and alteration
dwelling is hereby authorized, upon the following conditions:
1.
o
of the Applicants' single-family
The porch addition and relocation of the front entrance shall be in substantial
accordance with the submitted site plan titled "RENOVATIONS +
ADDITIONS TO 114 54TM STREET, VIRGINIA BEACH", prepared by
Folck, West & Savage Architects, dated 01/07/02. Said plan is on file in the
City of Virginia Beach Planning Department.
The porch addition and relocation of the front entrance shall be in substantial
accordance with the submitted elevation plans, Sheets 2 & 3, titled
"RENOVATIONS + ADDITIONS TO 114 54TM STREET, VIRGINIA
BEACH", prepared by Folck, West & Savage Architects, dated 01/07/02.
Said plans are on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department.
33
34
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the __
,2002.
day of
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
CA-8386
brooksnoncon.wpd
R-1
February 4, 2002
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
42
43
44
45
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
Department of Law ~
2
Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics:
Existin.q Land Use and Zoninq
A single-family dwelling and a nonconforming garege apartment occupy the property.
The site is zoned R-5R Resort Residential District.
Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning
North:
South:
East:
West:
· 54th Street
· Across 54th Street are single family and duplex
dwellings / R-5R Resort Residential District
· 15 foot alley
· Across the alley are single family and duplex
dwellings / R-5R Resort Residential District
· Single family dwelling / R-5R Resort Residential
District
· A nonconforming real estate office/R-5R Resort
Residential District
Zonin.q History
There is very little zoning activity to report in the immediate area. The site was zoned R-
D 2 Residence Duplex District until 1973. From 1973 to 1988, the site was zoned R-8
Residential District. The site has been zoned R5-R Resort Residential since 1988. The
dwelling and garage apartment were built in 1948, and are typical of the "Beach
Cottage" style that was popular at that time. In August of 2001, the City Council
approved a request for alterations and additions to a Non-Conforming Use - Garage
Apartment directly across the street at 113 54th Street.
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 frame dwelling, a garage apartment, decking, and parking areas occupy the
site. The remainder of the site is lawn and plants.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
Water:
Sewer:
There is a sis (6) inch water main in the 15-foot lane on the south
side of the site. The site has an existing 5/8-inch meter that may be
used.
There is an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer main in 54th Street fronting
the site. The site is connected to City sewer.
Transportation
Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP):
Non-Conforming Use
H.B. & SANDRA BROOKS
February 12, 2002
Page 2
Atlantic Avenue, near this application, is a major urban arterial roadway. It is
designated on the Master Transportation Plan however there are no plans in the
Capital Improvements Program to upgrade the facility.
Traffic Calculations:
Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic
Volume Capacity
Atlantic Avenue23,300 26,300 ADT
ADT (Level of No Change
Service "C")
Average Daily Trips
Public Safety
Police:
Fire and
Rescue:
No comments
No concerns
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as Suburban Residential, that is an
area planned for residential uses above 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The request is in
keeping with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
Summary of Proposal
· The applicant proposes the addition of a new front porch. The new porch will be
approximately 165 square feet in area, extending 4.5' out from the existing house. A
roof over the porch will extend the entire length of the front of the house. Ionic style
columns will support the roof. A decorative porch railing ties into the columns. With
the addition of the new front porch, the entrance into the dwelling will be relocated to
the eastern end of the existing dwelling. A new entry door with sidelights will be
installed. In addition to these additions, new windows and siding will be installed on
the dwelling. The existing parking areas will be reconfigured to accommodate
parking for three vehicles. The Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works notes
that in accordance with the driveway policy for the resort and beach areas the
driveway apron for the new parking area shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in width in
the public right of way.
Evaluation of Request
The proposed enlargement is reasonable, will have a minimal impact, and should be as
appropriate to the district as the existing non-conforming use. The proposed porch and
renovations to the dwelling will enhance the surrounding area and promote the beach
cottage theme in the general area. The request, therefore, is acceptable as submitted.
Conditions
The porch addition and relocation of the front entrance shall be in substantial
accordance with the submitted site plan titled "RENOVATIONS + ADDITIONS
TO 1 14 54TH STREET, VIRGINIA BEACH", prepared by Folck, West & Savage
Architects, dated 01/07/02. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach
Non-Conforming Use
H.B. & SANDRA BROOKS
February 12, 2002
Page 3
Planning Department.
o
The pomh addition and relocation of the front entrance shall be in substantial
accordance with the submitted elevation plans, Sheets 2 &' 3, titled
"RENOVATIONS + ADDITIONS TO 114 54TH STREET, VIRGINIA BEACH",
prepared by Folck, West & Savage Amhitects, dated 01/07/02. Said plans are on
file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department.
INOTE: 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 all applicable City Codes.
Non-Conforming Use
H.B. & SANDRA BROOKS
February 12, 2002
Page 4
15' ~IAY
S81 ~)4' W
o
2 STORY FR.
BLOCK
28:1'
2 STORY FR.
PIN(F) N81
54th STREET (40' R/W.) ~. 50.0'
PHYSICAZ SURVZ'Y
OF
ZOT ~1, BZOCK $
SUBDlY/$/ON OF
$17ZJAH' I~ P~i~C~ AN~ CO~N~ VA
VIRGIN~ BEAC~ VA
FOR
EDWARD ~ & ~UREZ S. MoGEOR~E
Engineers,Su~eyors,Planners and Landscape Architects
Non-Conforming Use
H.B. & SANDRA BROOKS
February 12, 2002
Page 5
,,
61-I1
:
!..,~
ZONINO
~ ' ~'
~s~ ~
FOLCK ,~.~,~
WEST& '~'~'
~ ~ VA'2345t
Non-Conforming Use
H.B. & SANDRA BROOKS
February 12, 2002
Page 6
Non-Conforming Use
H.B. & SANDRA BROOKS
February 12, 2002
Page 7
~O//-.O/UD ~OJ. b-"~ICDLUC3Cl~ +
i
Non-Conforming Use
H.B. & SANDRA BROOKS
February 12, 2002
Page 8
Non-Conforming Use
H.B. & SANDRA BROOKS
February 12, 2002
Page 9
=O.L 8~ioLUc3c]v 't- 8NOLLV^ON~ viv ~v^vs-^
Non-Conforming Use
H.B. & SANDRA BROOKS
February 12, 2002
Page 10
Non-Conforming Use
H.B. & SANDRA BROOKS
February 12, 2002
Page 11
ZONING HISTORY
1. Street Closure Approved 1-14-97
2. Conditional Use Permit (communication tower) Approved 3-14-95
3. Rezoning (R-7 Residential to A-2 Apartments) Denied 2-8-82
4. Conditional Use Permit (duplex) Denied 4-12-82
5. Conditional Use Permit (motel) Approved 8-15-83
Conditional Use Permit (motel) Approved 2-23-81
6. Conditional Use Permit (motel) Approved 10-11-71
7. Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit Approved 10-11-71
8. Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit Approved 7-13-70
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
Shadow Island Assoc., LLC, Subdivision Variance
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2002
Background:
Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision
Ordinance, Subdivision for Shadow Island Associates, LLC. Property is located at 605 Arctic
Avenue (GPIN #2427-23-0116). DISTRICT 6 - BEACH.
Considerations:
The applicant is requesting a variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that
requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance
(minimum lot width).
Recommendations:
A motion was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 11-0 to
approve this request subject to the following conditions:
The architectural design of the houses constructed on the four lots shall be subject
to approval by the Planning Director or his designee prior to the issuance of building
permits.
2. The two existing mature oak trees on the property shall be preserved. Tree
Protection for these trees shall be provided during construction.
3. The existing dwelling on the site shall be removed.
Attachments:
Staff Review
Planning Commission Minutes
Disclosure Statement
Location Map
Recommended Action: Planning Commission recommends aDproval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~,~-
City Manage(~~ (~_ ~ ~~_.
SHADOW ISLAND ASSOC., LLC / # 1 I
January 9, 2002
General Information:
REQUEST:
ADDRESS:
Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision
Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the
requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (minimum lot width)
605 Arctic Avenue
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
2427-23-0116
6 - BEACH
59,609 square feet, or 1.37 acres
Planning Commission Agenda ~'~~~
January 9, 2002
SHADOW ISLAND ASSOC., LLC / # 1
Page I
STAFF
PLANNER:
Ashby Moss
Major Issues:
Presence of a hardship consistent with Section 9.3 of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Degree to which proposal conforms to the characteristics of the surrounding
neighborhood.
Visibility of the property across Lake Holly from Pacific Avenue.
Site Plan / Preliminary Plat:
Existing Lots:
There are eight
existing
nonconforming lots
on this property
fronting Arctic
Avenue. The lot
width of all eight
lots is 25 feet, and
lot areas range from
approximately
1,200 square feet to
5,275 square feet
(above water,
marsh, and
wetlands).
Proposed Lots:
The proposed
subdivision will
create a total of four
lots. The lots are
configured so that
there will be two
houses on the front
of the property near
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
SHADOW ISLAND ASSOC., LLC/# 1
Page 2
'Arctic Avenue and tWO houses on flag lots on the back of the property near Lake Holly;
The two flag lots do not meet minimum lot width and therefore require a subdivision
variance.
Item Re(3uired Lot lA Lot 2A Lot 3A Lot 4A
Lot Wid[h in
feet 50 60 * 15 * 15 110
Total Lot
Area in
square feet 5,000 6,000 10,868 12,270 11,000
Total Lot
Area outside
water,
marsh or
wetlan ds 5,000 6,000 8,621 8,618 7,995
· ~ % IA ..' ......... '.---J
Variance required
Land Use, Zoning,
and Site
Characteristics
Existinq Land Use and
Zoninq
The property currently holds
one single-family dwelling and
is zoned R-5S Residential
District.
Surroundinq Land Use
and Zoninq
North:
South:
East:
· Beyond Lake Holly, single-family dwellings / R-5S
Residential District
· Beyond High Point Avenue (paper street), single-
family dwellings / R-5S Residential District
· Beyond Lake Holly, Pacific Avenue.
· Beyond Pacific Avenue, hotels and other mixed
resort uses / RT-2 Resort Tourist District
Planning Commission Agenda ~°~~~
January 9, 2002
SHADOW ISLAND ASSOC., LLC ! # 1
Page 3
West: o
Beyond Arctic Avenue, single-family dwellings /
R-5S Residential District
Zoning History
A request to rezone a
lakefront property north of the
subject site from single-family
residential to multi-family
residential was denied in 1982
(# 3 on map). Two properties
south of the subject site were
rezoned to a multi-family
residential zoning district in
1970 and 1971 (# 8). A
conditional use permit for a
motel was approved on
property at the south end of
Lake Holly in 1971 (# 6).
Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The site is in an AICUZ area of 65to 70 dB surrounding NAS Oceana.
Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics
The property is situated on a small peninsula of land along Lake Holly and is very visible
from Pacific Avenue. Two mature Live Oak trees are located near Arctic Avenue where
the water forms a small inlet.
Lake Holly serves as an important drainage retention system for this area, and its
existing storage capacity must be maintained. Therefore, the City's Public Works
Specifications and Standards dictate that filling is only permitted on privately owned
portions of the lake in rare or unusual circumstances.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
Water/
Sewer:
There is an 8 inch water line and an 8 inch gravity sanitary sewer
line fronting the property in Arctic Avenue.
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
SHADOW ISLAND ASSOC., LLC ! # 1
Page 4
City water and sewer are available. Any development of the site
must connect to City water and sewer.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recommends medium and high density (above 3.5 dwelling
units per acre) suburban residential land use for properties in this area.
The density of this proposed development would be 2.92 units per acre.
Evaluation of Request
Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states:.
No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that:
Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship.
The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be
adversely affected.
The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make
reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be
adopted as an amendment to the ordinance.
The hardship is created by the physical character of the property,
including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation
or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property
immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-inflicted hardship shall not
be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance.
The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which
the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever
such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated
by reference in this ordinance.
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
SHADOW ISLAND ASSOC., LLC / # 1
Page 5
Due to the irregular shape of the bulkhead on Lake Holly, a standard lot design is not
possible for this property. Section 502(e)(5) of the City Zoning Ordinance pertains to
the resubdivision of nonconforming lots in the R-5S Residential District. This section
allows an owner of two or more substandard lots to subdivide the property to convey
one substandard lot to a separate owner Provided that lot has a minimum lot width of 35
feet and a minimum area of 3,500 square feet. Although four buildable lots could be
configured to meet this requirement, due to the 'finger' of the lake along the southem
edge of the property, the resulting lot configuration is awkward. The lot configuration
proposed with this variance request creates a more uniform lot pattern. This alternative
proposal, however, also results in' two lots in the rear of the property increasing the
visibility of the lots across Lake Holly from Pacific Avenue. Therefore, the following
conditions are recommended:
Conditions
The architectural design of the houses constructed on the four lots shall be
subject to approval by the Planning Director or his designee prior to the issuance
of building permits.
The two existing mature oak trees on the property shall be preserved. Tree
protection for these trees shall be provided during construction.
NOTE:
Upon granting ora subdivision variance, a final subdivision
plat must be submitted to the Development Services Center
for approval and recordation.
Further conditions may be required during the
administration of a #cable Ci Ordinances.
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
SHADOW ISLAND ASSOC., LLC/# 1
Page 6
Shadow Island
(proposed subdivision plan)
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
SHADOW ISLAND ASSOC., LLC / # 1
Page 7
Item #1
Shadow Island Associates
Appeal to decisions in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance
605 Arctic Avenue
District 6
Beach
January 9, 2002
CONSENT AGENDA
Ronald Ripley: The next order of business is the consent agenda and Dot?
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ron. This afternoon we have 14 items on the consent agenda. As I
call the item would you please step to the podium. Either the applicant or its representative state
your name, if you have read the conditions and agree with them. The first item is item #1,
Shadow Island Associates. It is located at 605 Arctic Avenue, District 6, Beach borough and has
2 conditions.
Eddie Bourdon: Members of the Planning Commission, Eddie Bourdon representing the
applicant. The conditions are acceptable to the applicant.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon.
Robert Miller: We have a person in opposition to this one so we will move it forward.
Eddie Bourdon: That is fine, thank you.
REGULAR AGENDA
Eddie Bourdon: Let me add my voice of congratulations to the chairman and vice chairman and
secretary. Charlie sorry to see you have to step down with those term limits. Obviously this was
on the consent agenda so I will make this fairly brief. I do want to cover a few points. First of all
I want to mention the fact that the properties - there are eight lots here that have been in the
Dudley family for over six decades and the Dudley's are here today. The applicant that is buying
the properties, these eight non-conforming lots that were platted before we had a zoning
ordinance and are located on the peninsula and we have a situation where, number one,
theoretically it is possible to fill a couple of these lots and make a situation where you build on
all of the lots and with the Shadow Lawn infill guidelines in Section 502 which has been alluded
to in the write-up and Ashby mentioned this morning 502(E)(5) which I had the pleasure of
spending a lot of time with Mr. Morgan and the Shadow Lawn folks a number of years ago when
these revisions were put in place to protect the property rights of the folks out here, you can do
four lots on this peninsula without filling anything. A, we are not filling anything which I kind of
took that off the table. So this does not represent a situation where we are trying to increase the
density of development on this peninsula. With 502 what we could do is two 50-foot lots and
Item #1
Shadow Island Associates
Page 2
two 35-foot lots. The 35 foot lot would be a rather strange configuration on the southern most of
the property but you have a 170 feet of frontage at the setback line going from here up to here.
So you can do a 50 foot lot a 35 foot lot a 50 foot lot and a 35 foot lot. What you wind up with is
a 35 foot lot here with a house built back here. All the other lots this (inaudible) will be a 50 foot
lot with a house built up.front. A 50 foot lot a house built back here and a 35 foot lot with a
house built back here. The 35 foot lots have 5 foot setbacks on each side and you have what the
folks in Shadow Lawn don't particularly care for and that is shot gun type houses very close
together. This while not increasing density keeps the number of houses at four provides a
situation where all the lots exceed the 5000 square foot limit where in my situation where I just
described, you have two lots at 5000 and two other lots - well actually one at 5000 and one that
would be a little bit larger because you could plat it all the way back, but you wind up with two
35 foot lots with houses that would not be nearly as attractive. Houses that are closer together.
This configuration provides lots that are - you will have a footprint where you can have a house
that will be 40 feet wide. You have a nice home with separation with open space. It is the best
configuration of this property to provide the same number of lots and to provide a higher quality
and a better separation than what can be done otherwise. You have an unique situation with this
peninsula and with the relief for question we are not increasing density but making for a better
higher quality development and the conditions including the Planning Director review of the
architectural elements of the homes to be built are acceptable because the houses that will be
built here will be certainly very nice homes. Nicer than a large number of homes already in the
community and that is not to knock the community. It is a very nice community. So with that I
think that your original inclination to put it on the consent agenda was the right move and I will
like to have the opportunity to rebut anything that may be said by the opposition. And the civic
league has been contacted. They are aware of the application. Mr. Flannagan, the president of
the civic league communicated to my 'clients that the civic league was not opposing the
application.
Ronald Ripley: Any questions of the applicant? We have a speaker, Rich Stark, who has signed
up to speak.
Rich Stark: Good afternoon. Thank you for your time. I am a resident of 604 Arctic for the last
nine years and I apologize that I have not been well prepared with a petition of other matters that
could be presented at this time. Part of this morning I had no idea because I just returned from
travel as to what the configuration was going to look like and this has gone through several
iterations over the past five, six years. I agreed with the overall structure and just want to assure
that these major issues are applied and one being parking and spoke with Ms. Moss this morning
and again, I appreciate your time to review these with the applicant and assure that there will be
proper parking and not that shot gun approach with slamming homes up - what we have seen in
the past five years is that the old south cottages are being leveled and homes built out to the
easement. And we wanted to assure, and I could have produced a petition with a little more time
with a lot of the other surrounding neighbors that oppose that. So I am not in direct opposition. I
Item #1
Shadow Island Associates
Page 3
just want to assure that through the planning process we maintain the visibility and the look and
feel of the Shadow Lawn Area.
Robert Vakos: Mr. Scott can you - there are some site plan requirements for parking. Can you
reiterate on that for the Commission?
Bob Scott: There are two spaces required per unit, per house. They have to be located off the
street and on the lot itself. So presumably if you look at that map on the wall they are going to
have four houses and each of those houses are going to have to have a space for two parking
spaces off the street and on the lot.
Robert Vakos: Outside the garage if there is a garage?
Bob Scott: Yeah, the garage does not count.
Robert Vakos: And there is no way whether we know of request for...
Rich Stark: Thank you for your time. Ms. Moss had advised me that the Planning Commission
that you will have a greater visibility of the overall planning and architecture and implementation
of this (inaudible) going through the other considerations and options and I agree.
Robert Vakos: Okay.
Ronald Ripley: Any other questions?
Eddie Bourdon: I would just also point out that the lots as configured you have wider lots - 60
foot the two that are on Arctic or 60 the one to the north and actually the one to the south is even
greater than that which provides much better opportunity to provide off-street parking rather than
a 50 foot lot which is what the remainder of the neighborhood is. The other two lots in the back
have long drive-ways going to them and again, a wider area where the house would be than a
typical 50 foot wide lot so there is ample room for off-street parking in excess than what is
required and that is also an opportunity - a better opportunity for garages, again, because you
have a wider mad frontage on these lots.
Robert Miller: Eddie, the dash lines represent the setback lines?
Eddie Bourdon: Correct. These are the setbacks and the building envelope - the building
envelope which actually goes (inaudible) and this is the building envelope for that lot and the
building envelope for that lot which you can readily see if you go look at that and compare it to
the composite map where the homes across the street are, again, 50 foot wide lots. And you have
wider lots, bigger building envelopes and it does provide a better opportunity to have more than
Item #1
Shadow Island Associates
Page 4
ample parking and to have garages and to have homes that are better spaced. And this again, not
to knock Shadow Lawn, it is a wonderful neighborhood. These are 50 foot lots here - 50 foot in
width which is typical of the community. So we are maintaining and really enhancing the
situation in terms of appearance and the open field versus slamming four houses together and
they still can be built towards the back of the property which could be done with different
configurations using the Zoning Ordinance. But because you have an unique situation on the
peninsula you have a classic hardship we are asking for minimum relief necessary in actually
providing an enhancement rather than the four lots that are - two of them would be 35 feet wide.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Any other questions? Betsy?
Betsy Atkinson: I would like to make a motion. I would like to move to approve the application
of Shadow Island Associates, I J~C.
Ronald Ripley: Motion made by Betsy and seconded by Bob Vakos.
AYEll NAY0 ABS0 ABSENT0
ATKINSON AYE
BAUM AYE
CRABTREE AYE
DIN AYE
HORSLEY AYE
MILLER AYE
RIPLEY AYE,
SALLE AYE
STRANGE AYE
VAKOS AYE
WOOD AYE
Ronald Ripley: Motion passes 11 to nothing.
· ,~~'¥.%. ]
,.. · ' APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 4
'~~ .. : · ~::;: :. :..i.:.;!:i.i::.::i!'::::.~ .':-:' ::.:..:~ .:. :...... . ..~ .... :..'.
· i:'i :.: i:': i.;.'..'"ii.:?,'.';.:: ::~".: .: · ',::::' : !. ~' ~. i'.z 'h .~:;' ':.~: i .::':
.......... .CITY :OF ~6 ....... .~
I I I I I II I I I J I I~ I I III iiI il i iIi ii ,i,.11I, ,11 , i,i II I I
Applicant's Name:
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
~,~o ~ ~T~ ~.~,~ A-s~ o~,.,-~ z_z. c
List AH Current
Property Owners:
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list ifnecessa~.)
the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list
tll members or parmers in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary)
Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, finn, or other unincorporated
organization.
f the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure sectiOn below:
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
."the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary)
the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all
embers 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.
gRTIFICATION: ! certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate.
Signature
Print Name
January 22, 2002
COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: I would just like to reiterate my
abstention on the Doczi Application because
my family owns property adjacent. So, therefore, I am abstaining.
VICE MAYOR SE$SOMS:
question please.
Thank you very much, Mrs. Henley. Any other
comments or questions? I call for the
CITY CLERK: By a vote of 10 to 0, you have adopted the
Consent Agenda as read by the Vice Mayor
with the exception of those abstentions to Number 6 on Planning by
Mrs. Henley and Number 9 on the Ordinances with Vice Mayor Sessoms
and the two nay votes on the Tax Exemption by Mrs. Parker and
Mrs. McClanan.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
You did have me abstaining on Item Number 9;
is that correct?
CITY CLERK:
Yes, I did.
7
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
January 22, 2002
Thank you very much.
Next.
Thank you, sir.
CITY CLERK:
Okay. On Bil-Mar we have several speakers.
We have three opposed.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Okay. We have several speakers on Bil-Mar?
CITY CLERK:
Yes, sir.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
How many speakers?
CITY CLERK:
There are three opposed and one in favor of
Bil-Mar.
COUNCILMAN HARRISON:
Are the speakers in opposition opposed to a
deferral to February the 12th?
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Speakers for Bil-Mar, speak up. I'm
assuming not because I'm not hearing
anything. So, Bil-Mar will be deferred until February 12th.
CITY CLERK:
On Princessboro we have one, two, three
speakers opposed and one in favor.
VICE FR%YOR SESSOMS: The representatives from Princessboro who
are against, do ~hey have any objection to
the deferral of March 26th? Hearing none, I'm assuming March 26th is
acceptable.
COUNCILMAN HARRISON:
I renew my motion to approve.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Do I have a second?
COUNCILMAN PR%NDIGO:
Second.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Mrs. Henley.
I have a motion and a second. Any
discussion on the Consent? Yes,
6
January 22, 2002
Item Number 10, transfer $173,683 from the General Fund Reserve for
Contingencies to Fiscal Year 2001 to Operating Budget regarding
revenue reimbursements to fully fund the Real Estate Tax Relief
Program, for approval.
Under Planning: Item Number 1 for approval, Robert A. Conaway. Item
Number 3, West Neck Properties, Incorporated, for a deferral to the
first Meeting in February. Item Number 4, Salt Meadow Bay, L.L.C.
for approval noting a no vote by Mrs. Parker. Item Number 5, Bil-Mar
Construction Limited, being deferred until February 12th. Item
Number 6, Frank Doczi for approval.
Item Number 8, Princessboro Development Company for deferral until
March 26th, 2002; and Item Number 9, for approval for amending 1405
and 1605 of the City Zoning Ordinance regarding a Public Hearing
procedure on permit applications for the Wetlands Zoning Ordinance
and Coastal Primary Sand Dune Zoning Ordinance. Do I have a motion?
COUNCII/~AN HAP~RISON:
So moved.
CITY CLERK: Your Honor, we have a speaker, Mr. Nausbaum,
who is representing Beth Sholom. I'm sure
he would like to have a Consent vote.
Also, we have speakers opposed on the Planning Items for West Neck
Properties and you have that one under Cgnsent to be deferred. We
have opposed speakers. Would you like clarify that?
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
How many speakers do we have from West Neck?
CITY CLERK:
One speaker in favor and one opposed.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Would the person in opposition to West Neck
understand that this has been deferred and
have any objection to that?
GENTLEMAN IN OPPOSITION: No.
5
January 22, 2002
FORMAL SESSION
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Council, I will now move to Resolutions,
Ordinances and Planning by Consent.
Madam Clerk, i'm going to ask that you keep a close eye, as I ask for
this motion, if there are any people to speak who are in opposition
on anything that might be on Consent.
First of all, Item Number 1 under Resolutions, the Development
Authorities Multifamily Residential Rental Housing Refunding Revenue
Bonds for Silver Hill Mill Dam Associates.
Item Number 2, the Tax Exempt Real Estate and Personal Property, Item
Number A, American Environment Foundation for an indefinite deferral
and Item Number B, Beth Sholom Terrace for approval noting a no vote
by Mrs. McClanan and Mrs. Parker.
Item Number 3, for approval of the endorsement to the Transportation
Enhancement Funds. Item Number 4, for amending and adding to
establish a technology zone. Item Number 5, amend the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Ordinance Regarding Variances in Public Notification to
all adjacent property owners for approval. Item Number 6, to clarify
an Ordinance adopted'November 6, 2001, pertaining to property at the
Lynnhaven Interchange at Great Neck Road, either by agreement or
condemnation. Item Number 7, for approval, accept and appropriate
$1,060,987 from the Commonwealth of Virginia Technology Trust Fund
regarding purchasing of land records, document indexing and imaging
system for the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
Item Number 8, authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreement
between the City and the Virginia Housing Development Authority
regarding Sponsorinq Partnerships and Revitalizing Communities Home
Ownership Program. Number 9, authorize the City Manager to execute a
Consent to the Assignment of Ingenco's rights and obligations under
the LFG Agreement regarding amended Landfill Gas Sale Agreement,
noting that I will be abstaining on that.
4
COUNCIL LADY PARKER:
January 22, 2002
I have a problem with that one.
I'm sorry.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Okay. Reba is voting no. Do you want to?
COUNCIL LADY PARKER:
I want to vote no.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Okay.
COUNCIL LADY PARKER:
Ten percent is not what I consider to be low
income housing.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Okay.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
COUNCIL LADY PARKER:
Well, how much is designated in Westminster
Canterbury and Atlantic Shores?
At Atlantic Shores they don't get any kind
of discount.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Let me just say something real quick. This
has been decided, but I think we are going
to come back with a plan that will -- and I think this makes more
sense than looking at a certain percentage of the rooms, but look at
maybe getting $1.50°return on the $1 that is subsidized. In other
words, the private side would give $1.50 to $1.
I would rather see something like that, than to get into percentages.
The City Attorney's Office is working on these things as we speak.
3
January 22, 2002
INFORMAL SESSION
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Let's go to the Agenda.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Mayor, I'm feeling better about this one
here. The Resolution for the Development
Authority Bonds for Silver Hill. Does anyone object to that?
Moving onto the Tax Exemption, first of all, American Environment has
asked for an indefinite deferral, which I don't think anyone will
argue with. The second one I think we've been receiving.information
I'm going to recommend that it go on Consent.
COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: I don't want to vote for it.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Okay
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Any other no votes? Okay. So, 2B will be
on Consent, noting the one no vote.
COUNCILMAN MANDIGO:
this Session?
Do we have anymore of these coming up
before -- you know, to try to get through on
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: I wouldn't know the answer to that question.
The City Attorney's Office might have a
better handle on it than I do.
COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: I think they have to have been filed.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
It would be a little late for them to tell
them now.
COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: They have deadlines for all the seasons.
COUNCILMAN MANDIGO:
Okay.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Mrs. Parker wants to say something.
2
Virginia Beach City Council
January 22, 2002
4:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL:
Meyera E. 0berndorf, Mayor
W. D. Sessoms, Jr., Vice.Mayor
Linwood O. Branch, III
Margaret L. Eure
William W. Harrison, Jr.
Barbara M. Henley
Louis R. Jones
Robert C. Mandigo
Reba S. McClanan
Nancy K. Parker
Rosemary Wilson
At Large
At Large
District 6 - Beach
District 1 - Centerville
District 5 - Lynnhaven
District 7 - Princess Anne
District 4 - Bayside
District 2 - Kempsville
District 3 - Rose Hall
At Large
At Large
CITY ~%NAGER:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY CLERK:
STENOGR~PEIC REPORTER:
James K. Spore
Leslie L. Lilley
Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC
Dawne Franklin Meads
VEPd~ATIM
Planning/%pplication of Bil-Mar Construction, Limited
1
- 41 -
Item V-J.$.
PLANNING
ITEM # 49226
Upon motion by Councilman Harrison, seconded by Councilman Mandigo, City Council DEFERRED to
February 12, 2002, Ordinance upon application of BIL-MAR CONST. LTD for a Conditional Use Permit
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF BIL-MAR CONST. LTD. FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SENIOR AND DISABLED PERSONS
Ordinance upon Application of Bil-Mar Const. LTD for a Conditional Use
Permit for housing for senior and disabled persons on certain property
located at the northwest extremity of Oconee Avenue (GP1N #1497-76-
3201). Said parcel contains 5.25 acres. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH.
Voting:
10-0 (By Consent)
Council Members Voting Aye:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr.,
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Robert C.
Mandigo, Jr., Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and
Rosemary Wilson
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
January22, 2002
Bil-Mar Const. LTD
Map Not to Scmle
Gl)in 1497-76-3201
ZONING HISTORY
1. Change of Zoning (B-2 Business District to I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted
7-22-74
2. Change of Zoning (A-1 Apartment District to A-2 Apartment District) - Denied 2-
10-86
3. Change of Zoning (R-5 Residential District to A-2 Apartment District)- Denied
12-21-87
4. Change of Zoning (R-10 Residential District to Conditional A-12 Apartment
District- Granted 10-23-89
5. Change of Zoning (B-2 Business District to AG-2 Agriculture) and Conditional
Use Permit (group home) - Granted 6-25-90
6. Street Closure- Granted 10-9-90
7. Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to I-1 Light Industrial District) and
Conditional Use Permit (hotel) - Granted 6-25-91
8. Conditional Use Permit (automobile repair facility) - Granted 3-25-97
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
BiI-Mar Const. LTD, Conditional Use Permit
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2002
Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of BiI-Mar Const. LTD for a Conditional Use Permit for housing
for senior and disabled persons on certain property located at the northwest extremity of
Oconee Avenue (GPIN #1497-76-3201). Said parcel contains 5.25 acres. DISTRICT 6 -
BEACH.
