Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPRIL 9, 2002 AGENDACITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At-Large VICE MAYOR WILLIAM D. SESSOMS, JR., At-Large LINWOOD O. BRANCH, III, Beach - District 6 MARGARET L, EURE, Centerville - District 1 WILLIAM W. HARRISON, JR., Lynnlutven - District $ BARBARA M. HENLEY, Princess Anne - District 7 LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside - District 4 REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3 ROBERT C. MANDIGO, JR., Kempsville - District 2 NANCY K. PARKER, At-Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At-Large JAMES K. SPORE, City Manager LESLIE L. LILLEY, City Attorney RUTH HODGES-SMITH, MMC, City Clerk "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITYHALLBUILDING 1 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-9005 PHONE: (757) 427-4304 FAX: (757) 426-$669 EMAIL: Ctycncl~city. virginia-beach, wzus April9,2002 I. BUDGET WORKSHOP - Conference Room- 2:30 PM H. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS itt. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 5:00 PM A CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. cALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Father Joseph Facura St. Mathews Catholic Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS April2,2002 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES Resolution re re-issuance of the Development Authority's Multi-Family Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds: Tidewater-Oxford Limited Partnership 3001 Reflections Way (ROSE HALL - DISTRICT 3) Not to exceed $26,800,000 Resolution to AUTHORIZE the proposed design (Altemative B) re improvements at the intersection of Princess Anne, Kempsville and Witchduck Roads. Ordinance to AMEND and REORDAIN § 21.321.2 of the City Code re maximum speed limits ("traffic calming") in designated neighborhoods: a. L & J Garden f. Brighton on the Bay b. Acredale g. Baylake Pines c. Lake Shores h. Baylake Beach d. Middle Plantation i. Country Haven e. Little Neck Ordinance to ESTABLISH a Fire and Rescue Station-Ocean Park as a capital improvement project; TRANSFER $850,000 to the project; and, AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute an agreement re purchase of property for the Ocean Park Fire and Rescue Station. PLANNING Application of COLONEL WILLIAM II. and JO A. GALLUP for an enlargement/ conversion of a nonconforming use and add an addition, enclose the deck and shed with a second floor addition to the structure at 304 45~ Street, containing 6,477.5 square feet. (BEACH - DISTRICT 6) Deferred: Recommendation: Applicant requests: March 12, 2002 DENIAL Indefinite Deferral Applications of WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC. at the northeast comer of West Neck and Indian River Roads (3132 West Neck Road), containing 87.215 acres. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) (a) Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance re the thirty (30)-foot minimum pavement width for interior streets (b) Change of Zoning District Classification l~om AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R-15 Residential (c) Conditional Use Permit re Open Space Promotion Deferred: Recommendation: January 22, 2002 February 5, 2002 March 5, 2002 March 26, 2002 APPROVAL Application of EDWARD M. WILLIAMS for a Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) at 1505 Quail Point Road. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of VOiCE STREAM WIRELESS for a Conditional Use Permit re a communication tower at the southeast intersection of Holland Road and Dam Neck Road (3040 Holland Road) containing 400 square feet. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of VIRGINIA BEACH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit re a church/commercial parking lot at the southeast comer of Pacific Avenue and 20th Street on Lot 18, Block 41, Lot 20, Block 41 and Lot 22, Block 41 (208, 210 and 212 20th Street) containing 21,000 square feet. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of SHIRLEY J. DALE for a Conditional Use Permit re a pet crematory on Lot A-22, Princess Anne Hunt Club (2284 London Bridge Road) containing 5.522 acres. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) Recommendation: APPROVAL Ordinance to amend § 1502 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re maximum building heights and hotel density in the RT-1 Resort Tourist District. Recommendation: APPROVAL J. APPOINTMENT 1. CONIMUNITY SERVICES BOARD K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS L. NEW BUSINESS M. ADJOURNMENT If you arc 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) 04/04/02gw AGENDA\04/09/02 www.vbgov.com 2002-2003 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN SCHEDULE - F~NAL Council Workshop Quality Physical Environment Council Conference April 16th Operational Support room Public Hearing Public Comment on Proposed FY 2002-2003 Resource Management Frank W. Cox High April 18' Plan School 6 PM Council Workshop Safe Community Council Conference April 23rd Family and Youth Opportunities room Public Hearing Public Comment on Proposed FY 2002-2003 Resource Management Council Chamber April 23rd Plan 6 PM Council Workshop Reconciliation of outstanding resource issues Council Conference May 9* room 3 PM Adoption of FY 2002-2003 City Council Vote on Resource Management Plan Council Chamber May 14' Resource Management 6 PM Plan (will include Public Hcarin~) April 9,2002 BUDGET WORKSHOP - Conference Room- 2:30 PM II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS ~m. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 5:00 PM 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: Father Joseph Facura St. Mathews Catholic Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION Fo MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS April 2, 2002 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WltEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions o£ The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. H. RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES Resolution re re-issuance of the Development Authority's Multi-Family Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds: Tidewater-Oxford Limited Partnership 3001 Reflections Way (ROSE HALL - DISTRICT 3) Not to exceed $26,800,000 Resolution to AUTHORIZE the proposed design (Alternative B) re improvements at the intersection of Princess Anne, Kempsville and Witchduck Roads. Ordinance to AMEND and REORDAIN § 21.321.2 of the City Code re maximum speed limits ("traffic calming") in designated neighborhoods: a. L & J Garden f. Brighton on the Bay b. Acredale g. Baylake Pines c. Lake Shores h. Baylake Beach d. Middle Plantation i. Country Haven e. Little Neck Ordinance to ESTABLISH a Fire and Rescue Station-Ocean Park as a capital improvement project; TRANSFER $850,000 to the project; and, AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute an agreement re purchase of property for the Ocean Park Fire and Rescue Station. FORM NO. CM 5 REV. 11/91 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA REQUEST To: The Honorable Mayor Members of the Council James K. Spore From: City Manager Subject: Resolution Approving the re-issuance ofMultifamily Housin- Revenue Refunding Bonds that refunded all of the Authority's $26,800,000 1985 Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Tidewater Oxford Proiect) AGENDA ON: April 9, 2002 HISTORY: NATURE OF ITEM: Zoning/Use Permit Contract Transfer/Appropriation; 1"/2"~ Reading X Other Resolution BUDGET SECTION: Amount $. Funding Source: Recommendation: Signature The City of Virginia Beach Development Authority has considered the request of Tidewater-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership, for the re-issuance of the Authority's $13,998,250 Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds, 1996 Series A and the Authority's $11,645,926 Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds, 1996 Series B that refunded all of the Authority's $26,800,000 1985 Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds to. finance the acquisition, construction, equipping of a 480-Unit multifamily rental housing project known as Reflections located at 3001 Reflections Way in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, twenty percent of which is for occupancy by individuals of Iow or moderate income. The request was duly advertised for a public hearing before the Authority in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2-4906 of the State Code, and the Authority passed a resolution on March 19, 2002, recommending that City Council approve issuance of the bonds. FACTS/DISCUSSIONS/OPTIONS: The matter comes before Council for its approval pursuant to Section 15.2-4906 which requires the municipality on behalf of which the bonds of an authority are issued to either approve or disapprove any financing recommended by such authority within sixty (60) days of the date of the authority's public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: IDB Submission to Council Notice of Public Hearing Record of Public Hearing Development Authority's Resolution Disclosure Statement Authority' s Statement Fiscal Impact Statement Summary Sheet Memo from Housing & Preservation March 18, 2002 Resolution Location Map Copies to: Recommended Action: APPROVAL Council Action: Date: Submitting Agency/Signature /~'~x~/,d~--'"~ D/ACM: Development Authority Gary Li~ess of Counsel C~~,~~ VIRGINIA BEACH Virginia Beach Development Authority ~ One Columbus Center, Suite 300 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 (757) 437-6464 FAX (757) 499-9894 Website www. virginia-beach.va.us/depffecondev E-mail ecdev@city, virginia-beach.va.us March 19, 2002 The Honorable Meyera E. Obemdorf, Mayor Members of City Council Municipal Center Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Re.' Tidewater-Oxford Limaed Partnership (Tidewater-Oxford ProjecO Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds Dear Mayor Obemdorf and Members of City Council: We submit the following in connection with project Virginia Wesleyan College located at 3001 Reflections Way in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. (1) Evidence of publication of the notice of heating is attached as Exhibit A , and a summary of the statements made at the public hearing is attached as Exhibit B. The City of Virginia Beach Development Authority's (the "Authority") resolution recommending Council's approval is. attached as Exhibit C. (2) The Disclosure Statement is attached as Exhibit D. (3) The statement of the Authorit3ls reasons for its approval as a benefit for the City of Virginia Beach and its recommendation that City Council approve the modification of the bonds described above is attached as Exhibit E. (4) The Fiscal Impact Statement is attached as Exhibit F. (5) Attached as Exhibit G is a summary.sheet setting forth the type of issue, and identifying the Project and the principals. (6) Attached as Exhibit H is a letter from the appropriate City department commenting on the Project. RGJ/GLF/rab Enclosures Very truly yours, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA (Tidewater-Oxford Project) WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the "Authority") has considered the application of Tidewater-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership (the "Borrower"), for the m-issuance of the Authority's $13,998,250 Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds, 1996 Series A (the "Series A Bonds") and the Authority's $11,645,926 Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds, 1996 Series B (the "Series B Bonds", together with the Series A Bonds, the "Bonds") that refunded all of the Authority's $26,800,000 1985 Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Tidewater-Oxford ProjecO (the "1985 Bonds"), the proceeds of which were used to make a loan to the Borrower to finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping ora 480-unit multifamily rental housing project kalown as Reflections located at 3001 Reflections Way in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "Project"), twenty percent (20%) of which is for occupancy by individuals of low or moderate income, and has held a public hearing thereon on March 19, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Virginia Beach (the "City") approve the re-issuance of the Bonds by the Authority to comply with Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and proposed final Treasury regulations issued thereunder, and WHEREAS, a record of the public heating held hereon has been filed with the Clerk of the Council; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH: 1. The holding of a public heating with respect to the re-issuance of the Bonds by the Authority at 8:30 a.m. on March 19, 2002 prior to this meeting, at One Columbus Center, Suite 300, Virginia Beach, Virginia, in accordance with the requirements of Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, is hereby ratified. 2. The Council approves the re-issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, to the extent of and as required by Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code. 3. The approval of the re-issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 147(0, does not constitute an endorsement of thc Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Borrower, and the Bonds shall provide that neither the City nor thc Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged i-436976.1 3121102 therefor, and neither thc faith or credit nor thc taxing power of thc Commonwealth, the City, nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Adopted by a majority ora quorum of the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on March ,2002. ' I certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, at a regular meeting held ., 2002. Dated: ,2002 Clcn'k, City Council of the City of Virginia Beach 1-4369'/6. I 2 3/21/02 Joins Map 201 ~'~'~ KINGS~ ~ ~ I- ~ ~" ~ ~ ' ~ , --' - ~o ~ ~ --~ ~¢u_ ~,..-' ~ .......... THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT NORFOLK, VIRGINIA AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION The Virginian-Pilot WILLCOX & SAVAGE, P. SUITE 1010 ONE COLUMBUS CENTER VA BEACH, %fA 23462 REFERENCE: 10047130 1219352 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA State of Virginia City of Norfolk This day, D. Johnson personally appeared before me and after being duly sworn, made oath that: 1} She is affidavit clerk of The Virginian-Pilot, a newspaper published by Landmark Communications Inc., in the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach, Common- wealth of Virginia and in the state of North Carolina 2)That the advertisement hereto annexed has been published in said newspaper on the date stated. PUBLISHED ON: 03/05 03/12 TOTAL COST: 697.48 AD SPACE: 106 LiNE ..... ..................................... Legal Affiant: ~_/- ~ ~7 ~ %-~ '~' Subsc~ s~r~ to be~r~,4~e,~in my ~ity and state on the day and year aforeski~thi~ __~_,~a~f.% ~ ~.~'~Nw'~.. Notary:~~~~_O~_~ ~Y commission expires January 31, 2004 EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ON PROPOSED REFUNDING REVENUE BOND FINANCING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the "Authority"), on the re-issuance of its Rental Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Tidewater-Oxford Projec0 1996 Series A (the "Series A Bonds") and its Rental Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Tidewater-Oxford Project) 1996 Series B (the "Series B Bonds") in an aggregate principal mount not to exceed $26,800,000 (collectively, the Series A Bonds and the Series B Bonds are referred to herein as the "Bonds"), pursuant to a plan of financing and the approval of such Bonds by the Authority and by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach (the "City Council"). The Bonds were originally issued pursuant to Chapter 643 of the Acts of Assembly of 1964, as amended (the "Act"), to refund all or a portion of the Authority's $26,800,000 Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Tidewater-Oxford Project) 1985 (the "1985 Bonds"), the proceeds of which were used to make a loan to Tidewater- Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership (the "Borrower"), to finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of a 480-unit multifamily rental housing project known as Reflections, located at 3001 Reflections Way in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, twenty percent (20%) of which is for occupancy by individuals of Iow or moderate income. The re-issuance of the Bonds as requested by the Borrower Will not be deemed to constitute a debt or pledge of the faith and credit, of the Commonwealth of Virginia, or the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Neither the Commonwealth of Virginia nor any political subdivision thereof, including the Authority, nor the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia shall be obligated to pay the Bonds, or the interest thereon, or other costs incident thereto, except from B 1-47520.1 2/25102 the revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia, nor any political subdivision thereof, is pledged to the payment of principal of such Bonds or the interest thereon, or other costs incidental thereto. The public hearing, which may be continued or adjourned, will be held at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 before the Authority at One Columbus Center, Suite 300, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Any persons interested in the issuance of the Bonds or location or nature of the project, may appear at the hearing and present his or her views and may send written comments before such hearing to: City of Virginia Beach Development Authority, One Columbus Center, Suite 300, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462. The address and principal place of business of the Borrower is: Tidewater-Oxford Limited Partnership, c/o AIMCO 2000 S. Colorado Boulevard, Tower Two, Suite 2-1000, Denver, Colorado 80222. THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY B 1-47520. 2/25102 ~EXHIBIT B CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RECORD OF PUBLIC HEARING (Tidewater-Oxford Project) The Chairman of the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the "Authority") announced the commencement of a public hearing on the request of Tidewater-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership (the "Borrower"), and that a notice of the hearing was published once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, the first publication being not less than 14 days prior to the hearing and the second publication being not more than 21 days prior to the hearing. The Chairman indicated that a copy of the notice and a certificate of publication of such notice have been filed with the records of the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach. The following individuals appeared and addressed the Authority: Ms. Jennifer A. Vinson appeared on behalf of the Borrower. Ms. Vinson gave a brief description of the Project (below defined). She explained that this was a technical reissuance of the Authority's $25,644,176 Multifamily Homing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Tidewater-Oxford Project), 1996 Series A and 1996 Series B, the proceeds of which were used to refund the Authority's $26,800,000 multifamily mortgage revenue bonds (Tidewater-Oxford Project) 1985, the proceeds of which were used to finance the acquisition, construction, and equiping of a 480 unit multifamily rental housing project known as "Reflections" loc~ited at 3001 Reflections Way, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452 (the "Project"). She related that the Project was built in 1987 and public approval was given prior to the issuance of the original bond financing in 1985 and prior to the issuance of the refunding bonds in 1996. This approval is being renewed again at BI--47712.1 3/7/02 this time as technically required by the Internal Revenue Code because the final maturity date and the weighted average life of the bonds is being extended. The original benefits of this Project - the provision of safe, attractive and sanitary housing for low to moderate income families within the City of Virginia Beach will continue after the modifications in the financing have been made. As part of the modifications to the financing, the Borower will reserve and extend the restrictions placed upon the Project when the initial bond financing was entered into in 1985 thereby assuring the City of Virginia Beach that the benefits of the income restrictions applicable to these apartments will continue. She closed her remarks by estimating a closing date for the modifications during April, 2002. No other persons appeared to address the Authority, and the Chairman closed the public hearing. The Authority hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia approve the reissuance of the bonds and hereby transmits the Fiscal Impact Statement to the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach and asks that this recommendation be received at.. its next regular or special meeting at which this matter can be properly placed on the Council's agenda for hearing. B 1-4T'/I 2.1 3/7/02 EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE BOND DOCUMENTS WITH RESPECT TO CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYMULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS 1996 SERIES A AND 1996 SERIES B (TIDEWATER-OXFORD PROJECT) WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the "Issuer") has been created and organized pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 643 of the Virginia Acts of Assembly of 1964, as amended (the "Act"), for the purpose, among others, of making loans for assistance in developing multifamily residential rental property for occupancy by Iow and moderate income persons; and WHEREAS, in 1985, the Issuer issued its $25,800,000 City of Virginia Beach Development Authority, Multi-Family Mortgage Revenue Bond (the "Original Bonds") and loaned the proceeds thereof to Tidewater-Oxford Limited Partnership (the "Developer") for the purpose of financing the construction of a 480-unit multi-family residential rental project located in Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, in 1996, the Issuer issued two series of bonds designated as $13,998,250 Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds, 1996 Series A (the "Series A Bonds") and $11,645,926 Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds, 1996 Series B (the "Series B Bonds," together with the Series A Bonds, the "Bonds") pursuant to and in accordance with a Trust Indenture (Series A) and a Trust Indenture (Series B) entered into between the Issuer and Crestar Bank, as predecessor in interest to First Union National Bank (the "Trustee"), both dated as of November 1, 1996, (the "Series A Indenture" and "Series B Indenture", respectively) for the purpose of refunding the Original Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Developer executed the Series A Note and Series B Note, both dated November 1, 1996, in favor of the Issuer in the principal amount of $13,998,000 and $11,645,000, respectively, relating to the Series A Bonds and Series B Bonds (the "Series A Note" and "Series B Note", respectively); and WHEREAS, the Developer desires and it is proposed, to amend the Bonds, the Series A Indenture, the Series B Indenture, the Series A Note, the Series B Note and certain other documents evidencing or securing the Bonds (the "Bond Documents") as follows: (a) Amend and Restate the mandatory Sinking Fund Schedule attached as Exhibit C to the Series A Indenture. (b) Amend and Restate the Schedule of Combined Rates attached as Exhibit C to the Series B Indenture. BI-47715.3 3/9/02 I (c) Amend and Restate the Quarterly Principal Payment Schedule attached as Schedule A to the Series A Note. (d) Amend and Restate the Maturity Date of the Bonds. (e) Amend and Conform the Bond Documents mutatis mutandis (without any further action being required) as necessary to reflect the foregoing terms and the provisions of the First Amendment, hereinafter defined. WHEREAS, there has been presented to this meeting the form of a First Amendment to Series A Trust Indenture, Series B Trust Indenture, Series A Financing Agreement, Series B Financing Agreement, Series A Note, Series B Note, Series A Mortgage, Series B Mortgage and Related Documents (Reflections) (the "First Amendment"), which the Issuer proposes to execute, substantially in the form presented and attached hereto as Exhibit A, in order to carry out the amendments described above, a copy of which shall be filed with the records of the Issue~, and WHEREAS, the Developer has described to the Authority the benefits which the Project will continue to bring to the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and its environs through the provision of housing twenty percent (20%) of which is for occupancy by individuals of low or moderate income; and WHEREAS, the Issuer has caused a notice of public hearing to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and has this date held a public hearing with regard to the reissuance of the Bonds, all in accordance with Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the regulations issued thereunder and § 15.2- 4906, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and other applicable laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT KESOLVED BY THE ISSUER THAT: follows: The Issuer finds and determines that the Bond Documents shall be amended as (a) The Mandatory Sinking Fund Schedule attached as Exhibit C to the Series A Indenture is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as set forth on Schedule I to the First Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Schedule of the Combined Rates attached as Exhibit C to the Series B Indenture is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as set forth on Schedule II to the First Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit A. B 1-47715.3 3/9/02 2 (c) The Quarterly Principal Payment Schedule attached as Schedule A to the Series A Note is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as set forth on Schedule ILl to the First Amendment attached hereto as Exhibit A. (d) The Maturity Date of the Bonds is hereby extended to the date set forth in the First Amendment. (e) The Bond Documents are hereby amended and conformed mutatis mutandis (without any further action being required) as necessary to reflect the terms and provisions of the First Amendment. 2. The First Amendment is hereby approved, in substantially the form submitted to this meeting and attached hereto as Exhibit A, with such changes, insertions or omissions (including, without limitation, a change of the date thereof) as may be approved by the Chairman or the Vice Chairman of the Issuer, whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery thereof. The execution, delivery and performance by the Issuer of the First Amendment is authorized and directed. 3. All other acts of the offiCers and agents of the Issuer that are in conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution and the First Amendment, including, but not limited to, entering into such other documents as may be necessary to effectuate the transactions contemplated herein, whether such acts occurred before or after the adoption of this Resolution, are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. 4. All costs and expenses in connection with the adoption of the First Amendment, including, but not limited to, the administrative and closing fees of the Issuer and the fees and expenses of Bond Counsel and Issuer's Counsel, shall be paid from the Developer and the Issuer shall have no responsibility therefor. 5. The seal of the Issuer is the same seal of which an impression appears below and of which an original or a facsimile thereof is impressed or imprinted on each of the Bonds. 6. The Issuer hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia approve the reissuance of the Bonds by the Issuer and directs the Chairman or the Vice Chairman of the Issuer to transmit the Fiscal Impact Statement and a copy of this Resolution to the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. 7. The proper representative of the Issuer is hereby authorized and directed to transmit this recommendation to the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia at its next regular or special meeting at which the matter can be properly placed on the Council's agenda for consideration. 8. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage. ADOPTED: March 19, 2002 Secretary City of Virglnia Beach Development Authority KUTAK ROCK LLP DRAFT 3/26/02 This instrument prepared outside the Commonwealth of Virginia After recording return to: Kutak Rock LLP Suite 2100 225 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30303 Attention: David A. Nix, Esq. Tax Id/General Parcel Number: 1497-31-2011 This First Amendment amends, but does not increase the indebtedness secured by that certain Multifamily Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents and Security Agreement (Series A Note) recorded on 11/20/96 in Deed Book 3681 at page 1778, for which recording taxes have been paid on the original amount of indebtedness of $13,998,250 as provided therein. This instrument is therefore exempt from recording taxes pursuant to Section 58.1-803D of the Code of Virginia. There is no amount subject to tax.. This First Amendment amends, but does not increase the indebtedness secured by that certain Multifamily Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents and Security Agreement (Series B Note) recorded on i i/20/96 in Deed Book 3681 at page. 1790, for which recording taxes have been paid on the original amount of indebtedness of $11,645,926 as provided thereto. Th~s instrument ~s therefore exempt from recording taxes pursuant to Section 58.1-803D of the Code of Virginia. There is no amount subject to tax. FIRST AMENDMENT TO SERIES A TRUST INDENTURE, SERIES B TRUST INDENTURE, SERIES A FINANCING AGREEMENT, SERIES B FINANCING AGREEMENT, SERIES A NOTE, SERIES B NOTE, SERIES A MORTGAGE, SERIES B MORTGAGE AND RELATED DOCUMENTS (REFLECTIONS) THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO SERIES A TRUST INDENTURE, SERIES B TRUST INDENTURE, SERIES A FINANCING AGREEMENT, SERIES B FINANCING AGREEMENT, SERIES A NOTE, SERIES B NOTE, SERIES A MORTGAGE, SERIES B MORTGAGE AND RELATED DOCUMENTS (REFLECTIONS) (this "First Amendment), dated as of [ ], 2002, is entered into by and among Tidewater-Oxford' Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership (the "Developer"); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, as registered nominee for Merrill Lynch Portfolio Management Inc., a Delaware corporation, as beneficial owner of the hereinafter defined Series A Bonds and Series B Bonds (the "Bond Owner"); First Union National Bank, .as trustee (the "Trustee"); the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the "Issuer"); and each of the "Project Owners" as listed on Schedule IV attached hereto and made a part hereof. WHEREAS, the Issuer and Crestar Bank, as predecessor to the Trustee, entered into that certain Trust Indenture (Series A), dated as of November 1, 1996, relating to $13,998,250 Virginia Beach Development Authority Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Tidewater-Oxford Project) 1996 Series A (said bonds, as amended, restated and/or supplemented from time to time, the "Series A Bonds"; said Trust Indenture, as amended, restated and/or supplemented from time to time, the "Series A Indenture"); 04-94868.07 WHEREAS, the Issuer and Crestar Bank, as predecessor to the Trustee, entered into that certain Trust Indenture (Series B), dated as of November 1, 1996, relating to $11,645,926 Virginia Beach Development Authority Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Tidewater-Oxford Project) 1996 Series B (said bonds, as amended, restated and/or supplemented from time to time, the "Series B Bonds"; said Trust Indenture, as amended, restated and/or supplemented from time to time, the "Series B Indenture"); WHEREAS, the Issuer, Crestar Bank, as predecessor to the Trustee, and the Developer entered into that Series A Financing Agreement, dated as of November 1, 1996, relating to the Series A Bonds (as amended, restated and/or supplemented from time to time, the "Series A Financing Agreement"); WHEREAS, the Issuer, Crestar Bank, as predecessor to the Trustee, and the Developer entered into that Series B Financing Agreement, dated as of November 1, 1996 relating to the Series B Bonds (as amended, restated and/or supplemented from time to time, the "Series B Financing Agreement"); ~ WHEREAS, the Developer executed that certain Series A Note, dated November 1, 1996, in favor of the Issuer in the principal amount of $13,998,250 relating to the Series A Bonds (as amended, restated and/or supplemented from time to time, the "Series A Note"); WHEREAS, the Developer executed that certain Series B Note, dated November 1, 1996, in favor of the Issuer in the principal amount of $11,645,926 relating to the Series B Bonds (as amended, restated and/or supplemented from time to time, the "Series B Note"); WHEREAS, the Developer executed that certain Multifamily Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents and Security Agreement (Series A Note), dated as of November 1, 1996, recorded on November 20, 1996 in Deed Book 3681 at page 1778 of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in favor of Crestar Bank, as predecessor to the Trustee, securing its obligation under the Series A Note (as amended, restated and/or supplemented from time to time, the "Series A Mortgage"); WHEREAS, the'Developer executed that certain Multifamily Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents and Security Agreement (Series B Note), dated as of November 1, 1996, recorded on November 20, 1996 in Deed Book 3681 at page 1790 of the Clerk'.s Office of the Circuit Court of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in favor of Crestar Bank, as predecessor to the Trustee, securing its obligation under the Series B Note (as amended, restated and/or supplemented from time to time, the "Series B Mortgage"); WHEREAS, Oxford Tax Exempt Fund II Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership (OTEF II"), Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("Servicer") and the project owners of multifamily and senior living facilities (including the Developer) which are signatories thereto, entered into (i)that certain Series A Bond Pooling Agreement Oxford Tax Exempt Fund II, dated as of November 1, 1996 relating to each of such 04-94868.07 2 project owner's Series A Bonds (as amended, restated and/or supplemented from time to time, the "Series A Bond Pooling Agreement"), and (ii)that certain Oxford Tax Exempt Fund II Excess Revenue Agreement, dated as of November 1, 1996, relating to each such project owner's Series A Bonds and the Series B Bonds (collectively, the "1996 Refunding Bonds") (as amended, restated and/or supplemented from time to time, the "Excess Revenue Agreement"); WHEREAS, in connection with the purchase of the 1996 Refunding Bonds from OTEF II by Men'ill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated ("MLPFS"), as registered nominee for Merrill Lynch Portfolio Management Inc. (the "Bond Owner") under those certain Bond Purchase Agreements of March23, 2001, March26, 2001, and April 24, 2001, MLPFS as registered nominee for the Bond Owner was assigned the rights of OTEF II under each of the Series A Bond Pooling Agreement and the Excess Revenue Agreement; WHEREAS, in connection with the transfer of ownership of four (4) of the projects underlying the 1996 Refunding Bonds, MLPFS, Servicer and the project owners which are signatories thereto, entered into (i)that certain Amended and Restated Series A Bond Pooling Agreement, dated as of [ ], 2002, relating to each such project owner's Series A Bonds (as amended, restated and/or supplemented from time to time, the "Amended and Restated Series A Bond Pooling Agreement"), and (ii)that cer[,ain Amended and Restated Excess Revenue Agreement, dated as of [ ], 2002, relating to the 1996 Refunding Bonds (as amended, restated and/or supplemented from time to time, the "Amended and Restated Excess Revenue Agreement"); WHEREAS, with effect immediately prior to the entry into force of this First Amendment, MLPFS, the Servicer, and each of the Project Owners have entered into a termination and release of the Amended and Restated Series A Bond Pooling Agreement (the "Series A Bond Pooling Termination Agreement") and a termination and release of the Amended and Restated Excess Revenue Agreement (the "Excess Revenue Termination Agreement"); WHEREAS, the Bond Owner and the Developer desire to amend the Series A Indenture, the Series B Indenture, the Series A Financing Agreement, the Series B Financing Agreement, the Series A Note, the Series B Note, the Series A Deed of Trust; the Series B Deed of Trust and related documents as set forth herein (collectively, together with all documents evidencing, relating to, and/or securing the same, including the Series A Bonds and the Series B Bonds, as amended, restated and/or supplemented from time to time, the "Bond Documents"); and WHEREAS, the other parties hereto are willing to consent to this First Amendment at the request of the Bond Owner and Developer. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: AGREEMENT Section 1. Defined Terms. Capitalized terms used, but not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Bond Documents. 04-94868.07 3 Section 2. Series A Indenture Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption Schedule. The Mandatory Sinking Fund Schedule attached as Exhibit C to the Series A Indenture is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as set forth on Schedule I hereto. Section 3. Series B Indenture Combined Interest Rate Schedule. The Schedule of Combined Rates attached as Exhibit C to the Series B Indenture is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as set forth on Schedule II hereto Section 4. Series A Note Quarterly Principal Payment Schedule. The Quarterly Principal Payment schedule attached as Schedule A to the Series A Note is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as set forth on Schedule III hereto. Section 5. Extension of Maturity Date. The maturity date is hereby extended to November 1,2031. Section 6. Governing Law. This First Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia without regard to conflicts of law principles. Section 7. Amendment of Bond Documents. The parties hereto, by their consent to this First Amendment, agree that the Bond Documents hereby shall be and shall be deemed to be amended and conformed mutatis muntadis (without any further action being required) as necessary to reflect the terms and provisions of this First Amendment and, to the extent of any remaining inconsistency between the Bond DoCuments and this First Amendment, this First Amendment shall control. In the event that any rule of law shall require a writing signed by the party to be charged with performance in order to accomplish such an amendment of any one or more of the Bond Documents, the parties hereto agree that this First Amendment shall constitute such a writing. Section 8. Ratification. As amended hereby, the Bond Documents are ratified, approved, and confirmed in all respects. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 04-94868.07 4 [Signature page to First Amendment to Series A Trust Indenture, Series B Trust Indenture, Series A Financing Agreement, Series B Financing Agreement, Series A Note, Series B Note, Series A Mortgage, Series B Mortgage and Related Documents (Reflections)] TIDEWATER-OXFORD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Maryland limited parmership By: OAMCO XII, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, its Managing General Partner By: Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation, a Member By: Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President By: AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware cdrporation, a Member By:~ Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President STATE OF § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2002, by Harry G. Alcock, Executive Vice President of AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation as members of OAMCO XII, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, managing panner of TIDEWATER-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership, on behalf of said partnership. [NOTARY SEAL] Notary Print Name Notary Public, State of My commission expires O4-94868.07 [Signature page to First Amendment to Series A Trust Indenture, Series B Trust Indenture, Series A Financing Agreement, Series B Financing Agreement, Series A Note, Series B Note, Series A Mortgage, Series B Mortgage and Related Documents (Reflections)] CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By Narne Title STATE OF ) )SS: COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2002, by , who is Authorized Signatory of City of Virginia Beach Development Authority, an entity organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on behalf of said entity. He/She is personally known to me or has produced a driver's license as identification. [NOTARY SEAL] Notary Print Name Notary Public, State of My commission expires [Signatures continued on following page] 04-94868.07 [Signature page to First Amendment to Series A Trust Indenture, Series B Trust Indenture, Series A Financing Agreement, Series B Financing Agreement, Series A Note, Series B Note, Series A Mortgage, Series B Mortgage and Related Documents (Reflections)] MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, as registered nominee for Merrill Lynch Portfolio Management Inc. By Nalile Authorized Signatory STATE OF ) )SS: COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002, by , who is Authorized Signatory of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, as registered nominee for Merrill Lynch Portfolio Management Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, on behalf of said corporation. He/She is personally known to me or has produced a driver's license as identification. [NOTARY SEAL] Notary Print Name Notary Public, State of My commission expires [Signatures continued on following page] 04-94868.07 [Signature page to First Amendment to Series A Trust Indenture, Series B Trust Indenture, Series A Financing Agreement, Series B Financing Agreement, Series A Note, Series B Note, Series A Mortgage, Series B Mortgage and Related Documents (Reflections)] FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK By Title STATE OF ) )SS: COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2002, by , who is the National Bank, a national banking association, on behalf of said corporation. personally known to me or has produced a driver's license as identification. day of of First Union He/She is [NOTARY SEAL] Notary Print Name Notary Public, State of My commission expires [Signatures continued on following page] 04-94868.07 [Signature page to First Amendment to Series A Trust Indenture, Series B Trust Indenture, Series A Financing Agreement, Series B Financing Agreement, Series A Note, Series B Note, Series A Mortgage, Series B Mortgage and Related Documents (Reflections)] FOX VALLEY-OXFORD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Maryland limited partnership By: OAMCO X, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability 'company, its Managing General Panner By: Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation, a Member By: By: Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, a Member By:. Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President STATE OF § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2002, by Harry G. Alcock, Executive Vice President of AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation as members of OAMCO X, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, managing partner of FOX VALLEY-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership, on behalf of said partnership. [NOTARY SEAL] Notary Print Name Notary Public, State of My commission expires [Signatures continued on following page] 04-94868.07 [Signature page to First Amendment to Series A Trust Indenture, Series B Trust Indenture, Series A Financing Agreement, Series B Financing Agreement, Series A Note, Series B Note, Series A Mortgage, Series B Mortgage and Related Documents (Reflections)] ALLVIEW-OXFORD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Maryland limited partnership By: OAMCO X, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, its Managing General Partner By: Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation, a Member By: By: Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware cdrporation, a Member By: Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President STATE OF § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2002, by Harry G. Alcock, Executive Vice President of AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation as members of OAMCO X, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, managing partner of ALLVIEW-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership, on behalf of said partnership. [NOTARY SEAL] Notary Print Name Notary Public, State of My commission expires [Signatures continued on following page] 04-94868.07 [Signature page to First Amendment to Series A Trust Indenture, Series B Trust Indenture, Series A Financing Agreement, Series B Financing Agreement, Series A Note, Series B Note, Series A Mortgage, Series B Mortgage and Related Documents (Reflections)] SCHAUMBURG-OXFORD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Maryland limited partnership By: OAMCO XI, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, its Managing General Partner By: Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation, a Member By: By: Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware c6rporation, a Member By:. Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President STATE OF § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2002, by Harry G. Alcock, Executive Vice President of AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation as members of OAMCO XI, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, managing partner of SCHAUMBURG-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership, on behalf of said partnership. [NOTARY SEAL] Notary Print Name Notary Public, State of My commission expires [Signatures continued on following page] 04°94868.07 [Signature page to First Amendment to Series A Trust Indenture, Series B Trust Indenture, Series A Financing Agreement, Series B Financing Agreement, Series A Note, Series B Note, Series A Mortgage, Series B Mortgage and Related Documents (Reflections)] WESTRIDGE-OXFORD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Maryland limited partnership By: OAMCO XI, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, its Managing General Partner By: Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation, a Member By: By: Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware c6rporation, a Member By: Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President STATE OF § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2002, by Harry G. Alcock, Executive Vice President of AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., .a Maryland corporation as members of OAMCOXI, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, managing partner of WESTRIDGE-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership, on behalf of said partnership. [NOTARY SEAL] Notary Print Name Notary Public, State of My commission expires [Signatures continued on following page] 04-94868.07 [Signature page to First Amendment to Series A Trust Indenture, Series B Trust Indenture, Series A Financing Agreement, Series B Financing Agreement, Series A Note, Series B Note, Series A Mortgage, Series B Mortgage and Related Documents (Reflections)] TRAVIS ONE-OXFORD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Maryland limited parmership By: OAMCO XII, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, its Managing General Partner By: Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation, a Member By: By: Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware c6rporation, a Member By: Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President STATE OF § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2002, by Harry G. Alcock, Executive Vice President of AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation as members of OAMCO XII, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, managing partner of TRAVIS ONE-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership, on behalf of said partnership. [NOTARY SEAL] Notary Print Name Notary Public, State of My commission expires [Signatures continued on following page] 04-94868.07 [Signature page to First Amendment to Series A Trust Indenture, Series B Trust Indenture, Series A Financing Agreement, Series B Financing Agreement, Series A Note, Series B Note, Series A Mortgage, Series B Mortgage and Related Documents (Reflections)] MIDDLETOWN-OXFORD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Maryland limited partnership By: OAMCO XI, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, its Managing General Partner By: Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation, a Member By: By: Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware cdrporation, a Member By: Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President STATE OF § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2002, by Harry G. Alcock, Executive Vice President of AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation as members of OAMCOXI, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, managing partner of MIDDLETOWN-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited parmership, on behalf of said partnership. [NOTARY SEAL] Notary Print Name Notary Public, State of My commission expires [Signatures continued on following page] 04-94868.07 [Signature page to First Amendment to Series A Trust Indenture, Series B Trust Indenture, Series A Financing Agreement, Series B Financing Agreement, Series A Note, Series B Note, Series A Mortgage, Series B Mortgage and Related Documents (Reflections)] SOUTHRIDGE-OXFORD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Maryland limited partnership By: OAMCO X, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, its Managing General Partner By: Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation, a Member By: By: Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware c6rporation, a Member By: Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President STATE OF § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2002, by Harry G. Alcock, Executive Vice President of AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation as members of OAMCOX, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, managing partner of SOUTHRIDGE-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership, on behalf of said partnership. [NOTARY SEAL] Notary Print Name Notary Public, State of My commission expires [Signatures continued on following page] 04-94868.07 SCHEDULE I MANDATORY SINKING FUND REDEMPTION SCHEDULE Payment Dates July 15, 2002 - October 15, 2026 $0 Upon Maturity $13,463,390 04-94868.07 SCHEDULE II COMBINED INTEREST RATE SCHEDULE Interest Period Interest Rate Closing - Maturity Not to exceed 8.25% 04-94868.07 SCHEDULE III QUARTERLY PRINCIPAL PAYMENT SCHEDULE Payment Dates July 1, 2002 - October 1,2031 Amount $0 Upon Maturity $13,463,390 04-94868.07 SCHEDULE IV PARTIES TO SERIES A BOND POOLING AGREEMENT AND EXCESS REVENUE AGREEMENT Allview-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership Fox Valley-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership Middletown-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited parmership Schaumburg-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership Southridge-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership Tidewater-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership Travis One-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership Westridge-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership 04-94868.07 MAR 15 EXHIBIT D DISCLOS E STATEMENT Applicant's Name. is): Tidewater-Oxford Limited partnershio All Owoer~ (t/ itinerant from ~ptsllcat~t); P. 82/'82 Date: Type of Application: P, ezonh~E: From Conditional Uae PermR: Str~-,~ Cio.ute: To Subdivision VmSance: Other: Refundine ~aond Issue(Technic1 Relssuanee Under PedeJ:&l Tax Law) The following is to be completed by or for the Applicant: 1. ifthe applicant 15 a CO~a. PORATION, IL~t all the °ffiaets of the Corporation: If the applicant is a PARTlqE. RSHIP, FI[R~ or other Uninco~o~ed Otg~i-a~ioa, list all membe~ or p~ers In ~e or~nizatlon: OAMCO XlI. L,L.C.. Ma~in= O~al P~net: _Almco~ide~ter. L.L.C.. ~x~ord I~vea~t Como~tlon- e~l ~net: Ox~rd Inves~e~t H Thc following is to be compl~d by or for ~e O~er If~he ~ is · CO~O~ON, liar all ~e If the o~er ~ a ~~, FI~ or o~er Unlnco~ted Org~tio~ list all membe~ or p~ners tn ~e ~$ani~tion: TID~WATi~R-OXFOILD LIMITED PARTI~RSH1P, a Maryland limited partnership Odl~4~ HI, L,L.C.. a DelawAre Iimirad lia~llJw company, ils M~80cn~ P~ner Oz~rd ~y Fi~c;~ O~up. Ina, a M~l~d 3cni~ ~0~ P~id~t ,adlMC~ietheadai. loldin~, L~c. a Pa~l ~ Fialding Sanim' '~i¢~ P~eliderlt 1-433733.1 3/t5102 TOTAL VIRGINIA BEACH EXHIBIT E Virginia Beach Development Authority One Columbus Center, Suite 300 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 (757) 437-6464 FAX (757) 499-9894 Website www. virginia-beach, va. us/dept/econdev E-mail ecdev~city, virginia-beach.va.us CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REFUNDING BONDS (TIDEWATER-OXFOP~ PROJECT) 1996 SERIES A AND 1996 SERIES B The Authority recommends approval the captioned financing. The Reflections Apartments facility (the "Project") was built in 1987 and public approval was given prior to the issuance of the original bond financing in 1985. The approval is being renewed at this time as technically required by the Internal Revenue Code because the weighted average life of the 1996 Bonds is being extended. The original benefits of this Project - the provision of safe, attractive and sanitary housing for low to moderate income families within the City of Virginia Beach - continues to be the basis for recommendation. The refinancing will preserve and extend the restrictions placed upon the property when the initial bond financing was entered into in 1985, thereby assuring the City of Virginia Beach that the benefits of the income restrictions applicable to these apartments will continue. EXHIBIT F FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT (TIDEWATER-OXFORD PROJECT) DATE: TO: PROJECT NAME: TYPE OF FACILITY: March 14, 2002 The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Tidewater-Oxford Limited Parmership, a Maryland limited partnership A 480-unit multifamily rental housing project known as Reflections, located at 3001 Reflections Way in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Maximum amount of financing sought: Taxable value of the facility's real property Real property tax per year using present tax rates Personal property tax per year using present tax rates Merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates Estimated dollar value per year of goods and services purchased locally Number of regular employees on year-round basis $25,644,176.00 Average annual salary per employee $23,974,000.00 $ 292 482.80 $ N/A $223,500.00 9 $26,000.00 The information contained in this Statement is based solely on facts and estimates provided by Tidewater-Oxford Limited Partnership. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: RoJ~e~G. Chairman BI-47710.1 3119/02 MAR March 13,2002 The attached Fiscal lin?act Statement for Tidewater-Ox. ford Limited Partnership is role and correct in all matcr~al respects. TIDEWATER-OXFORD LIMITED PAR'rl~I~,~-IIP, a Maryland liraitcd partnership By: OAMCO XII, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, its Managing General Partner By:. Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation, a Member Patti K. Fiel. lng Senior Vice President By: AIMCO/Bcthescla Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, a Member By:~ Palil I~L Fielding Senior Vice President TOTAL PAGE.03 ** CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (TIDEWATER-OXFORD PROJECT) 1996 SERIES A AND 1996 SERIES B PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: AMOUNT OF BOND ISSUE: PRINCIPALS: ZONING CLASSIFICATION: Tidewater-Oxford Project 3001 Reflections Way Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452 Re-issuance of the 1996 Bonds (due to extension of maturity) which were originally issued to refinance the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority's $26,800,000 Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Tidewater-Oxford Project) 1985 (the "1985 Bonds"), the proceeds of which were used to make a loan to Tidewater- Oxford Limited Partnership (the "Borrower") to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of a 480-unit multifamily rental housing project known as "Reflections" located at 3001 Reflections Way, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452. $26,800,000 OAMCO, XII, L.L.C., Managing General Panner Oxford Investment Corporation, General Partner Oxford Investment II Corporation, General Partner ao bo Present zoning classification of the Property: A-2 Is rezoning proposed? Yes ~ If so, to what zoning classification? N/A No X The Authority recommends approval the captioned financing. The Project was built in 1987 and public approval was given pn_or to the issuance of the original bond financing in 1985. The approval ~s being renewed at this time as technically requn'ed by the Internal Revenue Code because the weighted average life of the 1996 Bonds is being extended. The original benefits of this Project - the provision of safe, attractive and sanitary housing for low to moderate income families within the City of Virginia Beach - continues to be the basis for recommendation. The refinancing will preserve and extend the restrictions placed upon theproperty when the initial bond financing was entered into in 1985, thereby assuring the City of Virginia Beach that the benefits of the income restrictions applicable to these apartments will continue. 