This item was deferred at the December 11,2001 City Council meeting at the request of the
applicant. The request was deferred again at the January 22, 2002 Council meeting at the
request of the applicant. ~
Considerations:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct an independent living senior
housing facility containing 58 units.
Since the January 22 meeting, the applicant has met with the Fire Marshall and come to
agreement regarding modifications to the building in regard to fire safety and suppression. This
issue, therefore, has been addressed. The applicant has also submitted revised elevation
drawings of the building, which are attached below.
Issues regarding land use, AICUZ compatibility, and personal safety, however, are not
resolved and staff cannot support this proposal.
Recommendations:
A motion was passed by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 7-3 to deny this
request. The site is not appropriate for this area in terms of land use, AICUZ compatibility, and
safety. The proposal also does not fully meet the selection guidelines from the City's "Report
on Senior Housing A Policy Report."
Attachments:
Staff Review
Planning Commission Minutes
Disclosure Statement
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends
denial.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning
City Manager~~..~. ~)~,~/,.. Department4"-'~
BiI-Mar
Page 2
BiI-Mar
(Revised Building Design)
BiI-Mar
(Revised Building Elevation)
BIL-MAR / # 5
November 14, 2001
General Information:
REQUEST:
ADDRESS:
Conditional Use Permit for Housing for Seniors
North side of the western terminus of Oconee Avenue.
M~p I-6
~ ~o~ ~o ~o~ Bil-Mar Const. LTD
2]
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
Crpin 1497-76-3201
1497-76-3201
6 - BEACH
5.25 Acres
Robert A. Davis
Planning Commission Agenda
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR / # 5
Page I
PURPOSE:
APPLICATION
HISTORY
To construct an independent living senior housing facility
containing 58 units
A variance to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area
regulations was granted by the Chesapeake Bay Board on July
25, 2001
Major Issues:
Compatibility of the surrounding area with the proposed use.
Adequate care and safety of seniors.
Presence of a "housing for seniors" facility within the highest noise zone and
within an Accident Potential Zone surrounding NAS Oceana.
Land Use, Zoning,
and Site
Characteristics:
Existing Land Use and
Zoning
The property is an undeveloped,
heavily wooded site and is zoned
A-12 Apartment District.
Surroundinq Land Use and
Zoning
North:
South:
A tributary of the Lynnhaven River
· Across the tributary, townhouses / A-12 Apartment
· Townhouses ! A-12 Apartment
· Apartments / A-18 Apartment
Planning Commission Agenda
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR ! # 5
Page 2
East:
West:
Tributary of the Lynnhaven River
· Residential condominium development / A-12
Apartment
· Mobile home park / A-12 Apartment ·
Zoning and Land Use Statistics (for parcel requested for rezonin,q)
With Existing
A-12 Zoning:
Approximately 3.45 acres of this site are indicated as
being above water, marsh and wetlands. Under A-12
zoning, up to 41 multifamily dwelling units could be
constructed on the parcel. The final number would be
dependent on site design and impacts of the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (CBPA).
With
Proposed
Use:
The applicant is proposing 58 multifamily dwelling units
in the form of an independent living senior housing
facility. Consistent with the standards for a senior
housing conditional use permit as provided in Section
235(b) of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO), the density
of the project is set by the City Council. The site would
be developed in accordance with the CBPA Board
conditions, the submitted site plan and any conditions
recommended with this conditional use permit should it
be granted.
Zoninq History
The subject site and the surrounding area have been zoned for multifamily residential
uses since prior to 1973. Zoning activity in the immediate area has largely consisted of
changes in zoning to allow higher denisties. Zoning activity further to the east and
southeast has primarily been for a range of institutional, commercial and light industrial
uses.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The site is in an AICUZ area of greater than 75 dB Ldn and near the Accident Potential
Zone Two (APZ-2) surrounding NAS Oceana.
The U. S. Navy is opposed to this request. The proposed use would be located within
the flight path to the busiest runway at NAS Oceana.
Planning Commission Agenda
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR ! # 5
Page 3
Section 221.1 of the City Zoning Ordinance lists conditional uses and their compatibility
in all of the higher AICUZ and Accident Potential Zone (APZ) combinations. The intent
of this section of the CZO is to "protect the public health, safety and welfare from the
adverse impacts associated with excessive noise from flight operations...and potential
aircraft accidents by limiting certain conditional uses which are incompatible .... "
In this section of the City Zoning Ordinance, housing for seniors (homes for aged) are
listed as "not compatible" in the greater than 75 dB Ldn AICUZ.
In comparing this application to other senior housing facilities, it is noted that the
Sullivan House senior housing facility for independent living, located on General Booth
Boulevard and approved in 2000, is in a 70 to75 dB Ldn AICUZ, which, under Section
221.1 of the CZO, is considered compatible with that AICUZ with acoustical building
treatments. It also must be stressed that the Sullivan House is not located near an APZ.
Two senior housing facilities, Russel House, approved in 1978, and First Colonial Inn,
approved in 1982, are located in greater than 75 dB Ldn AICUZ; however, the
Planning Commission Agenda
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR / # 5
Page 4
development of these two facilities occurred prior to the adoption of Section 221.1 of the
CZO and the adoption of 235 of the CZO, which requires a conditional use permit for
senior housing.
Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics
The property contains steep slopes with highly erodible soils along most of its perimeter.
The Resource Protection Area (RPA) component of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Area (CBPA) heavily impacts the site. All but a very small part of the site lies entirely
within the RPA. The applicant has obtained a CBPA variance to allow for encroachment
into that area. The stated hardship was that the 100-foot buffer rendered the site
unusable. While encroachment in the RPA is significant, the variance was determined
to be acceptable for the following reasons:
· The applicant has clustered development interests towards the least
environmentally sensitive portions of the site.
The proposed housing for seniors land use has resulted in approximately one-
half the parking spaces required if the development were to be for apartments
under the existing A-12 Apartment District.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
Water:
Sewer:
There is 6-inch water main in Oconee Avenue fronting the property.
Hydraulic analysis will be required. The site must connect to City
water.
There is a 10-inch sanitary sewer main in Oconee Avenue fronting
the property. The site must connect to City sewer.
Transportation
Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP):
Virginia Beach Boulevard, in the vicinity of this application is considered an eight-
lane divided major suburban arterial, as designated on the Master Transportation
Planning Commission Agenda
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR ! # 5
Page5
Plan. There is currently no project in the Capital Improvements Program to upgrade
this facility.
Traffic Calculations:
Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic
Volume Capacity
Potential Land Use ~- 2TM ADT
Oconee Avenue N/A N/A
Proposed Land Use 3_ 200 ADT
Average Daily Trips
2
as defined by 41 multifamily units
3 as defined by 58 senior housing independent living units
Public Safety
Police:'
The Police Department provided the following information
based on the proposed land use and the increased concern for
safety of these residents. The following crime statistics are for
the period from September 1,2000 through September 1,
2001. The number is lower than the actual number of police
calls for service. The statistics apply to the streets in the
Oconee Avenue residential area.
1 Aggravated Assault Report
1 Rape Report
2 Arson Reports
3 Assault Reports
2 AutoTheft Reports
2 Hit and Run Accident Reports
7 Burglary Reports
3 Destruction of Private Property Reports
2 Hit and Run Accident Reports
12 Larceny from Auto Reports
Concerning pedestrian movement along Oconee Avenue, there
is no sidewalk on the south side of the street between Hutton
Circle and Hutton Lane. There is, however, a sidewalk on the
north side that runs halfway down Oconee Avenue between
Hutton Circle and Hutton Lane. It ends abruptly, leaving no
sidewalk for any pedestrian traffic in that area of Oconee
Avenue.
Planning Commission Agenda
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR / # 5
Page 6
Fire and
Rescue:
The Fire Department notes that the current site plan layout is
unacceptable from a fire department access view because it is
not possible to maneuver the fire vehicles around to the rear of
the building. The Fire Marshal has expressed concerns that
while fire protection is adequate for this area, the type of facility
being proposed causes concem. Experience has shown that
with Independent Living Senior Housing developments, many
occupants who are or become non-ambulatory are not capable
of "self rescue" during an emergency. Technically the property
management of a residentially constructed project should not
allow more than 10% of the floor space to be occupied with
non-ambulatory occupants according to the Uniform Statewide
Building Code. The concern is that when that percentage is
increased, responding firefighters have to first evacuate the
residents before being able to fight the fire.
The Fire Marshall recommends that the applicant
· Provide access via road surface to all buildings
(could consist of permeable paving surface around
the building).
· Require construction to comply with Institutional Use
Groups.
· Require that all units/building be fire sprinkled to
meet National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13
requirements.
· Require fire detection systems compatible with an
institutional use.
· Require minimum staffing 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week who can respond to on-site emergencies for
early coordination.
· Recommend reduced fire hydrant spacing
throughout the complex, to be approved by the Fire
Department prior to construction.
The applicant has agreed to:
· Conduct fire drills as frequent as the Fire Marshall
suggests.
Planning Commission Agenda
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR ! # 5
Page 7
Stipulate in the lease that tenants must be able to
take care of themselves or 30 day notice to vacate
will apply.
Senior Housing Review Committee: The applicant has met with the City's Senior
Housing Review Committee (SHRC). The SHRC was supportive of the efforts by the
applicant to provide housing facilities for moderate-income assistance. However,
several members of the SHRC expressed concerns regarding police and fire safety (see
the Police and Fire comment sections of this review) and the distance of the facility from
useful services typically needed by this age group. The goal of the "Senior Housing
Development Guidelines" as provided in the City's Report on Senior Housin.q Multi-
family Issues: A Policy Report, dated July 1997. is to:
"...locate senior housing development within areas that can provide a
reasonable level of service to the residents of those units. These
guidelines should be judiciously applied where appropriate and not used
to restdct the development of this type of housing within any area."
(Appendix 2, page 1)
The Site Selection Guidelines are:
The development should be located within reasonable proximity to useful
services and facilities. These include banks, shopping centers, parks, libraries,
and recreation areas, among others. Effort should be made to locate such
facilities within reasonable walking distance to bus stops. This criterion is less
critical for Assisted Living Facilities and Nursing Facilities.
See the comment regarding guideline #3. A grocery store is located 3 blocks
from the site.
Senior and/or Disabled developments should provide alternative transportation
services where appropriate such as vans, buses or others modes of travel.
See the comment regarding guideline #3.
The development should be located within reasonable proximity to hospitals,
medical offices and pharmacies.
The applicant has stated that Fire Station #8 is located 2.4 miles or about 5
minutes from the site. Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital is located 2. 7
miles or about 6 minutes from the site. The applicant informed the SHR
Planning Commission Agenda ~r~~~
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR / # 5
Page 8
Committee that Farm Fresh Pharmacy will receive faxed drug orders that can be
picked up by the Oconee Pointe van service or delivered by the Pharmacy. Two
blocks from the site are "The Spine Group doctors office" and the "Contractual
Health Care office" which provides assistance to people in financial need. The
Committee considers the applicant's provision of on-site van service as a suitable
solution to the site not being located within a reasonable proximity to useful
services and facilities.
The development should be located in aesthetically pleasing areas reasonably
protected from excessive noise, air pollution and other negative physical
influences.
The site is located in an aesthetically pleasing area in terms of the natural
amenity provided by the Lynnhaven River. The impacts of excessive
noise from the greater than 75 dB Ldn AICUZ, however, is significant.
The applicant informed the SHRC that necessary sound insulation
material as per the AICUZ Ordinance would be installed.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan Map recommends this area for residential uses above 3.5
dwelling units per acre. The Plan Map recognizes that the site is located in a natural
resource/conservation area where land-disturbing activities should be avoided,
mitigated, or under certain conditions prohibited.
The proposed use is not consistent with the Plan's provision for a diversity of housing
meeting the needs of the city's older population. The City's Comprehensive Plan
addresses this issue with these statements:
"The opportunity to build retirement complexes incorporating high levels of
outdoor recreation and other amenities in settings that take advantage of our
unique environmental surroundings gives us the chance to significantly add to
the broad base of amenities in the city. The challenge is not just to attract such
opportunities, but to site them well, taking into consideration nearby amenities,
land use pattems, demand upon public facilities, and proximity to necessary
services." (p. 23-24)
Planning Commission Agenda
November 14, 2001-~.~,?~...~
BIL-MAR / # 5
Page 9
Summary of Proposal
Proposal
· The applicant proposes to develop a senior housing facility with 58 units for
independent living, age 62 and over, on a 5.3 acre site of which the buildable site
allowed under the approval of the CBPA Board is one acre. The proposed
density will be approximately 16 units to the acre, based on the 3.45 acres above
the wetlands.
The facility, to be named Oconee Pointe, will be financed through Virginia
Housing Development Authority. For all the units, the gross monthly income
must be at least $944 ($11,328 yearly income) with a maximum income of $21,
420 for 1 resident and $24,480 for 2 residents.
The management of the proposed facility will be on-site full-time from 9:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. during the week, with a live-in assistant manager for the evening
hours and weekends.
· The one-bedroom units will rent in the Iow $500 range and the two-bedroom units
will rent for just under $600. 40% of the units will be rent restricted.
Site Desi,qn
The applicant submitted two site plans. One site plan is dated September 5,
2001 and a second site plan portraying amenities, a 6 foot high wooden
privacy fence and a relocated dumpster area is dated October 30, 2001. The
second site plan also portrays landscape details not shown on the first plan.
Both plans were evaluated and are discussed here.
A fence was added to the earlier plan and the dumpster was relocated in
response to concerns expressed to the applicant by the adjacent property
owners. The site plans show four rows of three-story buildings each with two
to six units providing 58 independent living units with 59 parking spaces.
The applicant is allowed to build on only one acre due to CBPA restrictions.
Several buildings will be located around an interior courtyard. Amenities
shown in the courtyard from the second site plan include landscape features
and pathways.
Planning Commission Agenda
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR / # 5
Page10
In the heavily treed area between the proposed building site and the
Lynnhaven River, the second site plan shows two picnic tables, two gazebos
and a walking trail. The applicant has stated that stormwater will be stored
beneath the parking lot and possibly within the courtyard.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Access
· The parking lot will be located in the front of the site and access to the site is
shown from Oconee Avenue.
· Pedestrian access between the second and third floors of each of the
buildings will be by connecting covered walkways.
Architectural Desiqn
Planning Commission Agenda
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR ! # 5
Page 11
The submitted.renderings depict a mansard roof with shallow dormers. The
roof will have pastel green asphalt shingles. The building row facing Oconee
Avenue will have a breezeway in the center.
The buildings are arranged in a triangle of three units in 35 foot tall, three-
story rectangular shaped buildings enclosing an interior courtyard. There will
be 2 one-bedroom units and 56 two-bedroom units. The one-bedroom units
will be 520 square feet and the two-bedroom units will be approximately 804
square feet.
The units will face the courtyard. The buildings will be connected at the
second and third story level by covered walkways. The walkways will extend
the length of the interior of the buildings. The columns for the walkways will
be white steel material.
The extedor materials consist of red brick veneer (red in color) at the ends of
the buildings with larger sections of vinyl siding (light tan in color) in the
middle. Large, white vinyl windows are provided with divided panes and dark
green vinyl shutters. The windows in the brick section do not have shutters.
Two elevators will be included in the project. One will be located in the
southeast building. The other elevator will be located in the southwest
building.
At the staff's request the applicant has agreed to several amhitectural changes to the
submitted elevation. These changes include:
· An all red brick veneer front exterior for the building facing Oconee Aveune.
Even though depicted in the elevations, there will not be any shutters on the
buildings since the shutters are not in proportion to the windows and look
awkward.
· The roof color will be of a neutral brown color, not the green color as depicted
in the elevation.
· White painted steel columns will be used instead of the wooden columns
shown in the photographs of the interior elevations.
Planning Commission Agenda
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR / # 5
Page12
Landscape and Open Space Desi,qn
Landscape as depicted on the colored site plan shows small trees planted
along the southwest property line. Facing the street will be foundation
plantings consisting of shrubs and ground cover. The courtyard will contain a
few trees in the center and the corners. Parking lot landscaping shows a
minimal number of scattered trees.
Senior Housinq Services
Supportive Services:
On-site full-time management will be available from 9:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. during
the week. After hours and during the weekends there will a live-in assistant
manager on call to assist residents.
· The applicant has indicated that the facility will also have on-site van service
for residents.
· A small community room will be available for use by the residents.
Fire, security, and medical assistance systems that notify a monitoring center
and the Oconee Point managers 26 hours, 7 days a week will be provided in
each apartment. The system consists of a control unit, back-up battery,
indoor siren, keypad, door and window contacts, motion detectors, smoke
detectors, and panic buttons or pull chains located in both the bedroom and
bathroom.
· Social programs will be affiliated with churches and the City's Recreation
Department.
· A Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) bus route is located on Virginia Beach
Boulevard, several blocks from the proposed development.
Evaluation of Request
Staff cannot support this request and does not recommend approval of this conditional
use permit. While Staff encourages development of senior housing facilities, especially
Planning Commission Agenda~~:~,~;~.~-~.~..~'~;~' ~..~._~:,~
November 14, 2001 ~~~
BIL-MAR/# 5 ~
Page13
for moderate-income residents, several factors, including location and site plan layout,
must be taken into special consideration when providing facilities for our senior
residents. The City's Comprehensive Plan addresses this issue with the statement:
"The challenge is not just to attract such opportunities, but to site them well, taking into
consideration nearby amenities, land use pattems, demand upon public facilities, and
proximity to necessary services" (page 24).
Site Plan
The Staff also has concerns with the buildings located as shown on the submitted site
plan. The arrangement of the buildings would hamper fire-fighting ability by limiting the
accessibility of emergency rescue vehicles. Only by redesigning the site plan can this
issue be resolved.
Setting
The Staff considers the proposed location to be inappropriate for this use. Concerns
with the location include the high noise zone of greater than 75dB and the isolation of
the neighborhood that impacts safety and services that benefit seniors. Section 221.1
of the CZO specifically notes that this use is not compatible with this AICUZ. The close
proximity of the APZ increases the degree of incompatibility of this uSe to this AICUZ.
While it is noted that the site could be developed with multi-family residential since the
A-12 zoning is already in place, it does not follow that the site is then appropriate for the
older segment of the city's population in a multi-family setting. Developing housing for
this segment of the population in the highest noise zone around NAS Oceana is not
what the Comprehensive Plan has in mind for these facilities when it recommends that
we "site them well."
The neighborhood, while probably suitable for a younger component of the city's
population is not considered suitable for our senior residents. From a safety standpoint,
the neighborhood is somewhat isolated, presenting security issues for its residents.
Security for our seniors is an important consideration. Granted, the applicant has
attempted to address Staff's concerns though the provision of on-site management,
services and security systems. Even though efforts area are underway by adjacent
property owners and landlords to improve the area, Staff concludes that the introduction
of a facility that caters to our senior citizens may be premature for this area.
The location of the site affects the provision of services that benefit seniors. The site
selection guidelines from the City's Report on Senior Housin.q A Policy Report,
recommend that development should be located within reasonable proximity to useful
services and facilities. "These include banks, shopping centers, parks, libraries, and
recreation areas among other. Effort should be made to locate such facilities within
reasonable walking distance to bus stops." Even though the proposed development is
located, by the applicant's measurement, three blocks from a shopping center, other
Planning Commission Agenda
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR / # 5
Page14
services such as drug stores and accessibility to public transportation are not
convenient. While the applicant will provide van service, this does not meet the intent of
"reasonable proximity" as it is the van that makes the needed services reasonably
proximal instead of the services themselves being reasonably proximal.
The Staff, therefore, recommends denial of the request for the conditional use permit for
housing for seniors.
Conditions
If this request is recommended for approval, the following conditions should be
attached:
The site shall be developed in substantial accordance with the submitted site
plan entitled "Concept Plan Oconee Point A Retirement Community by BiI-Mar
Construction, LTD. Virginia Beach Virginia Sept. 5, 2001" & "Oconee Pointe A
Senior IndePendent Living Community on the Lynnhaven River at London Bridge
Oconee Avenue, Vrginia Beach, VA, Developer; Oconee Pointe, L.L.C. Richard
L. Grimstead, Architect" - not dated.
The proposed project shall substantially adhere to the submitted renderings
depicting the southeast elevation and the southwest elevation and color and
material samples, on file with the Planning Department entitled "Oconee Pointe A
Senior Independent Living Community on the Lynnhaven River at London Bridge
Oconee Avenue, Vrginia Beach, VA, Developer; Oconee Pointe, L.L.C. Richard
L. Gdmstead, Architect"- not dated. The design shall be modified to
a. Include an all red brick veneer front exterior for the building facing Oconee
Avenue
b. Removal of shutters
c. The roof color will be of a neutral brown color, not of a green color as
depicted in the elevation
d. White pained steel columns will be used instead of the wooded columns
shown in the photographs of the interior elevations.
Planning Commission Agenda
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR ! # 5
Page 15
3. An automatic sprinkler system and an automatic fire alarm system approved by
the Fire Marshall and the Fire Protection Engineer shall be installed, The system
shall comply with NFPA 13 (in excess of NFPA 13R).
4. As per the Uniform Statewide Building Code, non-ambulatory residents shall
occupy no more than 10% of the floor space.
o
On-site van service shall be provided for the residents.
Oconee Avenue shall be improved to remove the section of cul-de-sac and to
create a tangent section of roadway immediately in front of the property,
including curb and gutter and sidewalk.
Development shall be in full compliance with the conditions of approval of the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board variance granted on July 25, 2001.
Parking and other extedor lighting shall be directed away from and not reflect any
illumination into the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
The location and design of all proposed exterior signs shall be submitted to and.
approved by the Director of Planning prior to the submission of the signs for City
permit approvals. Any freestanding signs shall be monument style.
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 all
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
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR / # 5
Page16
Proposed site
layout
Planning Commission Agenda
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR ! # 5
Page17
t
Proposed site layout with
landscaping
Planning Commission Agenda :.~.~ ~
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR ! # 5
Page18
i
Z
Proposed
building.
elevations
Planning Commission Agenda
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR / # 5
Page19
Existing building at another location
Interior courtyard at another location
Planning Commission Agenda ~'~~~
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR ! # 5
Page 20
Planning Commission Agenda
November 14, 2001
BIL-MAR ! # 5
Page 21
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Conditional Use Permit for senior housing
Northwest extremity of Oconee Avenue
District 6
Beach
November 14, 2001
REGULAR AGENDA
Robert Miller: Our next item is #5, Bil-Mar Construction.
Eddie Bourdon: For the record my name is Eddie Bourdon I am representing Bil-Mar on this
application. It is my pleasure to advise you that I have with me this afternoon Mr. Bill Page and
his son Scott who are native Virginia Beach residents who are experience in real estate
development and management and they are the applicants with this project. They desire to create
a senior housing community in this area for residents of moderate income levels. Earlier I think
it stayed on the consent agenda, approved the Atlantic Shores modifications. This is not Atlantic
': Shores. This is not the villages or Signature of West Neck senior community just down here by
the Courthouse nor is it Westminster Canterbury. Those are beautiful neighborhoods.
Wonderful senior communities and good economic development for the City of Virginia Beach
but there is another segment of our senior population that needs service to manage those folks
who can not afford those pricey residential areas for senior citizens. And at the same time,
people who are seniors and of moderate income of moderate means ought not be shunted away to
sites that are adjacent to shopping centers and on busy highways. This opportunity site that you
have before you here is an absolutely gorgeous piece of property. It is located on the Lynnhaven
River. It is about a block and a half away from Virginia Beach Boulevard. It is isolated and it is
quiet but for the fact occasionally the sound of freedom war overhead because it is in proximity
to Oceana. It is not, however, in an APZ crash zone, nor is it adjacent to a runway as is stated in
the staff evaluation. My Webster's definition of adjacent means that it is next to, adjoining. We
are clearly not next to nor adjoining a runway as is stated in the staff evaluation. Staff evaluation
also indicates that we are in an APZ but that was corrected this morning, thankfully, so now we
are "near" an APZ even though the nearest APZ is on the other side of Virginia Beach Boulevard
from this site which is north and a block and a half north of Virginia Beach Boulevard. But we
are now near, I am not sure how we define near but okay, we are in a noise zone. There is no
issue there. The APZ part of it as far as I am concerned is a non-starter where planes crash. I am
sure they don't look for a line and say we can't crash on the other side of that line. We always
thought that made a lot of sense. There are other senior communities within the City of Virginia
Beach that are in the 75 lbn noise zone. Those are the First Colonial Inn and the Russell House
both on First Colonial Road in the highest noise zone. Atlantic Shores and the recently approved
Sullivan House are also in high noise zones although they are 70 and 75 versus 75 and above.
The staff has based its denial of this recommendation as you heard this morning on the fact that
essentially they don't like the fact that it is in a high noise zone and the Navy has some concerns
about it being in a high noise zone. The reality is that the property is zoned A-12 and with that
zoning, by right 41 multi-family units, three and four bedroom units can be built on this piece of
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 2
property which will result in the property housing upwards of 100 people including children.
And I would submit in spite of some people who may disagree I think from folks I talk to is
correct, the youngest of our population, although it can vary with age, are more sensitive to noise
than are the older, more mature members of our population who unfortunately do experience
diminished hearing. So the idea that somehow is better to put younger families on this piece of
property rather than retirees - people who have lived long enough or mature enough to make
decisions, hopefully that will not be negative to their health and well being. I do not follow the
logic in that argument in the Navy's perspective. I don't ever talk to the Navy in where they
would base their opposition to why they would find it to be better to have more people living on
a piece of property and more younger people living on a piece of property but that apparently - I
say apparently, is their position. The other issue that I don't really understand - what I don't
understand is why it is omitted. There is no reference in the write-up to the fact that this
development will have a far lesser impact on traffic. People who live here will not be, generally
speaking, driving what you find is that people move into these communities. They may well will
have their car initially but it will be gone within 6 months. This community will have a van
service which is referenced in the write-up where people will be driven by van. Again, a far less
impact traffic wise than would be the development of the property than as it's A-12 zoning
allows. The other situation is not mentioned is impact on school. Senior development is positive
economic development. You have got the report that Council received many years ago that says
that. No reference to that here whatsoever and I think that applies even where you do have
people of moderate means as opposed to those that live in Westminster Canterbury, Atlantic
Shores because they do not require City services and most importantly there is no educational
component involved so in not elementary, high school and public education. And that is not
mentioned anywhere in the write-up. What the write-up does talk about in a way that I have
never seen before is crime statistics. Some of you all have been on the Planning Commission
quite a long time. If you all have seen a write-up that included crime statistics before correct me.
I don't recall ever seeing that before. So having found out about that, we went down to the
Police Department and got police reports for the Russell House, Silver Hill at Great Neck, Silver
Hills at Thalia, the Sullivan House, the property of the Sullivan House. Obviously Sullivan
House is not there yet which I have got a copy for everybody and I will pass it around. The
numbers that you see there, especially Russell House on First Colonial Road they have more
reported criminal activity than the subject property, again, which isn't developed has. Those
dealing with properties around this property. In the breakdown, you know, I am not a statistician.
I didn't do a statistical analysis but suffice it to say, there is crime everywhere. The biggest
criminal problem that appears to be in place on Oconee deals with burglaries and breaking into
cars. Again, I said I don't think too many people in this community are going to have cars. The
one thing that I think needs to be pointed out above anything else is that seniors are to a large
degree the eyes of our community. The people who will be living here, some will be working but
many will not be and they will be observing. When you look around the rest of the community
that is around this property and there are people from the community to speak in favor of this
application, a large number are younger people who work and a lot of the crimes that take place
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 3
are crimes committed by juveniles. They are committed by juveniles when there aren't adults
around. When there aren't eyes around. And the police can not be everywhere but I will submit
to you that an upgrade that this will represent this community. A very significant upgrade to help
alleviate some of the issues that exist there I think to turn things around. The senior community
we met with them. Even the police and fire folks recognize that this is an area that is right for
some positive turn around as far as development and we believe is a seed that is planted will
produce that turn around because it will provide eyes and ears that during a lot of the times of
day, this community I don't think has. As you drive around, I have the area - it looks to me to
be, from talking to other people an area that is predominantly younger people and putting another
100 people the same age group in there having to be working while their children aren't always
supervised by an adult, I don't think that is going to help turn the area around. We believe this
will help turn the area around. The plans you have seen them this morning. It is a beautiful
layout. Because this property was zoned A-12 when the Bay Act was put into place, the property
is fully developable. The question is one of trying to minimize the impacts on the Bay. If this
property is developed for a town house project, typical A-12 project there will be, guaranteed,
will be a significant more impact on the Bay. This type of project because it reduces a
tremendously amount of parking and the units are smaller so the folks are living together with
this type of product results in far greater amount of the site being left undisturbed where we have
got trails, gazebos, a beautiful natural setting on the Lynnhaven River. They have a by right,
development rights because the Chesapeake Bay Act was legislated long after the zoning and the
property was configured existed. So the Bay Board support this unanimously even though, again,
the write-up tries to make it sound like it is some major (inaudible) variance and the Bay Board
and the staff of the Bay Board think it is a wonderful application and use because it does, in fact,
minimize below what would be the case with the A- 12 type of development with the impacts on
the steep slopes and allows significant buffers to the water body which we have incorporated into
this plan. The units are laid out so that they all have balconies. It is always an outdoor exit. The
balconies are all internal to the courtyard. Not on the outside. So again, everything is
internalized to the courtyard and the buildings constructed around. The write up does mention
some positive aspects to the development but the by and large are omitted and the one situation it
also referred to is on page 7 dealing with fire and rescue. There are a list of fire marshal
recommendations there and then there is an applicant as agreed to list below that. There is no
mention there of the fact that the applicant has agreed to an onsite manager. It is elsewhere in the
write-up and there is a resident manager who is always there who will always be there, assistant
manager. There is a security system that will be installed. Every room multiple units - push
button in the case of fire or any other emergency. It is monitored 24/7. Not something you see in
an A- 12 development. It .is not mandated. It is something that we agreed to do and the senior
housing committee was aware of that but it is not mentioned. All of the units are also sprinkled
which is not mentioned. I will tell you the sprinkling system is a residential sprinkling system.
Not a commercial sprinkling system and the condition that is contained in the write up under the
recommendation that deals with the sprinkling system that is requesting and requiring a
commercial system which is cost prohibited and I know that some members of the commission
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 4
that have experience this area understand that and that is not an acceptable condition but all of
the units will be sprinkled in addition to the security system, the pull cords and everything else
which is required and everything else which we agreed to upgrade with the security system. But
that is the only condition with the nine. conditions that is not acceptable and that is not mentioned
here in the Fire Marshall's recommendation. Again, we will staff him 24 hours a day, seven days
a week. He can respond to onsite emergencies for early coordination. I am not sure what that
means but this is a small project and it: is an affordable project. It is $590 month. We will have
someone there. We are providing all the amenities that one can expect but you are not dealing
with a high rise. You are not dealing with Atlantic Shores here and we are not dealing with very
many units. Also not mentioned in here is that we agreed to restrict of the 58 units, 29 of them
will have no more than one resident. The other 29 units will have no more than 2 residents. So
there is a maximum number of residents that can be living there and it could be less and will
equal, I wrote it down and my math... 87 residents is the maximum number that could be
residing in this project. The fire issues, the fire sprinkler. Putting in fire hydrants is not a
problem. Where they want fire hydrants for the Bay Act purposes we are not able to build a road
around the outside of the buildings and put more impervious surface and it is also economically
not something that can be afforded in this case, not to mention the fact that we want the property
to have the views of the water. With that, I will allow other people to speak. All the conditions
with the exception about the one with the commercial sprinkler are acceptable if this body
chooses to recommend approval which we think the application warrants.
Charlie Salle': Any questions?
Robert Vakos: Eddie, I just want to ask for a clarification because I am... and I got some other
comments I want to reserve. On the sprinkler system requirement, did you say that was not
recommended in the comments by the Fire Marshall.
Eddie Bourdon: No. What I was saying is that there is no reference in the write-up to the fact
that we are providing - and they know that we are providing a sprinkler system in the building.
In other words it is saying what the Fire Marshall asked for and what we agreed to do. It just
simply says do a fire drill and make sure that non-ambulatory residents, you know, are moved out
within 30 days of becoming non-ambulatory. If you look at the write-up, I say it should also say
that they have agreed to put sprinklers in the building in all the units but we have not agreed to
do a commercial system which is cost prohibited.
Robert Vakos: Which is NFPA 13...
Eddie Bourdon: Which has not been required of other senior housing developments that have
been approved in the City of Virginia Beach.
Robert Vakos: Aren't there some state laws that are requiring - and maybe it is a fine distinction
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 5
between what you consider residential and commercial. There are some state laws mandating
sprinkling of these types of facilities so by being classified as a residential in fact meets those
state guidelines, is that what you are telling us?
Eddie Bourdon: Yes. What we are proposing meets all legal requirements and as far as security
exceeds any legal requirements.
Robert Vakos: And you don't have to do it right now, but I would like to hear some of the
differences. I think I heard some of them but I would like to hear some of the differences - the
distinctions between what the City is asking for and what you will be providing as far as the
sprinkler systems.
Eddie Bourdon: I will be happy to address that.
Cheryl Avery-Hargrove: Yes, Eddie I know that affordability is a major concern and probably of
the applicant, affordability, however, I had some concerns with regard to the ages. I may have
missed this - was there any age starting limit? Did you mention that?
Eddie Bourdon: 62 1 believe. It is 62. It can not be under 62 years of age.
Cheryl Avery-Hargrove: Okay and with that in mind also with regard to the others that might be
permitted in the development, did you mention hearing impaired or any of the disabled residents
that you had anticipated being... ?
Eddie Bourdon: Certainly someone who is hearing impaired.., there is no Prohibition against
someone who has heating impaired from residing here. What I was referring to with the elderly
population you have a greater percentage of individuals who are heating impaired or have some
hearing lost who are going to be less sensitive jet noise than with a younger population. That is a
generalization. You obviously may have people of a younger generation who have hearing lost
but from what I gather the percentage of folks with hearing impairments that make them less
sensitive to jet noise than people over 62 is going to be more significant than dealing with 20
year olds, 30 year olds and their children.
Cheryl Avery-Hargrove: Well my major concern and where I was going with affordability with
those residents of that age and of course the disable also, had you planned or does the applicant
to plan within or without .some security measures such as pull cords and things of that sort?
Eddie Bourdon: We put every security measure into these units that we can practically do. We
can not have a security guard and pay for someone to be there and a security guard 24 hours a
day. And we don't think there is a crime problem that warrants that. If you look at the crime
they are talking about - generally speaking, juvenile type of break in of dwellings while people
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 6
are away and cars parked out in the parking lot. We are not talking about serious robbery and
that type of stuff.
Cheryl Avery-Hargrove: I was thinking about the emergency.
Eddie Bourdon: Every unit has in the bathroom and in the unit itself a key pad, you know, that
you punch a button and it automatically goes to the security company and they call the onsite
manager, it also rings the onsite manager. They have immediate security access without having
to pick up the phone, and without having to dial a number in the dark, whatever. It is a lit keypad
liked you have on your security system at home.
Cheryl Avery-Hargrove: Thank you.
Charlie Salle': Will?
William Din: Eddie can you expound on a little bit of the security of the physical security that is
provided around the buildings?
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. That is one thing that I have neglected to mention. The parking lot
we have added to the site plan - it is a very heavily wooded site. I know most of you have been
there with the van trip, we have added a security fence off of Oconee down here to the point
where it is so heavily densely wooded you can't get through. Certainly we have a security fence
that is being added across this side of this parking lot the same situation until you get to the point
where you have no affordable access because of the steep slope. So we are adding the fencing to
give that secure feeling. We also have some lighting, however we are not doing commercial
parking lot well lit. It is a residential area in terms of whether we will be having people coming
and going. This population might suggest that people living here won't go out in the evening but
as a general rule, they tend to be in bed at earlier hours. We will again have onsite manager who
will obviously be involved with security issues and on-resident manager who will be there for
security as well.
William Din: What kind of fencing is that and where does the resident manager reside in this...
?
Eddie Bourdon: That is a question.., as far as security fencing it is all the frontage that is there.
·. it is like a - not wrought iron but iron appearing type of fence that will -- looks light wrought
iron but it is vinyl as I understand it. The manager - Scott can you tell me where the manager is
going to reside. The building that faces the parking lot. I would presume it would be in this first
building as you come in here. If everyone could see where I am pointing, this building here.
William Din: No other security cameras, that type of monitoring that goes on in the parking areas
Item//5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 7
or in the buildings or in the cross walks or elevators?
Eddie Bourdon: All of your walkway areas are all internalized because of the courtyard effect.
We haven't had any discussion of a security camera system. I have to talk to my clients about
that. That is not something that has been suggested or talked about similarly having some type of
a security camera for the parking lot is also something that we just haven't thought about. I will
not rule that out without talking to my: clients about that.
William Din: Can you address how far it is to those back buildings that the fire department
would have to respond to a fire back in there? How far would the hoses have to be run and
things like that?
Eddie Bourdon: It is just (inaudible) less than 200 feet from the parking lot to the back of the
building. This whole site that you see with the parking lot and the housing unit occupies about 1
acre in total size including the parking lot itself of this three plus acre site.
William Din: Other than the elevators where are the stairwells?
Eddie Bourdon: At the ends of the buildings.
William Din: Can you point those out?
Eddie Bourdon: End of each of the buildings is where the stairwell is located. Each building has
a stairwell at the end. They connect to the balcony that you see there. From that picture you can
see where the stairwell is. The fire department actually indicated that was an ideal situation as
far as the way the buildings were laid out. Not in terms of their idea of wanting to get a fire truck
all the way around but having the balconies versus having an internalize hallway system, they
said that was far better from their perspective. That is what they told us at the Senior Housing
meeting and I told the Pages that as well and they said it specifically at the Senior Housing
meeting that I attended.
Charles Salle': You mentioned that each of the units had a push button alarms that go to security
and medical security system or a contractor that will respond because the write up here says it
will notify a monitoring center. Is that what we are talking about?
Eddie Bourdon: It is a security company that will be monitoring it. They just use that
terminology - it's, I am not going to say... I don't know how you would say monitoring center
versus a security company. It is a security - it is like Johns Brothers. It is the same situation
with them and that may be who does the security here. I don't know who will ultimately get that
contract if this is approved. But that same type of situation that you have with your home.
Item g5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 8
Ronald Ripley: I have a couple of questions. Social programs that say will be affiliated with the
church and the City recreation department. Are you suggesting that the management will have a
church that is involved with the social programs?
Eddie Bourdon: No, I don't know where that idea came from· I think what you will find, and it is
the way it is with Bay Lake over on Shore Drive is a lot of the folks who moved in there were
members of the Methodist church right across the street and you wind up with situations where
you may have a number of residents there who are members of a certain church which may or
may not be close by. But in terms of activities that is going to be handled by the onsite
management and what the residents are looking for - what they want and that is the idea.
Ronald Ripley: I would think it would. Would you describe your van? Is it a van that has
handicap accessibility?
Eddie Bourdon: It will have handicap accessibility. We ht:ven't bought it yet, but yes it will be a
van that you would find at Bay Lake or any of the other facilities that provide van service for its
residents that will have to have handicap for its residents. Again, I don't want to have that
misconstrued in terms of this is not an assisted living facility. For people who are able to get
around for themselves. If they become unable to do so, they will have to be relocated to an
assisted living facility or a nursing care facility.
Ronald Ripley: And I do agree with you on the fire system - the fire suppression system because,
I don't know if you priced the difference but it is a big difference if you are talking about hospital
type requirements versus residential requirements and those are very expensive.
Eddie Bourdon: And I think that the folks in the, and I thought about this while we were talking,
in the shelter industries - the Oceanfront - your requirements are similar to the requirements -
the commercial requirements is that everything be sprinkled everywhere and the number of heads
·.. it is like a hospital.
Robert Vakos: What are you referencing?
Eddie Bourdon: The sprinkler requirements.
Robert Vakos: The shelters?
Eddie Bourdon: The hotels and motels, I am sorry.
Robert Vakos: We meet in FPA 13 and that is what I want to see what the differences are.
Eddie Bourdon: Even if you have got balconies?
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 9
Robert Vakos: Oh yeah.
Eddie Bourdon: Sprinklers on the balconies?
Robert Vakos: I am sure that is the correct number, yeah.
Ronald Ripley: The other question is a little tougher and I am hearing from staff in reading
through this write up that a couple of things, the land use seems to be ~bjectional. They don't
like this use there. The other which is kind of related to it is the citing of the buildings and Wil
spoke a little bit about the closeness as far as fire fighting accessibility to that. Would you
consider deferring this and trying to come back with a plan to put the buildings in a better
position as far as being able to be treated in the event of a fire, being able to get around them a
little better? I am asking you that.
Eddie Bourdon: I would have to talk to the clients...
Ronald Ripley: There are other ways to lay this out than that.
Eddie Bourdon: The problem we have mn into is, you know, the Bay Board and their desires that
we minimize the impervious surface on the site and to the greatest extent possible have
everything located as far away from the river as can be accommodate. So if you look at the site
and the way it is laid out it really isn't.,, there is no way we can accommodate that without
having a more significant encroachment or encouragement into the RPA. Now, I will talk to my
clients and that is the ultimate determination and that will provide the necessary basis for
approval, that might be something that is doable. What we were hearing - what we heard and
maybe we didn't hear entirely correctly.., because of the Navy and the noise and these other
issues, while they are issues, no matter what was done with regard to those issues, we weren't
going to get beyond the Navy and the noise.
Ronald Ripley: Mr. Scott, are they restricted in the height of this building or are they at the
maximum now? Could they go up as far as a higher building and another story would maybe put
you in a position to get around the building a little better as far as that particular issue is
concerned? Do you know right off hand?
Robert Scott: They certainly are restricted. I don't know where they are at with the level of
restriction.
Ronald Ripley: Is it 35 feet? Is that what it is?
Robert Scott: Yes.
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 10
Ronald Ripley: So they are there?
Robert Scott: 35 is the limit.
Eddie Bourdon: Check on the possibilities, but there are some other people I think that are signed
up to speak.
Charlie Salle': Eddie before you go, I had a couple of questions. On page 7 on the write up is
where the enumerated recommendations from the fire marshal and as far as the first one we are
dealing with that you are looking to that one. The second one is required construction to comply
with institutional use groups. Do you meet that or not?
Eddie Bourdon: No. Again, that has never been required on any other senior housing facility in
the City of Virginia Beach.
Charlie Salle': Okay, the next one, the sprinkler system we have touched on. The next one is the
required fire protection systems compatible with an institutional use.
Eddie Bourdon: We believe we have done that.
Charlie Salle': You do that, okay. And the other one, the next one is require minimum staffing
24 hours a day, seven days a week who can respond to onsite emergency. Do you comply with
that?
Eddie Bourdon: We believe we comply with that. It depends on how you define minimum
staffing.
Charlie Salle': Okay and then recommend reduced fire hydrant spacing throughout the complex
to be approved by the fire department. Are you able... ?
Eddie Bourdon: I don't think we have any problem with that whatsoever.
Charlie Salle': I just wanted to see where we were with respect to that.
Robert Miller: In support I have Dianne Milner.
Dianne Milner: Hi, I am Dianne Milner and I represent 10 homeowners that back right up to the
proposed development. And he is so right, it is absolutely a gorgeous piece of property. And
since we are developing it we have worked with the builder and he has met most of the
conditions we have asked him to. One of which is to keep the parking lot away from our
property because our property line.., imagine your deck ending at the property line and he has
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 11
been very good about that. He has been very good about moving the garbage disposals and we
were worried about the water runoff and he has worked with us on that. He has pretty much
really tried to meet the conditions to make us happy.
Robert Miller: Where do you live exactly that you say you back up to? Is it the town houses?
Dianne Milner: Yes, sir. It is a circle of townhouses and I am like fourth in so basically our
decks are the property line and he realizes that and he has tried to work with us.
Charlie Salle': Any questions for Ms. Miler?
Ronald Ripley: I have a question. Most of those people in there do they own there and live
there?
Dianne Milner: Only one does not own. Yes, sir, we all own a pretty tight little community fight
there.
Robert Miller: Also I have a card from H.L. Marks.
H.L. Marks: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name is H.L. Marks and the owner of the
Oconee Shores Apartments which is the plot that says A-18. It is 36 units just below the A-12
property. I am very much in favor of this project. I think it will add im-measuredly to the
neighborhood. We have - I purchased this Oconee Shores Apartments a little over two years ago
and have had to go through quite a situation of cleaning up the act, so to speak. We had a lot of,
I would like to refer to, financially challenged people living in our apartments and they - and I
had a few section 8's and there were a lot of problems and over the last two years we have been
cleaning up those problems greatly. We have been able to go through unlawful detainers and not
renewing leasers to get fid of trouble makers and problems in the apartments so we would get
less police reports and problems in the area. As of, when will it be this coming Tuesday, as of
next Tuesday we will be at an unlawful detainer action against the last tenant and it has been a
continuing problem. From this point forward we are looking forward to having a nice apartment
house. I purchased them with my wife for retirement so we plan to keep them on a long term
basis. We aren't looking to turn them over. We don't believe in deferred maintenance. We
believe in taking care of things as they come up and Debbie Right, my manager and I work the
apartments very closely to make sure that our tenants are well taken care of. So we are also in
the process of renovatingthe apartments, again, to keep them up and looking to them as a long
term requirement. So we are very much in favor of having something really nice happen to our
little area and I think it will be quite an enhancement and it will cause others to follow along this
line and it is a very pretty area and I am looking forward to seeing it continue to grow. Are there
any questions?
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 12
Robert Vakos: Mr. Marks, since you are a landlord with apartments in there, tell me about the
noise. Do you have complaints from your residents as far as the Navy noise?
H.L. Marks: Without living there... Debby is my manager.
Debby Right: Occasionally when a jet flies over it is a little, you know...
Robert Vakos: You live with it.
Debby Right: Right.
Robert Vakos: I don't live far from there and it does get noisy.
Charlie Salle': We require your manager to come to the podium to state if she is going to speak.
Debby Right: Good afternoon, I am Debby Right. I manage Oconee Shores Apartments.
Robert Vakos: It doesn't hurt your residents. They obviously have the choice of either staying or
leaving based on the noise but you don't see that as a huge factor.
H.L. Marks: No. In fact there is a gentleman that has been there for 10 years - that has lived
there for 10 years. I mean we have a lot of renewals.
Robert Vakos: He is not hard of hearing?
H.L. Marks: No. Oh no by no means.
Robert Vakos: I assume you either heard the discussion or you have seen the write up as far as
the crime statistics and I assume that this also includes your facility. Do you see that as a
problem in your area? I know you are obviously doing something in your little piece to help that
but do you see this area as being a problem for people that may be older or little less capable of
taking care of themselves?
H.L. Marks: I think that what we have been doing over the last two years that it has been
becoming less of a problem. The only concern we have is with the trailer park in the area. We
certainly would like to see that go or at least build a big wall around it so we don't see it coming
in. I think that would improve the neighborhood immeasurably. Other than that, I think the
neighborhood as we continually keep putting in nicer facilities and people see it in that light - it
is London Bridge it is on the water. It has got a potential for middle class, upper middle class
moving in and really enjoying the area.
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 13
Robert Vakos: In your facility are you an onsite manager?
H.L. Marks: No, not an onsite.
Robert Vakos: Do you have an onsite?
H.L. Marks: No sir, Debby is there everyday.
Robert Vakos: Okay. Do you have security systems or security guards?
H.L. Marks: (Indicated no).
Robert Vakos: Okay do you know what your crime statistics are and your facility as far as your
tenants?
H.L. Marks: They are practically nil since we got rid of this last tenant. We don't have any
problems anymore.
Robert Vakos: Okay, thank you.
Dorothy Wood: I also wanted to ask you about the crime Mr. Marks. We see that you have had a
mpc report, arson, an auto theft, hit and run. Are these with your.., did these people live in
your apartments you think?
H.L. Marks: Some did and some didn't and as I say everyone of these people are no longer
residents of the Oconee Shores Apartments. Thank you Mrs. Wood, thank you ladies and
gentlemen.
Charlie Salle" Speaking in opposition is Michelle Gram.
Michelle Gram: Hi, I am Michelle Gram and I represent a number of homeowners of waterfront
property across from the development in Chesopean Colony and before he speaks out I would
like to thank Mr. Marks and I have notice a difference in the noise level over the past two years.
We respect that the Planning Department has its own concerns with this development and I also
understand that the property may eventually be developed although a perfect world I would hope
that an open space on the. river which has two plus sides of water or marsh would be left as an
open space. These spaces are far and few in between. That being said, however, we do have a
number of concerns of development. If developed as low income housing for seniors what will
attract them to this area. We have done a little research and realize that although low it will not
be lower than many properties in the area. This is surrounded by a marginally developed area in
fact bordered by unfinished property in an area of high crime. The proposed rents are so low that
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 14
it will change these properties or in any other area. Also in reference to the site plan I know that
this is something that the Navy keeps track of. I would be very curious to know how many calls
they have received from that area. I would not diminish the effect of the sounds. It is
increasingly loud. The planes are becoming more and more in numbers and it is so directly over
the marsh and mm exactly over where this traffic will be - that is their standard flight plan when
they are doing touch and goes and it is so loud that any of our property right across the water that
when we remodeled we laminated our windows so we could get the most sound control possible.
Also if in time it is not successful what would keep the owners - this is just a concern, from
declaring hardship and changing its use. They noted that the age would be 62 and that most of
them would have one car. I know so many people that are in their early 60's and they all drive.
Number two, back to the parking spaces. It seems to have a limited number of parking spaces
based on the number of two bedroom apartments available. He did note that they were going to
limit the number of double occupancies but as it is my understanding as of now there is only one
huge one bedroom units. There are also no area in that area to have overflow parking. We ask
that the Commission to consider if it be built be restricted to two buildings with brick facades so
that they have a minimum impact on the environment and will better blend in all types of the
seasons during the year. It was noted also on a previous application that we have looked at that
the development would include gazebos and walking paths. We worry that these could be
misused by the surrounding community and also our concern is that the walking trails are not
properly maintained would lead to erosion and to the local marsh. The only other thing that I
would like to bring up is the number of units perceived. It was understanding that under
Chesapeake Bay, under the ruling, they took this approximately 5 acre development and limited
it down to 1 acre and then again my further understanding, I may be wrong, is that if it was
developed as apartments which it is zoned for each apartment would need to have two parking
spaces which would basically make the 1 acre land use that they allowed be almost unusable for
apartments - very small development. I would like to thank you for your time.
Charlie Salle: Any questions.
Dorothy Wood: Are you representing any civic league ma'am?
Michelle Gram: I am representing a number of homeowners. I am not sure of the number. I am
not sure. I would say six to eight of us received letters from the Planning Department.
Cheryl Avery-Hargrove: Yes, Mrs. Gram you mentioned, this is a conditional use permit for
senior housing. You mentioned that you were concerned about the change of use. What are you
speaking of?
Michelle Gram: I am concerned at its current use at A- 12 that if they went to develop that
because of the number of hard surface parking spaces they would have to have her apartment, the
one acre that so far it is my understanding that Chesapeake Bay is letting them use would be
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 15
almost unusable because you would have to have double the parking - I mean you couldn't... I
guess it is my understanding that you really couldn't develop it to its full potential.
Cheryl Avery-Hargrove: And you were not talking about changing the land use?
Mich~lle Gram: No.
Charlie Salle': Any other questions? Ms. Gram, thank you very much.
Eddie Bourdon: Ms. Gram needs to understand that this is the best - the best hope that she has
for having the minimum amount of impact on her visual view across the river of this piece of
property because this property does, in fact, limit significantly the amount of land disturbed area -
- building area and parking area. And as I said earlier in my presentation, for the property to
develop as it is permitted by right under unconditional A-12, zoning already existed on a parcel
that has existed before the Bay Act was ever created unless the city or state is going to pay for the
property -- the property can be fully developed, the minimum amount of impact necessary to
develop it would be the criteria and, as she exactly correctly stated, in order to develop it for the
number of unit allowed by right with the minimum amount of impact is .going to involve a heck
of a lot of more land area being disturbed than this will, that is why the Bay Board and the
Planning staff associated with the Bay Board, and not your dealing with today, embraced it
because it clearly does provide the minimum by far, a minimum amount of impact on those so
called sensitive areas. Bobby, to clarify something Mr. Grimstead was able to educate me
quickly, this properly would comply the requirements of 13-R which are referenced in here but
not 13. Motel properties comply with 13, as do any properties that are more than four stories in
height. So just to clarify that. But no senior housing facilities of four floors or less in Virginia
Beach has ever been required to comply with 13, only with 13-R which this does do. In addition,
we are doing all the units will have grab bars in the tubs which are not required. They will all
have washers and dryers which is, again, not required. Balconies are six feet wide which far
exceeds the width requirements. There are two elevators provided which are not required at all.
So the applicant is going as far as he can economically afford to go on a site which - when you
look at senior housing from moderate income seniors, this is a diamond, because most of- and
Mr. Grimstead has donel0 of these himself. He was telling me he has never had a site anywhere
near this attractive and it is a beautiful site. It is quiet when the jets are not flying and they don't
fly all the time, as we well know, but they do provide some noise to deal with at certain times.
We think it is an absolutely wonderful opportunity for something the City needs and we are
sorely, sorely lacking inappropriate sites for these types of facilities to serve our senior
population. I would hope that this body would recommend approval of the application to City
Council. We cannot move the buildings or put a road around the buildings based on the
requirements of the Bay Board and cost. If you put a road around the building would make it
cost prohibited. We have to keep the rents affordable - $590.00 a month is the rental. The
income information has been provided. The one thing I would add if the body does entertain
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 16
approval of this, we are perfectly willing to accept the conditions which is not included in here
that does restrict the number of residents that 29 of the units would not have more than one
resident and the other 29 units would not have more than 2 residents, which would give you a
maximum - you can have less if more than 29 units had one resident. Thank you very much.
Charlie Salle': Any questions for Eddie.
Robert Vakos: Just one, and I know you referred to it earlier, but I am assuming it's correct. You
will meet all the ADA requirements which...
Eddie Bourdon: Yes absolutely and exceed. And exceed all ADA requirements.
Robert Vakos: Which take care of -- I know that Ron was asking about the van. That's required,
as to this type of use for ADA.
Eddie Bourdon: We will meet and exceed every ADA requirement.
Robert Vakos: Okay.
Charlie Salle': Any other questions...any discussion? I think Dot was first.
Dorothy Wood: Mr. Slate, I know that we do need housing for seniors but being the senior
citizen on the council of this commission, I think that when you are older the high noise does
bother you more than younger people in all seriousness. I mean, even though maybe the hearing
is not quite as sharp, I think that noise does bother us. And also, I think that senior housing,
particularly moderate income, needs to be near shopping areas. I know that I have parents live in
West Minster Canterbury and First Colonial Inn and all after they could no longer drive, walked
to convenience stores, and walked to stores and to banks. And the third is the high crime area.
Seniors are much more vulnerable, either out of carelessness or out of frailty of crime and for
those reasons I really cannot support it.
Charlie Salle': Bobby?
Robert Vakos: I would take some of Dot's issues and maybe respond in a little different way. I
see a couple of issues that has been pointed out. The number one, I guess, is the noise and that is
the thing the staff has the,most problem with. Some would agree with Mr. Bourdon, in fact, that
if it is A-12 you are, in fact, going to have the same density out there and you will, in fact, have
younger children and from transversely what she is saying, I guess I am somewhat -- maybe I am
a senior and getting up there - to the senior apartment. It seems to me that is more troubling for
children than it is for seniors, however, and when you look at the area, you know Chesapeake
Colony, I guarantee you, probably the age of most people over there are in their 60s anyway, so
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 17
and where I live in Linkhorne Park, the average is probably up there also and we are living with
the noise, so I don't think the noise is going to go away and I am not sure that is that big of a
factor considering the property is already zone A-12. The other issue has to do with the crime
and the security issue. I am looking at this facility, its got an onsite manager there 24 hours a
day, there is one way in one way out. The neighborhood is obviously making an effort to reverse
some trends that obviously have been ongoing in that area.. I think this type facility will, in fact,
help that entire area not just itself but this entire area, so I kind of over the security issue. The
biggest one that I have is the fire safety. And I am troubled that we can't move that building in
order to accommodate the trucks in the rear end of it. If it was an A- 12 this may or may not be
an issue, but these are seniors and there is a little heightened sensitivity to it. The whole issue of
the sprinkler system and I am no expert on it, but you know the 13-R, I think -- Ben do they use
domestic water instead of the fire pump, is that some...
(Inaudible)
Robert Vakos: Can you come forward because I have some specific questions about this and I
need a comfortable level on it. But can you tell me the difference - first identify yourself for the
Commission for the record.
Richard Grimstead: Richard Grimstead, architect. There are three types of NFPA fire sprinkler
systems. Thirteen which is the highest and the most sophisticated, which you have in motels and
high rises which have fire pumps - booster pumps and...
Robert Vakos: Monitoring systems and all that stuff.
Richard Grimstead: Then you have a 13 (inaudible) which is for dwelling units like a duplexes or
something and 13-R is for any structures that are four stories or less. Now that system has its
own connecting system, just like a 13 system does but the main thing is that the water pipe is not
off the domestic water but it does not have the booster pumps. It does not have the monitoring
systems and all the bills and the things that - not the bills but the - I think probably in your
system you have a audible...
Robert Vakos: Annunciator.
Richard Grimstead: Annunciator.
Robert Vakos: Right
Richard Grimstead: The 13-R does not require that, but it does have -- when the sprinkler goes
off the alarm system goes off, of course, the monitoring people are notified and the -- when I say
alarm, the bills goes off and plus the lights are to flash too.
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 18
Robert Vakos: Are there individual annunciators in each room - because I know in hotels, every
room has an annunciator or a strobe indicating that the system has been activated. Is that the
same with the 13R?
Richard Grimstead: The 13-R you have to have a decibel rating that is heard in the bedroom from
the furthest point of that alarm system. So I think it is like 50 decibels...
Robert Vakos: So these would be out in court yard basically?
Richard Grimstead: Along the hallways so you have to have them spaced appropriately so that
you can get the required decibel ratings in the furthest point from that alarm system.
Robert Vakos: Okay. Is - in that rating is characteristic or required by the state for nursing
facilities such as this - the 13R?
Richard Grimstead: All elderly - all senior housing has to have a 13-R sprinkler system.
Robert Vakos: Okay, so they meet the state requirements?
Richard Grimstead: Right.
Robert Vakos: Okay. Alright, thank you Ben. Again, the biggest issue I have is the comment
from the Fire Department about reaching the building, as Ron brought up, from reaching the
building from the back of the facilities. And that is the only thing that troubles me about, the rest
of it I would vote for right now.
Charlie Salle': Any other discussion? Bob?
Robert Miller: Yeah, these subjects as were talking about this morning, I feel some competing
good interest here, important interest, one of course is the Navy and the military and our respect
for them and what they do in our community and for our country, but -- and thinking about that
and trying to find locations, as I brought up this morning, is just seems that the senior housing
issue and where to have the opportunity to do a project for moderate income, it just seems that
we're straggling to find places as quickly as, perhaps, the need is being generated and I don't
have an exact measure that it just feels that way in some ways. I do think that the project that
was built and I think, Mr. Grimstead was involved in the project on Baxter Road, was an
opportunity, was a great opportunity which has been successfully now a portion of it has been
completed. I am less worried about the shopping. I think that is a resolution that can be done
within the context of what is being done. I am less worried about the trailers. I once lived in a
trailer and I don't remember being a thief at that time. Perhaps others do but their
characterization was a little less than colorful and I think that the trailer- the folks that live there
meet a need that those folks are interested in. I think Mr. Marks' comments indicate the nature
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 19
of people that take an interest in their properties and resolve any kind of issues with regard to
crime. You know, they are taking a responsible position and I believe he was very clear about
what could happen there and I didn't hear any comments from Mrs. Milner about any concerns
she had about crime in that area. The fire is a concern to me but my mother lives in a project that
is similar to this in Chesapeake and I don't really have a big concern about being able to get the
fire fighters to able to get in there. I think that the type of construction does concern me a little
bit when I think of protection of those: folks as they are trying to get to help elderly people but I
don't think that is something that is exactly measurable unless you had, unfortunately, an incident
and then you would say well in this incident this is what happened. So this very hard to kind of
come to terms with that. I am really tossing with the need for senior housing and the need for
moderate income senior housing and then our good friends at the Navy and how we balance these
particular competing very, very excellent interest in our community. We need somehow to come
to terms with - and I am still not sure where I am going to go as I vote on this one in a moment
as we make a decision.
Charlie Salle'- Betsy?
Betsy Atkinson: How far -- if you park the fire truck right at the entrance in the parking lot, how
far can you bring the hose to the furthest point on that building to - if there is very hot burning
fire with the wind blowing?
Richard Grimstead: Here's your parking lot, the furthest the fire truck can get here to this point
here is about 150 feet. Now what we talked about with the Fire Department is put yard hydrants,
if they so desired behind the buildings.
Betsy Atkinson: They can, put what?
Richard Grimstead: Yard hydrants. Like a -- excuse me, like a fire hydrant.
Betsy Atkinson: A fire hydrant?
Richard Grimstead: We call them yard hydrants.
Betsy Atkinson: Okay.
Richard Grimstead: The hydrants you're familiar with are ones that on the streets but there are
things called a yard hydrant which has a double siamese connection that could be located behind
the area and connected with the hose connections.
Betsy Atkinson: Would the developer agree to do that?
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 20
Eddie Bourdon: Yeah, we said we would agree to put any fire hydrants, yard hydrants in and with
sprinkler...
Betsy Atkinson: But I didn't know what a yard hydrant was today so now I am learning.
Eddie Bourdon: The reality of this is that we are doing everything and more than would be the
case in any multi-family development.: Now understand that seniors, not just any multi-family
development. But the Fire Department is saying put a road around it so that we could actually,
you know, drive back there versus having to carry a hose 150 feet or less to hook up to the other
hydrants. And all the buildings, again, are sprinkled on top of that.
Richard Grimstead: I want to add that if you -- there is no way to get a road around. I don't care
what kind of building you have. But the court yard concept has been so successful on our other
projects that we have done that gives these elderly people a place to gather in security and they
use them, believe me, if you see the pictures we have from Chesapeake and from Churchland -
places we've done these things that really (inaudible). And from a construction standpoint, these
walkways are concrete and steel. They could be wood but they are not. So we've gone beyond
the fire lane construction which also we were permitted to do with the sprinkler system. But our
walkways are not wood they are concrete and steel. So were looking at the fire protection but
were also looking at m we're educating ourselves as we do more of these we're adding different
things, security system is another evolution.
Betsy: Let me ask you something else. If you have someone who has a heart attack and the
rescue squad needs to get there, particularly they can pull right in front of the building and mn
right up the steps -- what is the fastest way you can get a rescue squad?
Richard Grimstead: Well, depending on the size of the vehicle, we have an accessibility opening
here, were it is really for maintenance vehicles like say a plumber or something like but this is
wide open to get in here. I know that your rescue equipment couldn't get through but there's a
stair - you were asking if there were a stair here, a stair here and a stair here, elevator here,
elevator here. So there is accessibility from all these locations here to get in their quicker. Plus
the elevators are handicapped accessible for stretchers.
Betsy Atkinson: For stretchers.
Dorothy Wood: Did you said that the rescue units could get in there sir?
Richard Grimstead: No those vehicles are too large.
Betsy Atkinson: Too big. I agree with Mr. Miller this is very challenging.
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 21
Charlie Salle': Cheryl do you have a question?
Cheryl Avery-Hargrove: Yes. After hearing the application and all the competing interests with
regard to the quality and services and so forth that have been placed in this project and at the
same time also keep the affordability of the project, I must say that I am rather impressed. I'm
sure all of us, as Commissioners are torn on this particular application, but I am looking at the
accuse in particular, those concerns and actually at this day and age I'm not so much as
concerned - I hear the comment about the accident potential zone that is not as near as the
accident potential zone as we thought and at the same time I hear the comments of one, I believe
it was the opposition regarding the increasing noise, but that is just typical for this day and age
and especially what is going on right now with the Navy, so I would have to say that all of us
would have to contend with that particular noise and I am not going vote against the project
because the accuse concerns of this time because to me it represents the price of freedom.
Charlie Salle': Ron?
Ronald Ripley: Charlie, I have one question of Mr. Grimstead. In the hallways, are they
sprinkled? The outside hallways?
Richard Grimstead: No. These exterior hallways are not sprinkled.
Ronald Ripley: Have you done any with dry sprinklers in these systems?
Richard Grimstead: No. We have not been required to do that.
Ronald Ripley: Is that something you consider?
Richard Grimstead: I would have to defer that to the owners if they would be willing to do that.
The one thing that - this is 15 unit project. This is a small project and when you take -- if you
talk about doing what you are doing, most of these projects are 100 to 200 things. This is very
unique to be able to get this small quantity. I don't know if the price of doing that per unit. I am
just sure. I think that is something that could be entertained as far as looking at what the cost of
that dry system would be on the exterior.
Ronald Ripley: It is just that it always concerned me with this open hallways making sure that
there is a clear path to get out. I appreciate the fact that you got the concrete walks and that helps
a lot and the steel. It is the concern the fire raging up into that and not having a protective way to
get out.
Richard Grimstead: The required the walkways are like 42 inches or 6 foot. We didn't make
them 6 foot initially for the accessibility. We did it because we thought it would enhance the
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 22
people to be able to use these as balconies and they do use them as balconies, but that is
permitted. The Fire Department, once they saw what we did at Princess Anne and other places,
they said this gives us greatest accessibility plus it there was a fire, instead of being the 42 inches
where its 6 foot which would not have.the heaviest potential as the flame coming over top. I
would say that if that is a requirement that you insist upon the cost wise would have to be a
factor. And I think that perhaps it could accommodate it.
Robert Vakos: Could I add a little bit to that Ron because I know with the hotels and we are at
the highest requirements for sprinklers. They not required -- we are not required to sprinkle
balconies nor walkways if there exterior walkways and they are not enclosed. If there enclosed,
they have to be sprinkled. I'm not sure there's a real ....the Fire Department I don't think sees
that as a concern.
Ronald Ripley: Well, I understand, but I was searching -- I am searching for a positive, if you
will, because of the concerns about not being able to get to the back as easily...
Robert Vakos: I understand.
Ronald Ripley: I think having the yard hydrants would help and this, I think, would also help.
But I also understand cost too.
Richard Grimstead: Well, you know, your point is taken well because if this be a trade off
between the impossibility of putting the fire lane around the building versus a dry stand pipe -- a
dry sprinkler along the walkways, I think that would be something that be could ve very well
considered. If that is what it takes to eliminate that, I believe the owners would have to look at
their balance. I don't want to give up things out of the units for the people that we provided like
washer and dryers in each unit. I don't want to give those things up, but if that's what you all
feel like is required then we may to look and say okay, we can't do this but we will do this to
meet the offset that requirement of the fi~e lane. Does that make sense?
Ronald Ripley: That is now how I want to hear it. I don't want to see them give up anything if
we can help it.
Richard Grimstead: No we don't want to but you understand the other people may have a buy
their own washer and dryer rather than the owner being able to provide these $800 item that we
have to switch to the dry sand pipe -- a dry sprinkler system. It could be done.
Charlie Salle': Will, I will take you next.
William Din: I know in other units, other developments that are located in high noise areas that
we have discussed the type of insolation that goes into those to attenuate some of the sounds and
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 23
things. We haven't addressed that at all here.
Richard Grimstead: And we have looked at that. We can increase our exterior walls by
approximately 10 decibel ratings by adding sound deadening and resilient channels.
William Din: Is the comparable to other standards that we have applied to?
Robert Vakos: They are required, are they not, Mr. Scott, required for some.
Robert Miller: They are required for noise attenuation zoned for this type of problem.
Robert Scott: It's in the structural characteristics of the building would have to include noise
attenuation.
Eddie'Bourdon: I didn't address it because it is a requirement. If I could interject, I've spoken
with, while you all have been discussing this dry system for the b~conies and the applicants
because that is - its tight, but its clearly more affordable than trying to put a road around it would
do. On the second and third floor balconies they are willing to do a dry system as Mr. Ripley was
asking about, obviously you would not do it on the first floor balcony as the first floor moves
right out in the courtyard and out of the facility with no engaging in any stair. On the second and
third story balconies they will agree to do a try a sprinkler system.
Robert Vakos: Mr. Scott, I got a question for the group of staff on this. If, in fact, the
Commission approves this and City Council approves this, I know when they go to get their
building permit there is a certain number of departments will review this and one of them will be
the Fire Department. Would they approve this based this on what's here today?
Robert Scott: Don't second guess the Fire Marshal. The Fire Marshal knows his job and he has
got experience in this. These people are educating themselves to go along with what they told
you. The Fire Marshal is an expert in fire protection, listen to him.
Robert Vakos: Okay, let me ask you, let me put the question this way then. Is there a
requirement that there be a fire road around this facility?
Robert Scott: I don't think - I don't know for sure if there is a requirement. I don't know.
Robert Vakos: Okay
Eddie Bourdon: Can I respond to what Mr. Scott had to say, please? The fire marshal and I had
to deal with a couple of other projects dealing with these type of facilities and the reality of it is
that the fire marshal puts everything under the sun in their report including recommendations that
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 24
are in here and have not made their way into other recommendations that have come before this
Commission. There doing that as bureaucrats do to cover themselves. Don't believe anything to
the contrary. Mr. Scott you can get upset all you want.
Robert Scott: That is the stupidest comment I ever heard.
Charlie Salle': I think Mr. Bourdon we've heard enough from you. Okay, I guess is there any
other comments. I think I have a couple observations. You know this is a troubling application
and there is a lot balancing. The site doesn't comply with the characteristics that we like to see
in terms of close to transportation and shopping and medical care but then again it's a beautiful
site with outdoor amenities butat the same time, although I don't have a decibel meter in my
head, I can tell you that location is the loudest point in Virginia Beach that I ever been in with
respect to jet noise and so then how much use can you make of outdoor amenities without
subjecting yourself to that kind of noise level, so there are a lot of balancing issues but I think for
me that given the problems with the fire marshal and we can have our discussion, but t,think we
have to go by his expertise. Building a road around this facility if it is too expensive, it may be
just means that this project just doesn't work and in lieu of the fact that the road can even consist
of permanent paid surface. So in the eyes of the fire marshal's recommendation. It may be just
one of those projects that unfortunately comes close but just doesn't quite make it, at least, and I
think that this is the way it is in my mind, so I don't think I won't be able to support the
application.
Dorothy Wood: Could I make a motion that we deny the application?
Charles Salle': Do we have second?
William Din: I second.
Charles Salle': The motion by Dot Wood, seconded by Will Din to deny the application.
AYE8 NAY3 ABS0 ABSENT0
ATKINSON AYE
AVERY-HARGROVE
BAUM AYE
DIN AYE
HORSLEY AYE
MILLER AYE
RIPLEY
SALLE AYE
STRANGE AYE
NAY
NAY
Item #5
Bil-Mar Construction
Page 25
VAKOS NAY
WOOD AYE
Charlie Salle': By a vote of 8 to 3 you have you have denied the application by Bill Maher.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all for your patience.
APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 41
CONDITIONAL :USE: :PE IT ::
· ' · CITY OF.~:VIRGINIABEACH::' ':~' .
pplicant's Name:
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Bil-Mar Const. LTD
ist All Current
roperty Owners:
Kessler Realty LLC
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary)
the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list
I members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary)
Kessler Realty LLC
Ethel Kesler
Jane Upshur
Cheek 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, cotnplete the Applicant Disclosure section below:
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary)
Bil-Mar Const.
Scott E. page, Pres.
William L. Page, V. Pres.
Kevin W. Pa[le, Sect.
applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all
;mbers or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary)
Cheek here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization.
~.RTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate.
(
~nnt Name
Rev. 9/35/98
~Ma~pK,]~5 CareA ' Inc.
op I~1o+~ 'co Scole
0-2
4
0-2
G~in 2408-75-3391
ZONING HISTORY
1. Rezoning (R-3 Residential to R-4 Residential) Granted 10-15-84
2. Conditional Use Permit (Retirement Center) Granted 10-15-84
3. Rezoning (R-3 Residential to O-1 Office) and Conditional Use Permit (Nursing
Center) Granted 10-15-84
4. Conditional Use Permit (Hospital Expansion) Granted 10-15-84
5. Rezoning (R-4 Residential to O-1 Office) Granted 8-10-87
6. Conditional Use Permit (Nursing Home) Granted 2-12-90
7. Conditional Use Permit (Elderly Home) Granted 7-9-90
8. Conditional Use Permit (Assisted Living and Retirement Housing)
Granted 2-11-97
9. Rezoning (0-2 Office to Conditional A-18 Apartment) Granted 9-23-97
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
Long Term Care Associates, Inc., Conditional Use Permit
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2002
Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Long Term Care Associates, Inc., for a Conditional Use
Permit for housing for seniors and disabled persons at the northern extremity of Old Donation
Parkway beginning at a point 460 feet more or less east of Camelot Drive (GPIN #2408-75-
3391; #2408-75-2010). Said parcel is located at 1604 Old Donation Parkway and contains
2.044 acres. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN.
Considerations:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for housing for seniors and disabled
persons.
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the development
is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, is consistent with recommendations in
the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding the need to provide more of this type of housing for
seniors, staff recommended approval and there was no opposition to the request.
Recommendations:
A motion was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 11-0
to approve this request subject to the following conditions:
The site shall be developed in substantial accordance with the submitted site plan
entitled "Schematic Site Plan" for Windermere Expansion, Virginia Beach, Virginia,
dated November 13, 2001" by Paul Finch & Associates, P. C. on file with the Planning
Department.
2. The proposed project shall substantially adhere to the submitted renderings depicting
the north, east and south elevations entitled "Schematic Elevations" for Windermere
Attachments:
Staff Review
Planning Commission Minutes
Disclosure Statement
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission
recommends approval.
S.ubmitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
City Manager~w~/~-
Long Term Care Associates, Inc.
Page 2
Expansion, undated, by Paul Finch & Associates on file with the Planning Department.
Color and exterior building materials for the expansion will match the existing building.
The proposed project shall substantially adhere to the submitted landscape plan.
entitled "Schematic Landscape Plan" for Windermere Expansion, undated, by Paul
Finch & Associates, P. C. on file with the Planning Department
The applicant and the City Fire Marshall shall meet to review the building and site plans
and shall agree to fire safety measures for the facility that are satisfactory to and
enforceable by the Fire Marshall.
LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES # 11
January 9, 2002
General Information:
REQUEST:
ADDRESS:
Conditional Use Permit for housing for seniors and disabled
persons, which by definition of the City Zoning Ordinance is limited
to families with at least one family member who is aged 62 and
over or single persons aged 62 or older or disabled or ill persons
or their family members as care givers.
1604 Old Donation Parkway
MMql~ lC,.[_ 5,
Term Care .,~, Inc.
Gpin 2408-75-3391
0-2
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
2408-75-3391 and 2408-75-2010
5-LYNNHAVEN
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES # 11
Page I
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
PURPOSE:
Total 4.9 acres (parcel D-1 with 2.76 acres and parcel C-1 with
2.14 acres)
Robert A. Davis
To construct a 60-bed addition to an existing 60-bed nursing care
facility.
Major Issues:
· Adequate care and safety of seniors, consistent with the City's "Report on
Senior Housing Multi-family Issues: A Policy Report", dated July 1997.
Land Use,
Zoning, and Site
Characteristics:
Existinq Land Use and
Zonin,q
The proposed site, zoned O-
2 Office District, is partially
developed with an existing
nursing care facility. The
remainder of the site is
undeveloped.
Surroundin,q Land Use
and Zoninq
No~h:
· Undeveloped / O-2 Office District
· further north, single-family dwelling / R-20
Residential
Planning Commission Agenda ~'~~"~
January 9, 2002
LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES # 11
Page 2
South:
East:
West:
· Undeveloped / 0-2 Office District
· further south, single-family dwelling / R-20
Residential
· Undeveloped / 0-2 Office District
· further east, single-family dwelling / R-20
Residential
Assisted Care Facility / O-2 Office District
Zoninq History
The land use trend has been towards providing facilities for nursing and assisted care,
with the exception of the single-family condominium development on Camelot Drive.
The subject site was granted conditional use permit for a 60-bed nursing home in 1990.
The conditions required at the time include:
An automatic sprinkler system and automatic fire alarm is required and shall
meet approval of the Fire Department and City Fire Protection Engineer in
compliance with the State Code.
2. A minimum of 35 parking spaces is required.
3. Construction shall be one (1) story brick structure.
4. The utilization of Best Management Practice for controlling stormwater runoff
which are reasonably applicable to the development of the site.
5. Van transportation shall be provided.
6. There shall be landscaping on the west side of the property with the Category to
be determined by the City Staff.
The site was part of a larger site that was rezoned from R-4 Residential District to O-1
Office District with deed restrictions for height and landscape buffers in 1987. In 1984,
a conditional use permit was granted for a nursing center on the same site. Conditional
use permits were also granted 1997 for an assisted living care facility west of the site
and a hospital expansion southwest of the site.
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES # 11
Page 3
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The site is in an AICUZ area of 65-70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The proposed
use is compatible with this AICUZ.
Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics
In addition to the existing building with a parking lot, the property for the building
expansion contains open fields. Open fields continue to the north, east and south.
There are no significant environmental features on this site.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
Water:
Sewer:
There is a 8-inch water main south of the property in Old Donation
Parkway. The site for the expansion must connect to City water.
There is a 10-inch sanitary sewer available south of the property in
Old Donation Parkway. The site for the expansion must connect to
the City sewer.
Transportation
Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP):
Old Donation Parkway in the vicinity of this application is a two lane local roadway
and is not affected by the MTP. The MTP designates First Colonial Road in the
vicinity of the subject site as a 120 foot right-of-way with a divided roadway and a
bikeway. No improvements are scheduled for this portion for Old Donation Parkway
or First Colonial Road in the currently adopted CIP.
Traffic Calculations:
Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic
Volume Capacity
Existing Land Use z- 170 ADT
Old Donation Parkway NA 6,200 ADT ~
Proposed Land Use 3_ 170 ADT
Total - 340 ADT
erage Daily Trips
2 as defined by existing 60 beds
3 as defined by proposed 60 beds
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES # 11
Page 4
Public Safety
Police:
Fire and
Rescue:
Adequate - no further comments.
Unlike many of the independent living construction projects
targeting senior citizens, this facility targets those not suited for
independent living. Based on construction types and features
meeting the institutional requirements, this facility should not
create unusual challenges in providing emergency services.
The Fire Marshall recommends the following:
· Require construction to comply with Institutional Use
Group.
· Require that all units/building be fire sprinklered
meeting NFPA 13.
· Require fire detection systems compatible with an
institutional use.
· Require staffing "24/7" who can respond to on site
emergencies for early coordination.
· In units with kitchens, evaluate the feasibility of a
residential rangehood suppression systems in each
unit.
· Develop a fire evacuation plan and all residents and
train all staff on use of the plan.
· Conduct fire drills to evaluate the plan.
Senior Housing Review Committee: The applicant has met with the City's Senior
Housing Review Committee (SHRC). The SHRC was very supportive of the efforts by
the applicant to provide much needed housing facilities for nursing care. The distance
of the facility from useful services typically needed by this age group is adequate and
meets the guidelines of the "Senior Housing Development Guidelines" as provided in
the City's Report on Senior Housinq Multi-family Issues: A Policy Report, dated July
1997.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan Map recommends this area for service, office, and other
compatible uses serving the surrounding neighborhoods and communities.
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES # 11
Page 5
The proposed use is consistent with the Plan's provision for a diversity of housing
meeting the needs of the city's older population. The City's Comprehensive Plan
addresses this issue with these statements:
"The opportunity to build retirement complexes incorporating high levels of
outdoor recreation and other amenities in settings that take advantage of our
unique environmental surroundings gives us the chance to significantly add to
the broad base of amenities in the city. The challenge is not just to attract such
opportunities, but to site them well, taking into consideration nearby amenities,
land use pattems, demand upon public facilities, and proximity to necessary
services." (p. 23-24)
Summary of Proposal
Proposal
The applicant proposes to expand an existing 60-bed senior housing facility
for nursing care by adding 60 additional beds in two phases. The first phase
will add 30 beds to the existing facility. The second phase for the additional
30 beds will be added at a later date.
Phase one will provide 16 one-bed rooms and 7 two-bed rooms for a total of
30 beds.
As shown on the submitted site plan, the applicant will increase the size of
parcel D-1 by re-subdividing 2.14 acres from parcel C-1.
The entire facility will be located on a 4.9 acre site. The proposed density
with 90 beds with phase I will be approximately 18 beds to the acre. The
proposed density with 120 beds will be approximately 25 beds to the acre.
The facility, named Windermere, will be funded through accumulated
reserves with Sentara Helathcare.
The applicant will provide full time management and coordination of daily
activities.
The monthly rents will be $4,400 for private units and the semi-private units
will rent for $4,200.
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES # 11
Page 6
In the next few years, the applicant expects that the distribution of residents
by principal source of payment for this facility is expected to increase from
74% private pay to 80% private pay and decrease from 26% Medicaid to 20%
Medicaid.
· The units will average 346 square feet in size and will be built to
accommodate either private or semiprivate use.
· Amenities aSsociated with the proposed facility include a courtyard similar to
the courtyard of the existing building.
The applicant will provide a "Family-Centered Care" philosophy for the
residents that encouraged family involvement. The units will have large
rooms with a sitting area, pull-out sofas and common laundry facilities will be
available for family use.
· A barbershop will be provided with the beauty shop to address male grooming
needs.
· Other additions will be a chapel, a 905 square foot activity area, a second
garden area, and a general store with basic daily products.
Site Desi,qn
The submitted site plan shows the proposed expansion to add 60 beds east
of the existing building in two phases. The Phase I plan calls for the addition
of 30 beds.
The exiting building is 24,888 square feet. The expanded section will be
18,039 square feet and will maintain the existing building height of 18 feet
8inches.
30 parking spaces will be added to the 53 existing spaces for a total of 83
parking spaces. The parking requirement for nursing facilities is one (1)
space for every three (3) patient beds. However, this requirement may be
modified by City Council when it is found that special conditions warrant such
a modification.
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES # 11
Page 7
The existing-Best Management Practices stormwater retention pond will be
expanded to accommodate the increase of impervious surfaces.
No new signs are proposed.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Acces.~
The facility is located on the cul-de-sac for Old Donation Parkway.
Architectural Desi,qn
The addition will replicate the design features of the current building as a one-
story, white brick structure with a "T" shape.
The architectural design is a transitional brick design with a Iow modified hip
roof.
· The existing building has a drive-through entrance canopy.
Landscape and Open Space Desi,qn
· The landscape plans for the expansion will follow the current landscaping with
foundation plantings and scrubs.
· The new parking lots will be landscaped with trees and shrubs similar in
design as the existing parking lot.
Evaluation of Request
The conditional use permit request for housing for seniors is recommended for
approval. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding
area and is consistent with recommendations in the City's Comprehensive Plan
regarding the need to provide more of this type of housing for seniors. As proposed, the
housing will provide convenient, independent living opportunities for seniors in the Iow-
income range within this area of the city.
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES # 11
Page8
Regarding the comments from the Fire Marshal and the need to evaluate the feasibility
of a residential rangehood suppression system in each unit, the applicant has informed
staff that kitchen areas, while originally were considered, are now not part of the
expansion plans for the nursing care facility. Van transportation will not be provided or
required by staff since by City Zoning Ordinance definition, nursing facilities provide 24-
hour nursing service for infirm or incapacitated persons and do not have need of van
transportation.
Conditions
The site shall be developed in substantial accordance with the submitted site
plan entitled "Schematic Site Plan" for Windermere Expansion, Virginia Beach,
Virginia, dated November 13, 2001" by Paul Finch & Associates, P. C. on file with
the Planning Department.
The proposed project shall substantially adhere to the submitted renderings
depicting the north, east and south elevations entitled "Schematic Elevations" for
Windermere Expansion, undated, by Paul Finch & Associates on file with the
Planning Department. Color and exterior building materials for the expansion will
match the existing building.
The proposed project shall substantially adhere to the submitted landscape plan.
entitled "Schematic Landscape Plan" for Windermere Expansion, undated, by
Paul Finch & Associates, P. C. on file with the Planning Department
The applicant and the City Fire Marshall shall meet to review the building and site
plans and shall agree to fire safety measures for the facility that are satisfactory
to and enforceable by the Fire Marshall.
NO,t=:
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 all
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
January 9, 2002
LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES # 11
Page 9
I
'
I
!
/ t
/ [,!----ti,.,
/
/
I
"i t ti t ,
I
iii '
I
~ ' !1
!1
:1
Long Term Care
(proposed site plan)
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES # 11
Page 10
Long Term Care
(proposed site plan-
detail)
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES # 11
Page 11
Long Term Care
(proposed landscape plan)
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES # 11
Page12
Long Term Care
(proposed building
elevations)
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES # 11
Page 13
brick
'i-
l
I!
h
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES # 11
Page 14
II
Planning Commission Agenda,,'-..~-~=~'°~~
January 9, 2002 {~'-(''~ '" ': ~
· o.~ ~.~ c^.~ ^ssoc,^~s # ~ ~
Page 15
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
LONG TERM CARE ASSOCIATES # 11
Page16
Item gl 1
Long Term Care Associates, Inc.
Conditional Use Permit for hosing for seniors and disabled persons
1604 Old Donation Parkway
District 5
Lynnhaven
January 9, 2002
CONSENT AGENDA
Dorothy Wood: The next item is item 11, Long Term Care Associates for housing for seniors and
disables persons. Old Donation Parkway. 1604 Old Donation Parkway. District 5, Lynnhaven
with four conditions.
Julia Hayes: Good afternoon I am Julia Hayes with Sentara Life Care which is under Long Term
Care Associates. We have read the conditions and they are acceptable.
Dorothy Wood: Is there any opposition to this consent agenda item? Mr. Ripley, I would move
to approve the thirteen consent agenda items. Number one with two conditions.., remove that,
sorry. Number three with six conditions, g5 with four conditions, g7 with seven conditions, g8
with 10 conditions, g9 with five conditions, gl 1 with four conditions, gl2 with three conditions,
g14 with four conditions, #16, gl7 with .four conditions and g23 with seven conditions.
Ronald Ripley: Did you get 18 and 19 also?
Dorothy Wood: Seventeen, 18 and 19 with four conditions.
Ronald Ripley: That is the motion, did we have a second?
Betsy Atkinson: I have to abstain on item gl6. I am related to the applicant.
Robert Miller: And I need to abstain from items number 8, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 23. My firm is
working on those projects.
Ronald Ripley: Anything else? Call for the question.
AYE10 NAY0 ABS1 ABSENT0
ATKINSON AYE
BAUM AYE
CRABTREE AYE
DIN AYE
HORSLEY AYE
MILLER AYE
Item 4/11
Long Term Care Associates, Inc.
Page 2
RIPLEY AYE
SALLE AYE
STRANGE AYE
VAKOS AYE
WOOD AYE
Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10 to 0 with Bob Miller abstaining on items 8, 12, 16, 17, 18 and 19,
23 and Betsy on item #16. Thank you. (No one abstained on this item therefore vote is 11 to 0).
Applicant's Name:
List Ail Current
Property Owners:
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list ifnecess~
If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, li
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 belpw: (Attach list if necessary)
I'
ff ~e ~plic~t is a P~~~, ~, or other ~CO~O~D ORGANIZATION, list
membe~ or p~em in ~e org~i~on below: (Anach list ifnecessa~)
Check here if the applic~t is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organizati
CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate.
' ' -~ ' Print Name
Map H-7 . ·
M~ NO~o Scale CO~i
Crpin 1497-23-5863
ZONING HISTORY
1. Conditional Use Permit (substation) - Granted in 1960
N. NEW BUSINESS
O. ADJOURNMENT
M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Lo
APPOINTMENTS
DEVELOPMENT AUTHO~TY
PERSONNEL BOARD
VIRGINIA BEACH CRIME TASK FORCE
PREPARED BY:
E~, CARNE$, BOURDON
& AHERN, RC.
~rTORNEY$ AT LAW
EXHIBIT "A"
All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land situate in the City of Virginia Beach
Princess Anne County, Virginia, more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point marking the Northwest intersection of the right of way of the
Norfolk Southern Railway Company and the WesteR boundary of Cypress Avenue;
running thence Northerly along the WesteR boundary of Cypress Avenue a distance
of 175 feet, more or less, which distance between the point of beginning and a point
on the Western boundary of Cypress Avenue marking the intersection of the
Southern boundary of Lot 17, Block 113, Plat of Lakewood, Virginia Beach, Virginia,
with the WesteR boundary of Cypress Avenue; thence turning in a Westerly
direction and running a distance of approximately 1065 feet, more or less, to a point
located on a line which would be the projection of the EasteR boundary of
Courtright Avenue, said point being one-half of the distance from the Southwest
corer of Block 118, Plat of Lakewood and the Norther boundary of the Norfolk
SoutheR Railway Company right of way; thence in a Southerly direction along the
projection of the Easter boundary of Courtright Avenue a distance of 50 feet, more
or less, to the Norther boundary of the Norfolk SoutheR Railway Company right of
way; thence in a Southeasterly direction along the Northern boundary of the Norfolk
Southern Railway Company right of way a distance of 1090 feet, more or less, to the
point of Beginning.
GPIN: 2417-94-4482
CONDREZN/OCEANBAY/PROFFER
7
PREPARED BY:
-~, CARNES. BOURDON
& AHERN. RC.
{I"rORNEYS AT LAW
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
OCEAN BAY vENTURES, L.L.C.,
a Virginia limited liability company
~r/_~e: ~...~×, Managing Member
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 16th day of April,
2001, by Brian C. Large , Managing Member e.f Ocean Bay
Ventures, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: August 31, 2002
6
PREPARED BY:
~ CARNES, BOURDON
& AHERN, RC.
~;T~OI:INEYS AT LAW
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
NORFOLK soUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY,
a Virginia corporation
(SEAL)
STATE OF
CITY/COUNTY OF
, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this lC)~- day of April,
2001, by S.a,. 'V%r-i-r~tL ,'~,_~l ~c~ M,,w-~of Noffo~ Sou~ern R~way
~ .
Comply, a Vir~a co~orafion, on beh~ of ~e co~ora~on.
.--_ ~: ............ ~ %
My u · · -
om~lS~l~~ : :
5
instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing
as evidenced by a ~ertified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the
governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was
advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said
instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said
shall be void.
The Grantors covenant and agree that:
(1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall
be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and
restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance
with such conditions be remedied, and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure
compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction,
abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding;
(2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause
to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be
appropriate;
(3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made
pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the
review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and
(4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the
existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances
and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public
inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department,
and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantors and the Grantee.
PREPARED BY:
· :S, CARNES, BOURDON
& AHERN, RC.
~'T'TORNEYS AT LAW
4
PREPARED BY:
-~S, CARNES, BOURDON
& AHERN, RC.
~;TTORNEYS AT I.AW
17, 2001, prepared by W.P. Large, Inc., which have been exhibited to the Virginia
Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning
(hereinafter "Elevations~). The primary building materials used to construct visible
exterior surfaces of the buildings shall be brick and vinyl shake siding as designated
on the Elevations.
3. No more than eighteen (18) residential units each with a garage shall be
permitted to be constructed on the Property.
4. The "72~ wood fence~ depicted on the Site Plan shall be a solid wood
privacy fence substantially as depicted on the "Fence Elevation, CYPRESS RESERVE
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA~, dated 17 Sept 01, prepared by W.P. Large, Inc., which has
been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia
Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Fence ElevationS).
5. The Grantee shall reserve 1.3705 acres of land as depicted on the Site
Plan for acquisition by the Grantee as a part of the Norfolk Avenue Bikeway and Trail
with linear park and related public improvements.
6. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site
Plan review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City
agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements.
All references hereinabove to the A-24 Zoning District and to the requirements
and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date
of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference
incorporated herein.
The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantors and allowed and
accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall
continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning
of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall
continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the
subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or
substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions,
however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and
executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such
3
PREPARED BY:
ES. CARNES. BOURDON
& AHERN, RC.
~TTORNEYS AT LAW
to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the Grantors' proposed
rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the
protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned
are needed to resolve, the situation to which the .Grantors' rezoning application gives
rise; and
WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of
and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed
amendment to the ZOning Map with respect to the Property, the following reasonable
conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to
be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to
the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which
is generated by the rezoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives,
assigns, Grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without
any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without
any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building
permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of conditions
and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation,
and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall
constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the
Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors,
their successors, personal representatives, assigns, Grantees, and other successors
in interest or title:
1. When the Property is developed, it shall be developed and landscaped
substantially as shown on the exhibits entitled "CYPRESS RESERVE VIRGINIA
BEACH VIRGINIA SITE PLAN", dated 17 Sept 01 and "CONCEPTUAL PLAN
CYPRESS RESERVE, Virginia Beach Virginia, dated September 21, 2001, prepared
by W.P. Large, Inc., which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council
and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site
Plan").
2. The buildings depicted on the Site Plan shall have the architectural
design and appearance as depicted on the elevations rifled "ARCHITECTURAL
ELEVATIONS CYPRESS RESERVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated September
2
latREPARED BY:
E~, CARNE~, BOURDON
& AHERN. RC.
Ig'IORNEYS AT LAW
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a Virginia corporation
OCEAN BAY VENTURES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company
TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of
Virginia
THIS AGREEMENT, made this l0th day of April, 2001, by and between
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a Virginia corporation, Property Owner
and OCEAN BAY VENTURES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Contract
Purchaser, herein collectively referred to as Grantors; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of
the second part.
WlTNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Property Owner is the owner of a certain parcel of property located
in the Beach District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 2.89
acres and described in Exhibit '°A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference; and
WHEREAS, the western 1.16 acres of the parcel described in Exhibit "A' is
zoned R-5D Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the eastern i.73 acres of the parcel described in Exhibit "A' is
zoned I-1 Industrial District and is hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the Grantors have initiated a conditional amendment to the
Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the
Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classifications of the Property from I-1 Industrial
District and R-5D Residential District to A-24 Apartment District; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development
of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation;
and
WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes
incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to
pex mit differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time
GPIN: 2417-94-4482
RETURN TO: SYKES, CARNES, BOURDON & AHERN, P.C.
PEMBROKE ONE BUILDING, THE FIFTH FLOOR
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462
FORM NO. ~.S. 1 B
City of Virginia Flcach
IffFER-OFFICE 'CORRESPONDENCE
In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5401
DATE: Janua~ 30, 2002
TO:
FROM:
Leslie L. Lilley
B. Kay Wilsonqo¢~
DEPT: City Attorney
DEPT: City Attorney
Conditional Zoning Application
Norfolk Southern Railway Company & Ocean Bay Ventures, L.L.C.
The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the
City Council on February 12, 2002. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated
April 10, 2001, 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
fu~her.
BKW
Enclosure
Applicant's Name:
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Ocean Bay Ventures, L.Li.C.
List All Current
Property Owners:
Norfolk Southern Railwa~ Company, a. Virginia
corporation
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary)
David R. Goodet CEO; L.I. Prillamant Chief Mktin$1 Officer; Stephen C. Tobiast C.O.C.;
.Henry C. Wolf~ C.F.O.; James C. Bishop~ Executive Vice President - Law; g. Alan Brogan~
Executive Vice President - Corporate
If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM
all members or partners in the organization.below::
or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list
".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:
T DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all' officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary)
Brian C. Large
Bradley J. Waitzer
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.
Print Name
~* ' ' Rev. 9/15/98
CERTIFICATION: ! certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate.
;..~folk Southe/z}n Railway Company
Signature
Item #16
Ocean Bay Ventures, LLC
Page 13
HORSLEY AYE
MILLER AYE
RIPLEY AYE
SALLE' AYE
STRANGE AYE
VAKOS
WOOD AYE
NAY
Charles Salle': By a vote of 9 to 2 you have approved the application of Ocean Bay Ventures.
Item #16
Ocean Bay Ventures, LLC
Page 12
been designed, to put a road right through the middle of it, which the applicant himself says, the
project won't work. So, I don't disagree that this is something that Council needs to look at, but
it seems to me they've already looked at, well, at least in an overall view point and already made
that decision. So, I'm going to vote against the motion for just that mason.
Robert Miller: I agree with what Betsy said. I think that if the Council is going to -- if we're
going to make the statement that we are going to support the open space plan we need to step
forward and deal with that issue. The second thing is, it says in the write up that Parks Avenue
will have to be dealt with, and candidly, that's just going to have to be dealt with. I think the
land use in the configuration of what's been presented as far as I'm concerned, is a suitable land
use if these others issues were not on the table. I can't resolve the other issues, so, I'm going to
go with what Betsy said.
John Baum: Council's either going to decide Parks (inaudible) through and then the whole things
out. Or if they approve it, that does away with it. (Inaudible) two decisions at once. I'm just
uncomfortable (inaudible).
Dorothy Wood: I agree with John and Betsy. This is something that we need to send on to
Council and if we are going to buy Parks Avenue than that solves the problem if not it's an
attractive development.
Charles Salle': Any other discussion? For the record, we did have a letter in opposition, signed
by a number of people primarily dealing with architectural aspects of the project which the
applicant has indicated they are willing to address.
Eddie Bourdon: My client has also asked me to let you know, we will meet with staff and we will
give staff what they want in terms of architecture before we ever get to Council. The other issue
is the over riding issue.
Charles Salle': My feeling is that I'm going to support the motion and I think it's time for the
City to make a decision. The developer or the owner of the land has a right to expect some type
of development to approved on it eventually or else the City's going to have proceed with plans
which would be adverse to that development and we just need a decision one way or another.
Any other discussion?
AYE 9 NAY 2 ABS 0
ATKINSON AYE
AVERY-HARGROVE AYE
BAUM AYE
DIN
NAY
NOT VOTING 0
Item #16
Ocean Bay Ventures, LLC
Page 11
tie in with the bike path and everything is good, but there is still -- and I support the land use. I
support it 100 percent and the developer -- I know the developer and I know that he's good
people and that they do a good job. Staff has problems still with the elevations and is there
anything that you could do to -- work with staff to help accommodate them?
Eddie Bourdon: I'm supremely confident that we will not have any difficulty in making
agreement with staff with regard to changing the elevations and providing some articulation
balcony's, whatever the staff wants. I'm surprised from talking to Brad that this has come up but
-- I think Brian Large thought that the staff was okay with his elevations, thought they liked
them. It's not -- that isn't going to be, in my opinion an issue at all. We can sit down with staff
and work those issues out. But those issues still don't overcome the key, and that is to create this
type project that's going to be a show piece and something that's going to be clearly a couple of
steps above anything else on Norfolk Avenue. Can't do that and have Parks Avenue run through
the middle of it. That' just the reality and that's why we need to get to a decision maker that will
make that decision. I understand what you've heard but I don't believe that the City Council has
been aware of what's being proposed and decided to do it, no, maybe in a big package of things,
but I don't think it's been focused on by Council. And I doubt seriously it's been focused on by
some of the folks in Shadow Lawn on the other side of Norfolk Avenue, on Carolina either. But,
I have not been at those meetings. I don't know how one street gets a change and the other street
gets a burden, I don't know how that works.
Betsy Atkinson: Charlie, I just wanted to comment on the gentleman's statement back there. If
we end up pushing Parks through and dividing that piece of property into the east industrial, by
right they could put storage bins or any kind of industrial type use and I don!t think anyone's ever
going to build duplexes to the left. And unless the City acquires this land, at this point I think
this is the best use for this property that we're going to get. So, I'm probably going to vote in
favor of it and let City Council decide what they want to do with the Parks issue. But I don't
think City Council's had the benefit of seeing a development on the whole piece other than what
we had before, which was a Junior Market, which was totally unacceptable. And I'm willing to
make a motion. I'd like to make the motion to approve the project.
Charles Salle': Do we have a second?
Cheryl Avery-Hargrove: I'll second.
Charles Salle': Motion by Betsy Atkinson seconded by Cheryl Avery-Hargrove to approve the
application.
Robert Vakos: I'm going to vote against the motion because I'm not sure, and I agree with Eddie,
this has got to get to Council and they've got to resolve this issue. But I don't see how the
Planning Commission could approve a project that the decisions have already been made, already
Item #16
Ocean Bay Ventures, LLC
Page 10
Parks. It's probably seven or eight feet narrower than Cypress. They ought to just close
Mediterranean, leave Parks closed and leave Cypress' as the main thoroughfare. I don't
understand it either and I'd just like to speak in support of the project.
Charles Salle': Thank you. Bobby you have a question?
Robert Vakos: Mr. Davis, you understand we're not deliberating whether or not Parks is open or
closed, that's really something apparently has already been resided upon and Council's made that
decision other than -- and the design and everything is moving forward* We're you pan of that
input into that decision? '
Billy Davis: No, that's before me. I think that's the old Beach and the North Holly Civic
Leagues, which the area that I'm in is part of none of those. Specifically, I mean I've been to the
Shadow Lawn Civic Leagues and I really didn't seem welcome.
Robert Vakos: A fair amount of public input into those plans, I know they had a couple
presentations at the middle school and it's been pretty much on going.
Billy Davis: Yeah, like I said, I mean I think it's definitely changes the matter that everybody
originally looked at. That wasn't me, I believe that's -- I can't remember their names, but I know
one of them owns Angie's Guest Cottage and that's on 24th Street.
Robert Vakos: (Inaudible) Civic League, they pushed this plan through.
Billy Davis: And it's a good plan, I mean, I agree with it 100 percent. I mean there's too much
traffic in our neighborhood, but I don't see where opening Parks and knocking down this type --
this quality of development's going to help anybody. I just don't see it. I know it's not your
decision to buy or sell the land. If I remember correctly, cause I am one of the people who came
and spoke against the gas station that was going to be there. I don't know if you remember me,
you guys were all laughing when I got up here. Something I said about Junior Market, but, I
think this definitely changes things. It truly does. As far as proposing what that lands going to
be used for, is this going to be industrial or duplexes, I don't see where we have anything to gain
by running a road through there and putting in more low priced development as opposed to
what's proposed here.
Robert Vakos: Okay, thank you.
Ronald Ripley: Can I ask Mr. Bourdon a question? Eddie, obviously the road closure thing is
something that sounds like it is on the tract or not, you'll find this out at Council and the open
space issue, I think prioritizing -- they must be prioritizing the money they have and this is not
the priority. And I think you that you've set forth, as far as, the density and the layout and the
Item #16
Ocean Bay Ventures, LLC
Page 9
Robert Miller: Where are you with regard to fight of way acquisition at this point?
Frank Koiro: We're doing all the fight of way acquisition in phase one fight now. With the
hopes of starting probably in January of 2001. Once we have the 55 percent plans done here,
hold another public meeting, we will then begin preparation of plats and acquisition of property
for phases two and three.
Robert Miller: And Frank just to get you to repeat for a second, you're talking about closing
Cypress, that means that fight of way will be closed and will they...
Frank Koiro: It will become like an open space with walkways and stuff. A connection into the
Norfolk Trail which comes down here.
Robert Miller: So, it's not actually being closed, it would be retained by the City?
Frank Koiro: It will be retained by the City, but it will become a multi use path tying into the
Norfolk Trail. One of the concepts here, it now creates through this neighborhood, two main
north, south corridors which go all the way from Virginia Beach Boulevard to Rudee Inlet.
Mediterranean Avenue, which goes all the way through. Parks Avenue which will come from
the Fire and Police Station up there will now give them a straight access to Rudee Inlet. They do
not now have to come over streets and work their way back and forth because as you come across
Parks Avenue it tums into Carolina, it goes straight all the way to Rudee Inlet. That's where we
are on the North Lake Holly project. It is moving forward.
Robert Miller: So, the acquisition of fight of way in phase two, a time for that approximately?
Frank Koiro: Within the next year. Once the plats are done, approved, we'll go ahead with the
fight of way acquisition. And if you need to talk more about how this -- this plan has been going
on for about three years and Debbie can speak to all the meetings and all the people that have
been involved in developing this. Any questions?
Charles Salle': Thank you very much. We don't have anybody signed up to speak in opposition.
Billy Davis: I'm Billy Davis, I live at 12t~ and Park, I own a duplex there. At first, all the plans
involved with the Comprehensive Plan on Closing the Streets made sense. I mean we had
nothing to lose. But I think if we pass up this development it would do more damage than good.
I mean that's the direction I'd like to see the neighborhood go in and if you kind find a neighbor
that lives closer to this than me, you know, I'd like to hear from them. Because I think the reason
they chose to open Parks and close Cypress is because Parks has been silent for so long. There's
been nobody there to speak for it. The neighborhood was mn down, it's coming back up now
and in a plan like this, I mean this could be a big push. It doesn't make any se~Jse to open
Item #16
Ocean Bay Ventures, LLC
Page 8
Robert Miller: Right of way would stay in place then?
Eddie Bourdon: Yeah. I'm not aware of any closure that's being contemplated. It's just -- one
street becomes -- I don't know how these decisions get made that you're going to close one street
and open another.
Robert Miller: Yeah, I too straggle with that. If Parks Avenue is extended through what I've
heard you say is that this project would not be able to go forward period.
Eddie Bourdon: If a project of this caliber and quality would not happen.
Robert Miller: Even though it might -- it wouldn't go forward in two parts?
Eddie Bourdon: No. I don't think that's -- I just don't think it's going to be feasible and you
wouldn't be able to -- and again, I don't want to say anything negative, if you go down Parks
Avenue and you look at what's on Parks Avenue and you go down Cypress Avenue and you look
at what's on Cypress Avenue, the idea that you're going to be able to -- putting this through street
through then create with this property divided a type of development that's going to bring in the
kind of quality that we're looking for along -- that we're trying to achieve along this bike path,
higher end, it just isn't reasonable to expect that's going to happen. So, buying it and putting
Parks through makes sense. And again, I think that's what -- part of what Mr. Scott was saying.
We may not agree on everything, but I agree on that. I do think that leaving it intact allows a
development that can be higher and actually we can make some improvements to the
architectural's, which is another issue that's there. The density I don't think is ever really been
an issue because we're not -- everything around us is more dense.
Robert Miller: You've answered what I've liked to ask but I'd like to ask either Bob or Frank
Koiro to come up and talk about the fact that Parks Avenue apparently, and again, maybe it's a
repetition of what we've already said, is going to be cut through in this location by virtue of what
has been planned. And Frank, maybe you could in lighten us as to where the acquisition to right
of way is?
Frank Koiro: I'm Frank Koiro, I'm the project manager for the North Lake Holly project. This
goes beyond, when I started it, it includes the neighborhood revitalization of the whole area.
What we're talking about today is a small part of it. The first part here, takes into a lot of
development along the lake which we're fixing, we're closing Lake Drive as part of this project.
Closing the southern end of Cypress, northern end of Cypress, northern end of Baltic and opening
up Parks Avenue. And this is pan of the Oceanfront, creating the neighborhood back in here.
So, what we're talking about today is only a small part of an overall plan. This plan is funded
and it is moving forward. Phase one is about 95 pement designed, phase two and three will be
about 55 percent designed in the next two months.
Item #16
Ocean Bay Ventures, LLC
Page 7
If the City -- if you believe the City has made a decision to a) acquire this property as open space
and b) cul de sac Cypress Avenue and put Parks Avenue through, then there -- we're history. But
if the City's not going to acquire it as open space, and I think -- I don't know if that decision I
know hasn't been made and I also don't believe that as Bob has said the decision to put Parks
Avenue has been made through, has been made either because no right of way acquisition has
occurred. No notice has been given that it's going to occur. So, the reality is, if you put those
two together, it does, it makes sense together. But, if you simply say, put Parks Avenue through
and the rest of it's to develop as I-1 on one side and R-5D on the other, it doesn't make sense.
Robert Vakos: But it's a possibility?
Eddie Bourdon: It's not a good one for the neighborhood or anybody else.
Robert Miller: Eddie, have you all looked at -- and I think just as we're going through these
various different opportunities, whether it!s going to be open space, whether it's going to be
residentially developed and you mentioned before that we had -- our Council had seen fit to turn
it down as a commercial development previously, I don't know if it even got to Council.
Eddie Bourdon: We withdrew, we heard the neighborhood say that they want to see multi family.
We heard that from everybody.
Robert Miller: Have you looked at -- and this is a question that I did not have an answer to this
morning when we talked about it in our private session, that we were talking about how many
units would be able to be built on here as an R-5D and I just -- it's almost really a curiosity
because I think the number of units might be as many as 15 or so, something like that range.
Because they do have to be 5000 square feet and you'd have to have (inaudible). The other
question I have is, is there a problem with frontage here because it doesn't actually front or does
it front on Norfolk Avenue?
Eddie Bourdon: No. The -- technically the frontage of the R-5D parcel would be Norfolk
Avenue because -- yeah, I guess Norfolk Avenue would be the frontage.
Robert Miller: Because that would be acquired as public property to put the walkway in so there
would be a widening of that route, okay, so there .would be. The reason I bring that up is really
not to try to go to another alternative, but to try to think along with this idea. ff Cypress is closed
and this goes back to Bob and Frank Koiro and whoever else is involved in this process. I would
assume that we are going to then allow, would we allow the adjacent property owner to buy half
of Cypress?
Eddie Bourdon: I don't know if there's going to be a closure. I think they're talking about just
simply putting in a cul de sac at the southern end.
Item #16
Ocean Bay Ventures, LLC
Page 6
alone issue, then maybe that makes.sense, I don't know. City Council I don't know that they
even received that recommendation yet, I don't know what they do -- when they did receive it.
But, to me in a sense is an enable of the neighborhood plan. It makes the neighborhood plan
possible because with acquisition of it you can tie Parks Avenue through -- you could pay fare
value to this property (inaudible) what's being done to his property. It works with it but what
doesn't work is this development plan in the hopes of the neighborhood back there what they
want to do, they don't come together, they can't come together because they're at odds about
what to do with Parks Avenue. Parks Avenue, the idea of acquiring Parks Avenue and tying it
through and the idea of acquiring this piece of property with the open space plan, those two
concepts do work together, they're compatible with one an other. So, I think we need to look at
-- we have three basic ideas, we have the neighborhood plan, we have the developers plan, and
we have the open space plan. Two of those three can work together, but the three of them can't
work together. And so we have to use a little thought and ultimately it's going to be the
Council's decision of what to do about it. The future of Parks Avenue tying through works well
for the outdoors plan and I think it works well for the neighborhood plan but I would not want to
be the developer trying to develop that property if Parks Avenue ties through is.
Robert Vakos: And Mr. Scott, I guess my question is, and I haven't kept up on this as I probably
should, but has not the decision already been made to open Parks Avenue and close -- I mean is
part of that the stormwater project?
Robert Scott: Well, it will be made when the City Council decides to take the necessary steps to
acquire the right of way, that's what I've defied it, the point being when the decision is made.
Mr. Vakos, I understand that, Stephen, correct me if I'm saying this wrong, but I think that it is
represented in the Capital Improvement Program, just pretty much as you say. That it is to be a
part of that, I think there's some -- Frank, am I right about that?
Frank Koiro: Yes sir. In two months we'll be at 65 percent (inaudible).
Robert Scott: So, to that extent, that sounds pretty much like that's the decision that as far...
Charles Salle': Mr. Scott, who -- has to be recognized?
Robert Scott: This is Frank Koiro whose the project manager for that project in our Public Works
Department.
Robert Vakos: So, follow through with Eddie's scenario, Council's going to have to decide not to
do it because the decisions already been made to do it, based on the CIP and the planning that's
already going on. That's what I wanted to hear.
Eddie Bourdon: And let me just add to that, what I believe Bob was saying, I totally agree with.
Item gl 6
Ocean Bay Ventures, LLC
Page 5
determination on Parks Avenue?
Eddie Bourdon: Well, they're the ones -- I mean they're the ones who -- their decision makers on
both. Whether they buy it for open space or Parks Avenue.
Robert Vakos: Not withstanding open space, suppose they either -- suppose they grant your
application at City Council and do not comment on the opening of Parks Avenue. You're in a
situation where the City's going to have to come back in and condemn and...
Eddie Bourdon: Oh absolutely. They have to do that now.
Robert Vakos: Right, but how is that going impact your -- would your client move forward with
that uncertainty, I'm just curious?
Eddie Bourdon: Sure, if it were approved then that's -- with this being the front burner issue, I
mean I think that's a decision within itself.
Robert Vakos: Can I ask Mr. Scott that question as far -- do we want to move on a little bit with
opposition? I just want to know where We are on this whole issue of closure and opening. Mr.
Scott, and I know from the discussion that we've had with the stormwater project in that whole
area and a lot of discussion with the neighborhoods about these particular two streets. I thought
that decision already have been made, that Parks Avenue was going to open up and Cypress was
going to be closed. Where are we on that?
Robert Scott: Well, that's the way it's -- I do have two or three things to say about that. That is
the way that it is reflected in our C]P and in that project now. If I were the property owner here
or a prospective developer of it, I think I would be saying what Mr. Bourdon is saying. I'd be
saying, this really makes it tough to develop this property. And if we were going to do that we
would have to acquire that part of Parks Avenue. I don't think it's public all the way out. So,
there is some property to be acquired. But having said that, we embarked on this process of
community planning, kind of a new way of doing things, which kind of is the theme of my
comments here by the way. A new way of doing things with the neighborhood. Sitting them
down at the table and getting them to participate in deciding how their neighborhoods going to
work in the future and they have, like you indicate, they've evidentially expressed a strong desire,
supported I understand by groups like the Police Department and so forth to have Parks Avenue
tied through and Cypress not. Now, that's contrary to patterns that have been in place, Mr.
Bourdon says for 50 years, probably so but it's a new way of doing things. Just because we've
had this problem for umpty ump years doesn't mean we have to commit ourselves to having it
forever more. The Open Space Advisory Committee, who are appointed by the City Council to
look at these, has taken this piece of property and they have recommended against acquiring it for
open space purposes. But -- and I don't know -- if you look at it just as a stand
Item #16
Ocean Bay Ventures, LLC
Page 4
Eddie Bourdon: I went out them and obviously went around looking at the properties and when
you go on Parks Avenue and turn back towards this property -- and I have not done any title
research on it at all, but it's painted right in the middle of the road and I mean it's been there. It
isn't something that just got put there -- it's just a line across here and it says -- public right of
way ends here or something of that nature. So, someone apparently, the people in the multi
family behind us believe that their property goes all the way across and it's their drive isle that
comes in.
Betsy Atlcinson: Okay, there's like a barrier down there at that end.
Eddie Bourdon: Well, the barrier is beyond that. The barrier is basically at the property line and
here's what I'm talking about, you can see right there on the picture. That's -- I don't know
where it came from but if it's a public street, I'm surprised to see it there. So, I just raise that as
a question but I know it doesn't go across my clients property, that much I do know.
Betsy Atldnson: But, my thought would probably be it does go -- I don't know who drew that in
the street but I mean my thought would be, it would go to the barricade.
Eddie Bourdon: I don't disagree.
Betsy Atkinson: Is the barricade at your property line?
Eddie Bourdon: Oh that's correct. Yes ma'am.
Robert Vakos: And I'm going to rely on Mr. Scott's expertise as far as where we are with this
opening and closing of Cypress and Parks but I want to make sure I understood what you had to
say Eddie, as far as if in fact Parks Avenue is opened up that adversely impacts your project to be
either built or to be market or both.
Eddie Bourdon: Both.
Robert Vakos: Both. So you can't accommodate Parks Avenue coming through?
Eddie Bourdon: No, if Parks Avenue goes and you cul de sac Cypress, then you're looking at a
situation where the high quality we're trying to achieve here, the step up -- that we want to try to
achieve, don't think you're going to be able to make it happen. Because the market -- we're
taking a risk to begin with to build a unit that's higher.
Robert Vakos: So, what you're hoping is that whatever determination comes out of this
commission, because I don't think we're going to determine whether Parks Avenue goes through
but it's going to go to City Council. Now, what happens if City Council doesn't give you a
Item # 16
Ocean Bay Ventures, LLC
Page 3
railroad station was. The idea that we're going to spend tax payer money to acquire right of way
and build a new road through here to connect to Norfolk Avenue, where Parks Avenue is now
but there's no right of way and cul de sac Cypress Avenue -- again, I think it's a waste, it would
be an absolute waste of tax payer money and I don't see any benefit. There's some statement in
the write up about Cypress Avenue is a neighborhood street that has been adversely affected by
cut through traffic. That cut through traffic's been going down Cypress Avenue, like I said, for
half a century. If you go down Cypress Avenue and you ride down Parks Avenue, I would
suggest to you -- Cypress Avenue and the residential components along Cypress Avenue are in a
lot better shape and higher value than the residential along Parks Avenue. The road itself is far
wider in terms of pavement section than is Parks Avenue. And there are ditches along portions
of Parks Avenue and they're not along Cypress. I don't understand the logic, I don't know where
the logic comes from to cul de sac Cypress Avenue and to put Parks Avenue through. I'm sure
somebody may have one or have some. But the reality of it is, is that my clients are willing to --
they proffered a wonderful plan, they're willing to do additional things to address some of the
concerns that have been raised about the elevations, but if you cut Parks Avenue through this
property and you cul de sac Cypress Avenue and you have no access to Cypress Avenue, the
value of these units that we're trying to create which - what we've got here exceeds anything
else on Norfolk Avenue. And everybody I've talked to concurs with that in terms of being the
multi family. The -- to try to create something even better, which my clients willing to try to do
at the same time you're going to put Parks Avenue through which will detract from our ability to
have a totally contained community. It doesn't work, we must have the determination that Parks
Avenue is not going to come through here, we don't think it will, we don't think it makes any
sense. And then we are willing to look at doing some things to the elevation. But the elevations
do have cedar shake, significant brick front, side, wrap around the back (inaudible) we've done
significant windows on the back. My clients shown a four foot fence - a privacy fence behind
the units. He's even willing to look at doing a different type of fencing if that's what staff would
like. We're confident we can work out the issues on the elevations with staff and we don't have
any problem going in that direction. But we do have a significant problem in how we design the
development with this Parks Avenue issue and we need a decision on that issue. And I think the
only decision can come from City Council. So, that's the dilemma we find ourselves in. We're
proposing a development that exceeds what else is on Norfolk Avenue. We're willing to look at
doing some other things but with this Parks Avenue issue out there unresolved and I guess, this
open space issue unresolved we're in a position where we really feel best to move this on to City
Council, so some decisions can be made. But we are open to other suggestions.
Betsy Atlfinson: Eddie, do -- you mentioned that this Parks Avenue may not reach your clients
property. Do you have approximately how many feet it doesn't reach and who would own that
particular piece of land?
Item gl 6
Ocean Bay Ventures, LLC
Page 2
we need to have a segregated community with the condominium and the private road coming
through. You can see here -- an issue that staff has raised and -- the linear park -- which you see
there has actually been modified. The landscaping on the south side adjacent to where the bike
path will be is now on the outside of the fencing. The only fences that will exist are behind the
units that back up to it. In other words, you'll have fencing across here, here, and here.
Everything else is open. We've broken up that frontage on the bike path, it includes all the
buildings backing up there. We've broken it up so that it is open. One of the things I didn't
mention before which is critical, Parks Avenue as a public right of way does not cross this
property and I -- going out there apparently, it may not even get to this property. There's an
interesting -- someone has painted in the road, signage on the road that says the public right of
way ends here. Before you get to the apartments that are to the west. So, I don't know precisely
where Parks Avenue actually ends as a public right of way. I don't believe it actually even gets
to our property and I know it doesn't get to our property at all. And, the real issue here is that we
looked at commercial in this piece of property and were told by the community, no commercial is
not what we want to see. But we were told and I heard from a number of people including at the
public hearing, before this body, we will support multi family and that's we -- Norfolk and
Southern -- go back there and told them. New buyers came along, again it's a valuable piece of
property and so, we can make that work. It's better than putting self storage there or better than
putting a restaurant and bar there which are permitted in I-1 zoning. The major issues segment of
the staff write up talks about the idea that this property might be acquired for open space.
Councilman Branch and the entire City Council and leadership of the City have done a super job
in revitalizing and improving the resort area and protecting the residential areas in and around the
Oceanfront. And a lot of money has been spent, a lot of tax payer money have been spent, good
investment. However, there are significant recreational opportunities in open space areas which
already exist in this area and there are all but four of them. The Oceanfront beach and boardwalk
would be one, Hells Creek Golf Center, Red Wing Golf Center, Red Wing Park, Sea Tack
Community Park on Birdneck Road, Sea Tack Recreational Center, Hells Creek Tennis Center,
The Virginia Marine Science Museum actually has a lot of outdoor aspects to it and recreation to
it, Rudee Inlet and the boat ramp on Rudee Inlet, this planned bike path to connect to the bike
paths on General Booth Boulevard and the bike path that runs along the Oceanfront. It extends
all the way to Red Wing Park. To make an expenditure of a significant sum of money to buy this
liffi, e piece of property in this location, I fred hard to believe that is the way our tax dollars are
going to be spent. I think there's a far more significant need for open spaces and recreational
areas in the other parts of the City away from the resort area than here. And I think -- I wasn't
there I'm not on this open space committee, but I just have a hard time -- the idea that property at
this value and this worth is going to be acquired to preserve open space. We have no problem
with coordinating development with Parks and Recreation, my clients have been in touch with
them as far as landscaping on the outside of the fencing along the proposed bike trail. The
second issue, and really the most critical issue, because I'm going to come back to architectural,
is this notion or idea of closing Cypress Avenue and putting Parks Avenue through this property.
Cypress Avenue -- it's been open, been through there for over 50 years. It used to be where the
Item $$16
Ocean Bay Ventures, I JI~C
Change of Zoning District Classification
Northwest Corner of Norfolk & Southern Railroad
District 6
Beach
August 8, 2001
REGULAR AGENDA'
Robert Miller: The next item that the Commission will hear is item number 16 Ocean Bay
Ventures l.l .C.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you for your patience. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning
Commission again for the record my name is Eddie Bourdon, I'm representing the applicant,
Ocean Bay Investors and Mr. Brad Watzer is here one of the applicants. The application is for a
conditional rezoning from I-1, industrial district along with R-5D residential duplex district to
conditional A-24 for a 33 unit condominium community on 2.89 acres of property that you've all
seen before. Property that I had the privilege of coming before you -- about a year ago, on behalf
of the folks with Belo who wanted to do a commercial center on this piece of property. The
property is owned by Norfolk and Southern Railroad. The density that's proposed with this
condominium is 11 units per acre. The property is located on the west side of -- if you look up
here, it's located on the west on Cypress 'Avenue -- I think we need a new battery, it's not
working, the west side of Cypress Avenue, north side of Norfolk Avenue. The I- 1 is obviously in
blue the R-5D is red, Cypress Avenue is the important part of what we're going to talk about
today. The I-1 property can be developed for a number of uses which I don't believe are
consistent with what the folks who live in this community would like to see. And one that there
is definite demand for is self storage. To the north of the property are two complexes, multi
family zoned A-24. Directly across Cypress Avenue to the east again, a multi family complex
zoned A-24. Across Norfolk Avenue, before you get to Norfolk Avenue you actually have the
old railroad right of way where the new bike trail running from Birdneck Road down to the
Boardwalk is going to go. And that's between us and Norfolk Avenue, and then you have
Norfolk Avenue and again the western portion of the property across from Norfolk Avenue is
zoned A-24 and then the eastern portion you have some R-5D with a strip there that's not
developed. The reason for the A-24 rather than the A-12 because obviously we're less than A-12
in our density, is because under the Zoning Ordinance with multi family you count lot coverage
to include everything. Roads, parking, as well as building area and the A-12 lot coverage is 40
percent I believe and A-24 is 60 percent because of the odd configuration of the property, the
desire to build higher quality larger units with garages, those combine to -- requires us to have a
larger total coverage than 40 percent including again, parking, (inaudible) and because we're
putting our own roadway in, coming in from Cypress and heading to the west. Again, to be able
to provide a sense of community, a secure community and one that with what's being proffered is
far superior in terms of quality and in terms of price than the multi family that exists adjacent to
us to the west. And that's not to degrade somebody else's property but that's the reality these
units are and will be far more valuable and cost more than what's to our west. And that's why
The subject property is classified as a top priority site in the City's Outdoors Plan. It has
been identified to be developed as a linear park in conjunction with the Norfolk Avenue
Multipurpose Trail. The applicant's plan has been designed to accommodate that open
space use. Development of the site must also be coordinated with the City's Public
Works and Parks and Recreation Departments' design and construction of the CIP 4-
001 Norfolk Avenue Multipurpose Trail project. Access to the trail, proposed fencing,
and landscaping are issues that are considered by the proposed plan. Finally, Parks
Avenue is slated to be constructed through the site to Norfolk Avenue in conjunction
with the Lakewood / North Holly Lake Watershed Improvements Capital Improvement
Project. The applicant has designed the plan to allow this roadway construction.
Therefore, Staff concludes that this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
the Oceanfront Resort Area Concept Plan, and currently scheduled Capital
Improvement Program projects.
INO I ~-: 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 Cit~/ Codes,
February 12, 2002 ~
OCEAN BAY VENTURES, L.L.C.
Page 8
PROFFER # 2
Staff Evaluation:
PROFFER # 3
Staff Evaluation:
PROFFER # 4
Staff Evaluation:
PROFFER # 5
Staff Evaluation:
The buildings depicted on the Site Plan shall have the
architectural design and appearance as depicted on the
elevations titled "ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS,
CYPRESS RESERVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS", dated September 17,
2001, prepared by W. P. Large, Inc., which have been
exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file
with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning
(hereinafter "Elevations"). The primary building materials
used to construct visible exterior surfaces of the buildings
shall be brick and vinyl shake siding as designated on the
Elevations.
The proffer is acceptable.
No more than eighteen (18) residential units each with a
garage shall be permitted to be constructed on the
Property.
The proffer is acceptable and insures that no more than 18
units will be constructed on the site.
The "72" wood fence" depicted on the Site Plan shall be a
solid wood privacy fence substantially as depicted on the
"Fence Elevation, CYPRESS RESERVE VIRGINIA
BEACH, BA", dated 17 Sept 01, prepared by W. P. Large,
Inc., which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City
Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department
of Planning (hereinafter "Fence Elevation").
The proffer is acceptable.
Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during
detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable
City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments
to meet all applicable City Code requirements.
The proffer is acceptable.
City Attorney's
Office:
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer
agreement dated April 10, 2001, and found it to be legally
sufficient and in acceptable legal form.
Evaluation of Request
The request to rezone this 2.89 acre parcel to Conditional A-24 Apartment District from
i-1 Light Industrial and R-5D Residential districts is acceptable. The proffered site and
landscape plan and architectural elevations submitted with the request are in keeping
with the vision of the Oceanfront Resort Area Concept Plan for high quality development
along the gateways into the resort area.
February 12, 2002
OCEAN BAY VENTURES, L.L.C.
Page 7
southem boundary extends 1,088 feet along the former Norfolk and Southem
railroad right of way, which is being developed by the City as a multipurpose trail.
· The submitted site 'plan shows, on the eastem portion of the site, three six-unit
buildings with associated parking on the northern half of the site. A drive aisle will
run along the northem property line with access on Cypress Avenue. When Cypress
is closed and Parks opened, the access will be from Cypress at what will then be a
cul-de-sac.
· A variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) will be needed for the front yard
setback, the side yard setback (where the parking lot encroaches into the side yard),
and for the 6 foot high fence along the northern property line where the fence is
located in the front yard adjacent to Cypress Avenue.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Access
· There will be one motor vehicular access shown from Cypress Avenue to the
property. Cypress Avenue is a neighborhood street that has been adversely affected
by cut-through traffic. It is slated to be closed off from Norfolk Avenue and Virginia
Beach Boulevard, completely eliminating through traffic, in conjunction with the
Lakewood / North Holly Lake Watershed Improvements Capital Improvement Project
#7-005.
· Sidewalks line the drive aisle in the areas that are not encompassed by parking
pads.
Architectural Design
· The applicant has proffered a traditional style townhouse unit compatible to this area
of the city. The units are three-story structures with garages on the first floor of the
unit. Gables offer some architectural relief to the roofs.
The buildings are three-story with garages (facing in toward the site) on the first
floor. Exterior materials consist of brick on the first floor, lap vinyl siding and shake-
style vinyl siding on the second and third floor, and an asphalt shingle roof. Shutters
and decorative caps are included on the windows. The side facing Norfolk Avenue
includes balconies.
Landscape and Open Space
· The applicant has been encouraged to work with the City's Public Works and Parks
and Recreation Departments to produce a high quality landscape design that
complements the proposed Norfolk Avenue Multipurpose Trail project.
· The proffered plan shows trees and shrubs along Norfolk Avenue, including a slight
berm (maximum of two feet in height) and trees within the parking area and in front
of the buildings.
Proffers
PROFFER # 1
Staff Evaluation:
When the Property is developed, it shall be developed and
landscaped substantially as shown on the exhibits entitled
"CYPRESS RESERVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA SITE
PLAN", dated 17 Sept 01 and "CONCEPTUAL PLAN
CYPRESS RESERVE, Virginia Beach, Virginia," dated
September 21, 2001 and prepared by W. P. Large, Inc.,
which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City
Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department
of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan").
The proffer is acceptable.
February 12, 2002
OCEAN BAY VENTURES, L.L.C.
Page 6
Schools:
School Name Current Capacity Generation
Enrollment
707
Cooke Elementary 578 (Optimal 637) 8
Virginia Beach 725 870 3
Middle School (Optimal 783)
First Colonial 1795
1854 3
High School (Optimal 1616)
"generation" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning [nd
under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer
students).
Public Safety
Police: Adequate
Fire and
Rescue:
From the fire service perspective dead-end streets offer
minimal strategic opportunities for fire incidents. Therefore, the
addition of a connector street at the west end of the site, or an
emergency vehicle use entrance and exit, is desirable. There is
some fire service benefit gained from having access from
Norfolk Avenue.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates this site as Suburban Residential /
Medium and High density at 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The Oceanfront Resort Area
Concept Plan, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, recognizes the need to
revitalize the neighborhoods within the resort area and to prohibit intrusion of unwanted
resort or commercial uses within those neighborhoods. The Oceanfront Resort Area
Concept Plan's vision is to encourage residential development and discourage mixed
uses within the resort neighborhoods.
Summary of Proposal
Proposal
· This is a request to rezone a 2.89 acre parcel at the northwest intersection of
Cypress Avenue and Norfolk Avenue from a split zoning of I-1 Light Industrial and R-
5D Residential to Conditional A-24 Apartment District. The applicant has proffered
18 three-story story townhouse style units on 1.49 acres of the larger parcel. The
remaining acreage will be reserved for the City to purchase as open space
consistent with the recommendations of the Outdoors Plan. The density will be 12
units to the acre. The project consists of three six-unit buildings. The units will be
constructed of brick, vinyl siding, and vinyl shake siding. The roof will be fiberglass
shingles. Each unit will have a garage.
Site Desiqn
· The site is a 2.89-acre parcel at the northwest comer of Cypress Avenue and
Norfolk Avenue, with a split zoning of I-1 Light Industrial and R-5D Residential
districts. To the north, east and west of the site are the Lakewood and South Beach
neighborhoods; to the south of the site is the Shadowlawn neighborhood. The site is
a long, shallow trapezoid that is 55 feet at its shallowest point, abutting Rudee
Avenue, and 180 feet deep at the eastern boundary along Cypress Avenue. The
February 12, 2002 ~
OCEAN BAY VENTURES, L.L.C.
Page 5
Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics
The site is an undeveloped parcel, previoUsly a part of the old Beach railway system.
The site is in the Owls Creek watershed.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
Water:
Sewer:
There is a 12 inch water main in Cypress Avenue fronting the site.
The site must connect to City water.
There is a 10 inch sanitary sewer force main in Cypress Avenue
fronting the site. A 12 inch sanitary sewer main, which extends
across the west side of the property, is in Parks Avenue. The site
must connect to City sewer.
Transportation
Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP):
Cypress Avenue fronting this site is currently a two-lane undivided local collector
street. The read is not designated on the Master Transportation Plan. However, in
conjunction with, the Lakewood / North Lake Holly Storm Water Management
Project, Capital Improvement Project (CIP) # 7-005, Cypress Avenue is to be closed
to through traffic between Lake Drive and Norfolk Avenue, and at Virginia Beach
Boulevard.
Norfolk Avenue fronting this site is currently a two-lane undivided minor suburban
arterial. It is not designated on the Master Transportation Plan, and no capital
improvements are planned for this roadway.
As part of the Lakewood Revitalization Project, which has been incorporated into the
CIP Project #7-005, the Lakewood / North Lake Holly Storm Water Management
Project, Parks Avenue is to be constructed through this site to Norfolk Avenue. The
project is currently at a 55% design phase completion, with construction scheduled
to begin in December 2001. The construction of Parks Avenue is in Phase 2 of the
project commencing in 2003.
Traffic Calculations:
Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic
Volume Capacity
Norfolk Avenue 8,000 ADT 13,600 ADT
(Level of (Level of
Service C) Service C)
6,200 ADT Proposed: 231 ADT
Cypress Avenue 4,000 ADT (Level of
(1999) Service C)
Av~r~n~= 1'3~iltz
February 12, 2002
OCEAN BAY VENTURES, L.L.C.
Page 4
East:
West:
· Cypress Avenue
· across Cypress Avenue are multiple-family
dwellings / A-24 Apartment District
· Rudee Avenue
· across Rudee Avenue undeveloped property / R-
5D Residential District
Zoning and Land Use Statistics
With Existing
Zoning:
With the existing I-1 Light Industrial District a variety of
light industrial type uses including manufacturing,
warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution
establishments; offices; automotive type uses including
light repair, rental, and parts and supply stores; and
eating and drinking establishments. With The R-5D
Residential District single-family or duplex dwellings,
and other permitted uses in the residential district.
With
Proposed
Zoning:
With the proposed Conditional A-24 Apartment District
only 18 residential units and associated parking and
amenities as proffered.
Zonin(~ History
The site is in the area of the old Beach railway station and is zoned I-1 Light Industrial
and R-5D Residential. A rezoning request to B-2 Business District, on the I-1 Industrial
portion of the property, and a conditional use permit for fuel sales was heard by the
Planning Commission in July 2000, and withdrawn. Other properties in the immediate
vicinity have been rezoned from the original light industrial district to residential and
apartment districts in the 1980s. Isolated rezonings to commercial classifications were
also approved in the 1980s, with others having been more recently denied. Although
this piecemeal approach to the conversion of the industrially zoned railroad property has
resulted in an unplanned mixture of land uses, the area remains predominately a
mixture of single-family and multiple-family uses, with some small scale neighborhood
and tourist related retail, service, and restaurant uses.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The site is in an AICUZ area of 70-75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The United
States Navy requests that the following AICUZ disclosure statement be made a part of
the official file and requests that the applicant use this disclosure in any rental or sale of
units on this property:
CYPRESS RESERVE CONDOMINUM AICUZ DISCLOSURE
The owner / renter has been informed that the condominium in which he / she
proposes to acquire, is located in the 70-75 (dB) day-night average (Ldn) noise
zone, adjacent to Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana and is subject to over flight at any
time. The owner / renter has been encouraged to fully investigate and satisfy himself
/ herself of the impact of the noise likely to occur on and around the property, and
has evaluated its effect on their use and enjoyment of the property and have
voluntarily elected to own / rent after being fully informed conceming noise impacts.
Furthermore, the owner / renter has been given an opportunity to review the City of
Virginia Beach zoning maps and the United States Navy Air Installations Compatible
Use Zones map, which depicts NAS Oceana Noise and Accident Potential Zones.
The applicant has been supplied a copy of the above statement.
February 12, 2002
OCEAN BAY VENTURES, L.L.C.
Page 3
parallel to Norfolk Avenue from Birdneck Road to Pacific Avenue.
Any development of the site must be coordinated with the City's Public Works and
Parks and Recreation Departments' design and construction of the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) 4.001 Norfolk Avenue Multi Purpose Trail project.
Access to the trail, proposed fencing, and landscaping are issues that need to be
coordinated and addressed in the proffers. The applicant's landscape designer has
been referred to the Parks and Recreation design division for coordination of the
plans.
The Lakewood / North Holly Lake Watershed Improvements Capital Improvement
Project shows that Cypress Avenue will be closed and terminate west of this site at
the intersection of Lake Drive and Cypress Avenue. Additionally, Parks Avenue is to
be extended through this site to Norfolk Avenue. These improvements are in Phase
II of the CIP 7-005 project. The project is scheduled to begin in December of this
year, with Phase II taking place in 2003. A 60-foot right of way reservation for the
Parks Avenue extension will be required during detailed site plan review.
Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics:
Existin(~ Land Use
The property is an undeveloped parcel. The site is zoned I-1 Light Industrial and R-5D
Residential District.
Surroundinq Land Use and Zonino
North:
South:
Multiple-family dwellings / A-24 Apartment District
Norfolk Avenue right-of-way
across Norfolk Avenue is the Shadowlawn
neighborhood / R-5D Residential District, A-12
Apartment District and RT-3 Resort Tourist District
February 12, 2002
OCEAN BAY VENTURES, L.L.C.
Page 2
OCEAN BAY VENTURES, L.L.C.
February 12, 2002
General Information:
REQUEST:
ADDRESS:
Change of zoning District Classification from I-1 Light Industrial
and R-5D Residential Districts to Conditional A-24 Apartment
District
Northwest corner of Norfolk & Southern Railroad R.O.W. and
Cypress Avenue
M~ ,.,~-7 Ocean Ba' l~entures
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
2417-94-4482
6 - BEACH
2.89 acres
Faith Christie
Major Issues:
The subject property is classified as a top priority site in the City's Outdoors Plan.
The site was identified to develop a linear park in conjunction with the Norfolk
Avenue Multipurpose Trail. The trail will be an asphalt multi use pathway running
February 12, 2002
OCEAN BAY VENTURES, L.L.C.
Page I
Extensive landscaping will be installed between the buildings and Norfolk Avenue, including a
slight berm (maximum of two feet in height).
The architectural style of the buildings has been modified since the previous submission,
making the elevations more compatible with the traditional architecture of this area. The
buildings are three-story with garages (facing in toward the site) on the first floor. Exterior
materials consist of brick on the first floor, lap vinyl siding and shake-style vinyl siding on the
second and third floor, and an asphalt shingle roof. Shutters and decorative caps are included
on the windows. The side facing Norfolk Avenue includes balconies.
The applicant has indicated that the price for the reserved area (59,697 square feet) is $4 per
square foot. Acquisition cost, therefore, will be $238,788. Acquisition will be for needs related
to Open Space Plan purposes and North Lake Holly Drainage Project purposes.
Recommendations:
A motion was passed by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 9-2 to approve this
request as proffered.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. SPOre, City Manager
Ocean Bay Ventures, L.L.C., Change of Zoning
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2002
Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Ocean Bay Ventures, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability
company, for a Change of Zoninq District Classification from I-1 Light Industrial District and R-
5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional A-24 Apartment District on certain property
located at the northwest corner of the Norfolk & Southern Railroad Right-of-Way and Cypress
Avenue (GPIN #2417-94-4482). The proposed zoning classification change to Conditional A-
24 is for multi-family land use at a density no greater than 24 dwelling units per acre. The
Comprehensive Plan recommends use of these parcels for suburban residential/medium and
high density use. Said parcel contains 2.89 acres more or less. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH.
This item was deferred by the City Council at the October 2 meeting to provide time for the
applicant to revise the site plan, architectural elevations, and the proffers associated with the
revisions as part of the Conditional Zoning Agreement.
The item was indefinitely deferred at the October 23, 2002 meeting to provide time for staff
and the applicant to discuss modifications to the proposal that might result in a plan more
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Considerations:
Since the October 23 meeting, discussions have resulted in a plan that would allow 18 units on
1.49 acres of the site (area between Cypress Avenue and the future extension of Parks
Avenue). The remaining area of the site, approximately 1.40 acres, would be reserved for the
City to purchase for open space purposes and for the necessary right-of-way related to the
extension of Parks Avenue to Norfolk Avenue. The open space will be integrated into the
Norfolk Avenue Trail as called for in the adopted Outdoors Plan.
The 18 units will be oriented on the site with the buildings appearing to front on Norfolk Avenue
and the parking and vehicular access "behind" the buildings, not visible from Norfolk Avenue.
Attachments:
Staff Review
Planning Commission Minutes (based on a prior plan)
Disclosure Statement
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission
recommends approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
City Manager: (~5 ~, ~~
Ocean B Ventures
G~'nGgln 2417-94-4482
ZONING HISTORY
1. Rezoning (I-1 Industrial to B-4 Resort Business) - Approved 4-18-83
(replaced with RT-3 resort~Tourist District in 1988).
2. Rezoning (I-1 Industrial to A-3 Apartment) - Approved 1-11-82.
3. Rezoning (R-7 Residential to A-1 Apartment) Approved 6-18-84.
4. Conditional Use Permit (Group Home) -Approved 1-9-84.
5. Rezoning (R-8 Residential to B-2 Business) - Denied 12-22-86.
6. Rezoning - City of Virginia Beach (R-7 Residential to R-8 Residential) -
6-24-85.
7. Expansion of Nonconforming Use - Denied 3-9-93.
8. Rezoning (A-12 Apartment to RT-3 Resort Tourist) - Approved 1-23-96.
9. Reconsideration of Conditions - Denied 5-10-94.
10. Rezoning (R-8 Residential to B-2 Business) - Denied 12-22-86.
11. Rezoning (I-1 Industrial to B-2 Business) - Withdrawn 8-22-00
Conditional Use Permit (fuel sales), Withdrawn, 8-22-00
Item ~I-K. 6.
- 50 -
ITEM # 48823
The following registered in SUPPORT of the application:
Attorney R. E. Bourdon, Phone: 499-8971, represented the applicant
Garrett Johnson, 212 Rudee Avenue, Phone: 4 72-8521, Shadowlawn resident
Dennis Deans, 3852 Little Neck Point, Phone: 640- 7292, Shadowlawn resident
Billy Ray Davis, Jr., 828 12th Street, Phone: 422-3878
Sean `d. Lovas, 913 Carolina Avenue, Phone: 425-7145, Shadowlawn resident
The following registered in OPPOSITION:
Mary`dnne Nixon, 60716a Street, Phone: 428-4277, represented the Resort Beach Civic League Coalition
Jim Flanagan, 708 Arctic Avenue, Phone: 428-2456
Upon motion by Councilman Branch, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council DEFERRED to the
CITY COUNCIL's FORM2tL SESSION of November 27, 2001, Ordinance upon application of OCE`dN
BAY VENTURES, LL C. for a Conditional Change of Zoning:
ORDINANCE UPON A_PpI, ICA TION OF OCEAN BA Y VENTURES, L.L. C.,
,4 VIRGINIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANE FOR A CHANGE OF
ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM I-1 AND R-SD TO
CONDITIONAL A-24
An Ordinance upon Application of Ocean Bay Ventures, L.L.C., a Virginia
limited liability company, for a _Chanee of Zoning District Classification
from I-1 Light Industrial District and R-5D Residential Duplex District to
Conditional A-24 Apartment District on certain property located at the
northwest corner of the Norfolk & Southern Railroad right-of-way and
Cypress `d venue (GPIN #2417-94-4482). Theproposedzoning classification
change to Conditional `d-24 is for multi-family land use at a density no
greater than 24 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan
recommends use of these parcels for suburban residential/medium and high
density use. Said parcel contains 2.89 acres more or less. DISTRICT 6 -
BEACH.
Voting:
10-0 (By ConsenO
Council Members Voting .dye:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, Willia~ IrK. Harrison, Jr.,
Barbara 34. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Robert C.
Mandigo, Jr., Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr. and
Rosemary Wilson
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
October 23, 2001
Virginia Beach City Council
October 23, 2001
6:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL:
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor
W.D. Sessoms, Jr., Vice Mayor
Linwood O. Branch, III
Margaret L. Eure
William W. Harrison, Jr.
Barbara M. Henley
Louis R. Jones
Robert C. Mandigo
Reba S. McClanan
Nancy K. Parker
Rosemary Wilson
At Large
At Large
District 6 - Beach
District 1 - Centerville
District 5 - Lynnhaven
District 7 - Princess Anne
District 4 - Bayside
District 2 - Kempsville
District 3 - Rose Hall
At Large
At Large
CITYMA~IAGER:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY CLERK:
STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER:
James K. Spore
Leslie L. Lilley
Ruth Hodges Smith, PSqC
Dawne Franklin Meads
VERBATIM
Planning Application of Ocean Bay Ventures, L.L.C.
Item VI-K. 6.
PLANNING
- 50 -
ITEM # 48823
The following registered in SUPPORT of the application:
Attorney R. E. Bourdon, Phone: 499-8971, represented the applicant
Garrett Johnson, 212 Rudee Avenue, Phone: 472-8521, Shadowlawn resident
Dennis Deans, 3852 Little Neck Point, Phone: 640-7292, Shadowlawn resident
Billy Ray Davis, Jr., 828 12th Street, Phone: 422-3878
Sean A. Lovas, 913 Carolina Avenue, Phone: 425-7145, Shadowlawn resident
The following registered in OPPOSITION:
MaryAnne Nixon, 6071~~ Street, Phone: 428-4277, represented the Resort Beach Civic League Coalition
Jim Flanagan, 708 Arctic Avenue, Phone: 428-2456
Upon motion by Councilman Branch, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council DEFERRED to the
CITY COUNCIL's FOR31~ SESSION of November 27, 2001, Ordinance upon application of OCEAN
BAY VENTURES, L.L C. for a Conditional Change of Zoning:
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICA TION OF OCEAN BA Y VENTURES, L.L. C.,
A VIRGINIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, FOR A CHANGE OF
ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM I-I AND R-SD TO
CONDITIONAL A-24
An Ordinance upon Application of Ocean Bay Ventures, L.L. C., a Virginia
limited liability company, for a Change of Zoning District Classification
from l-1 Light Industrial District and R-SD Residential Duplex District to
Conditional A-24 Apartment District on certain property located at the
northwest corner of the Norfolk & Southern Railroad right-of-way and
Cypress Avenue (GPIN #2417-94-4482). The proposedzoning classification
change to Conditional A-24 is for multi-family land use at a density no
greater than 24 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan
recommends use of these parcels for suburban residential/medium and high
density use. Said parcel contains 2.89 acres more or less. DISTRICT 6 -
BEACH.
Voting:
10-0 (By ConsenO
Council Members Voting Aye:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr.,
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Robert C.
Mandigo, Jr., Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and
Rosemary Wilson
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
October 23, 2001
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
October 23, 2001
Next Application please.
CITY CT.W. RK: Ocean Bay Ventures for a change of zoning
from I-1 and R-SD to Conditional A-24 at the
Norfolk and Southern Railroad right-of-way and Cypress Avenue in the
Beach Borough. We have several speakers, Your Honor. Mr. Eddie
Bourdon is representing the Applicant.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Mr. Bourdon, we welcome you, and watch the
lights.
EDDIE BOURDON:
was pretty humorous.
Don't start the clock yet. Mrs. Parker, I
appreciate that last comment. I thought it
But for the record my name is Eddie Bourdon and I'm representing the
Applicant. I have provided Madam Clerk with copies of a couple of
letters for each of you from members of the Shadowlawn Community who
could not be here tonight to speak who expressed their favor for this
Application as well as some pictures of the elevations that are in
color. It may be easier for you-all to see than what's in your
package.
The two principals of Ocean Bay Ventures are Brad Watzer and Brian
Large, both of whom are here with me this evening. This was a
request to rezone a 2.89 acre parcel of land located on the West side
of Cypress Avenue, 70 feet North of Norfolk Avenue. The parcel
extends westward from Cypress Avenue, a distance of well over 1,000
feet. You can see it there on the composite zoning map. The parcel
is a single parcel of land which has split zoning. The eastern 60%
of the property is Zoned I-1 Industrial District.
The western 40% is Zoned R-5D Residential Duplex District. This
request is to conditionally change the zoning on the entire property
to A-24 subject to developing the property as a 33-unit condominium
community in accordance with a site plan, a concept plan and building
elevations. All of which have been proffered to the City and have
been exhibited to the civic league and interested neighbors.
October 23, 2001
The proposed community would be known as Cypress Reserve. It would
be of a residential density of ll-units per acre, a fraction of over
ll-units per acre. That is below the 12-units per acre permitted
with A-12 Zoning which is our least dense multi-family zoning
category. The reason we have requested A-24 is because A-12 Zoning
limits lot coverage to 35% for the multi-family structures. A-24
versus A-12 allows 40% lot coverage.
Because my client is proposing to build larger units with garages,
one and two-car garages, it's significantly higher quality than what
exists in that area. Limit those to two stories in height. We need
the 40% lot coverage to get those larger more valuable units with
garages.
The homes will each contain between 1,500 and 2,100 square feet of
living area, plus a garage and will sell for between $160,000 to
$200,000 each, which far exceeds any of the existing multi-family
development along Norfolk Avenue, with the possible exception of a
handful of lake-front condos at the eastern end of Norfolk Avenue.
Surrounding our property as you saw earlier on the zoning map is
property to the north, the south and the east, which is all developed
as multi-family apartments at A-24 Zoning.
To our west is property Zoned R-5D and the west is our smallest end
of the property. Across Norfolk Avenue is property Zoned R-5S.
Norfolk Avenue across from our property is what our property is
zoned, I-1 where the R-5S is.
A little over a year ago in the early summer of 2000, Mr. Harold, who
is the owner of the Be-Lo and Junior Markets, came to me after he
filed an Application to rezone this property to B-2 for a small
neighborhood commercial center. After working with him to
significantly upgrade the proposal to a very attractive commercial
building that even the surrounding communities acknowledged was an
attractive structure, the Application was withdrawn after the
Planning Commission. It was withdrawn, because we were told
unequivocally that the community did not support either commercial
nor industrial development, which most of the property is zoned for.
2
October 23, 2001
In the course of those discussions, I was told by all of the
community leaders that they would welcome a quality, multifamily
condominium project on this property and here it is.
The two-story buildings that we have shown you that are in the
package are brick and vinyl shake-sided units with door columns,
covered entrances, latticed second-floor balconies on the front and
rear, shuttered windows, gables and one and two-car garages. They
are wonderful layouts. We have staggered the buildings so that they
are not all backed up to the right-of-way of Norfolk Avenue and we
put landscaping that will compliment the landscaping that the City
will be putting in on Norfolk Avenue.
Now, I'm going to take a minute to talk about how we got here with
regard to design and with regard to layout. Part of the Planning
Commission, your staff review report indicated that our designs were
not what they envisioned for this area, and we told the Planning
Commission that they were far better than anything else that exists
in this area, and we were not contradicted by that in any way, shape
or form.
We also told the Planning Coramission we would modify our design to
match what the staff wanted us to do, what we were told that day by
staff that they wanted to see. Subsequently we met with staff.
Staff gave us a number of elevations. My client, Mr. Watzer told
staff we would do what they asked us to do. He went back and had
those elevations redesigned and brought them back to the staff. We
were told let it run up the flagpole. We got back -- they said make
a couple other changes. We made those changes. Sent them back down
and said let us know if these are what is expected. We were told,
yes, this passes muster. That was two months ago.
Now, with regard to the layout and Park Avenue, I spoke extensively
at the Planning Commission about how I didn't think the idea of
cul-de-sacing Cypress Avenue and putting Parks Avenue through this
property -- that doesn't extend to the property today. The
right-of-way does not extend there. It didn't make a lot of sense.
After that meeting I got a long phone call from Mary A. nne Nixon who I
3
October 23, 2001
respect and like a lot. She is President of Old Beach Civic League.
She expressed to me the strong desire of that community to put that
road through and to cul-de-sac Cypress, and it's in the CIP.
She said her community supported what we were trying to do, but they
wanted that road through there. I talked to my clients, and my
clients -- it doesn't help the project, and Mr. Scott and I agree on
that fact. It doesn't help the project, but we agreed to do that.
We agreed to landscape Parks Avenue to make it as attractive as it
could be, and that is in this Plan.
Staff asked us to simply reserve the right-of-way. Well, we've
already worked out the framework of an agreement with Public Works.
If this rezoning is approved, we will not just reserve it we will
dedicate the right-of-way to the City, and we will build the road.
Because it's in the CIP, the City will reimburse the cost of
constructing the road only at their estimated cost in the CIP. Now,
the Planning Commission overwhelmingly recommended approval of this
Application based on our agreement to do what staff asked on the
elevations, which we have done and we went one step further and put
the road in, which staff also asked for.
Now, my clients have met with the Shadowlawn Civic League. They have
received a favorable response. The Civic League would like to see it
acquired for open space, but if not I am told that they have
recommended approval of the Application.
I spoke extensively at the Planning Commission about the value of
this property. It's a very costly piece of property and there's a
very long list of open space and recreational facilities available in
this part of town. I will refrain from reading that list again
today, but it's an extensive list. We don't believe that the
expenditure of over a half a million dollars to buy this essentially
nondescript piece of property along what will be a nice bike path is
a prudent expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
Your Open Space Committee has not recommended acquisition of this
particular piece of property in their recommendation to you. So in
October 23, 2001
conclusion, my clients have done everything and more that they have
been asked to do and that's why we are here tonight and we certainly
hope that you will agree and approve this rezoning.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
and we will get you back.
Thank you, Mr. Bourdon. It appears there
is some opposition. Let's hear from them
EDDIE BOURDON:
I think there are speakers all over
the place.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Oh, okay.
CITY CLERK:
Garrett Johnson.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Good afternoon and welcome.
GARRETT JOHNSON: I don't oppose it, but I have lived there
for 37 years, right there. I have seen it
go from industrial to granary to different things with people dumping
or whatever and feel like that would be a good project for that end
of the street right there. It's all -- you know they do dumping over
there and different things now.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
So, you are in support of it?
GARRETT JOHNSON:
In support of it.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Thank you.
COUNCIL LADY PARKER:
Where do you live, Mr. Johnson? I'm sorry.
GARRETT JOHNSON:
I live right down the street at 212 Rudee
Avenue.
COUNCIL LADY PARKER:
On Rudee Avenue?
GARRETT JOHNSON:
Yes, ma'am.
5
COUNCIL LADY PARKER:
October 23, 2001
Okay.
GARRE TT JOHNSON:
I have been living there 37 years in that
immediate area within five blocks.
COUNCIL LADY PARKER:
I know where you live.
Goldsboro. Okay.
I'm over on
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Thank you very much. Any questions?
CITY CLERK:
Dennis Deans.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Mr. Deans, we welcome you.
DENNIS DEANS:
My name is Dennis Deans. I am a property
owner in Shadowlawn speaking in support of
the Rezoning Application before you.
I understand that the Civic League supports this Application, if you
decide not to acquire it for open space. I support that this Project
is more desirable than open space and I offer these comments. The
site has been a dumping site for years. Even the City is dumping on
the site. It's been a gathering place for teens for some time. I
would rather see any excess taxpaying funds be extended on closing
open ditches in Shadowlawn and enhancing the infrastructure for those
in Shadowlawn.
The Project for the proposed condos would block the apartments that
are North of this site, which would certainly enhance the appearance
of the neighborhood.
In conclusion with limited funds available, making open an open site
space available would be a waste of money especially when the Project
that is before you would greatly enhance our neighborhood. Thank
yOU.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Thank you for your comments.
Council? Thank you, sir.
Any questions,
October 23, 2001
DENNIS DEANS:
Thank you.
VICE bl~YOR SESSOMS:
Next speaker.
CITY CLEP~f:
Billy Ray Davis, Jr.
BILLY RAY DAVIS:
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Well, I'm a little bit confused.
We welcome you.
BILLY RAY DAVIS: Thank you. I thought we were all here
because we didn't want the road open.
That's why I'm here, but I can live with the road being opened as
long as the development goes through. I think it would be an
addition to the neighborhood.
But, there's one thing I would like to say about the road. I don't
know exactly what the plan is here, closing Cypress and opening
Parks. I mean, is this to bring up values on Cypress and lower them
on Parks Avenue? I don't see the goal here.
I mean a road goes through, a road goes through. It's not going to
slow anybody down one way or the other if they have to come in from
that block or up another block. I mean, if you come in on Birdneck
at any time of the day, especially in the summer, or down Pacific
Avenue it's "maxed" out. There is no way in the summer to go through
unless you cut through the neighborhood one way or another. So, all
you have to do is go up Cypress, take a right on 12th Street, then
take a left on Parks and you've shot through. There's just more
traffic on another corner.
I would just like to put one suggestion out. I don't think it would
go far, but if anybody here is familiar with Lord Dunmore in
Kempsville. Maybe if this does go through -- and, again, I'm in
support of the development. Maybe we could reverse some stop signs,
slow down and maybe discourage some of the people who are coming
through our neighborhood. Because I do live here. I mean I live
right there. I'm on the 800 block of 12th Street and there are other
7
October 23, 2001
neighbors who would like to be here, but we just found out yesterday.
I didn't notice any notice in the lot. I saw it in the paper.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Okay. Any questions?
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
Except that you didn't see a sign for this
on the property?
BILLY RAY DAVIS: No. The sign sits off on like a barrier
thing that sits off on the side of the road.
The last time I looked at it -- and I check pretty regularly -- it
was for the Planning Commission Meeting.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
That's what it should have been.
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
It stays up.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
But you're saying you're in support of the
Project?
BILLY RAY DAVIS: Yeah, right. I'm in support of the Project.
I just wanted to throw my 2-Cents in, not
that it would help. I'm no traffic engineer, but you know if we're
going to have that much traffic coming through our block I would
definitely like for you guys to at least think about slowing it down
a little bit.
Now, I know Lord Dunmore is a pain to drive down for any one of us,
but you know it helps. It was done for a reason.
COUNCIL LADY PARKER:
I'm sorry. Explain to me again, Mr. Davis.
You said you are for or you are opposed to
Parks Avenue cutting through?
BILLY RAY DAVIS: Oh, no. I really don't want Parks Avenue to
open up. But I was under the impression
when they first went ahead with this Project I am one of the people
who spoke against the gas station. I came in and I'm one of the ones
October 23, 2001
who told these men that if it were to be a residential area there as
opposed to something 'commercial, you know, we would stand behind them
on it. I thought that was the way it was to go. Everything has
changed now. Now the road is going through. Before, it was just
they had to have Parks closed. I don't particularly want Parks open.
But as far as this development, the reason we are here today, yes, I
am for the development. While I was up here I thought I let you know
what I thought.
COUNCIL LADY PA/~KER:
Well, I think it might be part of the
development that's why I'm asking you.
BILLY RAY DAVIS: No, no. From what I understand in the
Comprehensive Plan, Parks Avenue was to be
open either way. It's Mediterranean and Cypress, I believe, that are
to be cul-de-saced. And Parks Avenue is to be opened, because the
Fire Department and the Police Department want a cut-through in the
neighborhood. That's what I was told the last time I was here.
COUNCIL LADY PARKER:
Okay.
BILLY RAY DAVIS: Regardless of this development, Parks Avenue
is supposed to be opened, and this
development was standing in its way so-to-speak. They wanted the
road to stay closed, but now everything has changed. I wasn't aware
of that until a few minutes ago.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Okay. We will get clarification from staff
in a moment.
BILLY RAY DAVIS:
Thank you very much for your comments.
CITY CLERK:
Sean Lovas.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Good evening and welcome.
SEAN LOVAS:
My name is Sean Lovas and I own 913 Carolina
October 23, 2001
Avenue back in Shadowlawn and I'm here to
express my support for the Cypress Reserve proposed by Ocean Bay
Ventures for the following two reasons: First, I believe it's of
exceedingly high quality design and prevents the type of development
that the City shoul'd want.
I feel that preserving the site as an open space would be a huge
waste of our taxpayer's money. We have so many other recreational
places in Virginia Beach. I also feel that our neighborhood needs
more City money spent with drainage, road improvements and pedestrian
access. Not necessarily in preserving what has become, as others
have said today, basically a trash dump.
I honestly feel this Project is going to visually shield less
desirable residential areas to the North of this area. In short, I
feel this Project is much more desirable than the alternative land
uses, including the open space and I am for this development.
Thank you.
CITY CLERK:
Mary A_nne Nixon.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Thank you for your comments.
Good evening and welcome.
MARY ANNE NIXON:
Good evening and thank you. Good evening,
Honorable Vice Mayor, Members of Council,
City Manager and Staff. I want to thank each one of you. I am Mary
Anne Nixon, Resort Beach Civic League President. I want to thank the
Planning Commission, Ocean Bay Ventures and Eddie Bourdon for all of
their hard work and the plans that they are making for that
particular section.
The Resort Beach Civic League is on record and I would like to ask
the members here to please stand. We are on record supporting open
space. We also have worked real hard on the Neighborhood
Revitalization Plan, CIP 7-005. That plan goes along with the Comp
Plan and that plan has Parks Avenue open, Cypress Avenue closed.
10
October 23, 2001
Parks Avenue would be defined with a gateway with green space around
it. The Norfolk trail goes along Norfolk Avenue. Cypress Avenue,
being green space enclosed, would be a better access for emergency
vehicles.
Our thought is Parks Avenue at Virginia Beach Boulevard and at
Norfolk Avenue at Virginia Beach Boulevard, with Norfolk Avenue being
a gateway enhanced with landscaping, identification of a neighborhood
with a sign saying, you're entering Lakewood Neighborhood so that
people would know and take pride that they are entering a
neighborhood. This would discourage people for using this as
cut-through traffic through the neighborhood and bring Parks Avenue
and Lakewood into a neighborhood, make us a neighborhood, which we
all want. It would define our area.
Parks Avenue deserves this improvement. We all want open space and
we have tried to be open-minded, because we want open space, but our
stormwater project is most important. I have come before you on
several things, and I really appreciate all your support on many,
many projects and this is a project that we worked with City Staff
for I think six years. We have just formed another focus group
working on the identification of the gateways entering on
Mediterranean Avenue and Parks Avenue. So, both ends. Then, Old
Beach, the same thing.
So, we're still working for trying to make a beautiful neighborhood.
We want everything -- our stormwater drainage. We learned last
night that in 1900 the Lakewood area was a golf course and Old Beach
was marsh and we had lots of mosquitos. So, we know that we were
built on marsh and that's why we have so many drainage problems.
We're asking you to consider traffic. Turning left on Norfolk Avenue
is a problem. Mr. Ryto from Terrapin Hills [sic], Mr. Roberts from
Sawgrass, Mr. Dowe from Pinewood. They all have asked for your
support and sent letters for your support to have open space. I did
bring an article from the Oceana Flight Plan. Listening to citizens'
concerns for the past several years, one of the things I have learned
about noise -- and it can be noise from music and it can be noise
1t
October 23, 2001
from people slamming their car doors. It can be any type of noise.
But the noise with the jets and potential for a crash zone, if you
look at our high density area where we live, it is in the high
density area for noise and for the crash zone.
So, take in mind our traffic concerns, our open space concerns and
our neighborhood projects in the Comp Plan and I thank each one of
you very much.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
I thank you for your comments. Any
questions? Mrs. Eure. Excuse me.
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
Mrs. Nixon.
MARY ANNE NIXON:
Yes, ma'am.
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
did I not?
Now, Parks Avenue will probably be open.
I think I heard the developer agree to that;
MARY ANNE NIXON:
Yes, ma' am.
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
It surprised me because previously they said
it wasn't open. So, that really surprised
me tonight. But with that open and the trail in place, are you still
opposed to this?
Also, let me make one other qualification. The Open Space Committee
has decided that they did not think this was a piece of land that
they would buy. So, that decision has pretty much been made and with
parks going through it and the trail, do you still oppose the
development as it's proposed including those different things?
MARY ANNE NIXON:
opened.
Thank you for asking that question.
I am in support of Parks Avenue being
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
Okay.
12
October 23, 2001
MARY ANNE NIXON: And this is a beautiful development that
they have planned. It is high density. We
really don't need anymore density in that area, but that plan is a
beautiful plan compared to many plans that we have seen. They have
collaborated and worked very hard and I would prefer -- and I'm sorry
to hear that open space is not being considered.
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
MARY ANNE NIXON:
No, you're not going to get it.
Thank you very much for letting me know.
But if it's not going to be open space, this
plan is more acceptable than most of the plans that I have seen and
they really have done a good job working with staff.
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
MARY A/qNE NIXON:
And I thank you for being so gracious.
Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
VICE PI~YOR SESSOMS:
Thank you for your comments.
CITY CLERK:
Jim Flanagan.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Good evening, Mr. Flanagan, and welcome.
JIM FLANAGAN: Thank you. I am the President of the Civic
LeagUe in Shadowlawn and I have two -- this
is a letter from one of the ladies who was unable to attend because
of medical problems and a package for each of you also giving our
background position and our feelings with regard to this plan of the
development. By and large we follow with the same thought process as
Mrs. Nixon in that we would very much prefer to have this remain as
open space.
It would be adjacent to the multi-use bike path along Norfolk Avenue,
as I described to the developers when they came into our Civic League
Meeting, in terms of the lesser of evils. They don't care to hear of
it described in that fashion. But in terms of the lesser of evils
compared to the gas station that we fought to a standstill last year
or some other potential alternative use of that property, the efforts
13
October 23, 2001
that they put together in terms of designing this appeared to be
resulting in a very attractive project.
Our concern I think more than anything else was this had been
indicated for a period of eight or nine months either very close to
the top or on the top of the list of the parcels that were being
considered for open space acquisition by the City, and along about in
the August time frame it suddenly fell off based upon a one to'
two-line comment in the Pilot and we've been trying to find out since
August why it fell off the list, why it disappeared off the list of
the open space group who was supposed to be looking at different
parcels to buy. I have tried a number of different ways to determine
why it fell off the list and have yet to be given any hint.
Councilwoman Eure appeared to have an idea perhaps of why.
you could explain that if you wouldn't mind.
Perhaps
COUNCIL LADY EURE: Well, I happened to serve as liaison on the
Open Space Committee. It was on their
priority list and we did take the tour of all the properties that
were on the priority list and when we got back to that one the
general feeling was that it really was -- the trail is going to be
there anyway.
So with that in mind, the feeling that I got and I can just express
to you my feelings about why they took it off is that it would be a
better use of taxpayer's money not to buy it and to let that remain
on the tax role. But it was clearly understood that it was not their
desire to see it go commercial either. So, it's like anything else,
you have to prioritize. They did prioritize them and that did fall
off the list and they were the reasons.
Plus, I think staff made some comments that there was not a lot you
could do with the property other than the trail going through there
and that it would be better to leave it on the tax roles and that's
the best explanation. Someone else may add something.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Does anyone have any questions for
14
October 23, 2001
Mr. Flanagan?
COUNCIL LADY HENLEY:
I don't have a question for him --
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:'
Mrs. Henley.
COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: -- just a comment. Of course, the Open
Space Committee is an advisory group only,
an advisory group to this Body. This Body is the Body that makes the
final decisions on which properties to purchase or not to purchase.
I think a part of the problem is because this property was in this
very process, had a plan and the concern of possibly interfering
inappropriately with plans that were in process. I just have a
question I guess, maybe.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Do you need Mr. Flanagan for anything?
COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Yes.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Okay.
COUNCIL LADY HENLEY:
quite some time.
Because you-all have apparently been
following this concern of this area for
JIM FLANAGAN:
Very closely, yes, ma'am.
COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: And the cul-de-sacing of Cypress and
Mediterranean and the cut-through of Parks
I'm just really -- I think you and Mrs. Nixon mentioned this being a
long time CIP Project and so forth. Not having been nearly as
involved as the District Councilwoman with this, I'm really not clear
how this is working and how it's going to impact this property. How
it's going to impact that particular piece of property I really can't
speak to. But in terms of rationale in listening to the traffic
management people, their feeling is that having Cypress and
Mediterranean only one block apart does not divide the volume of
15
October 23, 2001
traffic feeding onto Norfolk Avenue appropriately if you close off
the Cypress Avenue entrance on Norfolk Avenue and you have only
parks.
The fact you have a- two-block spacing will make it easier for people
to get out on Mediterranean, which is where the majority of people
from our neighborhood come out of or from the Pinewood area that
feeds onto Norfolk Avenue.
There is apparently a fair amount of design involvement more so than
I can understand, but that's what's been explained to me by your City
people.
COUNCIL LADY HENLEY:
Was this the proposal that came out of the
community or came to the community?
JIM FLANAGAN:
Shadowlawn side.
It came out of the Pinewood area I think
more than our side. We are from the
It's more of an issue that would impact them.
It provides direct access from the Fire Department into their
community and ours, because it's a direct shot from the Fire
Department down that street into both our neighborhoods.
COUNCIL LADY HENLEY:
I'm just having trouble envisioning this.
COUNCILMAN BRANCH:
Mediterranean would not be closed.
JIM FLAblk~:
No.
COUNCIL LA/DY HENLEY:
I thought someone mentioned that it would.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Are there any other questions, Mr. Flanagan?
JIM FLANAGAN: I just would ask one more thing. When you
have an open space group like that and you
do have properties that are of high interest by the neighborhoods and
someone decides to knock it off for whatever reason, it would be
certainly helpful if some insight was given to the c~mmunities that
16
October 23, 2001
were involved because we have tried now through even some members of
your Council to find out why it was dropped and were unable to find
out, which kind of gives us a difficult appearance from the
standpoint of; okay, who is really in charge of all that is going on?
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Well, I think Mrs. Henley hit the nail on
the head. The Council would make the final
decision whether the piece of property is going to be acquired
or not.
JIM FLANAGAN: But apparently it was dropped off the list.
It has been for quite a while and some of
you folks weren't even aware of it.
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
No.
JIM FI2~NAGAN:
No.
COUNCIL LADY EURE: I'm sorry. Mr. Sessoms, that's just been a
very recent occurrence. It's only been
what, Mrs. Henley, a couple of months when we went on tour? Maybe in
August.
COUNCIL LADY HENLEY:
Late summer.
COUNCIL LADY EURE: And it clearly was a recommendation that
within the Committee actually, you know, it
would be Council's purview but they do recommend -- but it was just
recent and I apologize. The person to call in the future would be
the Parks and Rec Director.
JIM FLANAGAN: We tried that and they indicated they
weren't aware either as to why. It was
reported that it was a done-deed in the Pilot, which of course is the
fountain of knowledge.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
You are very savvy. Mr. Flanagan, thank you
very much for your comments. We appreciate
17
October 23, 2001
you being here tonight.
COUNCIIRdAN HAI~RISON:
I suggest we all go down and drink from that
fountain after the Meeting.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Any other speakers? Mr. Branch.
COUNCILMAN BRANCH:
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Thank you.
Oh, Oh, rebuttal. Guys, you can tell I
don't do this often.
EDDIE BOURDON: Just briefly. Because I can't wait to get
down and have a drink from that fountain as
well. The thing I wanted to mention because of the Parks Avenue
issue -- we believe, did believe and still do believe that having an
entrance from Cypress Avenue and not putting Parks Avenue through
would be best for this development. But having said that, it's in
the CIP. You-all approved the CIP that that's what's going to
happen. We recognize that that's what the community wants.
So, we have agreed to do that. It doesn't make the development
better, but even with that it is a better development by far more
than anything else that's out there now on that side or all up and
down Norfolk Avenue.
It is not our first choice, but we certainly can read the handwriting
on the wall and we certainly want to do what's best in the eyes of
the neighborhood.
Mary Anne's question of signage, if you 10ok at our site plan, we are
showing a sign on one corner of our property and obviously the
signage can be put in the City's 70-foot area where the bike path is,
but if not my clients have indicated they are certainly
willing -- let's see. This is our property and this is the bike path
here, which is a 70-foot wide area. We are going to have signage
here, but the community can put signage here if they would like, if
the City doesn't wish to have it out here in the public property,
which you could do with an encroachment. But, that's just an offer.
18
October 23, 2001
We would be glad to do that.
There will be flower beds on both sides of our property and landscape
along the entrance, which again is going to compliment the
landscaping the City will put in that 70 feet that they own. Most of
the property is Zone I-1 by right. That gives you a lot of uses that
don't have to come before anybody to be put in. There is 60% of this
property, including self-storage warehouses and other types of uses
that the community doesn't want and we think is the best alternative
and I won't repeat the laundry list, but there is a long, long
list -- the beach, the Boardwalk, golf courses right on down the
Road, Rudee Loop. You name it.
The City is spending a lot of money in this area and has spent to
provide open space and recreational opportunities, not just for the
residents, but for the people who come to visit us and this area
benefits from all of those, and to spend an additional well over
$500,000 to buy this valuable piece property, which isn't on a body
of water and doesn't have anything environmentally beautiful about it
to preserve it, just doesn't seem to us to make great sense.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Thank you, Mr. Bourdon.
Mr. Bourdon?
Any questions for
COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: When I went through the Agenda, I didn't see
the drawing where you have Parks Avenue
coming through. Now, the site plan you're giving us tonight, you're
going to build Parks Avenue there?
EDDIE BOURDON: That's been in the Agenda. That's been in
the proffers. The City has had it for close
to two months, because this Meeting has been delayed because of the
unfortunate events of September llth.
So, it should be in your Agenda package.
explain why it's not.
If it's not, I can't
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Mr. Lilley.
19
October 23, 2001
EDDIE BOURDON:
We agreed to that you know. We agreed to
that over 2 1/2 to 3 months ago.
CITY ATTORNEY: Mr. Sessoms, my question is probably either
to Mr. Bourdon or the staff. I'm not sure
which, but I'm a little confused, because when I look at the proffers
there is no mention of building a road. It proffers the site plan
and the site plan says reservation. But, Mr. Bourdon, when you spoke
earlier you said it was going to be a dedication, not a reservation
and that there was an agreement to build the road, that the City
would pay the price that's in the CIP.
EDDIE BOURDON: Because this is in the CIP right now, we
have met with representatives of Public
Works who have told us if the rezoning is approved since it is in the
CIP, all it's showing now is that we are going to reserve the
right-of-way for the City, but we're building it based on that
right-of-way going through. We have said and are saying it today
that we will dedicate it versus reserve it. Ail that was asked for
was that it be reserved and that's what the staff recommendation was.
Subsequently in talking with representatives from Public Works, you
know, because it's in the C.I.P. and because it just makes sense if
we are going to do it let's go ahead and do it. We've agreed that we
will not just reserve it we will dedicate it to the City and we will
build it with the development of this property because we believe it
will be there before the City is. That's what we've been told in
terms of the timing of the CIP Project.
So if that is, in fact, the case we will build it because it's
already been budgeted for. We would be reimbursed just the cost of
constructing it, which would be less expensive than the City just to
construct that portion of road.
So, I don't think it needs to be in the proffer agreement. Although
if someone feels that that's an issue, we certainly can do that.
CITY ATTORNEY:
It's not my position, of course, to ask that
20
October 23, 2001
one way or the other.
understand the difference.
I was just trying to
EDDIE BOURDON: We put in the plan what was requested of us,
but then in subsequent conversations with
Public Works and trying to get, you know, clear on where things were
going with the Road -- you know we've agreed to do that in addition
to simply reserving it.
COUNCII24AN HA/~RISON:
I hope that clarifies it.
Well, I agree with Mr. Bourdon. I think the
road is going to get there. Mr. Bourdon, I
think the road is going to get there before the City could ever get
it and it's going to be a much more comprehensive project if we let
the developer build the road up to the City's standards as he is
building his projects.
So, I hope that whoever makes the motion will include that in the
motion.
EDDIE BOURDON:
We're glad to do that.
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
Can we do that when it's proffered?
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
All right. Mr. Lilley.
CITY ATTORNEY: Responding to Mr. Harrison, we really can't
change the proffer here. That's got to be a
voluntary thing on his part. If we put it in the motion, then you
would technically have to have the proffers changed and he would have
to come back. If he volunteers to do it and you trust that that's
going to happen --
EDDIE BOURDON: Can I try to go at this from a different
direction which may help everybody?
If you look at that plan you're going to approve tonight, there is no
way to get to our property and develop it other than to build the
road. We don't have an entrance from Cypress Avenue. So, when we
come in for site plan approval which we must do, then the City will
at that point during site plan approval say, you've got to put the
21
October 23, 2001
road in.
COUNCILMAN HARRISON:
I agree.
EDDIE BOURDON:
So, you don't have to put it in your motion
because that's the only way we can do it.
COUNCILMAN HARRISON:
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
cut you off there earlier.
rebuttal.
Good point.
Ail right. Okay. Any other questions for
Mr. Bourdon? A/~d, Eddie, I didn't mean to
I apologize. I forgot about your
COUNCILMAN MANDIGO:
Well, if you have to build the road, why
would we pay for that out of the CIP?
EDDIE BOURDON: Because the only reason we're putting the
road in is because it's in your CIP. We
don't even have a right-of-way through there. We would build the
road off -- our entrance off of Cypress Avenue. We're doing this,
because we were asked to do it and we put in the plan exactly what we
were asked to do to reserve the right-of-way.
What's in that plan is exactly what staff -- if you read the
evaluations, it's exactly what we were asked to do and that's what we
have shown.
COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: So if we vote yes on this, then, what we're
saying is that you will build the road and
then we're going to pay you back for the road?
EDDIE BOURDON: Just for the construction of the road, not
for the right-of-way. We're giving you that
because you don't have the right-of-way. That is correct. The
right-of-way doesn't exist today. This parcel has no right-of-way
through it. We are giving you the road, dedicating it -- not
reserving it. What's in the request or the recommendation is to
reserve it, which means that the City would buy it from us because
22
October 23, 2001
again it doesn't exist as a road anywhere. But, we're not going to
reserve it. We're going to dedicate it. We are going to build it,
because it's in your CIP. But it will be the way that we access the
property so you can enforce it by a site plan approval. The site
plan wouldn't be approved without it and that's what we are
requesting to do.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Any other questions of Mr. Bourdon?
COUNCII24AN BRANCH: Yes, Mr. Sessoms. Mr. Scott, I notice that
the staff recommendation is not for approval
and you and I have had conversations. I have had conversations with
you and Mr. White. Let me note what I think are the reasons for the
concern of the staff and then if you could comment.
First off, the Comp Plan calls for a density of this site of
3 1/2-units per acre and this plan is ll-units to the acre.
As everybody can see, it's an unusual piece of property. It's a
triangular shape of property and it abuts something that is a very
needed and necessary Capital Improvement Project, which is coming on
line. That is the Norfolk Avenue Bike Trail and anybody who has been
on Norfolk Avenue knows that right now the roadway is currently the
trail and this -- we've worked on this a long time and I think we are
going to spend about $850,000 on this bike trail when all is said and
done.
Secondly, other than the density you had some concerns about the
design. I understand that the Applicant did make some improvements
since the Planning Commission to the design, but perhaps it's not
where we want it to be.
And thirdly -- and I did talk to the Parks and Rec Department who
frankly have concerns about this project. You're evaluation states
that any development of the site should be coordinated with Public
Works and Parks and Rec Departments in order to make this the right
use of this property and we give the approval to the right project.
So, are those essentially the reasons we discussed and can you
elaborate at all on any of those?
23
October 23, 2001
BOB SCOTT: Yes, I'd like to elaborate a little bit.
Essentially, that's it. I want to talk
about density a little bit. I think that -- you know earlier today
we were talking about another project as it matches up against the
Comprehensive Plan and the need to think in new terms about how the
Comprehensive Plan should be structured in the future. Obviously,
that's something on the Planning Department's mind about every day
these days because we're in that process.
I think we need to be thinking in terms of density and other terms
now. It isn't enough to measure density based on is it higher or
lower than the number assigned to the property next to it. The
ultimate test is how does it look on the property.
This is a very awkwardly shaped property. It's a very narrow
triangle made worse by the fact that Parks Avenue is going to go
through it. We have asked the Applicant to do a number of individual
things since the Application went to the Planning Commission to
change the elevations, to put in the road. He's been very
cooperative. They have done everything we have asked them to do.
Ail of the individual things probably have made it a somewhat better
Application, but I don't think these units fit on that site very
well. I don't think it's going to be an appropriate gateway into the
area from Norfolk Avenue.
I want to emphasize to you that the exercise we are going through
with the neighborhood out there is a pioneering effort. We have said
time and time again that the future of our City is in its
neighborhoods. We have singled out this neighborhood as the first
neighborhood to work extensively with the neighbors out there and
session after session, focus groups, workshops to come up with some
answers as to how we might craft a better neighborhood with the
idea -- you know we could extend this idea to other neighborhoods in
the future.
We need to listen to what these people are saying, but this type of
development you might see something when you look on paper or you
look at that screen up there but to my eye the culprit is the shape
24
October 23, 2001
of the property and the size of the property and I think it is going
to be very difficult to put these on that property and make it look
right in the way of an entrance into this area. I think that that's
a problem for us.
That stood in the way of us recommending approval of it. It's a
difficult piece of property to assign a reasonable use to. I know
the history of it. I know the other things that have been proposed
for it. But, quality -- you just can't say that our idea of quality
is, well, it's better than all the other ideas that were not too good
that came up in the past. It's got to be quality and we had a
problem with -- even though the Applicant has done everything we have
asked him to do, I still think that the issue here is that it is a
very, very difficult piece of property to work with.
COUNCILMAN BRANCH:
Norfolk Avenue.
Council, I know that we have worked hard
with the neighborhoods on both sides of
In talking to Mr. Bourdon about this piece of property, he and I both
agree that an industrial use is not an appropriate use for part of
the property and we know that there was strong opposition to a Food
Mart and a gas station on that piece of property.
I understand Mrs. Henley's comments about not interfering with
Applications with this open space process and, frankly, even though
the Council is the final decision-maker when it comes to the purchase
of open space, none of those recommendations in a priority list form
have come to us yet for us to even discuss. So, this Application is
out way ahead of that.
I would agree with Mr. Bourdon and most of the speakers that in lieu
of open space, residential development would be the best use for this
parcel of property and Mr. Scott, I trust that you would agree with
that as well. Certainly, it doesn't avail itself to any other uses
that I can think of, and discussing with you you agreed with that.
I do have concerns. I think if you look at the site plan and the
25
October 23, 2001
area to the right of the plan, there are two sets of buildings there
so the Applicant could get in the 33-units for the site. I don't
know the economics of the site. I don't know if that number of units
has to drive, you know, the deal itself, but I would like the
opportunity to work'with the Applicant, Public Works and the Parks
and Rec Department, the Planning Department to -- you know my
viewpoint on these things is, if we get a recommendation of what we
don't want then we ought to provide the Applicant with what it is we
do want.
My motion would be to deny this Application or to defer the
Application in order to see if there is something we could come up
with that would meet the approval of our City Departments and meet
their concerns before we go in.
I think January, Mr. Spore, we are going to be constructing this
Norfolk Avenue Bike Trail. So, it is eminent that we will be going
in and developing that trail.
Mr. Bourdon, I leave it to you. If you think a deferral would
benefit, if not, then I would make a motion to deny.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Mr. Bourdon, you have heard Mr. Branch.
What would be your desire?
EDDIE BOURDON:
Mister Vice Mayor and Mr. Branch, I would
like to, before I respond, get some
clarification. In reviewing both the minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting and the staff evaluation of this Application
before the Planning Commission, no mention has ever been put forth
regarding the density of the project or the location of the units on
the property. The first we have heard about that was after I had
finished the rebuttal and we just heard about that.
As Mr. Scott has indicated, we have done everything we have been
asked to do. We weren't asked to reduce the density, not that we
would be able, but it's never even been asked. So that comes as a
bit of a -- shall we say a surprise.
26
October 23, 2001
We have met and designed our landscaping to compliment Parks and
Rec's landscaping for the bike trail and the 70 feet that's going in
regardless and have indicated we will work with them to do whatever
they would ask us to do to enhance it to compliment the landscaping
that they are willing to do.
Now, having said that we certainly will consider a deferral, but it
seems to me looking at it from where we come at it when we have sat
here and have done everything we have been asked to do, what is it
that we are being asked to defer for? If you want to put some
markers out there, because we are sitting here doing what we've been
asked to do by everybody and now we are being told we're not there.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: I think if I could interject, I think the
deferral process would allow you, the
representative and the staff, to get together and see if there is a
way that you-all can come to an agreement, Mr. Bourdon. I don't know
if we are going to be able to give you specific answers on what
exactly we would be looking for. Is that a fair statement,
Mr. Branch?
COUNCILMAN BRANCH: Yes. Also, I don't believe the Council had
the revised site plan in their package to
look at this particular situation. It's not in my package. But,
you know, if you have done everything that's been asked and the
recommendation is still denial then --
EDDIE BOURDON: Quite candidly we were told by lower level
staff two months ago that having done
everything that had been asked they anticipated the recommendation
would be approval and this came up at the eleventh hour. We would
just ask to know how long that the deferral would be anticipated to
be for.
COUNCILMAN BRANCH:
I would think a 30-day deferral,
Mr. Bourdon.
27
EDDIE BOURDON:
October 23, 2001
Ail right.
deferral.
We will go along with a 30-day
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Do you have a motion, then Mr. Branch?
COUNCILMAN BRANCH:
I make a motion to defer this issue until
what Meeting, Mrs. Smith?
CITY CLEP~K:
November 27th.
COUNCII24AN BRANCH:
The November 27th Meeting.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Does anybody have a second?
COUNCIL LADY PARKER: Second.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
I've got a second. Any discussion?
for the question, please.
Call
CITY CLERK:
By a vote of 10 to 0 you have deferred for
30 days until November 27th, Mr. Bourdon.
EDDIE BOURDON:
Thank you very much.
COUNCIL LADY PARKER: I just have one comment though and this is
irrespective of this particular one, but I'm
going to pick on this because it happens to be before us. The
numbers -- I think you said something like $500,000 for the cost for
this piece of property and I'm not sure that the City of Virginia
Beach is in the business of making sure that the economics of a
particular development will work, because we're not in the business
of ensuring land cost. I think we have to look at the long term of
what really fits and what really works for a piece of the property.
So, I think we need to be very careful of that. I'm not picking on
you-all in particular, but I have heard that before on other issues
and it's not our job to ensure that the value is met in the long
term. So, we just need to be careful we don't get in that position.
28
October 23, 2001
But the zoning that's on the property that's what sets the value.
COUNCIL LADY PA/~KER:
Well --
EDDIE BOURDON:
This is an agriculturally zoned property.
COUNCIL LADY PARKER: I understand that, but I think there is
great expectations there.
VICE MAYOR SESSOMS:
Thank you. That will conclude the Planning
Items. We will now move to Appointments.
29
· OFFICER'S C~RTIFICATE
The undersigned, as Vice President and Assistant Secretary ofVoiccStream GSM IL LLC, ("the
Company") docs hereby certify that G. A. Engelland, Regional Corporate Counsel, is authorized
to negotiate and enter into Master Conslruction Service Agreements on behalf of the Company as
necessary or desirable for the continued operation of the Company.
Date: July 5, 2001
VoiceStream GSM H, LLC
David A. Miller, Vice President and Assist~t Sceretary
1~205~38~S~eet Gelev~.~.WA cJK06
VoiceStreamO Wireless
Fact Sheet
.. Hsta.blished:
H~dquirters:
Management:
lt~,ssiom
P.;mployees:
Covered POI% -
Technology
Platform:
John Stanton, Chairman, Director, and Chief Executive Officer
Bob Stapleton, Pzeddmt and l:azector
Don G~il,,ie, Vice Chakman and Director
C. resg Baumbau~h, F, xecutive Vice Pregdent: - P~mn::e, Stratesy &
,~,~ Bender, F. xecuflve Vice President, General Coumel, & Secretary
Robert Dotean, Senior Vice Preside~- Marketin~
Tim Won~ Senior Vice Presiden~- P. ngineez~ng
Patrida Miller, Vice ~esi_d~t, Contror~er, &: Pnlncipal. Aa:ounth~ Officer
To provide tire best value in all.-disital personal comim~catiom services
(PCb3 offering customers the most mim~tes, the most features, and the.most
nationwide
VoiceStream currently of~rs PCS servic~ in Seattle and Sl:~kane,
Poflland, Oze.; Boise, Idaho; Salt 'r -.-~e Cit'F, Utah; Phoenix, A.,iz.; Denver,
Colo.; Honolulu, Hawaii; Albuquerque, N.M.; E1 Paso, Texas; Des Moines,
Iowa; Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Olda.; Wklfita, Kan., and Cheyenne,
VoiceStr~,,~ has acquired licenses to provi~le service in Dallas, Austin and
San ~, Texas; Cb!_,~So, ~I.; Chtclmmti, Cleveland and Dayton, Ohio;
Nor/olk and Ridunond, Va.; St. Lou~, Mo.; 1,~lwaukee, Wis.; San ~,
C~; and Little Rock, Ark. ' ' -
Global System for Mobile Communications (GSbl), the international
standard for digital wireless convnurdcations.
Item #23
Voice Stream Wireless
Page 2
AYE10 NAY0 ABS1 ABSENT0
ATKINSON AYE
BAUM AYE
CRABTREE AYE
DIN AYE
HORSLEY AYE
MILLER
RIPLEY AYE
SALLE AYE
STRANGE AYE
VAKOS AYE
WOOD AYE
ABS
Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10 to 0 with Bob Miller abstaining on items 8, 12, 16, 17, 18 and 19,
23 and Betsy on item #16. Thank you.
Item #23
Voice Stream Wireless
Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower
West side of North Witchduck Road
District 2
Kempsville
January 9, 2002
CONSENTAGENDA
Dorothy Wood: The last consent agenda item is Voice Stream Wireless, #23. Conditional use
permit for a communications tower on the west side of North Witchduck Road. North of 1-264,
District 2, Kempsville and it has 7 conditions.
Bill Gambrell: Thank you again for letting me speak so briefly. The conditions are acceptable. If
there are questions about any of the conditions of the applications filed by Voice Stream you can
always contact me at my office. Thank you again for your consideration today.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any opposition to this consent agenda item?
John Baum: And his name is Bill Gambrell.
Dorothy Wood: Mr. Gambrell.
Bill Gambrell: Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve the thirteen consent agenda items.
Number one with two conditions.., remove that, sorry. Number three with six conditions, #5
with four conditions, #7 with seven conditions, #8 with 10 conditions, g9 with five conditions,
#11 with four conditions, #12 with three conditions, #14 with four conditions, #16, #17 with four
conditions and #23 with seven conditions.
Ronald Ripley: Did you get 18 and 19 also?
Dorothy Wood: Seventeen, 18 and 19 with four conditions.
Ronald Ripley: That is the motion, did we have a second?
Betsy Atkinson: I have to abstain on item #i6. I am related to the applicant.
Robert Miller: And I need to abstain from items number 8, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 23. My firm is
working on those projects.
Ronald Ripley: Anything else? Call for the question.
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 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 th.e 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.
Print Name
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
VOICESTREAM WIRELESS / # 23
Page 8
VoiceStr
(tower d;
.~am.
;tail)
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
VOICESTREAM WIRELESS / # 23
Page 7
'VoiceStream
(site layout)
Planning Commission Agenda January 9, 2002
VOICESTREAM WIRELESS / # 23
Page 6
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 all
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
January 9, 2002
VOICESTREAM WIRELESS / # 23
Page 5
along this roadway that were located by Virginia Department of Transportation. The
tower will be a monopole structure capable of supporting four users. This request for a
135 foot tall monopole communications tower is recommended for approval with the
following conditions.
Conditions
o
The tower shall be constructed in accordance with the site plan exhibited to City
Council titled '~Vitchduck Raw Land VA 10341 E" prepared by Miller Stephenson
Associates, P.C. and dated November 8, 2001. The tower height is 135 feet
above ground level and the tower shall be a monopole structure.
The future equipment shelters shown on the site plan shall be required to obtain
a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals to the setback requirement from
Interstate 264. If a variance is not granted, the future equipment shelters shall be
relocated to meet the required setback at the time of construction.
Landscaping in accordance with ordinance requirements shall be installed and
maintained by Voicestream.
The tower shall be designed to accommodate additional users.
Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of
Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency
emmissions study, (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to
practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will
not interfere with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities,
shall be provided prior to site plan approval for the original tower user and all
subsequent users.
In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities
arises from the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably
necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be
eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation
to the extent necessary to stop the interference.
In the event that the tower is not in use for a period of one year, the owner shall
remove the tower from the site.
Planning Commission Agenda January 9, 2002
VOICESTREAM WIRELESS / # 23
Page 4
Fire and Adequate
Rescue:
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recommends industrial and similar land in this area.
Site Plan/Conformance with Section 232
· There are several existing communication towers in the surrounding area. The
ordinance requires that a study of existing towers be completed to determine if there
is any opportunity to co-locate on an existing site. The applicant has provided a
propagation study that identifies the existing towers. The study concludes that the
tower space available on the existing towers is not at a height that will allow
Voicetream to cover the surrounding industrial area, 1-264 as well as the Witchduck
Road/Virginia Beach Boulevard intersection. There is no opportunity to co-locate on
existing towers at the 135 foot height needed to launch initial service to the targeted
area.
· The tower meets the setbacks required by the zoning ordinance. The equipment
building for Voicestream also meets the required setbacks, however, the equipment
building locations shown on the plan for future users do not meet the required
setbacks.
· The tower is proposed at 135 feet above ground level in height and will be designed
as a monopole to accommodate Voicestream antennas as well as three other users.
The applicant has provided a satisfactory structural report and NIER report in
accordance with ordinance requirements.
Evaluation of Request
The request for a 135 foot tall monopole communications tower is acceptable. The
applicant has provided evidence that there are no opportunities to co-locate on existing
towers already in the area at the height required for the initial launch of service in the
surrounding area. The applicant has located the tower so that it will not be obtrusive to
the existing office buildings. Although the tower will be visible from 1-264, it is not
considered obtrusive, as there are already several existing towers of similar height
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
VOICESTREAM WIRELESS / # 23
Page 3
Major Issues:
· Compatibility with
surrounding area
Land Use, Zoning,
and Site
Characteristics:
_Existinq Land Use and
Zoning
The subject site is a vacant
parcel zoned I-1 Industrial
Distdct
Surrounding Land Use and
Zoning
North:
South:
East:
West:
_,Z'oninc~ History
· Office buildings zoned I-1 Industrial Distdct
· Interstate 264
· Office buildings zoned I-1 Industrial Distdct
· Office :buildings zoned I-1 Industrial District
There have been several use permits for communication towers granted in the subject
area as shown on the zoning history map.
Air Installation Com atible Use Zone AICUZ
The site is in an AICUZ area of 65-70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana.
Public Facilities and Services
,Public Safety
Police: Adequate
Planning Commission Agenda January 9, 2002
VOICESTREAM WIRELESS / # 23
Page 2
VOICESTREAM WIRELESS / # 23
January 9, 2002
General Information:
REQUEST:
ADDRESS:
Conditional Use Permit for communications tower
West of North Witchduck Road, north of Interstate 264
.o~ .o~ ~o s~,e Voice Stream
Wireless
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
1467-74-6222
1467-74-6222
2 - KEMPSVILLE
1.8 acres more or less
Barbara Duke
Planning Commission Agenda January 9, 2002
VOICESTREAM WIRELESS / # 23
Page I
Voice Stream VVireless
Page 2
o
The tower shall be designed to accommodate additional users.
Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of
Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emmissions
study, (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to practice in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will not interfere with any
City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities, shall be provided prior to
site plan approval for the original tower user and all subsequent users.
In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from
the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably necessary to
correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within
a reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation to the extent necessary
to stop the interference.
In the event that the tower is not in use for a period of one year, the owner shall remove
the tower from the site.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
Voice Stream VVireless, Conditional Use Permit
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2002
Background:
An Ordinance upon Application by Voice Stream Wireless for a Conditional Use Permit for a
communication tower on the west side of North VVitchduck Road, north of 1-264 and contains
1.8 acres (GPIN #1467-74-6222). DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE.
Considerations:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a communications tower.
The Planning Commission placed ~this item on the consent agenda because the tower will
allow four users, staff recommended approval and there was no opposition to the request.
Recommendations:
A motion was passed by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 10 for the motion
with 1 abstention to approve this request subject to the following conditions:
The tower shall be constructed in accordance with the site plan exhibited to City
Council titled "witchduck Raw Land VA 10341 E" prepared by Miller Stephenson
Associates, P.C. and dated November 8, 2001. The tower height is 135 feet above
ground level and the tower shall be a monopole structure.
The future equipment shelters shown on the site plan shall be required to obtain a
variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals to the setback requirement from Interstate
264. If a variance is not granted, the future equipment shelters shall be relocated to
meet the required setback at the time of construction.
Landscaping in accordance with ordinance requirements shall be installed and
maintained by Voicestream.
Attachments:
Staff Review
Planning Commission Minutes
Disclosure Statement
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission
;euC~mmi~ienn;SD~Par~t~na~nt/Agency: Planning Department
Map D-7
Hop Not to Sco]e
Voice Stream Wireless
5
R-lO
Crpin : 1467-74-6222
ZONING HISTORY
1. Conditional Use Permit for Communication Tower- Granted 08/23/94
2. Conditional Use Permit for Communication Tower - Granted 09/29/96
3. Conditional Use Permit for Communication Tower- Granted 02/01/00
4. Conditional Use Permit for Outside Storage - Granted 12/12/83
5. Conditional Use Permit (Salvage Operation) - Granted 12/06/94
Modification of Conditions (Salvage Operation) - Granted 04/10/01
6. Conditional Use Permit (Car Wash) - Granted 07/09/90
Applicant's Name:
List All Current
Property Owners:
DISCLOSURE 'STATEMENT
PROPERTY OWNER DIS CLOSURE
ff the property owner is a CORPORATION, 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 member__s 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 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.
Signature
Print Name
Item #3
Voice Stream Wireless
Page 2
MILLER AYE
RIPLEY AYE
SALLE AYE
STRANGE AYE
VAKOS AYE
WOOD AYE
Ronald Ripiey: By a vote of 10 to 0 with Bob Miller abstaining on items 8, 12, 16, 17, 18 and 19,
23 and Betsy on item #16. Thank you. (No one abstained on this item therefore vote is 11 to 0).
Item #3
Voice Stream Wireless
Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower
5740 Bayside Road
District 4
Bayside
January 9, 2002
CONSENT AGENDA
Dorothy Wood: The second consent agenda is Voice Stream Wireless. A conditional use permit
for a communications tower on the south side of Bayside Road, west of Baker Road. District 4
with six conditions.
Bill Gambrell: Mr. Chairman and vice-chairman congratulations on your new election. I
represent Voice Stream Wireless. My name is Bill Gambrell we read the conditions and they
all acceptable, are
Dorothy Wood: Is there any opposition to this item? Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve the
thirteen consent agenda items. Number one with two conditions.., remove that, sorry. Number
three with six conditions, #5 with four conditions, #7 with seven conditions, #8 with 10
conditions, g9 with five conditions, #11 with four conditions, #12 with three conditions, #14 with
four conditions, #16, #17 with four conditiOns and g23 with seven conditions.
Ronald Ripley: Did You get 18 and 19 also?
Dorothy Wood: Seventeen, 18 and 19 with four conditions.
Ronald Ripley: That is the motion, did we have a second?
Betsy Atkinson: I have to abstain on item #16. I am related to the applicant.
Robert Miller: And I need to abstain from items number 8, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 23. My firm is
working on those projects.
Ronald Ripley: Anything else? Call for the question.
AYEIO NAY0 ABS1
ATKINSON AYE
BAUM AYE
CRABTREE AYE
DIN AYE
HORSLEY AYE
ABSENT 0
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
VOICE STREAM WIRELESS / # 3
Page 10
\
'1
/:
/
!
,/
VoiceStream Wireless
(proposed landscaping)
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
VOICE STREAM WIRELESS / # 3
Page 9
PROPOSED
VOt C~:$TI~r.A~ - r
BTS [~XJF'~E~T ~ .:
E~I~ENT
PC
VoiceStream Wireless
(proposed tower
installation plan)
Page 8
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
VOICE STREAM WIRELESS / # 3
/
!
/
!
/
?
112.5'
VoiceStream Wireless
(proposed site plan-
detail)
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
VOICE STREAM WIRELESS ! # 3
Page 7
(6)
.i
unur~ ~.~xt~vr ~ r~
(4)'
D. SOJO4T '(ll.B.
Iai, P~ 29) -
(3)
VoiceStream Wireless
(proposed site plan)
Planning Commission Agenda January 9, 2002
VOICE STREAM WIRELESS / # 3
Page 6
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 all
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
January 9, 2002
VOICE STREAM WIRELESS / # 3
Page 5
zoned area to meet their needs. The setting as well as the surrounding zoning makes
this a logical site to construct a communications tower. As is typical of towers within
existing electrical transmission towers, the facility can accommodate only one provider.
Structurally, the one provider scenario offers the safest design. It is staff's opinion that
this request is consistent With the requirements of the ordinance in terms of the
proposed location as well as the technical information provided.
Conditions
o
The monopole communications tower shall be constructed as depicted on the
submitted site plan entitled "Voice Stream Wireless Thurston Road / Dominion
Tower #1, 5740 Bayside Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23455," prepared by Atlantis
Group, Inc., dated October 19, 2001.
The tower and antennas shall not exceed 130 feet in height.
Landscaping shall be installed as depicted on page L-1 of the Landscape Plan
entitled "Voice Stream Wireless Thurston Road / Dominion Tower #1, 5740
Bayside Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23455," prepared by Atlantis Group, Inc.,
dated October 19, 2001.
The communication tower shall be developed in standard gray color. In the
event that the Federal Aviation Administration or other licensing entity requires
that the tower be painted, the height of the tower shall be reduced to a level that
will not require it to be painted~
Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of
Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency
emissions study (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to
practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will
not interfere with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities,
shall be provided prior to site plan approval for the tower and all subsequent
users.
In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities
arises from the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably
necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be
eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation
to the extent necessary to stop the interference.
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
VOICE STREAM WIRELESS / # 3
Page 4
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana.
Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics
There are no significant environmental features on this site. The property is located
within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Public Facilities and Services
Public Safety
Police: Adequate.
Fire and Adequate.
Rescue:
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as suitable for a variety of employment
uses, including business parks, offices, appropriately located industrial uses, and
employment support uses.
Site Plan / Conformance with Section 232
· A structural engineering report and a report addressing NIER (non-ionizing
electromagnetic radiation) requirements have been submitted.
The application meets the intent of 232 (a) (4) as the applicant proposes to construct
the tower within the confines of an existing Virginia Power tower. The
communications tower will extend approximately 17 feet above the transmission
tower. While the proposed tower is only designed to accommodate one provider,
staff views this as a co-location due to the existing transmission line tower.
Evaluation of Request
This request for a Conditional Use Permit is acceptable subject to the attached
conditions. The applicant's proposal utilizes an existing structure within an industrially
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
VOICE STREAM WIRELESS / # 3
Page 3
Major Issues:
Degree to which a tower on this site will negatively impact surrounding
properties.
Consistency of the proposal with the provisions of Section 232 of the City
Zoning Ordinance.
Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics:
Existin,q Land Use and Zoninn~
The proposed tower will be installed within the existing Virginia Power transmission
tower and is within an existing Virginia Power Easement. The property is currently
zoned I-1 Light Industrial District.
Surroundin,q Land Use and Zonin,q
North:
South:
East:
West:
· wooded area, vacant / I-1 Light Industrial District
· office warehouse / I-1 Light Industrial Distdct
· wooded area / I-1 Light Industrial District
· trucking facility, vacant parcel/I-1 Light Industrial
District:
Zonin.q Histon/
A communications tower was
approved by City Council on a
parcel to the south, near the
terminus of Baker Road, on
October 2, 2001 (#1 on map).
Other activity in the area includes
a car wash (#2), fuel sales (#4)
and a street closure (#3), all
during the 1980s.
Ma~ C-$
Voice Stream
COin
Wireless
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
VOICE STREAM WIRELESS / # 3
Page 2
VOICE STREAM WIR
General Information:
REQUEST:
ADDRESS:
Conditional Use Permit for communications tower
East of 5740 Bayside Road
Mal~ C-$
Voice Stream
LESS/#31
January 9, 2002
Wireless
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
1496-05-4101
4- BAYSIDE
4.842 acres
Carolyn A.K. Smith
G~in 1469-05-4101
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
VOICE STREAM WIRELESS / # 3
Page I
Voice Stream
Page 2
o
Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23455," prepared by Atlantis Group, Inc., dated October
19, 2001.
The communication tower shall be developed in standard gray color. In the event that
the Federal Aviation Administration or other licensing entity requires that the tower be
painted, the height of the tower shall be reduced to a level that will not require it to be
painted.
Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of
Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emissions
study (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to practice in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will not interfere with any
City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities, shall be provided prior to
site plan approval for the tower and all subsequent users.
In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from
the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably necessary to
correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within a
reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation to the extent necessary to
stop the interference.
In the event that the tower is not in use for a period of one year, the owner shall remove
the tower from the site.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
Voice Stream Wireless, Conditional Use Permit
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2002
Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Voice Stream Wireless for a Conditional Use Permit for a
communication tower on the south side of Bayside Road, west of Baker Road (GPIN #1469-
05-4101). Said parcel is located at 5740 Bayside Road and contains 4.842 acres. DISTRICT
4 - BAYSIDE.
Considerations:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a communications tower.
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposed
tower is in keeping with location criteria outlined in the City Zoning Ordinance, particularly in
since it will be located on an existing Virginia Power transmission tower, staff recommended
approval and there was no opposition to the request.
Recommendations:
A motion was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 11-0 to
approve this request subject to the following conditions:
The monopole communications tower shall be constructed as depicted on the
submitted site plan entitled "Voice Stream Wireless Thurston Road / Dominion
Tower #1,5740 Bayside Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23455," prepared by Atlantis
Group, Inc., dated October 19, 2001.
2. The tower and antennas shall not exceed 130 feet in height.
3. Landscaping shall be installed as depicted on page L-1 of the Landscape Plan
entitled "Voice Stream Wireless Thurston Road / Dominion Tower #1,5740 Bayside
Attachments:
Staff Review
Planning Commission Minutes
Disclosure Statement
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission
recommends approval. (~
Submitting Department(Agency: Planning Department
City Manager: (~~. ~~
Ma~ C~$
M,~iD Not t,o Seole
Voice Stream
~SS
P~
ZONING HISTORY
1. Conditional Use Permit (monopole communications tower) - Granted 10-2-01
2. Conditional Use Permit (car wash) - Granted 9-6-88
3. Street Closure-Granted 10-5-87
4. Conditional Use Permit (auto service & grocery) - Granted 10-26-81
The Carlyle Group
Timothy M. Donahue
President, CEO and
Acting Chairman of the Board
NIT Holdings, Inc.
Morgan E. O'Brien
Vice Chairman
Nextel Communications, ]nc.
Keith 3. Bane
Executive Vice President and
President, Global Strategy and
Development
Motorola Inc,
Dennis Weibling
President
Eagle River, Inc.
Craig O. McCaw
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Eagle River, ]nc.
V. 3anet Hill
Vice President
Alexander & Associates, Inc.
William E. Kennard
Managing Director
Telecommunications and Media
The Carlyle Group
3. Timothy Bryan
Chief Financial Officer
Eagle River, Inc.
NEXTC j_"
William E. Conway, Jr.
Chairman of the Board
Timothy M. Donahue
President and Chief Executive Officer, Nextel Communications, Inc.
Acting Chairman of the Board, NT! Holdings, Tnc.
Jim Mooney
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Paul Saleh
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
John Brittain
Vice President and Treasurer
Thomas N. Kelly, Jr.
Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer
Barry :l. West
Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer
Cathy L. Bradley
Senior Vice President and Chief Service Officer
Leonard Kennedy
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
Randall C. Harris
Senior Vice President, Human Resources
Board of Directors
William E. Conwa¥, Ir.
Chairman
Nextel Communications, Inc.,
Frank f4. Drendel
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
CommScope, 1nc.
Directors and Officers
Inc.
':~ J Dig'Ktm
Thes. E. Capps. 65
William S. Barrack, Jr., 71
Ilmmm. Texa~
John W. Harris. 53
Benjamin J. Lamberl. III. 84
Richard L Leathenm3od, 61
Paul E. Le9o, 70
Forme~ Choirmm~ end Chief Executive Officer.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Margaret A. McKema, 55
Steven A. Minter. 62
PmsUeflt and Executive Oilecto~.
Kenneth A. Randall, 73
Cai:crate director ohm~ous ~
Frank S. Royal, M.D., 61
S. Dallas S~lons. 61
LTeitman. Ptm~lent and L'hi.l ExKulive 0ffic~,.
Robert H. Spiiman, 73
errata. S~Je~ ~ ease. v'.ginia
David A. Woflard. 63
Thomas E Farrell. II. 48
IChief Exe(:utive Offlee~ of Oominioo Energy)
H. Pa~ck Riley. 63
(Chief Executive Officer and Pmsidimt of Oominion Expioratim & Production)
Edgar M. Roach. Jr.. 62
Executive Vice Presideot
Thomas N. Chewnblg, 55
James P. O'Hanlon, 67
Robert E Rigs~, 51
Executive V'~ President
,Jame~ L. Truehean. 49
Eva Teig Hardy, 56
(3. Scott Hetzer, 44
dames L Sanderlin, 59
William C. Hall. Jr.. 47
Simon C. Hodges, 39
Karen E Hunter, 46
Vim Pre,dent--Tm
Steven A Rogers, 39
James E Stutts, 56
Pab'icia A.Wilkerson. 45
~pplicant's Name:
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
NEXTRT. COMMUNICATIONS
,ist AH Current
'roperty Owners:
DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary)
SEE LIST ATTACHED HERETO
f the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list
11 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.
f the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below:
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
f the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary)
SEE LIST ATTACHED HERETO
f the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all
nembers 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.
EERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate.
Signature
DARLENE BLACKMON
Print Name
Rev. 9/15/98
Item #5
Nextel Communications
Page 2
HORSLEY AYE
MILLER AYE
RIPLEY AYE
SALLE AYE
STRANGE AYE
VAKOS AYE
WOOD AYE
Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10 to 0 with Bob Miller abstaining on items 8, 12, 16, 17, 18 and 19,
23 and Betsy on item #16. Thank you. (No one abstained on this item therefore vote is 11 to 0).
Item #5
Nextel Communications
Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communications antenna
On property of Dominion Power Substation on the north side of Ansol Lane
District 3
Rose Hall
January 9, 2002
CONSENT AGENDA
Dorothy Wood: The next item is item #5, Nextel Communications for conditional use permit for
a wireless communication antennae on property located Dominion Virginia Power substation the
north side of Ansol Lane, west of Landmark Square. It is District 3, Rose Hall and there are four
conditions. The applicant here? Representative? Kay what would we do on this?
Kay Wilson: You can go ahead. I mean unless you want to make sure they agree with the
conditions you can simply impose the conditions and go forward and see if there is any
opposition.
Dorothy Wood: Is there any opposition to this? Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve the thirteen
consent agenda items. Number one with two conditions.., remove that, sorry. Number three
with six conditions, #5 with four conditions, #7 with seven conditions, #8 with 10 conditions, g9
with five conditions, gl 1 with four conditions, #12 with three conditions, #14 with four
conditions, #16, #17 with four conditions and #23 with seven conditions.
Ronald Ripley: Did you get 18 and 19 also?
Dorothy Wood: Seventeen, 18 and 19 with four conditions.
Ronald Ripley: That is the motion, did we have a second?
Betsy Atldnson: I have to abstain on item #16. I am related to the applicant.
Robert Miller: And I need to abstain from items number 8, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 23. My firm is
working on those projects.
Ronald Ripley: Anything else? Call for the question.
AYE10 NAY0 ABS1 ABSENT0
ATKINSON AYE
BAUM AYE
CRABTREE AYE
DIN AYE
Planning Commission Agenda January 9, 2002
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS / # 5
Page 8
N-' 3475579.977
F.= 12192557.428
P~OPOSE~ 20'
N: 3473544.598
F.: 12192.611.070
LATIIUDE: ~ 50' 15.69' N
r3 IW'ATION: 13.78'
I PROPOSED 11.5' X 20'
I
I
I
LEASE AREA DETAIL
SCN.E: 1"= 10'
GRAPHIC SCALE
Nextel
(proposed site layout-
detail)
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS ! # 5
Page 7
\
\
UN£ TABLE
SITE SURVEY
! !
HUB aND TAC~
Nextel
(proposed site layout)
Planning Commission Agenda ~~~'~
January 9, 2002~~.~.~
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS / # 5
Page 6
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 all
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
January 9, 2002
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS ! # 5
Page 5
Evaluation of Request
The request for a communication tower is acceptable. The applicant is locating the
antenna on top of an existing 100 foot high monopole within the confines of an existing
power substation. The antenna addition is compatible with the substation use. The
proposed communication tower is recommended for approval with the following
conditions.
Conditions
The antenna addition shall be constructed as shown on the site plan titled
"Lynnhaven Co-Locate Dominion Va. Power Tower" by Clark Nexsen and dated
10/12/01 and exhibited to City Council.
A variance to the front yard setback shall be obtained by the Board of Zoning
Appeals to place the equipment shelter where it is shown on the exhibit site plan
referenced in Condition One. If a variance is not granted, the equipment shelter
shall be relocated to meet the required 35 foot front yard setback.
Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of
Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency
emmissions study, (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to
practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will not
interfere with' any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities, shall
be provided pdor to site plan approval for the original tower user and all subsequent
users.
In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises
from the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably
necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be
eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation to
the extent necessary to stop the interference.
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS / # 5
Page 4
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The site is in an AICUZ area of 70-75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana.
Public Facilities and Services
Public Safety
Police: Adequate
Fire and Adequate
Rescue:
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as being suitable for retail, office, and
other compatible uses within commercial areas serving surrounding neighborhoods and
communities.
Site Plan ! Conformance with Section 232
· The applicant is proposing to add an antenna to the top of an existing 100 foot high
monopole. The total height of the monopole after the antenna installation will be 110
feet and 6 inches above ground level.
A small equipment shelter is proposed to the east of the tower, within the existing
fenced power substation area. The equipment shelter does not meet the required
front yard setback of 35 feet in the 0-2 office district. However, there appears to be
room within the lease area proposed for Nextel to relocate this shelter to meet the
setback.
· Landscaping around the equipment shelter has been shown in accordance with
ordinance requirements.
· The applicant has provided a satisfactory structural report and NIER report in
accordance with ordinance requirements.
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS ! # 5
Page 3
Major Issues:
· Compatibility with the surrounding area.
· Consistency with the provisions of Section 232 of the City Zoning Ordinance
(CZO).
Land Use, Zoning,
and Site
Characteristics:
Existin.q Land Use and Zoning
The site is owned by Dominion
Virginia Power and is used as a
substation. The existing zoning is
0-2 Office District.
Surroundinq Land Use and
Zoning
North:
South:
East:
West:
· Single family homes / R-10 Residential District
· Interstate 264
· Offices / B-2 Community Business District
· Single-family home / 0-2 Office District
Zonin(~ History
The zoning pattem in this area reflects a mix of uses and districts. The subject site was
granted a use permit to operate a power substation in 1960. There are no other
rezonings or use permits to report in the surrounding area identified on the zoning
history map.
Planning Commission Agenda ~
January 9, 2002 ~-~'
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS / # 5
Page 2
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS / # 5
January 9, 2002
General Information-.
REQUEST:
ADDRESS:
Conditional Use Permit for communications tower
North side of Ansol Lane, west of Landmark Square
~4a~ H-7
,,~ .o~ ~o sco,e Nextel Communications
G.gin 1497-23-5863
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
1497-23-5863
3 - ROSE HALL
994 square feet
Barbara Duke
Planning Commission Agenda
January 9, 2002
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS / # 5
Page I
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
FROM:
ITEM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
James K. Spore, City Manager
Nextel Communications, Conditional Use Permit
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2002
Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Nextel Communications for a Conditional Use Permit for a
wireless communications antenna on certain property located on property of Dominion Virginia
Power Substation on the north side of Ansol Lane, west of Landmark Square (GPIN #1497-23-
5863). Said parcel contains 994 square feet. DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL.
Considerations:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a communications tower.
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposed
tower is in keeping with location criteria outlined in the City Zoning Ordinance, particularly in
since it will be located with existing Virginia Power transmission facilities, staff recommended
approval and there was no opposition to the request.
Recommendations:
A motion was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 11-0 to
approve this request subject to the following conditions:
The antenna addition shall be constructed as shown on the site plan titled
"Lynnhaven Co-Locate Dominion Va. Power Tower" by Clark Nexsen and dated
10/12/01 and exhibited to City Council.
A variance to the front yard setback shall be obtained by the Board of Zoning
Appeals to place the equipment shelter where it is shown on the exhibit site plan
referenced in Condition One. If a variance is not granted, the equipment shelter
shall be relocated to meet the required 35 foot front yard setback.
Attachments:
Staff Review
Planning Commission Minutes
Disclosure Statement
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission
recommends approval.
Submitting De ~: Planning Department
City Mana(
Nextel Communications
Page 2
o
Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of
Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emmissions
study, (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to practice in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will not interfere with any
City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities, shall be provided prior to
site plan approval for the original tower user and all subsequent users.
In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from
the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably necessary to
correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within a
reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation to the extent necessary to
stop the interference.
5. In the event that the antenna is not in use for a period of one year, the owner shall
remove the antenna and supporting structures from the site.