1-436969. i 3/21/02 EXHIBIT H City of Virgir DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION (757) 426-5750 FAX (757} 426-5766 TDD (757} 426.5794 CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (757) 427.4421 March 18, 2002 MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING 18A 2424 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23456-9083 Chairman, Virginia Beach, Development Authority One Columbus Center, Suite 300 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 FAX//499-9894 Gary Fentress, Esq. Office of the City Attorney Municipal Center FAX# 563-1167 RE: Evaluation of Public Benefit Tidewater-Oxford Project, a.k.a. Reflections Apartments Multi-Family Rental Housing Bond Modification 480 Unit Multifamily Housing Complex VBDA Agenda March 19, 2002 I have reviewed the information provided regarding the above referenced project. In my opinion a public benefit is achieved by this facility providing a set aside oftwenty per cent of the units for low or moderate income households. Please let me know if you need anything further regarding this issue. Thank you. jerely, Andrew M. Friedman Director Proud Recipient of the 1998 U.S. Senate Medallion of Excellence for Productivity and Quality in the Public Sector. [Signature page to First Amendment to Series A Trust Indenture, Series B Trust Indenture, Series A Financing Agreement, Series B Financing Agreement, Series A Note, Series B Note, Series A Mortgage, Series B Mortgage and Related Documents (Reflections)] SOUTHRIDGE-OXFORD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Maryland limited partnership By: OAMCO X, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, its Managing General Partner By: Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation, a Member By: By: Harry G. Alcock Executive Vice President AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware c0'rporation, a Member By: Harry G. Aicock Executive Vice President STATE OF § § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2002, by Harry G. Alcock, Executive Vice President of AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Oxford Realty Financial Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation as members of OAMCOX, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, managing partner of SOUTHRIDGE-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership, on behalf of said partnership. [NOTARY SEAL] Notary Print Name Notary Public, State of My commission expires [Signatures continued on following page] 04-94868.07 SCHEDULE I MANDATORY SINKING FUND REDEMPTION SCHEDULE Payment Dates July 15, 2002 - October 15, 2026 $0 Upon Maturity $13,463,390 04-94868.07 SCHEDULE II COMBINED INTEREST RATE SCHEDULE Interest Period Interest Rate Closing - Maturity Not to exceed 8.25% 04-94868.07 SCHEDULE III QUARTERLY PRINCIPAL PAYMENT SCHEDULE Pa~rment Dates July 1, 2002 - October 1,2031 Amoullt $0 Upon Maturity $13,463,390 04-94868.07 SCHEDULE IV PARTIES TO SERIES A BOND POOLING AGREEMENT AND EXCESS REVENUE AGREEMENT Allview-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership Fox Valley-Oxford Limited Paxtnership, a Maryland limited partnership Middletown-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership Sehaumburg-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership Southridge-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership Tidewater-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership Travis One-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership Westridge-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership 04-94568.07 MAR 15 2002 Date: b4arch.19. 2002 Applicant's Name(s): Tidewater-Oxford Limited Parmershle A 11 Owners (t/d~eeentfre~rn applicant); Type of Application: Kczonlng: l~tom Conditional Use Permit: Sl~eet Closure: Subdivision Vm~ance: To Other: Re~undine Bond Issue(Technical Rel;_-ue,~ee Under Fed~sl T~ Law~ The following is to be completed by or for the Appllgtnt~ 1. If the appllc~t Is u CO,OPTION, I~t all ~o 0~cers of~e Co~o[atlon: If the applir, ant is a PART~F--~SHIP. 1~I~ or other Uninco~o~ed Otg~tion. list all members or p~e~ In ~e orpntzatlon: OR,CO XIL L.L.C.. ~a,-~ O~etal Pruner: Aimco~ldewater. L.~.C.* e~cml o~er~ 0xEord Investor Co~o~tlon- a~a~ p~e~: Oxford lnves~ent H Co~o~ation. eene~] pa~er .... The followin~ is to be compl~ by or for ~e O~er (V~,~a. ,ne ~rue~) If the o~et ts a CO~O~O~, Ual mil ~e o~c~ of~e Co~ora~on: If the o~er ~ a P~~, FI~ or o~er Ualneo~ted Org~tion, list all membe~ or p~ners in ~e orsani~tion: TIDigWAT'ER-OXFOR-D LIMITED PAR'I'N~KSHIP, a Maryland limited partnership Aj*MCO/laethesdal-loldJnp, lflc~, m Delaware coq~oettJ~fl, · Member PattJ lC. Fielding Senior ~'ice P~ei~Jdeflt I..4 ~'~ 733. I 3 ! I ** TOTAL PaB~.B2 *~ VIRGINIA '. BEACH EXHIBIT E Virginia Beach Devclopmcnt Authority , One Columbus Center, Suite 300 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 (757) 437-6464 FAX (757) 499-9894 Website www. virginia-beach.va.us/dept/econdev E-mail ecdcv~city, virginia-beach.va.us CITY OF VIRG~ BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MULTIFAMII.Y HOUSING REFUNDING BONDS (TIDEWATER-OXFORD PROJECT) 1996 SERIES A AND 1996 SERIES B The Authority recommends approval the captioned financing. The Reflections Apartments facility (the "Project") was built in .1987 and public approval was given prior to the issuance of the original bond financing in 1985. The approval is being renewed at this time as technically required by the Internal Revenue Code became the weighted average life of the 1996 Bonds is being extended. The original benefits of this Project - the provision of safe, attractive and sanitary housing for low to moderate income families within the City of Virginia Beach - continues to be the basis for recommendation. The refinancing will preserve and extend the restrictions placed upon the property when the initial bond financing was entered into in 1985, thereby assuring the City of Virginia Beach that the benefits of the income restrictions applicable to these apamnents will continue. EXHIBIT F FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT (TIDEWATER-OXFORD PROJECT) DATE: TO: PROJECT NAME: TYPE OF FACILITY: March 14, 2002 The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Tidewater-Oxford Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership A 480-unit multifamily rental housing project known as Reflections, located at 3001 Reflections Way in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia 1. Maximum amount of financing sought: $25,644,176.00 Taxable value of the facility's real property $23,974,000.00 Real property tax per year using present tax rates $ 292,482.80 Personal property tax per year using present tax rates $ N/A Merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates o Estimated dollar value per year of goods and services purchased locally $223,500.00 Number of regular employees on year-round basis 8. Average annual salary per employee $26,000.00 The information contained in this Statement is based solely on facts and estimates provided by Tidewater-Oxford Limited Partnership. C1TY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Ro~ Chairman ~ BI-47710.1 3/19/02 March 13,2002 The atla~hed FLsoal lm~ac~ Stat~ent for Tidewater-Oxford Limited Partnership is true and correct in all material ~,spects. TID~'~ATER-OXFORD LIMITED PAR~, a Maryland limited partnership By: OAMCO XII, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, its Managing Gc. neral Partner By:. Oxford R~alty Financial Group, Ir~c., a Maryland corpo.ration, a Member Patti K. Fielding Senior Vice President By: AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings, Inc., a l~lawarc corporation, a Member Patti K. Fiekllng Senior Vice President TOTAL PP~3E.O~ ** CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (TIDEWATER-OXFORD PROJECT) 1996 SERIES A AND 1996 SERIES B 1. PROJECT NAME: Tidewater-Oxford Project 2. LOCATION: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 3001 Reflections Way Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452 Re-issuance of the 1996 Bonds (due to extension of maturity) which were originally issued to refinance the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority's $26,800,000 Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Tidewater-Oxford Project) 1985 (the "1985 Bonds"), the proceeds of which were used to make a loan to Tidewater- Oxford Limited Partnership (the "Borrower") to finance the acquisition;'construction and equipping of a 480-unit multifamily rental housing project known as "Reflections" located at 3001 Reflections Way, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452. 4. AMOUNT OF BOND ISSUE: $26,800,000 5. PRINCIPALS: OAMCO, XII, L.L.C., Managing General Partner Oxford Investment Corporation, General Partner · Oxford Investment II Corporation, General Partner 6. ZONING CLASSIFICATION: ao bo Present zoning classification of the Property: A-2 Is rezoning proposed? Yes ~ If so, to what zoning classification? N/A No X The Authority recommends approval the captioned financing. The Project was built in 1987 and public approval was given prior to the issuance of the original bond financing in 1985. The ' approval is being renewed at this time a~ technically rgquired by the Internal Revenue Code because the weighted average life of the 1996 Bonds is being extended. The original benefits of this Project - the provision of safe, attractive and sanitary housing for Iow to moderate income families within the City of Virginia Beach - continues to be the basis for recomr~, end.ation. refinancing will preserve and extend the restrictions placed upon theproperty when the initial bond financing was entered into in 1985, thereby assuring the City of Virginia Beach that the benefits of the income restrictions applicable to these apartments will continue. 1-436969.1 3/21/02 · , EXHIBIT H City of Virgir DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND NEIGHi3ORHOOO PRESERVATION (757) 426-5?5O FAX (757) 426*5766 TDO (757) 426-579,1 CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (757) 427-442! March 18, 2002 MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING 18A 2424 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH. VA 23456-9083 Chairman, Virginia Beach, Development Authority One Columbus Center, Suite 300 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 FAX# 499-9894 Gary Fentress, Esq. Office of thc City Attorney Municipal Center FAX# 563-1167 RE: Evaluation of Public Benefit Tidewater-Oxford Project, a.k.a. Reflections Apartments Multi-Family Rental Housing Bond Modification 480 Unit Muitifamily Housing Complex VBDA Agenda March 19, 2002 I have reviewed the information provided regarding the above referenced project. In my opinion a public benefit is achieved by this facility providing a set aside oftwenty per cent of the units for Iow or moderate income households. Please let me know if you need anything further regarding this issue. Thank you. /~erely, Andrew M. Friedman Director Proud Recipient of the 1998 U.S. Senate Medallion of Excellence for Productivity and Q~uality in the Public Sector. TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Princess Anne Road / Kempsville Road / Witchduck Improvements [CIP 2-048NDOT #0165.-134-107] MEETING DATE: April 9, 2002 Road Intersection Background: During the late 1980's, the Princess Anne Road/Kempsville Road/Witchduck Road intersection was programmed for improvement in the City's Capital Improvement Program (ClP). A traffic study and conceptual plans were developed and presented at a Location Public Hearing on March 25, 1987. Due to considerable opposition to those concepts, no further study or design phase action was taken and the intersection improvement project was removed from the ClP. The City reintroduced improvements to this intersection into the CIP in FY 1998-1999, and by Council resolution requested that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) program a project to study improvement options and to complete design of the preferred option. Princess Anne Road/Kempsville Road/VVitchduck Road Intersection Improvements is a VDOT capital project to reconstruct this vital crossroads to eliminate current congestion problems and to raise the capacity of the intersection to meet future demands. VDOT held a Citizen Information Meeting (CIM) for this project on January 9, 2002. It is the policy of VDOT that following the CIM, the City Council adopt a resolution approving the recommended preferred alternate for improvements to the Princess Anne Road/Kempsville Road/Witchduck Road intersection. Considerations: The Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC) met on March 20, 2002 and selected Alternate "B" as the recommended improvement alternate. Alternate "B" is an at-grade intersection with a traffic signal, which will shift the intersection south approximately 600 feet from the current location. The relocation of Princess Anne Road to a new alignment will provide improved roadway geometry, and the realignment of Witchduck and Kempsville Roads to the east will provide geometry more compatible with proposed future improvements to widen Witchduck Road to a six-lane divided roadway from this intersection to Virginia Beach Boulevard. Each approach to the new intersection will provide three through lanes, two left turn lanes, and a right turn lane. Alternate "B" provides an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) of D and a reasonable delay time of 42 seconds in the design year 2026. The preliminary budgetary cost estimate for the preferred CAC recommended Alternate "B" is between $39 - $ 44 million. However, VDOT is currently reexamining their project estimates and project schedule in preparing the new Virginia Transportation Development Plan for FY 2002-2003/FY 2007-08. Based on the current VDOT cost estimate aforementioned, the City's share of the project cost responsibility will be 2% or approximately $780,000 - $880,000. In the FY 2001-02/FY 2006-07 ClP, the City has programmed local funding of $3,033,055 with $2, 180,057 funded to date, and has shown the State portion at $24,649,945 totaling $27,683,000. The amount of local funds programmed exceeds the required cost share to advance site acquisition if necessary and to preserve options for aesthetic enhancements (e.g., more extensive landscaping, open space, brick pavers, pedestrian scale historic street lighting, etc.). This project will improve mobility and relieve traffic congestion at this heavily traveled intersection serving the Kempsville area of the City. If the capacity of this intersection is not increased, severe congestion, excessive travel delays, and higher accident rates are expected. In discussions with VDOT concerning project priority rankings for existing City highway projects, the City has identified the Princess Anne Road/Kempsville Road/VVitchduck Road Intersection Project as the CfA priority. Public Information: In order to obtain a user's understanding of the problems that exist at this intersection, VDOT and City staff organized a CAC comprised of stakeholders that are local to the Princess Anne Road/Kempsville Road/VVitchduck Road intersection. These members include nearby neighborhood civic leaders, church representatives, business representatives, commuters, and representatives of nearby community resources (e.g. schools, and ballfields). The CAC, chaired by City Council Member Mandigo, met on a monthly basis from March - September 2001. CAC members were informed about the process of plan development, traffic analysis, environmental concerns, and the right of way acquisition process to assist them in the development of viable alternates for improvements to this intersection. VDOT conducted a Citizen Information Meeting (ClM) on January 9, 2002 to provide an opportunity for input into the selection of a preferred improvement alternate, and to describe present status and future activities. Following the January 9, 2002 ClM, 204 written responses have been received from the public. Of those respondents, 91% recognize the present congestion situation, and 55% avoid the intersection due to congestion. With only 6% preferring a "No Build" alternate, the general public consensus is that something needs to be done to improve the efficiency of the intersection. Alternatives: One of the initial elements conducted in the project study phase was the collection of existing traffic data and the analysis of the current intersection operations. Traffic counts on both roads were taken as well as counts of the turning vehicles at the intersection. These volumes were then used as a baseline for projecting the traffic volumes to the design year of 2026. These projections indicate that without any improvements, "No Build", the operation of this intersection will continue to fail in the future. The PM peak hour delay is anticipated to grow from 81.4 seconds to 183.9 seconds by 2026. This represents a 126% increase in the delay. With this additional delay, increased congestion will be experienced within the intersection and on surrounding roadways. Options A, C, and D were not recommended since they were more expensive, took longer to accomplish, and/or were more disruptive to the community than Alternate "B" (see ClM Brochure for details). Recommendations: Approve the selected preferred Alternate "B" per the CAC recommendation and authorize VDOT to initiate the design process by adopting the Preferred Alternate Approval Resolution. Attachments: Location Map; CIM Brochure; and Preferred Alternate Approval Resolution. Recommended Action: Approve the CAC selected preferred alternate "B" and, authorize VDOT to initiate the design process by adopting the Preferred Alternate Approval Resolution. Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PROPOSED DESIGN FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF PRINCESS ANNE, KEMPSVILLE AND WITCHDUCK ROADS 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 31 32 WHEREAS, a Citizen Information Meeting was conducted January 9, 2002, in the City of Virginia Beach by representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation after due and proper notice for the purpose of considering alternates for the Princess Anne Road/Kempsville Road/Witchduck Road Intersection Improvements project (CIP #2-048/VDOT %0165-134-107) in the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, at the Citizen Information Meeting, drawings and other pertinent information were made available for public inspection in accordance with the state and federal requirements; all persons and parties in attendance were afforded full opportunity to participate, and representatives of the City of Virginia Beach were present and participated; and WHEREAS, a Citizen Advisory Committee ("CAC"), comprised of stakeholders.in the area of Princess Anne Road/Kempsville Road/ Witchduck Road intersection, has met on a monthly basis from March to September, 2001 to develop and evaluate alternate improvement scenarios; and WHEREAS, the CAC met on March 20, 2002, to evaluate comments received from the Citizen Information Meeting and to choose a single preferred alternative from the four alternatives shown and discussed at the meeting; and WHEREAS, the CAC has been requested to provide input at key points during the design stages of the project; and WHEREAS, impacted property owners will continue to be invited to participate in the CAC input process at those key points of the design stage on this project; and WHEREAS, the Council has expressed concern regarding impacts to property owners; and 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 WHEREAS, the CAC recommends the selection of Alternative "B," described in the attached Exhibit, which is incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council had previously requested the Virginia Department of Transportation to program this project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has given careful consideration to all of the foregoing matters; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Council hereby approves Alternative "B" as the concept for design of the Princess Anne Road/Kempsville Road/ Witchduck Road Intersection Improvements project (CIP #2-048/VDOT %0165-134-107), as described in the attached Exhibit; and that feasible means to mitigate impacts to property owners will be pursued. 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-8441 Ordin/Noncode/altappres. wpd April 3, 2002 R-4 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Public Works Depa~tme%nt APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Cit~ 2 EXHIBIT ALTERNATE B - description With this alternate, the ultimate location of the intersection is shifted south approximately 600 feet. This will relocate Princess Anne Road to a new alignment that will provide improved geometry over the existing alignment. This is an at-grade intersection with a traffic signal and will provide three through-lanes, two left-turn lanes, and one right-turn lane in each direction. (See project location map). Constructing Princess Anne Road will be easier and quicker since traffic could be maintained on the existing pavement while the new pavement is installed in its new location. U< <~ U CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager An Amendment to City Code Section 21-321.2 Pertaining to Maximum Speed Limits in Designated Neighborhoods. MEETING DATE: April 9, 2002 Background: On February 13, 2001, an ordinance was passed to deter speeding on residential streets identified and qualified by the Traffic Calming Program. That ordinance allows a court to impose upon a driver convicted of speeding on these designated streets a fine up to $200. Considerations: Pursuant to § 46.2-878.2 of the Code of Virginia, the City of Virginia Beach can designate these problem streets by ordinance, and provide that the fine for a speeding violation on such streets is not prepayable. Consequently, if a person is charged with speeding on any such street, he or she would have to appear before, and be sentenced by the court. The Traffic Calming Program is designed as follows: Phase I is aimed at awareness and education, and generally takes place during discussions between Traffic Engineering and the neighborhood representative. In this phase, the neighborhood chooses the streets they want evaluated for inclusion in the program. Phase II consists of speed studies of the choser~ streets. If the studies shows an 85 Percentile speed of at least 33 mph, or it shows an average speed of at least 29 mph, in a posted 25 mph speed zone, then the Police Department will conduct a series of selective enforcement on the designated streets, followed by follow-up traffic studies at the end of each enforcement cycle. If the speeds persist or increase, the streets will be eligible to enter Phase III of the program if at least 75% of the established neighborhood petition area sign a petition requesting the implementation of Phase II1. Phase III of the Program involves designated streets within a neighborhood being identified in the above-referenced ordinance, therefore subjecting violators to a non-prepayable fine up to $200.00. And finally, should this initiative fail, the neighborhood may request Phase IV, the installation of physical devices to prevent speeding. After advising all participating neighborhoods of the Program policies and the criteria for inclusion in the Program, the streets added by this amendment have qualified for inclusion in the program with a petition signed by at least 75% of the established petition area residents. Speed studies performed on 6/20/01 and 8/26/01 showed an 85th Percentile speed of 33 and 34 mph, respectively, on Lord Dunmore Drive. Speed studies performed on 1/12/01 and 6/26/01 showed an 85th Percentile speed of 34 and 35 mph, respectively, on Homestead Drive. Recommendations: It is recommended that the attached ordinance amendment, which adds new streets in Fairfield and Bellamy to the street listing in § 21-321.2, be adopted. All of these streets were identified through the Traffic Calming Program. it is anticipated that more streets will be added to the ordinance in the future. Public Information: This ordinance will be advertised advertised. in the same manner other Council agenda items are Attachments: Ordinance Map Recommended Action: Approval Submitting De.e.P_artm e nt/Ag~e~ cy~o_l ice/P u b lic City Manager.k,..T~.~ Works~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN SECTION 21-321.2 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS IN DESIGNATED NEIGHBORHOODS SECTION AMENDED: 21-321.2 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 21-321.2. Traffic Calming via Maximum speed limits in certain residential districts; penalty. Pursuant to section 46.2-878.2 of the Code of Virginia, any person who operates a motor vehicle in excess of the maximum speed limit established for any portion of the following highways located within the designated neighborhoods, on or after the effective date, shall be guilty of a traffic infraction punishable by a non-prepayable fine of not more than $200, in addition to other penalties provided by law. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Effective as of February 13, 2001. 1. L & J Garden: Norwich Avenue; Tajo Avenue; Fairlawn Avenue; Dulcie Avenue. 2. Acredale: Acredale Road; Bonneydale Road; Andover Road; Olive Road; Burlington Road; Rittman Road; Minden Road; Alton Road; Langston Road; Old Kempsville Road. 3. Lake Shores: Jack Frost Road; Lake Shores Road. 4. Middle Plantation/Little Neck: Harris Road. 29 30 31 32 33 Effective as of August 29, 2001. 1. Lake Shores: Oak Leaf Lane; Tern Road; Lake Road S; Regina Lane; Meredith Road; School Road; Mosby Road; Frizzel Drive; Finn Road; Charla Lee Lane; Smith Farm Road. 34 35 36 37 38 39 2. Brighton on the Bay: Templeton Lane; Wivenhoe Way.; Starr Way. 3. Baylake Pines/Baylake Beach: Ben Gunn Road; Indian Hill Road; Baylake Road; Rampart Avenue; Bayville Road; Lookout Road; Sandy Bay Drive. 4. Country Haven: Stewart Drive. 40 41 42 Effective as of April 9, 2002. Fairfield: Lord Dunmore Drive. Bellam¥ Manor: Homestead Drive. 43 44 45 46 COMMENT The streets indicated under the heading"Effective as of April 9, 2002" will become part of the Traffic Calming Program. Drivers caught speeding on those designated streets can be fined up to $200.00. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of April, 2002. CA-8433 F:\data\aty\ordin\proposed\21-321.2.additions2-ord March 18, 2002 R1 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: C~_t:y Attorn-e¥' s Off±ce APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: 2 Neighborhoods Participating in Phase 111 of the Traffic Calming Program, Ordinance 2619 Lake Shores .~,.~ ..~..~ .... ~ ......... .,?~. Baylake Beach ~.. ~ ...... ~ .,~. ......................... ~ ~ · · ~ ~ ......... -,~ oad ,..~ .... BFi hton on ~ ............. . .... ~ ....... the Bay .~,~ ,..V~,K.:~; xR ;~'~'." ~:~%~'~. /~J ') .~'.,~V::,:.::)E'~ ~:.::~', ';': Jg{.B:-'~:O:li,tb~;~¢~..~,:' .~¢',~ :'.'-:',~ ~:.;:;:.'.':.'::~.". Or':'¢~'' '" :~'<';':6' '"''~ ~ ''~'¢ ........ 't' ." ~ ~,' ' ~ ¢ '~'~' ~ ' ' * t'"'{; '~ "~ ~ ~ ' 'Z ~'' ..... ' .... ' .... · :~,:~ ~' .~/~c:~:~.'~, ~..~;~;,:~e~,~' v"".'k I" ?/" ~':~'*~. ...... ~.~"' ,; :':::':'~'. ~ '~ ~ (~ ~L~"~:t~%~;~t.~..'" ~%~. ~,,.. ~:, ;::~ ~f;'t"'~''~ : ~J ,,-~,~,./ '~ Acredale : /] ~. r:~?~" ~.~;~:~'~'~'~?" :::::f :,;¢%:' ' '~ -'~:~2" ' . . .~5~ . ~" [ :'~ ~.: '~ ~' ~' ; ' :;; :'f~ ~ ?.: :'~.~: ::; .... . ~, ~,.. j~ ,, ~. .,::/ .,~ ................ .... . -, .......... Count, Haven :::,. ~ ~%_ ( , ..~' ,.. ~-,r ":~': ""'"":::;'~ ~ " ~ ~ ~X t' ~ ~ ~ . .. ~..:. i~;~" .,:h',;..'.. . .. : . ..... : .. ,:. ~ .~, -., ._./" 't'- ' . :. ~ :: . . ..' . ': .. '.' '..' ': .'¢. :':' ' ~. .... /.z:, .... ... - :. i ? :.: .: '.'/~ ",::~ ..': ::' ;:~:~:?: ::;:;:':q:~ :~::?.¢:~:?~,~ ~:".~:~ ~ ' ~ ~ · ' .': ::7:.. L::.'; ..'~:: ::...:: .:;/~% ;~..::::~ :.~:;:;~:.: :~ ~ ' · · , '. ~ . ' , ,,i'. , ',. , ,: :.:::',,:, ~ :.,z : ;- ~ · ~ i ' :g' t "-:'.: ~,'"t..'. .':. New Neighborhoods Proposed with L:;~;~::;;;.~::~,t~.:.:: ~ - .,.:.:-~. , ~f ........ · '- ," this Agenda ~'::'::~:.,~=:.:,:..~;:: :,~L?,.::~::~?~.~' ~ ,,., '. ' [ ~ / /"'"'- / · * Brighton oB the Bay wall be ~.~:~:;:'~ ~ ':";, ~:::: 7 .... ~.-., --(,.. ': :~:~::'~:?:: :'.;~ '.:~?;.;.. removed from the ProgrBm ~P . ';::. / .... Februa~ 2003 I ...... '~:: ..... ' ' ' ' :"' :. : ~' :"::'~-- - .- ' '. ,, ......... :"":']~':~ ':.~-.':L-':~ :.~:'%'~"-.:: '"":-.. ,: ', :' :' . · '.:~. :',":~ ~ _ r- "'"' ':"':?~' ' ~5:'-"~ · '. ' .': . : : ~ ,, ' '~ ',-. ,,~ ~. :,:::'~:/:: :~ '"::'" .:. L"':':.;.- '::';"~'~: .' ".' : "' ,'. "'":~ '. :': ( r '~ ' ::;::~:;.':~:::~::;:L;. ~:::~"'~::.¥"~;:'. '...;:::'.~ -%';.::.' .~'~ ' . . ' . .,', :' . :'., ~ ~ ~ · ::::':~'.""4;'- . . '.. . ... .. ] ', :. . ' ,.. ~,' · .,...:..~;.~;:':;, · ,. : .:.::.....' . · . . ' .' ........ . ............ ..'E: .... ":.'.:..: '-..' CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Ocean Park Fire and Rescue Replacement Station Land Purchase MEETING DATE: April 9, 2002 Background: The Ocean Park Fire and Rescue Station is located on property and in a facility owned by the Ocean Park Volunteer Fire and Rescue Squad. This facility is in disrepair and is located on a site that prohibits expansion of the current facility. The Virginia Beach Fire Station Facilities Assessment and Master Plan Study has recommended construction of a replacement facility on a site that is east of the current site, in closer proximity to the demand for fire and rescue services. Considerations: Land has become available off Shore Ddve, near North Great Neck Road. This land would be adequate to construct a facility that meets the needs of the Fire Department and the volunteer rescue squad. The Ocean Park Fire and Rescue Station replacement is included in the Proposed FY 2002-03 Capital Improvement Program (ClP #3-017). Site acquisition is programmed for FY 2002-03; however, funding will not be available until July 1,2002. The landowner (SunAmerica Investments, Inc.) has agreed to sell property to the City at a cost of $850,000. To facilitate the purchase of property at this time, funds can be transferred from existing capital projects. Funds of $600,000 can be transferred from Capital Project #3-447, Library Renovations and Replacements, with these funds to be replaced in the FY 2002-03 budget. Funds of $250,000 can be transferred from Capital Project #3-424, Fire and Rescue Station-Sandbridge Relocation, and due to favorable bids, this amount does not need to be replaced. Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. Alternatives: Seek alternative properties along the Shore Drive Corridor that are construction of a replacement facility. adequate for Recommendations: Approval of the ordinance to establish the capital project, transfer funds from current CIP projects, and authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement to purchase property. Attachments: Ordinance Parcel Description Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department F:~D~3~A TY~OrdinlNONCODE~Ocean Park Fire &Rescue. arp. w pd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH CAPITAL PROJECT %3- 017, FIRE AND RESCUE STATION-OCEAN PARK, TRANSFER FUNDS OF $850,000 TO THE PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE PROPERTY WHEREAS, the Virginia Beach Fire Station Facilities Assessment and Master Plan Study has recommended that the Ocean Park Fire and Rescue Station be relocated to a site described in the attached document entitled ~SunAmerica Investments, Inc. Properties Descriptions;" and WHEREAS, the $850,000 needed for the property purchase can be made available through a $600,000 transfer from Capital Project 93- 447, "Library Renovations and Replacements," (with the intent that this funding be replaced in the FY 2002-03 budget,) and a $250,000 transfer from Capital Project %3-424, Fire and Rescue Station Sandbridge. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That Capital Project %3-017, "Fire and Rescue Station- Ocean Park" is hereby established as a capital project. 2. That $600,000 from Capital Project 93-447, "Library Renovations and Replacements," and $250,000 from Capital Project #3- 424, "Fire and Rescue Station Sandbridge," are hereby transferred to Capital Project %3-017, "Fire and Rescue Station-Ocean Park" to facilitate the purchase of property. 3. That the City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, with SunAmerica Investments, Inc. for the purchase of property off Shore Drive near West Great Neck Road for the Ocean Park Fire and Rescue Station. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-8456 ordin/noncode/Fire & Rescue Station Ocean Park.ord March 29, 2002 R3 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: gement Se~ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:, / Law Department SunAmerica Investments, Inc. Properties Descriptions PARCEL ONE: 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 being known, numbered and designated as Parcel "1" (0.333 acre) (14, 525.79 Sq. Ft.), as shown on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 'A', DAVID I. AND GALE M. LEVINE (M.B. 187, AT PAGE 26) PROPERTY OF SUNSTATES PROPERTIES, LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 2499, Page 786. PARCEL TWO: All that certain parcel of land, together with the appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being in the Lynnhaven Magisterial District, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, fronting on Shore Drive and more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a drill hole on the southern right-of-way of Shore Drive (r/w varies); said point being located S 70 ° 27' 40" W 89.90 feet; N 13 ° 33' 10" W 5.44 feet from an iron pin at the northern terminus of an arc forming the northwest comer of the intersection of Sunstates Court (60' r/w) and Shore Drive (r/w varies); thence fi.om said point of beginning with the right-of-way of Shore Drive and the east line of Parcel Two, Sunstates House, L.P. (D.B. 3470, PG. 859) "S 13 ° 33' 10" E 150.32 feet to an iron pipe on the line of Parcel Three, Sunstates House, L.P. (D.B. 3470, PG. 859); thence with the north line of Parcel Three, S 79° 44' 26" W 129.24 feet to an iron pin on the line of ACT Partners (M.B. 132, PG. 10); thence with the line of ACT Parmers, N 13 ° 05' 24" W 125.62 feet to an iron pin inside an iron pipe on the southern right-of-way of Shore Drive; thence with the southern right-of-way of Shore Drive N 68 ° 45' 42" E 129.17 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.407 acres by survey." PARCEL THREE: 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 being known, numbered and designated as Parcel "3" (1.075 acres, 46,827.59 Sq. Ft.), as shown on that certain plat entitled"SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 'A', DAVID L. LAVINE AND GALE M. LAVINE (M.B. 187, AT PAGE 26) PROPERTY OF SUNSTATES PROPERTIES, LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk'S Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 2499, Page 786. The total consideration is as follows: EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOI J.ARS ($850,000) in full for land, all appurtenances and improvements thereon. GPIN 1590-30-2483, 1590-30-4409, and 1590-30-3390 I. PLANNING Application of COLONEL WILLIAM H. and JO A. GALLUP for an enlargement/ conversion of a nonconforming use and add an addition, enclose the deck and shed with a second floor addition to the structure at 304 45th Street, containing 6,477.5 square feet. (BEACH - DISTRICT 6) Applications of WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC. at the northeast comer of West Neck and Indian River Roads (3132 West Neck Road), containing 87.215 acres. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) (a) Variance to § 4.4Co) of the Subdivision Ordinance re the thirty (30)-foot minimum pavement width for interior streets Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R-15 Residential (c) Conditional Use Permit re Open Space Promotion Application of EDWARD M. WILLIAMS for a Variance to § 4.4Co) of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) at 1505 Quail Point Road. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) Application of VOiCE STREAM WIRELESS for a Conditional Use Permit re a communication tower at the southeast intersection of Holland Road and Dam Neck Road (3040 Holland Road) containing 400 square feet. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Application of VIRGINIA BEACH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH for a. Conditional Use Permit re a church/commercial parking lot at the southeast comer of Pacific Avenue and 20th Street on Lot 18, Block 41, Lot 20, Block 41 and Lot 22, Block 41 (208, 210 and 212 20t~ Stree0 containing 21,000 square feet. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) Application of SHIRLEY J. DALE for a Conditional Use Permit re a pet crematory on Lot A-22, Princess Anne Hunt Club (2284 London Bridge Road) containing 5.522 acres. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) Ordinance to amend § 1502 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re maximum building heights and hotel density in the RT-1 Resort Tourist District. March 12, 2002 INFORMAL SESSION MAYOR OBERNDORF: I'm going to ask for the Council to please come back so that Mr. Sessoms can go over the Consent Agenda, please. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Moving onto Planning. Gallup is a deferral if I recall. Linwood is not here. What was the time frame for that, do you-all recall, that he asked for? COUNCILMAN HARRISON: It was until -- VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: The letter was from Eddie Bourdon, if I recall. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: March 26th is going to be an action-packed Agenda. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Well, I think the North Beach do that. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Oh, I know. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: Council has published Tuesday, April 9th. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: 9th. Okay. April 9th is that okay? I'm going to recommend that that be deferred until April FORMAL SESSION MAYOR OBERNDORF: April 9th. Under Planning Item Number 1, Colonel William H. & Jo Gallup for deferral until Virginia Beach City Council March 12, 2002 5:15 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 CITY MA~IAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Planning Application of Colonel Willimzn H. & Jo A. Gallup for an enlargement/conversion of a nonconforming use Item V-J. 1. - 25 - PLANNING ITEM # 49418 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Harrison, City Council DEFERRED TO April 9, 2002, Resolution upon application of COLONEL WILLIAM H. and JO A. GALLUP for an enlargement/conversion of a nonconforming use and add an addition, enclose the deck and shed with a second floor addition to the structure: Resolution authorizing the enlargement and conversion of a non- conforming use on property located at 304 45th Street. Said parcel contains 6,477.5 square feet. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH Voting: 11-0 (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., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Rosemary Wilson Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None March 12, 2002 PEMBROKE OI=mGE PAnic 28t I~DE~EUgEI~C~: ~OULEVRaD T~LF=~'HONC. ?,~?-49g-Sg71 1=,~.5~,L.~' t 0U 0 . LEVY. p.e. &TTORNF_YS AND C, OUNSELORS AT LAW Apl'il 3, 2002 Via Fctcsimi[e No.: 426-$669 The Honorable Meyera E. Oberndorf M~nbcrs of City Council c/o Ruth Hodges Smith, City Cleric Office of the City Clerk Gity Hall Building # 1, Room 281 Municipal Center Virginia l~cach, Virginia 23456 Dcm~ M~yor Oberndorf and Members of CiW Council: I ~m writing to report that my clients and I have had a very constructive meeting with the Zoning Committee of the North End Civic League with respect to the above referenced item which is scheduled for public hearing on your agenda for Ttlesday, April 9, 2002. As a result of that mcctlng, my client~ are consulting with their architect about making some signific~_nt rcvision~ to their plan in order to provide living quarters for their daughter arid son-in-law who will be living on the property and caling for them. As a consequerice of these disctlssiorts, we are requesting an indefmit~ dcfcrr~al of the pending request. When we ha~e completed the revised Site Plan-and Building Elevations, we will be meeting again with tile North End Civic League's Zoning and Laird Use Committee to review the modifications- Obviously, we are al~o in communication with the Platting Dep~i iaiient of the City of Virginia Beach and will be sharing the ideas which have been generated by the interested parties. I am very optimistic that we will be able to create a plan which will eliminate a number of the legal non-confoi-iiiing aspects to the current structures which occupy the subject property. Wc will certainly keep the District Council Representative fully apprised of our efforts and our progress. Thank you again for your courtesy and assistance. With kind regards, I a.m RE~rlmhm St~cy Brlguem t~ONCNFRM IBRIOUK~J~/OBRNDRF2 Very truly yours. R. Edward Bourdon, Jr. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Col. William H. and Jo A. Gallup, Enlargement and Conversion of a Non- Conforming Use MEETING DATE: April 9, 2002 Background: A Resolution authorizing the enlargement and conversion of a non-conforming use on property located at 304 45th Street. Said parcel contains 6,477.5 square feet. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH. This request was deferred at the March 12, 2002 meeting to provide the applicant time to meet with neighborhood representatives regarding the proposal. Staff has not received any additional information since the March 12 meeting. Consideration: The applicant is requesting approval to enlarge and convert the existing guest cottage into a dwelling unit so that their daughter and son-in-law may live in close proximity as the applicants grow older. The applicant has obtained letters of support from the property owners directly adjacent to them. The use is nonconforming because guest houses are not permitted in the R- 7.5 Residential District. Additionally the existing guest cottage contains a kitchen. The applicant wishes to add a 10' by 30' addition across the front of the existing first floor of the cottage, a 2' by 6' addition on the east side of the cottage, enclose the deck and shed, and add a 30' by 30' second floor addition to the structure. The total floor area of the proposed structure will be 1,800 square feet. The structure will contain a small foyer, living room, dining room, kitchen and half bath on the first floor, and three bedrooms and two baths on the second floor. Recommendations: This request cannot be supported. The area is a mix of single-family dwellings, garage apartments, and guest cottages. There are a wide variety of different size cottages and garage apartments immediately surrounding the proposal. However, the proposed enlargement will result in a structure with a floor area more than three times the current floor area. The resulting structure will not be as appropriate to the district as the existing non-conforming use. Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning City Manager~ }~..,-~)~,~ Department Gallup - Non-Conforming Use Page 2 However, should the request be considered for approval, the attached resolution has several conditions that should be included. COL. WILLIAM H. & JO A. GALLUP General Information: March 12, 2002 REQUEST: ADDRESS: Enlargement and conversion of a nonconforming use - additions and alterations to a guest cottage. The applicant is requesting approval to enlarge and convert the existing guest cottage into a dwelling unit so that their daughter and son-in-law may live in close proximity as the applicants grow older. The applicant has obtained letters of support from the property owners directly adjacent to them. The use is nonconforming because guest houses are not permitted in the R- 7.5 Residential District. Additionally the existing guest cottage contains a kitchen. 304 45th Street CoL W~lliam ~ GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: 2418-86-89O8 6 - BEACH SITE SIZE: 6,477.5 square feet STAFF PLANNER: Faith Christie Major Issues: Insuring that the enlargement and conversion of the nonconforming guest cottage into a dwelling unit is no more detrimental to the neighborhood, and is as appropriate to the district as the existing non-conforming use. Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~°~~ COL. WILLIAM H. & JO A. GALLUP Page I Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoninq The main dwelling on the property is a nonconforming semi-detached dwelling. It and a garage (now the guest cottage) were constructed in 1945. The main dwelling is attached to the neighboring dwelling to the west by an enclosed breezeway making that unit nonconforming. The guest cottage was originally constructed as a garage and converted to the guest cottage in 1950. The cottage contains a kitchen. The site is zoned R-7.5 Single-family district. Surrounding Land Use and Zonin,q NoAh: South: East: West: · 45th Street · Across 45th Street are single family dwellings with garage apartments and / or detached cottages / R-7.5 Residential Distdct · An alley · Across the alley are garage apartments and / or detached cottages / R-7.5 Single Family District · Single family dwellings with garage apartments and / or detached cottages / R-7.5 Residential District · Single family dwellings with garage apartments and / or detached cottages / R-7.5 Single Family District Zonin,q and Land Use Statistics With Existing Single family dwelling and any of the permitted and Zoning: conditional uses in the R-7.5 Residential District With Proposed Zoning: The nonconforming semi-detached dwelling and the guest house Zonin,q History There is little zoning history to report in the immediate area. Forty-Fifth Street and the surrounding area appear to be a well-established section of single-family dwellings with detached garages, garage apartments and guest cottages that were built in the 1940s and 1950s. From 1957 to 1973 the site was zoned R-1 One-Family Residence District. From 1973 to 1988 the site was zoned R-6 Residential District. From 1988 to the present the site has been zoned R-7.5 Residential District. Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~[~~ COL. WILLIAM H. & JO A. GALLUP Page 2 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of 65-70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristic.~ A nonconforming semi-detached dwelling and guest cottage occupy the site. The site is landscaped with mature trees and shrubs. The site is in the Resource Management Area of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: The site is connected to City water. The site is connected to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP): Forty-Fifth Street is a local street. It is not on the Master Transportation Plan. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 45th Street Not ~ Existing Land Use z. 15 available 6,200 ADT a ....... r,~;~,. -r.:~ Proposed Land Use 3.15 erage y ~ps 2 as defined by Single-family dwelling and garage apartment 3 as defined by Single-family dwelling and garage apartment Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: No concerns A certificate of occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Code Official before re-occupying the structure. Any Fire Department cOncems will be addressed during the building permit process. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area of the city as Suburban Residential / Low Density, planned for residential use at or below 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Summary of Proposal The applicant is requesting approval to enlarge and convert the existing guest cottage into a dwelling unit so that their daughter and son-in-law may live in close proximity to the applicants as they age. The applicant has obtained letters of support Change to a Non-Conforming Use COL. WILLIAM H. & JO A. GALLUPPag® 3 from the property owners directly adjacent to them. The use is nonconforming because guesthouses are not permitted in the R-7.5 Residential District. Additionally the existing guest cottage contains a kitchen. The applicant wishes to add a 10' by 30' addition across the front of the existing first floor of the cottage, a 2' by 6' addition on the east side of the cottage, enclose the deck and shed, and add a 30' by 30' second floor addition to the structure. The total floor area of the proposed structure will be 1,800 square feet. The structure will contain a small foyer, living room, dining room, kitchen and half bath on the first floor, and three bedrooms and two baths on the second floor. The proposed structure will complement the main dwelling. It will have a 12/12 hip roof of black asphalt fiberglass shingles. The exterior siding will be lap siding painted white. The windows will be double hung colonial style. The shutters will be dark black-green raised panel style. The doors will be French style. The City Zoning Ordinance defines guest house as "a dwelling or lodging unit for temporary nonpaying guests in an accessory building. No such living quarters shall be rented, leased, or otherwise made available for compensation of any kind, nor shall such quarters include over five hundred (500) square feet of floor area. Kitchen facilities are not permitted." As previously stated in the report the structure was built as a garage in 1945 and converted to the guest cottage in 1950. The guest cottage is nonconforming because it has a kitchen and is not permitted in the R-7.5 Residential District. With the proposed additions and alterations the structure will become a second single-family dwelling on a Single lot. Evaluation of Request This request cannot be supported. The area is a mix of single-family dwellings, garage apartments, and guest cottages. There are a wide variety of different size cottages and garage apartments immediately surrounding the proposal. However, the proposed enlargement will result in a structure with a floor area more than three times the current floor area. The resulting structure will not be as appropriate to the district as the eXisting non-conforming use. The request, therefore, is not acceptable. Section 105(e)(1 ) states that No nonconforming use shall be converted to another use which does not conform to this ordinance [ Staff note: this is what is occurring in this case] except upon a resolution of the city council authorizing such conversion, based upon its finding that the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than is the existing nonconforming use .... When any nonconforming use is converted to another use, the new use and accompanying conditions of development shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance in each respect that the existing use conforms, and in any instance where the existing use does not conform to those provisions, the new use shall not be more deficient. City Council may attach conditions to their approval of the request to insure that the structure meets the intent and purpose of the ordinance. Should City Council determine that the use is "equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than is the existing nonconforming use" and grants approval of the request, the following conditions are recommended: Change to a Non-Conforming Use COL. WILLIAM H. & JO A. GALLUP Page 4 Conditions The additions and alterations to the guesthouse shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted plan titled Physical Survey of Lot 79, Cavalier Shores Section B Virginia Beach, Virginia for William H. Gallup & Jo A. Gallup. Said plan is on file in the Planning Department, City of Virginia Beach. The additions are limited to the 10' by 30' addition across the front of the existing first floor of the cottage, a 2' by 6' addition on the east side of the cottage, enclosing the deck and shed, and adding a 30' by 30' second floor addition to the structure. The structure shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted Front Elevation plan, First Floor plan, and Second Floor plan. Said plans are on file in the Planning Department, City of Virginia Beach. The building materials shall be as specified in the application. The roofing materials shall be asphalt fiberglass shingles, the exterior siding shall be lap siding, and the windows shall be double hung colonial style. Three 9' by 18' parking spaces shall be installed on the site. The spaces shall be finished in concrete, asphalt, or paver blocks. The applicant shall record, prior to the issuance of a building permit, in the City of Virginia Beach Circuit Court Clerk's Office a deed restriction limiting the use of the dwelling only to members of the family of the occupants of the principal dwelling on the lot, and providing that the enlarged and converted structure shall not be offered for sale or exchange, separately from the principal dwelling, for twenty-five (25) years from the date of this approval. Said deed restriction shall be approved by the Office of the City Attomey prior to recordation.. NO 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~ Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~°~~~ COL. WILLIAM H. & JO A. GALLUP Page 5 Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~f~.~%~ COL. WILLIAM H. & JO A. GALLUP Page 6 Z Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~o~'~ COL. WILLIAM H. & JO A. GALLUP Page 7 Change to a Non-Conforming Use COL. WILLIAM H. & JO A. GALLUP Page 8 ,j Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~°~~ COL. WILLIAM H. & JO A. GALLUP Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ENLARGEMENT AND CONVERSION OF A NONCONFORMING GUEST HOUSE INTO A NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 304 45TM STREET, IN THE BEACH DISTRICT 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 WHEREAS, Col. William H. and Jo A. Gallup (hereinafter the "Applicants") have made application to the City Council for authorization to enlarge and convert a nonconforming guest house to a nonconforming single-family dwelling situated on a certain lot or parcel of land having the address of 304 45~h Street, in the R-7.5 Residential District; and WHEREAS, the said guest house and proposed single-family dwelling are nonconforming uses, in guest houses are not allowed in the R-7.5 Residential District and the conversion of the proposed guess house into a single-family dwelling would result in there being two single-family dwellings on the lot; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 105 of the City Zoning Ordinance, the enlargement and conversion of a nonconforming structure is unlawful in the absence of a resolution of the City Council authorizing such action upon a finding that the proposed structure, as enlarged and converted, 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 converted, 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 conversion of the Applicant's guest house into a single-family dwelling is hereby authorized, upon the following conditions: 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 1. The additions and alterations shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted plan titled Physical Survey of Lot 79, Cavalier Shores Section B Virginia Beach, Virginia for William H. Gallup and Jo A. Gallup. Said plan is on file in the Planning Department, City of Virginia Beach. The additions are limited to the 10' by 30' addition across the front of the existing first floor of the guest house, a 2' by 6' addition on the east side of the guest house, enclosing the deck and shed, and adding a 30' by 30' second floor addition to the structure; 2. The structure shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted Front Elevation plan, First Floor plan and Second Floor plan. Said plans are on file in the Planning Department, City of Virginia Beach. The building materials shall be as specified in the application. The roofing materials shall be asphalt fiberglass shingles, the exterior siding shall be lap siding and the windows shall be double-hung colonial style; 3. Three 9' by 18' parking spaces shall be installed on the site. The spaces shall be finished in concrete, asphalt or paver blocks; and 4. The applicant shall record, prior to the issuance of a building permit, in the City of Virginia Beach Circuit Court Clerk's Office a deed restriction limiting the use of the dwelling only to members of the family of the occupants of the principal dwelling on the lot, and providing that the enlarged and converted structure shall not be offered for sale or exchange, separately from the principal dwelling, for twenty-five (25) years from the date of this approval. Such deed restriction shall be approved by the Office of the City Attorney prior to its recordation. 62 63 the Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on day of , 2002. 64 65 66 67 CA-8422 bkw/work/noncongallup · wpd R-1 March 1, 2002 68 69 70 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Planning' 71 72 73 74 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: D~P~ r~nt~ -of 3 COUNClI/qAN BRANCH: I'm glad we have a couple more weeks to look at it. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Yeah. We will work it out. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: In fact if we push it off long enough, we can let our future Council -- VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Oh, that's a short-timer's attitude. FORMAL SESSION VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: deferral. However, Under Planning, West Neck Properties, Incorporated, for approval for a two-week I want to note that there is a speaker here. CITY CLERK: Your Honor, that speaker has come in and checked and if it is being deferred, she will come back on April the 9th. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Thank you very much. going to do. That is what I was Item Number 2, Maxine Johnson for approval. Item Number 3, Atlantic Shores Baptist Church for approval. Item Number 4, Princessboro Development Company, Incorporated, has requested a withdrawal. I understand that we have and I know the staff has made every effort and even contacted a lot of people ahead of time not to come down because there was a withdrawal. However, I see we have six or seven people who were opposed to it. Does anyone object to the withdrawal? Hearing none, we will move forward. And, finally, Item Number 5, Princess Anne Little League for approval. Do I have a motion? COUNCILMAN HARRISON: So moved. COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: Second. 4 gets a low score because it eats up all the open space, then, I would like to kind of see you weigh one off of the other if that would be possible. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Well, we have a couple of weeks to get that done. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: Great. COUNCILMAN JONES: I want a voice in here, because I feel kind of the same way. I would like to know how it would size up to your evaluation process with the larger lots, because I'm not comfortable with 10,000 square foot lots either. I'm afraid if we start with 10,000 square foot lots in this development, then we are going to end up.with every developer coming in and saying well you did it over here, we ought to be able to do it here and I'm not sure that's what I want to hear. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Okay. Barbara. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: You know then that goes back to maybe it's just too many lots fo~ the parcel. That's still where my problem is. Coming up with the right number of lots is an issue and you know I -- thinking in terms of the things that we have heard at some of the Workshops that we have attended. You know if it's really well designed and it's a really good neighborhood particularly with a lot of open space, the lots are going to sell for a lot more money. So, you may be able to have fewer lots much better designed and so forth that will net the developer the same amount of money in the long run simply because the lots will be more valuable. So, this idea of we have got to get that many lots on here is driving the fact that you have either got to have small lots or encroaching the area that we should have retained. So, it's still'-- you know I guess we've just got a lot of facets for this whole thing. So, my concern is that number of lots. 3 INFORMAL SESSION VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Planning. Mrs. Henley, would it be okay with you for a two-week deferral here on Consent, noting that they are going back to come up with the proffers that the staff has recommended? COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: support. Yeah. I don't object to the two-week deferral, but I'm not able to necessarily VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: I understand. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: There may be someone down to speak in opposition. You would note that at the beginning, so they don't have to sit all the way through. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Absolutely. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: showed larger lot sizes. Mr. Scott, I understand that originally the Applicant had submitted an Application that Can we get a look at that to see what -- I'm still having indigestion over this 10,000 square-foot lot issue with $350,000 homes. That's not my concept of a transition area. ROBERT SCOTT: We can show you that. you that. In fact, I did show COUNCILMAN BRANCH: Yeah, but it's hard to read over a fax machine. ROBERT SCOTT: I can get copies made. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: Could we have that original plan with the larger lots run through your evaluation process? I mean I would like to see -- I'm like Linwood. I was thinking about the larger lots too. I don't want to -- I mean if it Virginia Beach City Council March 26, 2002 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 CITY MA/qAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, PSMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Planning Application of West Neck Properties, Incorporated 1 Item IT-K.1. - 30- PLANNING ITEM # 49453 Upon motion by Councilman Harrison, seconded by Councilman Mandigo, City Council DEFERRED to the City Council Session of April 9, 2002, applications of WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC applications of WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC. for a Variance to § 4. 4(3) of the Subdivision Ordinance re the thirty (30)-foot minimum pavement width for interior streets, and Ordinances for a Conditional Change of Zoning and Conditional Use Permit: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation. Parcel is located at 3132 West Neck Road (GPIN t42403-21-1935; #2403-21-0241). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION, FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-1 AND AG-2 TO CONDITIONAL R-15 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT An Ordinance upon Application of West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation, for a Change of Zoning District Classi. fication from AG- 1 and A G-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R- 15 Residential District at the northwest corner of West Neck Road and Indian River Road (GPIN #2403- 21-1935; #2403-21-0241). The proposed zoning classification to Conditional R-15 is for single family residential land use on lots no less than 15,000 square feet. This site is located in the Transition Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for appropriate growth opportunities, consistent with the economic vitality policies of Virginia Beach. Said parcel is located at 3132 West Neck Road and contains 87.215 acres more or less. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. AND, ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF WEST NEcK PROPERTIES, INC., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN SPACE PROMOTION Ordinance upon Application of West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation, for a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion at the northeast corner of West Neck Road and Indian River Road (GPIN #2403-21-1935; #2403-21-0240. Saidparcel is located at 3132 West Neck Road and contains 87.215 acres. DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE. ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF WOODFIN HEATING, INC., FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN A UTOMOBILE SER VICE STATION Ordinance upon Application of Woodfin Heating, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile service station on certain property located on the east side of First Colonial Road, 160 feet more or less north of Virginia Beach Boulevard (GPIN 112407-86-4082). Said parcel contains 41,817.6 square feet. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH. March 26, 2002 Item V-K. 1. - 31 - PLANNING ITEM # 49453 (Continued) Voting: 10-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting.4ye: 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, ,Ir. and Rosemary Wilson Council Members Yoting Nay: None Council Members .4bsent: Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf March 26, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager West Neck Properties, Inc., a VA corp., Change of Zoning District Classification, Conditional Use Permit, and Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: April 9, 2002 Background: (1) An Ordinance upon Application of West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation, for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-15 Residential District at the northwest comer of West Neck Road and Indian River Road (GPIN #2403-21-1935; #2403-21-0241). The proposed zoning classification to Conditional R-15 is for single family residential land use on lots no less than 15,000 square feet. This site is located in the Transition Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for appropriate growth opportunities, consistent with the economic vitality policies of Virginia Beach. Said parcel is located at 3132 West Neck Road and contains 87.215 acres more or less. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. (2) An Ordinance upon Application of West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation, for a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion at the northeast corner of West Neck Road and Indian River Road (GPIN #2403-21-1935; #2403-21-0241 ). Said parcel is located at 3132 West Neck Road and contains 87.215 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. (3) Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation. Parcel is located at 3132 West Neck Road (GPIN #2403-21-1935; #2403- 21-0241). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. This request was deferred at the January 22, 2002 meeting. The request was deferred for 30 days at the February 5, 2002 meeting to provide time for the Planning Commission, City Council, and City staff to discuss clarification of Transition Area policies. Attachments: 71 Lot Plan and "Matrix" Evaluation 20,000 Square Foot Lot Plan and "Matrix" Evaluation Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/A~genc, y.~, Planning Department City Manage~ West Neck Properties, Inc., a VA corp. Page 2 At the March 5, 2002 City Council meeting, the applicant requested a deferral until March 26, as the work on the clarification of Transition Area policies was not yet completed. The requests were deferred at the March 26, 2002 meeting to allow the applicant to revise the proffers reflecting a reduction in the number of residential lots by two (2). Considerations: The applicant is requesting a change of zoning from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-15 Residential District on this site. The R-15 zoning will be modified through an Open Space Promotion Use Permit, allowing the size of the lots to be reduced, thus providing additional open space area. The development consists of 66 lots and 37.66 acres of open space (not including City-defined wetlands). The applicant is also requesting a subdivision variance to the 30 foot minimum pavement width for interior streets. In order to reduce the overall amount of pavement, the applicant is proposing a 28 foot pavement width with side swales (ditches). The applicant's request is based on the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area to construct local roads with minimal pavement width, wide shoulders and side swales. Include a well planned pedestrian circulation system to connect neighborhoods, recreational areas and open spaces. Minimize through consolidation the number of street accesses to arterial roadways" (pp. 72-73, Policy Document). Due to the reduced width, the applicant has proffered that vehicular parking will be allowed on only one side of the streets. The use of swales as opposed to a curb and gutter drainage system is being discussed by staff. The recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan, noted above, was intended to be used with larger lots (30,000 square feet and up). For lots of the size proposed with this change of zoning request, experience has indicated that the use of swales may not be advisable. Should these requests be approved, staff will work with the applicant during detailed site plan review to determine which roadway drainage system (swales ro curb and gutter) is most appropriate for this development. As noted above, this request was deferred at the February 5, 2002 meeting to provide time for the Planning Commission, City Council, and City staff to discuss clarification of Transition Area policies. Since that meeting, staff has developed a preliminary set of criteria for assessing a development's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan's policies for the Transition Area. On February 19, the Director of Planning presented staff's work on the policy clarification to a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission. Staff is currently in the process of more fully developing the criteria presented on February 19. At the February 5 meeting, however, City Council requested that when this request was heard again, staff provide a general sense of the consistency of this development proposal with the criteria. Staff conducted a preliminary assessment and found that the final rating of the proposal would allow a maximum of 64 dwelling units on the property. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan and proffer indicating development of the site with 64 lots. A reduced copy of that plan is attached, and a full-size copy is included in City Council's package. The Planning Director has also amended his recommendation in writing to indicate a recommendation of approval of the 64-1ot plan. Staff has also, at the request of the City Council, evaluated the plan originally submitted with this change of zoning, which showed 71 lots, for consistency with the recently developed Transition Area Policy Clarification Matrix. A reduced copy Of the 71 lot plan and the results of the evaluation are attached. The evaluation of the 71 lot plan indicates that the plan is not consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, resulting in a maximum recommended number of lots of 40. This plan is so deficient in amenity that it should not be approved at all. West Neck Properties, Inc., a VA corp. Page 3 Staff also, at the request of the City Council, developed a plan showing the site developed with 20,000 square foot lots (due to roadway curvature and setback requirements, some of the lots on the plan developed by staff are greater than 20,000 square feet). That plan resulted in 57 lots. Staff also evaluated that plan for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. A copy of the plan and the results of the evaluation are included. The evaluation indicates that the plan is not consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, resulting in a maximum recommended number of lots of 58. A full-size copy of the 20,000 square foot lot plan is also included in City Council's package. 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 condition for the Open Space Promotion Conditional Use Permit: The subdivision shall be developed as depicted on the submitted subdivision plan entitled, "Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Eagles Nest for West Neck Properties, Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia," dated July 5, 2001 revised 11/18/01, prepared by Burgess and Niple, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. The applicant shall install a fence or other landscape treatment acceptable to the residents of the three lots on Indian River Road which are mostly surrounded by the proposed development. In addition, the applicant shall grant public utility easements and make city water and sewer facilities available to these three lots. g'hilN g 86998118 CRITERIA AND TOTAL CREDIT The purpose of the following is to provide a means for evaluating a development that has been proposed against criteria based on the stated policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. PROJECT: West Neck Properties (original 71-lot plan) Criteria Total ' Comments Natural Resources Degrees to which the project preserves and integrates into the overall 0 See attached sheet project the natural resource amenities on the site. Amenity Nature and degree of the 1.30 See attached sheet amenity Design Degree to which the 0.70 See attached sheet project incorporates good design into the project (A) TOTAL: (B) (c) (D) TOTAL / 11 possible points TOTAL/11 * 0.5 = Line (C) + 0.5 du/acre = 2.00 0.18 .09 0.59 du/acre (E) Line D * total I 40 units developable acres ( 69.09 ) = I Line A -- Line B -- Line C -- Line D -- Line E -- total number of points from the worksheets on the following pages. total divided by the total number of possible points, which is 11 total from Line B multiplied by 0.5, which is the amount.between the baseline density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre and the possible 1 dwelling unit per acre (du/ac). total from Line C added to 0.5 du/ac (the baseline density) to obtain the maximum density for the site. total from Line D multiplied by the number of developable acres on the site, thus providing the maximum number of units for the site. Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 1 of 8 The following worksheets judge the development proposal according to the proposal's consistency with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area, particularly in regard to natural resources, amenity, and design. As appropriate, sketches, pictures and narrative are provided to clarify the concepts as a means of helping to make the determination of consistency with the criteria. (1) Natural Resources: existing forests, wetlands, meadows, cultivated fields, and related features Total a) Are natural resources protected? I Comments: · Development impacts floodplain, City-defined YES (0 to 1 wetlands, Corps of Engineers Wetlands, and point) wooded areas. ~ NO (0 points) 0 b) Are natural resources integrated into project? Comments: YES (0 to 1 · There is integration, but that integration occurs through direct impact to the point) resources. This cannot be considered the type of integration envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. NO (0 points) 0 TOTAL (NATURAL RESOURCES) 0 Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 2 of 8 (2) Amenity: a feature that increases the attractiveness or value of the site consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. Total a) Is the amenity, if present, visually or operationally available to those who do not own property in the development? Comments: YES (0 to 1 · The amenity for this project is the wetland point) .40 areas associated with West Neck Creek. · The wetlandareas-are ¥isually'available to the extent that Indian River Road runs adjacent to a port/on of the property. NO (0 points) b) Does the amenity consist of active recreational components? Comments: YES (0 to 1 · The development possesses an 'active' amenity in terms of the trail that leads back point) to the open space associated with West Neck Creek. ! i NO (0 points) 0 Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 3 of 8 c) Are physical improvements made that improve access to the natural resources on the site OR does the amenity consist of physical improvements to the property? YES (0 to 1 point) .50 Comments: · The development does not provide amenity improvements within the wetland/wooded areas (trails, for example), but does leave the future opportunity for such amenity to be provided through the dedication of the area to the City of Virginia Beach and the proffering of cash that the City can use toward providing such amenities. NO (0 points) d) Is there connectivity linking any open space and/or amenities between this development and adjacent existing or future developments? YES (0 to 1 Comments: point) .40 · The development possesses areas on the east side of the site that are to be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach and can be used to create connectivity to adjoining properties and to West Neck Creek Park. I NO (0 points) TOTAL (AMENITY) 1.30 Transition Area Development Density Caiculation Page 4 of 8 (3) Design: creation or execution in an artistic or highly- skilled manner consistent with the goals and objectives of the Compressive Plan for the Transition Area. Total a) Are natural or manmade water features incorporated into the development in a way that they serve as amenities? Comments: ~ YES (0 to1 point) .70 · There are no natural water features on the site other than existing farm ponds. · A stormwater management facility (if one is needed) is shown behind some of the lots, ~ but is not utilized as an amenity. ' NO (0 points) b) Is there an attempt to integrate units with amenities within the development? Comments: YES (0 to 1 · No point) i NO (0 points) 0 Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 5 of 8 c) Does the development retain or create views or scenic vistas that can be seen from the road? YES (0 to 1 Comments: point) 0 · The site currently consists of farmland in the front along the roads and environmentally constrained areas in the rear. Development of the site, therefore, must occur within the currently farmed areas. · No attempt, however, is made to retain the farmland vista or to screen the rear of the homes from the adjoining roadways. The overall affect is similar to that found in the NO (0 points) northern area of the city. d) Is a mixture of lot Sizes and the clustering of homes used to achieve a primarily open space development? YES (0 to 1 Comments: point) 0 · Lots are not clustered. · The area of the site devoted to open space consists areas that cannot be developed due to natural resource constraints. NO (0 points) Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 6 of 8 e) Does the development use distinct roadway and "hard infrastructure" that fits the image of the existing rural community? YES (0 to 1 Comments: point) · No : NO (0 points) 0 TOTAL (DESIGN) 0.70 Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 7 of 8 CRITERIA AND TOTAL CREDIT The purpose of the following is to provide a means for evaluating a development that has been proposed against criteria based on the stated policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. PROJECT: West Neck Properties (Staff-developed plan of 20,000 sq. ft. lots) Criteria Total Comments Natural Resources Degrees to which the project preserves and integrates into the overall 1.80 See attached sheet project the natural resource amenities on the site. Amenity Nature and degree of the 3.20 See attached sheet amenity Design Degree to which the 2.40 See attached sheet project incorporates good design into the project (A) TOTAL: (B) (c) (D) TOTAL ! 11 possible points TOTAL / 11 * 0.5 = Line (C) + 0.5 du/acre = 7.40 I 0.84 du/acre (E) LineD*total l 58 units i1 developable acres ( 69.09 ) = Line A -- Line B -- Line C -- Line D -- Line E -- total number of points from the worksheets on the following pages. total divided by the total number of possible points, which is 11 total from Line B multiplied by 0.5, which is the amount between the baseline density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre and the possible 1 dwelling unit per acre (du/ac). total from Line C added to 0.5 du/ac (the baseline density) to obtain the maximum density for the site. total from Line D multiplied by the number of developable acres on the site, thus providing the maximum number of units for the site. Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 1 of 8 The following worksheets judge the development proposal according to the proposal's consistency with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area, particularly in regard to natural resources, amenity, and design. As appropriate, sketches, pictures and narrative are provided to clarify the concepts as a means of helping to make the determination of consistency with the criteria. (1) Natural Resources: existing forests, wetlands, meadows, cultivated fields, and related features Total a) Are natural resources protected? Comments: · Development avoids l OO year floodplain YES (0 to 1 (except for a roadway crossing), City-defined point) .80 ! wetlands, Corps of Engineers Wetlands (except for roadway crossing), and wooded areas (except as described in l (b), below). I ; NO (0 points) b) Are natural resources integrated into project? Comments: · The only natural resources that can be : YES (0 to 1 .50 physically integrated into the project are the point) i wooded areas not located within the floodplain or Corps wetlands. · Through avoidance of the wetland and floodplain areas, these areas are interspersed within the development in a couple of places. I NO (0 points) i TOTAL (NATURAL RESOURCES) 1.50 Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 2 of 8 (2) Amenity: a feature that increases the attractiveness or value of the site consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. Total a) Is the amenity, if present, visually or operationally available to those who do not own property in the development? Comments: YES (0 to 1 · The amenity for this project is the wetland point) 1 areas associated with West Neck Creek and the trails that connect those areas with the public right-of-way. · The wetland areas are 'visually' available to those who do not own property in the development through the trail system, which runs back to the creek wetlands. · An area, identified on the plan as a "neighborhood park," and connected to the NO (0 points) trail, provides an observation opportunity into the creek's wetland / wooded areas. b) Does tl~e amenity consist of active recreational components? Comments: · The developmentpossesses an 'active' YES (0 to 1 amenity in terms of the trail that leads back point) .40 to the open space associated with West Neck Creek. NO (0 points) Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 3 of 8 c) Are physical improvements made that improve access to the natural resources on the site OR does the amenity consist of physical improvements to the property? YES (0 to 1 point) .80 Comments: · A trail leads to the creek's wetland/wooded areas and that run through the community. · The development does not, however, provide amenity improvements within the wetland/ wooded areas (trails, for example), but does leave the future opportunity for such amenity to be provided through the dedication of the , area to the City of Virginia Beach and the proffering of cash that the City can use NO (0 points) toward providing such amenities. d) Is there connectivity linking any open space and/or amenities between this development and adjacent existing or future developments? YES (0 to 1 Comments: ! point) 1 · The development possesses areas on both the east and north side of the site that are to be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach and can be used to create connectivity to adjoining properties and to West Neck Creek Park. · The development adjoins public roadways on the west and south and proposes trails along both of these roadways, thus insuring ; connectivity. NO (0 points) TOTAL (AMENITY) 3.40 Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 4 of 8 (3) Design: creation or execution in an artistic or highly- skilled manner consistent with the goals and objectives of the Compressive Plan for the Transition Area. Total a) Are natural or manmade water features incorporated into the development in a way that they serve as amenities? Comments: YES (0 to 1 point) .70 · There are no natural water features on the site other than existing farm ponds. ~ · A stormwater management facility (if one is needed) is shown behind some of the lots, but is not utilized as an amenity. NO (0 points) b) Is there an attempt to integrate units with amenities within the development? ! Comments: YES (0 to 1 · Integration consists of avoidance of the point) .70 natural resources on the site. However, there is no real integration. Virtually all of the developable area of the site is platted in lots. NO (0 points) Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 5 of 8 c) Does the development retain or create views or scenic vistas that can be seen from the road? YES (0 to 1 Comments: point) 0 · The site currently consists of farmland in the front along the roads and environmentally constrained areas in the rear. Development of the site, therefore, must occur within the currently farmed areas. · No attempt, however, is made to retain the farmland vista or to screen the rear of the homes from the adjoining roadways. The overall affect is similar to that found in the NO (0 points) northern area of the city. · Plan retains a beautiful, tree-lined drive and converts it to a trail. d) Is a mixture of lot sizes and the clustering of homes used to achieve a primarily open space development? Comments: YES (0 to 1 point) 0 · Lot sizes ranging from 20,000 square feet to almost 26, 000 square feet. · Lots are not clustered. · The area of the site devoted to open space consists areas that cannot be developed due to natural resource constraints. NO (0 points) Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 6 of 8 e) Does the development use distinct roadway and "hard infrastructure" that fits the image of the existing rural community? I YES (0 to 1 :Comments: point) 1 · Yes - a roadway cross-section consisting of swales and reduced pavement width is proposed. NO (0 points) TOTAL (DESIGN) 2.50 Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 7 of 8 -. insert sketches,,;~. Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 8 of 8 WEST NECK PROPERTIES / 19 2' December 12, 2001 REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002 This report has been revised to reflect a revised plan submitted to City staff on March 27, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: (19) Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-15 Residential District. (20) Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion. (21) Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance (minimum street pavement width). 3132 West Neck Road (Northeast comer of West Neck Road and Indian River Road). Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 1 GPIN: #2403-21-1935; #2403-21-0241 ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: 7-PRINCESSANNE 87.55 acres more or less. Ashby Moss Major Issues: · Consistency with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. · Impact on City systems (transportation, utilities, schools). · Compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of land use. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 2 Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existin.q Land Use and Zoning The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling and various other outbuildings and structures including a stable, greenhouse, detached garage, pool, tennis court, and basketball court. The property is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: · Cultivated fields / AG-1 and 2 Agricultural Districts · Three single-family dwellings fronting Indian River Road / AG-2 Agricultural District · Across Indian River Road, farm with single-family dwelling (included in Agricultural Reserve Program) / AG-1 and 2 Agricultural Districts · Woodlands and wetlands (City-owned property) / AG-1 and 2 Agricultural Districts Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 3 West: · Single-family subdivision (Indian River Plantation) /Conditional R-20 Residential District Zonin,q and Land Use Statistics With Existing Zoning: With Proposed Zoning: The density provisions of Section 402 of the City Zoning Ordinance would allow four to five single-family dwellings by-right depending on the amount of Type 1 and 2 soils present. The conditional zoning agreement limits the number of lots to 64 and requires the development design to follow the preliminary subdivision plan described below. A total of 46.74 acres of mostly wetlands and some upland areas will be dedicated to the City. Another 10.75 acres of open space within the development will be owned by a Property Owners' Association. Zonin,q History A three-part rezoning request was denied on the subject property in 1972. The three parts to the rezoning request included: a comer parcel proposed for a gas station, the Indian River Road frontage proposed for commercial, and the remaining area proposed for a mobile home park. Twelve years later, a conditional use permit for a portion of the subject property was requested. That proposal, for indoor/outdoor recreation, including a gym, boxing rings, a track, and a lodge was withdrawn April 23, 1984. East of the subject property across West Neck Road, a number of zoning actions have occurred for the Indian River Plantation development. In 1991, the property was rezoned from Agriculture to various residential districts with a conditional use permit for a golf course. In 1992, these zonings were changed back to Agriculture with another conditional use permit for a golf course. Finally, in 1994, most of this portion of the property was rezoned to Conditional R-20. The proffers were modified on part of this area in 1999, but the zoning remains Conditional R-20 Residential District. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana and NALF Fentress. The proposed use is compatible with this AICUZ. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 4 Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The property contains both open fields, not under cultivation, and heavily wooded areas. While the wooded areas are mostly on the eastern side of the property, there are a number of mature hardwoods at the center of the property around the existing house. The existing driveway is also lined on both sides with tall evergreen trees. This has been incorporated in the proposed site plan as part of a multi-purpose trail. This land drains to West Neck Creek, located approximately 400 feet from the northeast corner of this property. Consequently, wetlands and floodplain comprise a large portion of the eastern and northern sides of this property. Soils on the site are a mixture, dominated by Tomotley (poorly drained, hydric) and Dragston (somewhat poorly drained, non-hydric). Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is currently no City water or sanitary sewer available to this property. The plan, as proposed, cannot be developed without City sewer. However, the Capital Improvement Program (ClP) lists projects for water and sewer extensions along West Neck Road to a point north of the proposed site. To extend water and sewer to the subject site, the developer would have to construct a pump station and extend sewer and water lines approximately 5,000 feet. It is the intent of the applicant to extend water and sewer to the site and discussions have been held with Public Utilities regarding this extension. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): West Neck Road in the vicinity of this application is currently a two lane undivided rural arterial, and Indian River Road in the vicinity of this application is currently a two lane undivided rural arterial. The MTP designates Indian River Road as a 100 foot divided roadway. Traffic Calculations: Strec~t Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity West Neck Road 2,502 ADT ~ 7,400 ADT ~ Potential Land Use z_ 90 ADT Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES /# 19 - 21 Page 5 Average Daily Trips as defined by 5 single-family dwellings as defined by 66 single-family dwellings Proposed Land Use~ - 660 ADT ~ Schools School Name Current Capacity Generation Enrollment North Landing Elementary 503 666 19 Princess Anne Middle 1,376 1,520 11 Kellam High 2,365 2,070 12 represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). Public Safety Police: Adequate. No further comments. Fire and Rescue: Adequate. If road widths are less than 30 feet, parking should only be permitted on one side of the road. Summary of Proposal Proposal · The proposed development consists of 64 lots and 37.66 acres of open space (not including City-defined wetlands). Density equals 0.93 units per developable acre (does not include City-defined wetlands), and non-City-defined wetland open space equals 55 percent of the developable area. Lots range is size from 10,800 square feet to over 20,000 square feet with an average lot size of 16,000 square feet. · The proposal includes 46.74 acres of land to be dedicated to the City. This includes 18.46 acres of City-defined wetlands bordering West Neck Creek and 28.28 acres of upland adjacent to these wetlands and along West Neck Road and Indian River Road. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 6 The applicant is also requesting a subdivision variance to the 30 foot minimum pavement width for interior streets. In order to reduce the overall amount of pavement, the applicant is proposing a 28 foot pavement width. A very small amount of fill in the floodplain is necessary to reach some of the high, developable land on the property. The lost floodplain area will be mitigated on site in an equal amount. A floodplain variance is not required as the area of fill is only 0.2 percent of the total flood fringe area on the site. Site Desiqn · The plan shows a 64 lot subdivision served by a road with three cul-de-sacs and a loop. The area proposed for development is primarily located on the western half of the property. Much of the eastern half, which is primarily wetlands and floodplain, is proposed for dedication to the City, to be integrated into the City's West Neck Creek Linear Park property. Along both the West Neck Road and Indian River Road street frontage, 150 foot buffers are also proposed for dedication to the City. The street frontage buffer is interrupted at one point on Indian River Road where the development wraps around three existing houses. The central, feature of this subdivision plan is a 10 foot wide multi-purpose trail that runs through the center of the site adjacent to the main interior road. This trail consists of the existing tree-lined asphalt driveway, which will be extended past its current terminus all the way to the wetlands at the back of the site. A 15 foot public access easement will sanction public access to and use of the trail. A 1.37 acre stormwater management facility is shown on the plan at the center of the site. The presence of the road swales may reduce the size or eliminate the need for this facility entirely. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · The proposed subdivision's sole entrance is on West Neck Road, just south of the existing driveway for the property. The interior roads consist of a loop road and three cul-de-sacs. · The divided entrance includes two exit lanes and one entry lane. · Both right and left turn lanes are shown on West Neck Road. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 1'9 - 21 Page 7 In addition to the ten foot paved multi-purpose trail within the development, an eight foot trail is proposed within the buffer along West Neck Road and Indian River Road. (This buffer is proposed for dedication to the City, so the trails will also be City- owned). · Sidewalks are shown along one side of the interior streets. · Another 15 foot public access easement is shown adjacent to lot 11, connecting the buffer trail on Indian River Road to the interior sidewalk system. · Pressed concrete brick paver crosswalks are shown at four points where sidewalks/trails cross an interior street. · Parking for guests will be allowed on only one side of the streets due to the reduced pavement width that is proposed. Architectural Design · The applicant has proffered minimum house sizes of 2,600 square feet for one stow houses and 2,800 square feet for two stow houses. Each house will have a two car garage. In addition, at least 75 percent of the exterior building material must be brick, stone, stucco, or similar quality material. · A four foot high, eight foot wide brick monument style sign is shown on a one foot concrete base for the proposed community entrance sign. Landscape and Open Space · A total of 46.74 acres of open space is to be dedicated to the City. This includes the wetlands and floodplain on the eastem portion of the property which are proffered to become part of the West Neck Creek Linear Park. The 150 foot buffers along West Neck Road and Indian River Road are also included in this figure. · Interior open space to be owned by a Property Owners' Association equals 10.75 acres. The total amount of open space that can be credited toward the 15 percent requirement for open space promotion is 37.66 acres or 55 percent of the developable land on the site. Landscaping proposed for the 150 foot buffers along West Neck Road and Indian River Road consists of a 50 to 70 foot wide berm along the interior part of the buffer. The berm area is to be reforested with at least 70 percent native species of shrubs Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 8 and trees. On the street side of the berm, 30 by 50 foot landscape beds will be placed 200 to 250 feet apart, consisting of shrubs, ornamental grasses, and perennials. Proffers PROFFER # 1 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 2 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 3 When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more than .sixty-four (64) building lots substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR EAGLES NEST FOR WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC. VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA," dated July 5, 2001 revised 11/18/01, prepared by Burgess and Niple, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan"). The proposed subdivision plan is acceptable. When the property is developed, approximately 46.74 acres of forested area and buffers along West Neck Road and Indian River Road lying outside the residential lots and roadways depicted on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to the Grantee as Public Open Space. An additional 10.75 acres of Open Space including an improved multi-purpose trail for use by the public shall be maintained by the Property Owners Association. This proffer is acceptable. The wetlands and adjacent uplands proposed for dedication adjoin several acres of City-owned land bordering West Neck Creek. This land will be a welcome addition to the West Neck Creek Linear Park. The entrance to the community'and multi-purpose trail and the typical street section of future West Neck Road and the roads within the community shall be constructed and installed substantially in conformance with the detailed plans on page 2 of the Concept Plan. No on-street parking Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES/# 19- 21 Page 9 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 4 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 5 Staff Evaluation: shall be permitted on one side of every road within the community. This proffer is acceptable. The interior roadway sections are just two feet shy of the standard 30 foot pavement section. Restricting on-street parking to just one side of the street will ensure adequate paved width for emergency vehicles on the interior roads. When the Property is subdivided it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a Property Owners Association which shall be responsible for maintaining all common area easements, including the community owned open space and multi-purpose trail, the entrance signage and neighborhood park. This proffer is acceptable. The Deed Restrictions and Property Owners' Association will help promote and maintain the level of quality demonstrated in this proposal All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, which is no less than seventy-five percent (75%) brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. Any one story dwelling shall contain no less than 2600 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2800 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area. The front yards of all homes shall be sodded. The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two (2) car garage and a driveway (including apron) with a minimum of four hundred ninety (490) square feet of hardened surface area. This proffer is acceptable. The size of the Proposed homes, quality exterior building-materials, and sodded front yards will all contribute to a high quality appearance for this subdivision. The two car garages and minimum sized driveways will alleviate the need for on-street parking because of the alternative design for the interior streets. Four hundred ninety (490) square feet is the equivalent of Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES/# 19 -21 Page 10 PROFFER # 6 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 7 Staff Evaluation: three 9 by 18 foot parking spaces. When the Property is developed, every reasonable effort will be made to preserve as many of the existing trees on the site as practical and a tree preservation plan shall be submitted to the Grantee for review along with the Preliminary Subdivision Plan. This proffer is acceptable. Since most of the existing trees on the site are outside of the proposed development areas, preserving trees should be uncomplicated. The tree preservation plan will be most helpful on lots 38 thru 46 and the area of the stormwater management facility which are located behind the treeline. The Grantors recognize that the subject site is located within the Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted on November 4, 1997. The Comprehensive Plan states that development taking place in this area should support the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. In addition to committing sixty-five percent (65%) of the Property to open space preservation, via the dedication of forty-six and seventy-four one hundredths (46.74) acres of the Property to Grantee as a part of West Neck Creek Linear Park, and ten and three quarter acres to the Property Owners Association as permanent open space the Grantors agree to contribute the sum of One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) per lot ~o Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee to acquire land for open space preservation pursuant to Grantee's Outdoors Plan. If the funds proffered by the Grantors in this paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. Grantors agree to make payment for each residential lot shown on any subdivision plat prior to recordation of that plat. This proffer is acceptable. The cash proffer of $1,250 per lot equates to a total of $80,000 for all 64 lots. Planning Commission Agenda ~,'~,,~ December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002)~:-..:.,~:~ ' WEST NECK PROPERTIES/# 19- 21 ~ ....... '" Page 11 PROFFER # 8 Staff Evaluation: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and / or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R- 15 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. Th/s proffer reaffirms that all provisions of the City Codes will be met and that the rezoning proposal outlined above does not eliminate the applicant's responsibility to follow the adopted rules and regulations. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated November 23, 2001, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for appropriate growth opportunities, consistent with the economic vitality policies of Virginia Beach in accordance with other Plan policies. This area, classified by the Plan as the Transition Area, serves as a land use buffer between the clearly urbanizing area of the north and the clearly rural area of the south. The Plan offers the following planning policy guidance for this area. After each policy statement, an assessment of the development proposal in terms of the statement is provided. Provision 1 "Residential development within the Transition Area should adhere to the following guidelines: (a) Create high quality neighborhoods through careful planning of land uses, transportation systems, landscape treatments and public improvements. (b) Design with nature, making a special effort to preserve and showcase significant environmental resources. Carefully integrate such natural features and use them Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 12 as a basis, where possible, to enhance and define neighborhoods, recreation areas, open spaces, and views of special natural areas. (c) Construct local roads with minimal pavement width, wide shoulders and side swales. Include a well planned pedestrian circulation system to connect neighborhoods, recreational areas and open spaces. Minimize through consolidation the number of street accesses to arterial roadways" (pp. 72-73, Policy Document). Staff Assessment: The proposed development meets this provision. The subdivision is design'ed to showcase the existing tree-lined driveway by preserving it for a multi- purpose trail. This trail connects to a network of trails and sidewalks leading to other open spaces within and surrounding the development, including a major City park. Lot size is reduced and lots and roads are placed in locations to avoid sensitive areas and most of the existing wooded areas. A 150 foot reforested buffer with a berm is included along Indian River Road and West Neck Road, further integrating the development into the surrounding landscape, consistent with the character of the Transition Area as a movement in residential density and design from the urban north to the rural south. A tree preservation plan has been proffered to preserve trees where possible. The roadway is designed with less pavement than a standard urban street section. Provision 2 "The residential growth in the Transition Area is not to be considered as a continuation of growth in the north, but as a special type of growth, with its own development standards suitable to the atmosphere and character of the area, and associated where possible with significant open space and recreational amenity. The Transition Area is to be seen as an open space and recreational mecca with residential development present only to the extent it supports the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. Residential use not associated with this purpose is not encouraged" (p. 73). Staff Assessment: Depending on whether City-defined wetlands are included in the calculation, this development proposal includes either 55 or 65 percent open space. Either way, it is clear that the majority of the development consists of open space, most of which is accessible to the public through the trail system that is provided. Further, the applicant has proffered $1,250 per lot (a total of $80,000) to be used for the purchase of open space pursuant to the City's Outdoors Plan. Therefore, this proposal appears to qualify as one that will advance publicly accessible open space and recreational uses with the residential component as secondary. Provision 3 "Development that takes place in this area should be shown to be at the least fiscally neutral. Fiscally neutral means that development must both a) generate more in tax Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 13 revenue than the public services cost to support it, and b) be of such a density that, when coupled with other existing and potential development in the area, it will not generate the need for substantial infrastructure improvement in advance of the City's ability to install it" (p. 74). Staff Assessment: Based on the quality materials for the houses and the value of the open space within and surrounding this development, these houses will have a value of at least $350,000. Further, the cost of extending water and sewer to this property will be paid by the applicant. Public Utilities already has plans to extend public water and sewer close to this area. The applicant would have to pay the cost of extending these services to the subject property. Provision 4 "As an alternative to fiscal neutrality, the use of cash proffers to offset negative fiscal impact can be considered" (p. 74). Staff Assessment: The applicant has offered $1,250 per lot (or a total of $80,000), but this has been designated for the purpose ofpurchasing open space. Based on the factors noted above in the Staff Assessment for Provision 3, staff concludes that the development is likely to be fiscally neutral Provision 5 "The entire project should be developed at a density which is the lowest of the following: (a) The density that, in the opinion of the City Council, establishes'the residential component as secondary; (b) The density that, in the opinion of the City Council, assures a character of the project in keeping with the character of the Transition Area; (c) The traffic equivalent of one dwelling unit per developable acre. (That i~ ten generated trips per developable acre)" (p. 74). "The density of the project will be governed by the overriding density requirement set forth here, as well as the degree to which it represents quality development and the degree to which it presents the recreation element and the supporting housing, as the primary focus of the project" (p. 75). Staff Assessment: Sixty-four (64) lots on the 69 acres of. developable land equates to a density of 0.93 lots per developable acre. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 14 Evaluation of Request The applicant's request for a change of zoning on this property from AG-1 and 2 Agricultural Districts to R-15 Residential District, for a conditional use permit for an open space promotion and for a subdivision variance is acceptable. Staff concludes that the applicant's proposal meets all applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. The 57 acres of wetlands and open space plus the cash proffers designated for the purpose of open space clearly demonstrate the promotion of open space associated with this proposal. The proposed density is slightly less than the recommended maximum for the Transition Area. The design of the subdivision preserves sensitive areas and showcases environmental features by incorporating them as open space. This open space both surrounds and winds through the development, creating a very useable network of trails, all of which connect with the City's West Neck Creek Linear Park. Therefore, the requests are recommended for approval. Conditions The subdivision shall be developed as depicted on the submitted subdivision plan entitled, "Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Eagles Nest for West Neck Properties, Inc. Virginia Beach, Virginia," dated July 5, 2001 revised 11/18/01, prepared by Burgess and Niple, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. The applicant shall install a fence or other landscape treatment acceptable to the residents of the three lots on Indian River Road, which are mostly surrounded by the proposed development. In addition, the applicant shall grant public utility easements and make city water and sewer facilities available ,to these three lots. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The subdivision plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed 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 December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 15 27, Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 16 Z Planning Commission Agenda ~,~' ~.. ~. December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES ! # 19 - 21 Page 17 ENTRANCE SIGN Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 18 Planning Commission Agenda I (RE~'ISI-'D: MARCI-I ;'~_ 2 ) )2~ I~"i~'~t WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 December 12, 2001 (REVISED: MARCH 29, 2002) Page 19 Item # 19 West Neck Properties Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers 3132 West Neck Road December 12, 2001 REGULARAGENDA Robert Miller: Next items are items 19 through 21 for West Neck Properties. We don't have anybody signed up to speak for this one. Eddie Bourdon: For the record, Eddie Bourdon representing the application. Sorry I didn't sign up to speak. There are some adjacent property owners here and I have been discussing the application with them and I don't know that they are going to speak but I certainly want to afford them the opportunity to do so but I will address some of the other concerns that we talked about. I will keep it brief because I think that might have been the point of the note I am not touching on what you need to be touched on so please ask me questions. The - basically it. is the 87 ½ acre piece of property at Indian River Road and West Neck Road more of the Urban Services boundary line which is Indian River Road. It is directly across West Neck Road from Indian River Plantation. The property is zoned by the Snyder family. There is a lengthy history to the property which I won't go into. It is a beautiful piece of property. We have been working with staff and want to express onset our appreciation for the difficulty of this site presented in some ways with regard to floodplain and other issues and we have worked with staff and appreciate their patience in working with us to come up with a plan and I think is a beautiful plan one that we certainly will be proud of. Out of this 87 ½ acres of total land area 65% of it is going to be dedicated open space either to the City of Virginia Beach or to the property owner association or community association. So you are talking about 35% of the site will be occupied by homes and roadway area. The density is less than one unit per acre as provided for in the transition area. The City receives 46 3/4 acres of land dedicated and the homeowners association will have 10 3/4 acres of land dedicated. In addition to that because the transition area discusses and calls for public open space, I think we probably meet the argument of criteria standing alone but we also proffered $82,500 in cash in the City of Virginia Beach. That is $1,250 per lot for open space acquisition for the outdoors plan. One of the things and your write-up is very extensive and I have no disagreement with anything in the write-up. It is very well done. I had enough time to go through all of this. One of the things that is not mentioned I thought was worthy of mentioning in addition to all of the 150 dedicated areas along West Neck and Indian River Road where there will be berms and reforested landscaping and trail that connects to this beautiful trail going down the current drive way that is wooded and very beautiful, that is going to be maintained as a trail. This area was not really touched on in the write-up and this is high land off Indian River Road that is adjacent to and will with this dedication become a part of the West Neck Creek linier park and provides an excellent opportunity to provide public access to the West Neck Creek Linier Park because this is outside of floodplain, outside of wetlands and is at one point, earlier on in the process we had shown some lots in here. This, again, is a very good opportunity down the road to provide public access to the park and to the West Neck Creek. West Neck Creek is not directly adjacent to it but all the City owned property of the park is. The application is for R-15 open space promotion. The open space promotion requires that we have Item #19 West Neck Properties Page 2 15% of the properties open space. Developable portion of the property is open space. We have 55% of the developable portion of the property as dedicated open space so I think that 366% of the requirement certainly meets and exceeds the requirement. The proffers are very extensive but I won't go into them but they guarantee homes that are going to be $350,000 and above so it is clearly fiscal positive as far as what would be my pemeption of it. You have asked for conditional use - a variance I am sorry to the requirements for street width. We are proposing a 28 foot wide road versus 30 with swales versus curbs and gutters which again is consistent here with the intent here to minimize the size of the BMP and to have water infiltrate on the property as opposed to the channelized into a larger BMP which would involve clearing more trees and having less land available for enjoyable open space. But in reducing the size of the street by the two feet we have agreed to restrict parking to on-street parking to only one side of the road and we have added three car minimum parking spaces on each driveway proffer. We have also proffered that every house will have a minimum of a two car garage so that we are by those mechanisms, also, reducing the likelihood that there will be an issue of on street parking. We have provided right and left hand turn lanes that we will be constructing in West Neck Road which we have also provided dedicated right of way for West Neck Road and our understanding is that West Neck Road is going to be widened and made more safe and a CIP project that should be forth coming in the next few years. It is going to be widened as I understand it to four lane divided to the entrance north of here to the Signature of West Neck. At one point it was a discussion of it being four lane divided all the way down to Indian River Road and I believe that that has gone away - certainly hope it is gone away. Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for transitioning to the rural area south of the urban services down Indian River Road. We believe there is enough right of way to do whatever you want to do with enough land being provided but hopefully it will still remain a two lane road but with wider shoulders and a little bit safer conditions. Having said that the issues that the folks that are here - Stephen if you could go to the plan that shows the adjoining properties. There are three existing home sites that are located on the north side of Indian River Road and we, again, got the open space berm coming up to here. Behind here is also open space. This is all City owned open space. This first house here there is a public access easement - the trail that will be coming here - we got a connection coming through here and then we got concrete marks with stamped concrete coming, across to the sidewalk so that the people in the neighborhood will be a full route around. We have agreed to put a fence up here and across the back of these two lots or we ma_y, if everyone is. in agreement - the property owners and the developer, we may wind up doing something more of a landscape treatment but for the time being everyone is happy with us putting up a privacy fence along the back of here and here. And that is to shield potential street lights coming in to the back of their property. The folks who live here, similar- we have offered to put a fence up along the boundary here where they adjoin this lot if they would like that. The other issue that we discussed is that they wanted to determine that they have access to City water and City sewer which we are providing to this community as part of this development and we, again, indicated that City water and City sewer will be available here if the property does adjoin the public right of way and we are also willing to provide it by an easement down this property line to this property so those amenities will be made available to those existing homes as a part of this development proposal. And as staff has said the proposal meets with the criteria and in the transition area and we certainly proffer a very high quality development and the only thing that I Item #19 West Neck Properties Page 3 think you can compare it to in terms of comparable quality will be the Reserve at Great Neck which has some similarities in terms of all the open space preserved but it is far fewer homes. It is not nearly larger than the Reserve at Great Neck but it is similar quality community would be the result of what is on paper here today. Charlie Salle: Thank you. Do we have any questions? We didn't have anybody to sign up to speak at all so I guess if we allowed Eddie to speak we have got to allow everyone to speak. David Stmeli: For the record I am David Stmeli property owner at 2420 Indian River Road and I have a flooding problem there now and I am concerned about the flooding and the rain water problem that project might put onto my home. And I am the third one over, this one right here. And that is my biggest concern right now. When we bought the house, also, we bought it for privacy because we thought that was all too wet back in there for them to even fill back in there but that is my only concern that I wanted to bring up to your attention. I am concerned about the flooding that can happen. On five occasions at least in the three years we have been there it has come up within about 6 feet of our house and this is mainly in the back yard right here in this comer right here. It comes down the side yard and we have a problem right here. We have two big sewers right here that have open grates on the top of them right next to Indian River Road. And when it rains hard, wherever that water is flowing, I guess it is going down here in the West Neck Creek whenever we have all these big storms last year, it wasn't flowing and it was flowing out the tops and right down my side yard and into my back yard and it would build up to about a foot deep in my whole comer of my yard. Not for a long period but for about 5 or six hours it would stay a foot deep. My dog would mn back there and it would be bouncing off of his belly so I know it was a good foot deep and so that is my concern. I know you all are going to be creating more drainage for this neighborhood but if it is not able to go where it is able to go then where is it going to go. Because right now we have those big drainage pipes that mn across the front of our property but because it doesn't go where it is suppose to go it gets backed up and it comes out the tops of those grates and it floods my sidewalks. If it wasn't for it coming out of those grates, I don't think my side yard and my backyard would have flood. So, I have even put pavers over the top of those grates trying to keep the water down but when it comes up fast it spreads them and comes onto the sidewalks. That is my concern I wanted to get on record. Ronald Ripley: Have you investigated whether or not the pipes are clogged up or is it problem where the outfall is? David Stmeli: My wife made some calls to the City but she didn't get anywhere and we didn't come down to get anything in writing which we need to do because it might be a problem just being clogged. Ronald Ripley: The City can mn a camera through there if they so desire to do and they can see what is in there and what the problem is. Sometimes that is what the problem is. Just silt builds up in it and can't take it... David Stmeli: I had City people out around the property and they saw the pavers over top of the Item #19 West Neck Properties Page 4 sewers and confronted me with it and I told them of the problem and that I called the City but we didn't do anything formally and I thought they would report it too and maybe they have done something I don't know. We need to check on it. We are very concerned. We are the lowest property out of the three in my whole front yard from the street from the upper left hand comer all the way back to the right hand rear comer we are sloped that way. So all the water runs towards my house and over to that comer. And this year I mn my dump track and deliver materials. I brought in about 8 loads of dirt in the back yard and my buddy graded it off to help raise up my grade in my backyard but like I said, the quantity of water that comes through there. It also crosses the road right over here it crosses the road at the Dolly Farm right in between my driveway, that is my driveway right there, right in between there and there it crosses the road. It is a big ditch across the street. It is across that road and there is a couple of heavy rains and it gets 20 foot section of the street. I was out watching it when it rained and it was flowing over the street and it gets 3 inches deep at a very high rate over into my side yard. That only happened one occasion out of all those rains we had where it crossed the street. Charlie Salle: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Eddie Bourdon: We are going to have him in contact with the engineers that will be doing the drainage for this project so we will be able to participate and see what is going to happen here. We think will certainly be neutral or positive. We are not going to be putting additional storm water onto his property which is in a low area. Be happy to answer any questions. Charlie Salle: Any questions? Any discussion, motions? John Baum: I move to approve. Charlie Salle: Motion by John Baum second by Cheryl Avery-Hargrove to approve the application. AYEll NAY0 ABS0 ABSENT0 ATKINSON AYE AVERY-HARGROVE AYE BAUM AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS . AYE WOOD AYE Charlie Salle': By a vote of 11 to 0 you have approved the application of West Neck Properties for a change of zoning from AG-1 and AG-2 to R-15 conditional use permit for open space promotion and a variance regarding street pavement width. Applicant's Name: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT West Neck Properties, Inc. a Virginia Corporation . Li~t Ali Current Properly Owners: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Ifthe property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if nee ssa ) 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 al~plicant 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 D. Zir o2_~ President If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partnem in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIHCATION: I certify, that the information contained herein is true and accurat~ Print Nat~e ~ Mop No't. ~o Scale R-20 ~ [2] AG-2 AG-2 West Neck AG-I AG--2 AG AG'-2 Gpin 2403-21-1935 0241 ZONING HISTORY la. Rezoning (A-R to M-13) & Conditional Use Permit (mobile home park); lb. Rezoning (A-R to C-G3) & Conditional Use Permit (gas station); lc. Rezoning (A-R to C-L3) All requests were Denied 5-15-72 2. Conditional Use Permit (indoor/outdoor recreation - gym, boxing rings & track) Withdrawn 4-23-84 3. Subdivision Variance Approved 7-7-92; Conditional Use Permit (single family homes) Approved 7-7-92 4. Modification of Proffers Approved 5-11-99; Rezoning (AG-2 Agricultural to R-20 Residential) App_roved 1-4-94; Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to R-20 Residential) Approved 1-4-94; Rezoning (R-40 Residential to R-20 Residential) Approved 1-4-94; Conditional Use Permit (open space promotion) Withdrawn 1-4-94; Subdivision Variance Approved 1-4-94; Rezoning (R-10 Residential to AG-2 Agricultural) Approved 7-14-92; Rezoning (R-15 Rezoning (R-20 Conditional Use Rezoning (AG-1 Rezoning (AG-1 Rezoning (AG-1 Conditional Use Residential to AG-2 Agricultural) Approved 7-14-92; Residential to AG-2 Agricultural) Approved 7-14-92; Permit (golf course) Approved 7-14-92; and 2 Agricultural to R-10 Residential) Approved 4-9-91; and 2 Agricultural to R-15 Residential) Approved 4-9-91; and 2 Agricultural to R-20 Residential) Approved 4-9-91; Permit (golf course) Approved 4-9-91; FORM NO. P.S. lB City o£ ¥ir inia Rcach Z AITER-O FF I C E ' CORRES PONI ENC E In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5423 TO: FROM: DATE: DEPT: DEPT: Leslie L. Lille~,~l[) B. Kay Wilson~~w- April 1, 2002 City Attorney City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application West Neck Properties, Inc. & M. Legare Synder The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on April 9, 2002. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated November 23, 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 PREPARED BY: SYEI:S. [}OUIK)ON. AtlI~N & I.F~. P.C WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC., a Virginia corporation M. LEGARE SNYDER f/k/a MYRTLE W. SNYDER TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth Virginia of THIS AGREEMENT, made this 23~d day of November, 2001, by and between WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC., a Virginia corporation, Grantor, party of the first part; M. LEGARE SNYDER, Grantor, party of the second part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the third part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of three (3) certain parcels of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing a total of approximately 87.55 acres and described as "Parcel One" ~Parcel Two", and Parcel ~'I'hree" in Exhibit 'A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcels are hereinafter referred to as the 'Property'; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of the Property and has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classifications of the Property from AG-1 and AG-2 to Conditional R-15 Residential District with a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion; and GPIN: 2403-21-0241 2403-21-1935 RETURN TO: SYKES, BOURDON, AHERN & LEVY, P.C. PEMBROKE ONE BUILDING, THE FIFTH FLOOR VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462 PREPARED BY: i$Y[£S. t~OUP, DON. AII~N & Lt-VY. P.C. WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation and WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with 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, in addition to the regulations provided for the R-15 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, for themselves, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, 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 make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title and which will not be required of the Grantors until the Property is developed: 1. When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more PREPARED BY: $Yi~[$. I~otlt~l)O~. AIIERN & LLTY. P.C than sixty-four (64) building lots substantially in confozmance with the Exhibit entiUed 'PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN OF EAGLES NEST FOR WE;ST NECK PROPERTIES, INC. VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA~, dated July 5, 2001, last revised 3/25/02, prepared by Burgess and Niple, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on fie with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ('Concept Plan~). 2. When the property is developed, approximately 46.74 acres of forested area and buffers along West Neck Road and Indian River Road lying outside the residential lots and roadways depicted on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to the Grantee as Public Open Space. An additional 10.75 acres of Open Space including an improved multi-purpose trail for use by the public shall be maintained by the Property Owners Association. 3. The entrance to the community and multi-purpose trail and the typical street section of future West Neck Road and the roads within the community shall be constructed and installed substantially in conformance with the detailed plans on page 2 of the Concept Plan. No on-street parking shall be pei-mitted on one side of: every road within the community. 4. When the Property is subdivided it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ('Deed Restrictions") administered by a Property Owners Association which shall be responsible for maintaining all common areas easements, including the community owned open space and multi-purpose trail, the entrance signage and neighborhood park. 5. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, which is no less than seventy-five percent (75%) brick, stone, stucco or sim-ilar quality materials. Any one story dwelling shall contain no less than 2600 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2800 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area. The front yards of all homes shall be sodded. The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two (2) car garage and a driveway (including apron) with a m~imum of four hundred ninety (490) square feet of hardened surface area. PREPARED BY: IS-'Y[£S. I}OUP, DON. AII~N & LEVY. P.C. 6. When the Property is developed, every reasonable effort will be made to preserve as many of the existing trees on the site as practical and a tree preservation plan shall be submitted to the Grantee for review along with the Preliminary Subdivision Plan. 7. The Grantors recognize that the subject site is located within the Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted on November 4, 1997. The Comprehensive Plan states that development taking place ~n this area should support the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. In addition to committing sixty-five percent (65%) of the Property to open space preservation, via the dedication of forty-six and seventy-four one-hundredths (46.74) acres of the Property to Grantee as a part of West Neck Creek Linear Park, and ten and three quarter acres to the Property Owners Association as permanent open space the Grantors agree to contribute the sum of One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,2S0.00) per lot to Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee to acquire land for open space preservation pursuant to Grantee's Outdoors Plan. If the funds proffered by the Orantors in this paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. Orantors agree to make payment for each residential lot shown on any subdivision plat prior to recordation of that plat. 8. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-1S Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by 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 PREPARED BY: SY[IX t~OUIIDON. AII~N & liVY. I).C 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 t/me of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and ff not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantors covenant and agree that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer 'and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator,. made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantors shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, PREPARED BY: SYKES. I}O~N, Atlt~N & LEVY. P.C 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: b-'Yi~gg. ]}OURDON. A#LqlN & LgW. P.C WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC., a Virginia corporation Robert D. Zirpoli, STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 26th day of November, 2001, by Robert D. Zirpoli, President of West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Grantor. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2002 PREPARED BY: I S Y ItS. 1}OLrP..DON. I AIII~N & lIVY. P.C. WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this~ day of November, 2001, M. Legate Snyder, Grantor. My Commission Expires: PREPARED BY: SyK[s. ~0UP~0N. AII[RN & lEVY. P.C F.,XH~IT "A" ALL THOSE certain pieces, parcels or tracts of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying, situate and being in the Borough of Princess Anne, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, as shown on that certain plat entitled "PLAT OF J.L. SIMMON'S LAND IN WEST NECK, PRINCESS ANNE COUNTY, VA., MADE AUGUST 3, 1911, BY JOSHUA G. MOORE, COUNTY SURVEYOR," and duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach (fo. merly Princess Anne County), Virginia, in Map Book 6, at Page 3, and more particularly described as follows: PARCEL 1: Beginning at a post at the intersection of the West Neck Road and the Indian River Road (sometimes called Saw Dust Road) and running N. 9° 45' E. 1362.3 feet to a post, 8 feet South of Lead Ditch; thence S. 78° 50' E. 1361.25 feet to a post, 8 feet South of Lead Ditch; thence S. 38° E. 43.2 minutes (by plat 43.2 feet) post; S. 45° W. 138.6 feet pine stump; S. 53° 45' W., 182.8 feet pine stump; S. 1° 30' E., 102.3 feet maple; S. 1° E. 116.1 feet pine, a comer; thence N. 86° 45' E., 127.3 feet pine; S. 89° 15' E., 93.7 feet cypress; S. 88° 30' E., 219.7 feet beech; S. 33° 25' E., 121.5 feet gum; S. 38° 18' E. 82.75 feet oak; S. 15° 30' E. 55.66 feet pine; S. 29° 45' E. 91 feet pine; S. 17° E. 93.66 feet gum; S. 48° 15' E. 80 feet beech; S. 30° 51' E., 68.75 feet gum; S. 0° 55' E. 93.5 feet pine; S.' 15° E. 76.5 feet maple; S. 13° 45' E. 97.1 feet gum; S. 38° 20' E, 65 feet gum; S. 37° 55' E. 99 feet gum; S. 52° 35' E. 52.75 feet cypress; S. 65° 26' E. 145.5 feet oak; N. 73° 35' E, 45.5 feet gum; S. 25° 9' W. 65.5 feet pine; S. 19° W., 62 feet post; S. 19° W. 9.5 feet beech; S. 11° 25' W. 58 feet pine; W. 9° 45' W. 103 feet pine; S. 8° 15' W. 70.5 feet beech; S. 9° 45' W. 43 feet gum; S. 11° 35' W. 54.6 feet maple; S. 11° W. 67 feet pine; S. 18° W. 99.5 feet pine; S. 17° 25'W. 104.5 feet gum, a comer; thence N. 71° 25'W. 154.16 feet gum; N. 67° 45' W. 149.3 feet gum; N. 57° 45' W. 327.9 feet pine; N. 57° 10' W. 283.5 feet pine; S. 75° 50' W. 80 feet post; N. 62° 15' W. 246.6 feet station on road; thence N. 65° 15' W. 1288.75 feet to post; the point of beginning, being ~Plat A" and containing 72.32 acres. GPIN: 2403-21-1935 PARCEL 2: Beginning at a gum, at the Northeast comer of said tract and running thence N. 11° 15' E. 103. 6 feet ash; N. 11° 45' E. 117.4 feet gum; N. 15° 45' E. 110.2 feet gum; N. 6° E. 258.7 feet gum; N. 5° E. 145.8 feet gum; N. 12° 30' E. 128.7 feet gum; N. 19° E. 73.2 feet gum; N. 22° E. 250 feet beech; N. 23° 45.5 feet oak; S. 65° 25' E. 146.5 feet cypress; S. 52° 35' E. 52.75 feet gum; S. 37° 55' E. 99 feet gum; S. 38° 20' E. 65 feet gum; S. 13° 45' E. 97.1 feet maple; S. 15° E. 76.5 feet pine; S. 0° 55' E. feet gum; S. 30° 5' E. 68.75 feet beech; S. 48° 15' E. 80 feet gum; S. 17° E. 9 PREPARED BY: SY[[S. [IOURDON. AR[tIN & LEVY. P.C 93.66 feet pine; S. 29° 45' E. 91 feet pine; S. 15° 30' E. 55.56 feet oak; S. 38° 15' E. 82.75 feet gum; S. 33° 25' E. 121.5 feet beech; a corner; thence S. 57° 45' W. 201.3 feet maple; S. 55° 30' W. 153.7 feet holly; S. 77° 30' W. 69.3 feet cypress; S. 85° W. 61.3 feet gum; S. 80° 45'W. 57.4 feet gum; S. 80° 15'W. 141.2 feet gum; S. 80° 15' W. 141.2 feet to a gum and thence S. 72° 10' W. 254.7 feet to the gum, the point of beginning, said tract being "Plat B' and containing 17.45 acres. GPIN: 2403-21-1935 PARCEL 3: ALL that certain tract, piece and parcel of land containing 0.302 acre, lying, situate and being on the north side of Indian River Road in the Princess Anne Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and designated as Parcel "B' 0.302 acre on that certain plat entitled "Survey of Property of George S. Dawley Estate, Princess Anne Borough, Virginia Beach, Va.", dated December 22, 1976 and made by Gallup Surveying, Ltd., duly of record in the Clerk's Office Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 126, at Page 35-A, reference to which plat is hereby made. SAVE AND EXCEPT that property conveyed to Lankford D. Malbone and Jeanette W. Malbone recorded in Deed Book 954, at Page 470. GPIN: 2403-21-0241 CONDRF, ZN/WSTNKPRP/PROFFER5 l0 ~dward M. Williams Gpin2408-93-9915 ZONING HISTORY 1. Subdivision Variance (lot width) - Granted 9-28-81 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Edward M. Williams, Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: April 9, 2002 Background: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Edward M. Williams. Property is located at 1505 Quail Point Road (GPIN #2408-98-9915). DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN 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. The parcel is currently a nonconforming lot without frontage on a public right-of-way· Access to this site, as well as to the other nine homes on this point of land into Linkhom Bay, is via a recorded 20-foot ingress/egress easement. In the 1960s, the property line separating lots 8 & 9 was redrawn by deed. The house on Lot 9 was then approximately two (2) feet from this property line. To clear any potential property title problems in the future, the applicant now wishes to record a legal plat that will vacate all property lines previously created by deed and configure the lot lines to slightly lessen the severity of this nonconformity. The house on Lol; 9 will now be 6 feet from the property line (the City Zoning Ordinance requires 20 feet)· The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposed variance appears to meet the criteria for the authorization of a subdivision variance as specified in Section 9.3 of the' Subdivision Ordinance, 'staff recommended approval and there was no opposition to the request· Recommer~dations: A motion was passed unanimously by the PI.anr~ing Commission by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval· Submitting De Planning Department ,.~'~0~_ City Manager: ~ 6yc.t' EDWARD M. WILLIAMS /# 15 March 13, 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 1505 Quail Point Road Edward' M. Williams G~n2408-93- g915 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 2408-93-9915 District 5 - Lynnhaven The existing lot is 1 acre, the proposed lot will be .901 acres Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 EDWARD M. WILLIAMS / # 15 Page 1 STAFF PLANNER: Faith Christie Major Issues: · Vacation of property lines that were created by deed. Site Plan I Preliminary Plat: Existing Lot: The existing lot is 1.0 acre. Proposed Lot: The applicant wishes to vacate all property lines that were created by deed and to record a new plat creating one legal lot. A portion of the lot was subdivided by deed in August 1962 and conveyed to an adjacent site. The applicant wishes to readjust the lot lines back to their original configuration before the subdivision by deed. The existing lot, along with the other lots on the point, does not have frontage on a public-right-of-way. Access is provided via a 20-foot ingress/egress easement, which was recorded by plat in August 1959. The northwest corner of the dwelling is approximately 2 feet from the property line created by deed. The dwelling will be 6.3 feet from the proposed property line. In addition, the proposed parcel will be 739 feet shy of the required 40,000 square feet required for this zoning district. Item Reouired Lot 9A Lot Width in feet 125 0* Lot Area in square feet 40,000 39,261'* *Variance required to lot width **Variance required to lot area Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 EDWARD M. WILLIAMS I # 15 Page 2 Existing Land Use and Zoning The site is wooded with an existing single family dwelling and frame shed on it. The site is zoned R-40 Residential District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · Single-Family Dwelling / R-40 Residential District · Single-Family Dwelling / R-40 Residential District · Linkhom Bay · Single-Family Dwelling / R-40 Residential District Zoning History The subject site was originally created in August of 1959, as Lot 9 of Linkhorn Point when the Lindsley Farm was subdivided. The property line that divides lots 8 and 9 was relocated by deed in August 1962, and a portion of Lot 9 was conveyed to Lot 8. The applicant obtained the property in 1962. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in the 70-75 dB Ldn AICUZ District surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics This site is located in the Resource Protection Area, the most stringently regulated portion of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. The parcel is developed with a single-family dwelling but there are some substantial trees that have been preserved. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: This site is served by City water. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 EDWARD M. WILLIAMS I # 15 Page 3 Sewer: City sewer serves this site. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends this site for suburban residential, Iow-density development for uses at or below 3.5 dwelling 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: A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Bo 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. The parcel is currently a legal nonconforming lot without frontage on a public right-of- way. Access to this site, as well as to the other nine homes on the point, is via a recorded 20-foot ingress/egress easement. In the 1960s, the property line separating Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 EDWARD M. WILLIAMS I # Page 4 lots 8 & 9 was redrawn by deed. The house was then approximately two (2) feet from this property line. The applicant now wishes to record a legal plat that will vacate all property lines created by deed and redraw the lines to slightly lessen the severity of this nonconformity. The subdivision variance will correct several deficiencies on the site: · The site is below the minimum square footage required for lots within the R-40 Residential zoning district. The lot is proposed with 39, 261 square feet or .901 acres, 739 square feet shy of the requirement. · The site does not front on a dedicated public right-of-way. · The northwest corner of the existing dwelling will be approximately six (6) feet from the proposed property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 20-foot side yard setback for principal structures. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision request subject to the condition below. Conditions 1. The proposed subdivision shall be recorded by subdivision plat in the Clerk of the Circuit Court's office. NOTE: Upon granting of a 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 appficable, ci~/ Ord~nan, ces~ ,, Planning Commission Agenda ~'~_~ March 13, 2002 EDWARD M. WILLIAMS / # 15 Page 5 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 EDWARD M. WILLIAMS I # 15 Page 6 ILOT 9 VAc~-r~l~ Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 EDWARD M. WILLIAMS/# 15 Page 7 Item #15 Edward M. Williams Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers District 5 Lynnhaven March 13, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #15, Edward M. Williams. This is District 5, Lynnhaven. It's an Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The property is located 1505 Quail Point Road, again that is in the Lynnhaven District and we have no conditions. Anyone here representing Mr. Williams? Is them any opposition to this consent agenda item? Ronald Ripley: Keep going. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Ripley, I would like to approve the four consent agenda items. Number 4 with no conditions; number 5 with eight conditions; number 6 with three conditions and number 15 with no conditions. I would like to move to approve this. Donald Horsley: Second. Ronald Ripley: Robert Miller: Ronald Ripley: We have a motion by Dot Wood and a second by Don Horsley. And I need abstain from Item #6. My firm is working on that. So noted. Any other comments? So we call for the question? AYE 11 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREED AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE NAY 0 ABSENT 0 ABS 0 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0 with the abstention so noted, the motion passes. Mr. Miller. ,.~ :..~~ APPLICATION PA GE 4 OF 4 !i:,.," ..[ . . SUBDIVISION VARIANCE  · OF VIRG~BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT List All Current Property Owners: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE ffthe property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessa~. ) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ~ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. ' If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a 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 Rev. 9/15/98 Ma~ H-lO Not %o S~ol~ Voice Stream 4q-5D I 1 I-1 I-1 [8] 05? I-1 Gpin - 1495-24-2558 AG-I ZONING HISTORY 1. Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted 12-5-83 2. Conditional Use Permit (bulk storage) - Grantee 12-5-83 3. Change of Zoning (R-6 Residential District to I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted 6-25-84 4. Change of Zoning (R-6 Residential District to I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted 6-25-84 5. Subdivision Variance- Granted 9-22-86 6. Conditional Use Permit (animal hospital, shelter, kennel) - Granted 12-22-86 7. Change of Zoning (0-2 Office District to I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted 2-14-95 8. Conditional Use Permit (telecommunications tower) - Granted 6-9-98 9. Change of Zoning (R-5D Residential District to I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted 9-22-98 Conditional Use Permit (processing woody vegetation & storage of same) - Granted 9-22-98 10. Reconsideration of Conditions - Denied 10-27-98 11. Conditional Use Permit (communications tower) - Granted 2-23-99 12. Change of Zoning (R-5D Residential District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted 9-14- 99 Reconsideration of Conditions- Granted 10-9-01 13. Change of Zoning (R-5D Residential District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted 5-9- 00 14. Change of Zoning (R-5D Residential District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted 7-3- 01 15. Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District) - Granted 7-3-01 Conditional Use Permit (automobile service station) - Granted 7-3-01 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: Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Voice Stream Wireless for a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower at the southeast intersection of Holland Road and Dam Neck Road (GPIN #1495-24-2558). Said parcel is located at 3040 Holland Road and contains 400 square feet. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a communications tower. The antenna array for this communications tower will extend 20 feet above the existing Virginia Power transmission pole. 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 VEPCO/SPCA, 3040 Holland Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23456," prepared by W-T Communication Design Group, L.L.C., dated January 21,2002. No fill shall be permitted within the 100 year floodplain. 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 VEPCO/SPCA, 3040 HOlland Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23456," prepared by W-T Communication Design Group, L.L.C., dated January 21 2002. ' Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval with conditions. CitySUbmittingManager: ~~'e''~ ~Department/Agency: ~ ~)'~Planning Department ~;'~ Voice Stream Wireless - Dam Neck Page 2 The communication tower shall be a 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 eliminate the requirement that 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. Should the antennas cease to be used for a period of more than one (1) year, the applicant shall remove the antennas and their supporting towers and related equipment. VOICE STREAM WIRELESS / # 16 March 13, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Conditional Use Permit for communications tower 3040 Holland Road Map ~-~o Voice Streal Mop Not ~co Sco1~ T-1 ,AG- Gpin - 1495-24-2558 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: 1495-24-2558 7 - PRINCESS ANNE 400 square feet Carolyn A.K. Smith Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VOICE STREAM WIRELESS ! # 16 Page APPLICATION HISTORY: This request was deferred at the February 13, 2002 hearing due to the failure of the applicant to properly post the required public notice on the property. 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 Zoning The majority of the parcel is undeveloped and is within a United States Navy restrictive easement. There is an existing 120 foot wide Virginia Power easement with transmission towers on a portion of the site. Portions of the parcel are zoned for agricultural and intensive office uses. The specific area where the proposed tower will be located is zoned AG-1 Agricultural District. Surroundin.q Land Use and Zonin.q North: South: East: West: · Vacant property / R-7.5 Residential District · Office warehouse, SPCA / Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District, AG-2 Agricultural District · Light industrial uses / I-1 Light Industrial District · Holland and Dam Neck Road intersection Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VOICE STREAM WIRELESS I # 16 Page 2 Zonin.q History There have been many requests within the vicinity of the Holland Road and Dam Neck Road intersection. Most recently, an automobile service station with gas pumps was approved by City Council on July 3, 2001. Office warehouse and mini-storage facilities were also approved in 2001 on the parcel directly to the west, across the intersection. A communications tower was approved by City Council on the property to the east (#8 on the zoning history map) in June of 1998 as well as on a property to the south, across Holland Road (#11 on the zoning history map) in February of 1999. Other activity includes rezoning requests from residential and agricultural districts to I-1 Light Industrial District. Map H-lO Voice Stream I-1 I-! Cr~i~ - 1495-24-2558 1. Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted 12-5-83 2. Conditional Use Permit (bulk storage) - Grantee 12-5-83 3. Change of Zoning (R-6 Residential District to I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted 6-25-84 4. Change of Zoning (R-6 Residential District to I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted 6-25-84 5. Subdivision Variance- Granted 9-22-86 6. Conditional Use Permit (animal hospital, shelter, kennel) - Granted 12-22-86 7. Change of Zoning (0-2 Office District to I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted 2-14- 95 8. Conditional Use Permit (telecommunications tower) - Granted 6-9-98 9. Change of Zoning (R-5D Residential District to I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted 9-22-98 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VOICE STREAM WIRELESS I # 16 Page 3 Conditional Use Permit (processing woody vegetation & storage of same) - Granted 9-22-98 10. Reconsideration of Conditions - Denied 10-27-98 11. Conditional Use Permit (communications tower) - Granted 2-23-99 12. Change of Zoning (R-5D Residential District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted 9-14-99 Reconsideration of Conditions - Granted 10-9-01 13. Change of Zoning (R-5D Residential District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted 5-9-00 14. Change of Zoning (R-5D Residential District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District) - Granted 7-3-01 15. Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District) - Granted 7-3-01 Conditional Use Permit (automobile service station) - Granted 7-3-01 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of greater than 75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The site is a mixture of wooded and partially cleared areas. Portions of this property are located within the 100 year floodplain. It is located in the Southern Watersheds Management Area. Public Facilities and Services Public Safety Police: Adequate. Fire and Rescue: Adequate. 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. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VOICE STREAM WIRELESS / # 16 Page 4 Site Plan I 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 on the top of an existing Virginia Power tower. The communications tower will extend 20 feet above the existing 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 on the agriculturally zoned property. The setting and the surrounding zoning and uses make this a logical site to construct an antenna on the existing transmission tower. As depicted on the Zoning History map, there are two other towers in the vicinity; however, each tower is an extension, such as this request, to an existing Virginia Power transmission tower. Typically, an extension to a power line tower can accommodate only one provider. Structurally, the one provider scenario offers the safest design. In addition, the Oceana Air Traffic Control division at NAS Oceana has reviewed the application and found it acceptable. The United States Navy does own a restrictive easement over the property. It is staff's opinion that this request is consistent with the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance in terms of the proposed location as well as the technical information provided. Conditions The monopole communications tower shall be constructed as depicted on the submitted site plan entitled "Voice Stream Wireless VEPCO/SPCA, 3040 Holland Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23456," prepared by W-T Communication Design Group, L.L.C., dated January 21, 2002. 2. No fill shall be permitted within the 100 year floodplain. 3. The tower and antennas shall not exceed 130 feet in height. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VOICE STREAM WIRELESS / # 16 Page 5 Landscaping shall be installed as depicted on page L-1 of the Landscape Plan entitled "Voice Stream Wireless VEPCO/SPCA, 3040 Holland Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23456," prepared by W-T Communication Design Group, L.L.C., dated January 21, 2002. The communication tower shall be a 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 eliminate the requirement that 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. Should the antennas cease to be used for a period of more than one (1) year, the applicant shall remove the antennas and their supporting towers and related equipment. 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 March 13, 2002 VOICE STREAM WIRELESS I # 16 Page 6 PAD' ? OVERALL sri'E PLAN Voice Stream (site plan) Planning Commission Agenda ~~--~ March 13, 2002 VOICE STREAM WIRELESS ! # 16 Page 7 HE~ Voice Stream (tower detail) Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VOICE STREAM WIRELESS / # 16 Page 8 Voice Stream (site plan - details) Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VOICE STREAM WIRELESS I # 16 Page 9 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VOICE STREAM WIRELESS I # 16 Page 10 Item #16 Voice Stream Wireless Conditional Use Permit for a Communications Tower 3040 Holland Road District 7 Princess Anne March 13, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #16. Ronald Ripley: Hold on a second. Dorothy Wood: Number sixteen. It's Voice Stream Wireless Tower. It's a Conditional Use permit for a communications tower at the southeast intersection of Holland Road and Dam Neck Road. It's located at 3040 Holland Road. It contains 400 square feet. It's in the Princess Anne District. It's a communications tower gain in the Princess Anne District. Bill Gambrell: Thank you. My name is Bill Gambrell and I represent Voice Stream and the conditions are all acceptable. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Gambrell. Is there any opposition to this item? Sharon Adams: Yes ma'am. My name is Sharon Adams. I'm representing the Virginia Beach SPCA. We are the adjacent property owner. We are opposed to this. We feel like we are becoming the Stonehenge of wireless towers. We're surrounded by them. We try to be a good parmer to the City. We have recycle bins and folks parking in our parking lot to play soccer. But we feel like if the City wants these transmission towers, which we absolutely understand, they need spread about a bit. And I don't know whether it's because its our parking lot that makes useful, whether it's an animal shelter and folks think that we don't care how it looks but we are a property tax payer and we oppose it. Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. We will drop it down to the regular place in the agenda. So now we have four. Ma'am? Sharon? We will be heating this later. Sharon Adams: We're just going to chat. Dorothy Wood: Okay. Ronald Ripley: Alright. Rem #16 Voice Stream Wireless Page 2 REGULAR AGENDA Robert Miller: We're going to skip to Item #16 because Item #11 is the height of the hotels and we can come back to that and discuss that and it's going to take awhile. Item #16 is Voice Stream Wireless. Bill Gambrell: It's nice to sit through a whole Planning Commission meeting again. Robert Vakos: How bad? Bill Gambrell: My name is Bill Gambrell and I represent Voice Stream Wireless. I'm probably going to limit my comments to you and let Ms. Adams speak. Voice Stream chose this site specifically because they were trying to comply with the City's policy to minimize the implementation of towers in the City of Virginia Beach. This application seeks to provide a 20-foot extension to a major power transmission pole that exists on a piece of property that is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for industrial development. And the purpose of the application is simply to provide additional wireless communication services in the Holland Road service area for Voice Stream customers. And, if you don't mind, just defer to Ms. Adams until she has a chance to speak. Ronald Ripley: Any questions of Mr. Gambrell? Alright. Ms. Adams? Sharon Adams: Thank you Mr. Chairman. We don't like coming down here and imposing anything that the City wants to do. We oppose it sometimes we just don't come down her and tell you. This seems to be just a little bit of a situation and as my mother used to say no good deed goes unpunished. Had we known and seen clearly what these things looked like the first time, we would have been yelling and screaming. Now that we have them across our parking lot and we are there as they come and go through our parking lot. We think it's unfair, and I understand this is the City's policy, as I said Bob, keep the ugly together, but I think there is something patently unfair about continuing to load up that site. I understand from Mr. Gambrell, he doesn't think it's ugly or a problem, but we are, just to remind you, even though we are a charity, we pay real estate tax. We have thousands of citizens every year who come to the Virginia Beach SPCA. We maintain our property and we intend to spend close to a million dollars, Mr. Miller improving it in the next year or so. So, we Simply like to ask you to consider it at some point to limit the number of these things that you insist on putting right outside our window. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: I like to pull a Charlie Bowden and have myself removed or something? We do work for Voice Stream, even though we're not doing this tower and as Sharon - says we're doing work for the SPCA so, the only thing that I want to ask Sharon was do you all have a crematorium? Item #16 Voice Stream Wireless Page 3 Sharon Adams: I'm so sorry that she is gone but I will tell you, having been to the General Assembly 19 times this session, there's a lot of discussion about this thing state wide. They are not inspected in so far as I know by anybody. There may be an initial health inspection and I don't mean in any way to be for or against it but now there is this EPA OSHA stuff as I understand it more than an initial licensor permitting thing, so inspections, as far as I understand them, do not occur. And this is not regulated by the State Veterinary's Office; so, it is a pet than a matter of discussion as these things. Robert Miller: Do you have one? Do you? Sharon Adams: No, we actually use, in partnership with the animal control bureau. But as Mr. Baum says often I agree with him. There are aspects to this that should be paid attention but I don't in any way want to suggest having a position on that. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions that are germane to the subject? Bill Gambrell: I do appreciate Ms. Adams comments about the communication towers. I think this is probably the best solution when given an option as to constructing new towers simply adding to an existing structure. And I also contribute to the SPCA and do visit this facility on a regular basis. Generally don't do anything to make it less attractive. I'll be at the pet show when they have their next fund-raiser. Thank you for your time today. If you have any questions, I'I1 be happy to answer them. Ronald Ripley: Looking at your location was there any other areas that you can co-locate to? Bill Gambrell: We actually looked at each of the existing major power transmission lines in the area, because it was simply going to add an extension to an existing structure that's there. The extension goes up in the air about 20 feet and then the structure probably in total width is maybe 10 feet in total width. The existing power structures really have a total width when you consider their arms 30 or 40 feet in distance and it really, is very, very hard to see a change in these major power transmission line structures when you add these antennas. If you're looking for them, you do see them. The major power transmission lines are not sightly either nor are telephone poles but to some extent there. They're there and they own and they do provide a service to the citizens. Ronald Ripley: I think Will Din did. Do you have a question Will? William Din: Yeah. My question was, this is only one tower there. I mean, it's on an existing pole. Bill Gambrell: Absolutely. Item #16 Voice Stream Wireless Page 4 William Din: An electrical line? Bill Gambrell: That major power transmission line that's shown in the photograph will have an extension that goes above that so that you can - beyond the wires. They'll be a series of antennas that are located on that and that will provide the service that Voice Stream uses for this service area. Ronald Ripley: Good. Any other questions? Wilham Din: Can you explain to me how the traffic is going through this parking lot? Bill Gambrell: No traffic will go through the SPCA parking lot. Although, I did suggest to Voice Stream that they might want to make a contribution to SPCA so they could use it. It might have been easier access but they did choose to just use the existing access as provided from Virginia Power. It actually would come from Dam Neck Road if they used it and they also have an easement for construction across the property that is owned by Dam Neck Associates. So the adjoining parcel to the, I think west, provides an · access. You can see it highlighted there. But actually the comings and goings will occur as a result of the initial development which is done actually by VEPCO and then the comings and goings are limited really to once or twice a month just the preventive maintenance to check to see if the facility's in place and doing what it's supposed to be doing. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Sharon Adams: Mr. Chairman? May I? Ronald Ripley: Yes, if you like? Sharon Adams: There was a matter of concern having to do with the retention area and maybe Bill can. Do you know where our retention area is on that site? Bill Gambrell: There is a ditch that runs on the property. Sharon Adams: When they were doing some work back therej we found some difficulty having to do with moving that equipment and settling in that back area. A retention pond was offered and we have to dig it out every time that happens. Every time they go back there, it does create a both a problem and a cost for us. So, there is an impact whether they use the parking lot or they come in the back way. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Any other questions? Robert Vakos: Just a comment Mr. Chairman. Item #16 Voice Stream Wireless Page 5 Ronald Ripley: Yes. Robert Vakos: If you all remember one of the things that we asked staff to do in the earlier meeting, was rather than having these type applications where you put an extension on an existing power pole come before the Commission. We asked staff to look at possibly having an administrative approval on this so I just want to bring that out as information. · Ronald Ripley: I understood they were working on something like that. Robert Vakos: That's what they're working on? Ronald Ripley: Yeah. Okay. Well, we need a motion here unless there is any further discussion. Dorothy Wood: I move that we approve the application of Voice Stream. Donald Horsley: Second. Ronald Ripley: Robert Miller: A motion by Dot, seconded by Don. And we have. And I'm definitely going to abstain. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller's going to abstain. We're i:eady to vote. Ed Weeden: Seconded by Mr. Horsley? RonaldRipley: That's correct. Mr. Horsley. Yes. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABSENT 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE ABS 1 ABS Ronald Ripley: By a vote 10-0 with one abstention, the motion passes. ": "4a~r'LIUA'I1DN PAGE OF 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT :: ::i;:: ~ ~/:i'::'~. '., ~(!:'~:C~Y OF VIRG~ BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name:~ List All Current Property Owners: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list ifnecessar3.) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) 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. JERTIFICATION: I certify that the ~nformatio~n..contain~true anjt4tc, curate. Print Name Voice$treams Wireless Fact Sheet Eskbl~hed: Covemcl POPr. T~.hnoto~y Plat~cxm: 1994 To provkle the bee ~ tn ell-cU~tnl pe~saml cmnmumicetions services (PC~ offezing cmtomers the mom minute~, ~e most feauzre~, end the =mst 2,10~ zmtionwide Colo.; Nonol~ ~ Albuquerque, N.M.; E1Puo, Texas; Des Moines, ~ Omaham~ City cna TuIea, Oki; ',Vich~ i~n., end C:heYume, Wyo. Voice~zman hL~ Icquired licensee m prov~l sezv~ m Dn3Lu, Austin and Sen nntm~, Texu; Chim~o, ~l.; Ondnna~l, C:levebnd end l~Fton, Ohio; Nodolk and ~ Va.; St. Louta, Mo.; Milwaukee, Wis.; Sm:t T, mndsco, II I II III II II IIII OFFICER'S CI;RTiFICATI~ The undersigned, u Vice President and Assistant Secretary ofVoiccStream GSM 1~, LLC, ("the Company") does hereby crrtify that O. A. Engella~d, Region'al Corporate Counsel, i~ authorized to ne~efi~e ~ enter i~ Muter Comtruction Service Agreementa on behalf of the Company ~ ne~eu~, or der. ir~ble for the continued operation of the gompa~y. D~e: July .~, 2001 Voic~tr~m (:]SM Il, LLC ~vid A, Miller, Vice Preeiclent ~nd As~/st~t Secretary Ma M-6 Hop No~to Scole Beach United Methodist Church C, pin- 2427-18-4082 - 4016 - 3989 ZONING HISTORY Conditional Use Permit (Chumh Addition)- Approved 5-12-98 Conditional Use Permit (Church Addition)- Approved 12-13-82 Conditional Use Permit (Recreational Use of an Outdoor Nature - Mini Golf) - Approved 2-22-00 Rezoning (H-2 Hotel District to B-5 Resort Commercial) and a Conditional Use Permit (Motel Density and Height Increase) -Approved 8-12-85 Conditional Use Permit (Recreational Use of an Outdoor Nature - Baseball Pitching Machines)- Approved 5-21-84 Rezoning (H-2 Hotel District to B-4 Resort Commercial District) - Approved , 5-14-79 Rezoning (B-1 Retail Business to M-H Motel-Hotel District) and Conditional Use Permit (143 Motel Efficiency Units and Uses Accessory to a Motel-Hotel)- Approved 5-14-73 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Virginia Beach United Methodist Church, Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: April 9, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Virginia Beach United Methodist Chumh for a Conditional Use Permit for a church/commercial parking lot at the southeast corner of Pacific Avenue and 20th Street on Lot 18 - Block 41, Lot 20 - Block 41 and Lot 22 - Block 41 (GPIN #2427-18- 4082; #2427-18-4016; #2427-18-3999). Said parcels are located at 208, 210 and 212 20th Street and contain 21,000 square feet. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit primarily for additional church parking, and to use the lots for commercial parking lot purposes from April through September. Lots 18 and 20 were purchased in April 1986; Lot 22 was purchased in April 2000. 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: This use permit is valid for two (2) years from the date of city council approval. The applicant shall submit a new conditional use permit application prior to the expiration of this use permit if continuation of the use beyond two (2) years is desired. The hours of operation for the commercial parking lot during the months of April through September shall be: Sunday: 11:30 a.m. to Midnight Monday through Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to Midnight Friday and Saturday, 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. An attendant shall be on duty at all times during the operation of the commercial parking lot. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. City Manage~~.~.,~ ~._,~(~,~..Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~ Virginia Beach United Methodist church Page 2 A lot attendant station shall be located a minimum of fifty (50) feet north of the entrances/exits on 19th Street to provide for on-site stacking and shall be situated so as to be on the driver's side of vehicles entering the lot during operation of the commercial parking lot. All points of vehicular access shall be secured by a chain or gate during the hours that the parking lot is not being operated as a commercial parking lot or for church purposes. Six (6) trash receptacles, that are plainly visible and marked as such, shall be dispersed throughout the sites. The site shall be improved in accordance with the Site Plan Ordinance. The area of Lot 22 adjacent to Pacific Avenue and 20th Street shall be landscaped with a row of shrubs of size sufficient to serve as a screening buffer. March 13, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Conditional Use Permit for a Church / Commercial Parking Lot 208,210, and 212 20th Street Ma~ M-6 Beach United Methodist Church GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: Gpin - 2427-18-4082 - 4016 - 3989 2427-18-4082; 2427-18-4016; 2427-18-3999 #6 - BEACH 21,000 square feet Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VIRGINIA BEACH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 9 Page 1 STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Faith Christie To use this area for off-site parking for a church and for a commercial parking lot during the months of April through September Major Issues: Consistency of the proposed use with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and the Oceanfront Resort Area Concept Plan for this area. Appearance of the site should be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies in the plans for development in the resort area. The lots are located at the eastern terminus of the 19th Street - Pavilion area. A study is underway to develop general planning and design guidelines for the 19th Street area between the Convention Center site (Pavilion) and Oceanfront. The Convention Center project is an instrumental feature of the overall Oceanfront Resort Area revitalization and the 19th Street Corridor is the key link between the Convention Center site and the existing Oceanfront Resort core. It is, therefore, important that current land use actions be closely monitored in order to achieve the long- term vision for the area. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning Lots 18 and 20 are developed with a parking lot that is currently used by the church. Lot 22 is a vacant grassed lot that was previously occupied by an outdoor recreational use - baseball-pitching machines (a batting cage). Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: · 20th Street · Across 20th Street is a Pizza Hut / RT-2 Resort Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VIRGINIA BEACH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 9 Page 2 South: East: West: Toudst District · A nonconforming church parking lot/RT-1 Resort Tourist District · Across 19th Street exists Virginia Beach United Methodist Church · Resort retail and restaurant uses / RT-2 Resort Tourist District · Pacific Avenue · Across Pacific Avenue a city parking lot (the Dome Site) / RT-3 Resort Tourist District Zonin.q History Virginia Beach United Methodist Church purchased Lots 18 and 20 in April 1986; Lot 22 was purchased in April 2000 (Lots 18, 20, and 22 represented by the shaded area on map). The lots were rezoned from B-1 Retail Business to M-H Motel-Hotel District and a Conditional Use Permit for 143 Motel Efficiency Units was approved in May 197'3. In May 1979 the sites were rezoned from H-2 Hotel District to B-4 Resort Map M-6 H~l= Not :.o Scelc Beach United Methodist Church POLICE STA. Commercial District. The B- c~, - 2427-z8-4~2 - ~o~6 - 39n 5 Resort Commercial District was established and applied to the sites in March 1982. A Conditional Use Permit for a recreational use of an outdoor nature - baseball-pitching machines was approved for Lot 22 in May 1984. That use occupied the lot until the church purchased the property. The parking lot to the south of these lots is nonconforming, having been approved in 1979 and 1981, and is used by the church for parking and as a commercial parking lot April through September. 1. Conditional Use Permit (Church Addition) -Approved 5-12-98 Conditional Use Permit (Church Addition) - Approved 12-13-82 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VIRGINIA BEACH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 9 Page 3 2. Conditional Use Permit (Recreational Use of an Outdoor Nature - Mini Golf) - Approved 2-22-00 Rezoning (H-2 Hotel District to B-5 Resort Commercial) and a Conditional Use Permit (Motel Density and Height Increase) - Approved 8-12-85 Conditional Use Permit (Recreational Use of an Outdoor Nature - Baseball Pitching Machines) - Appreved 5-21-84 Rezoning (H-2 Hotel District to B-4 Resort Commercial District) - Appreved 5- 14-79 Rezoning (B-1 Retail Business to M-H Motel-Hotel District) and Conditional Use Permit (143 Motel Efficiency Units and Uses Accessory to a Motel-Hotel) - Approved 5-14-73 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 Lots 18 and 20 are impreved with asphalt, curb and gutter, and are used by the church for parking. Lot 22 is a vacant grassy lot with no envirenmentally sensitive features. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: There is an eight (8) inch water main in 20th Street frenting the north side of the site. There is a twelve (12) inch water main in Pacific Avenue fronting the west side of the site. No water is required for this use. Sewer: There is an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer main in 20th Street fronting the site. No sewer is required for this use. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP): Pacific Avenue in this area is a four lane divided major arterial roadway. The Master Transportation Plan designates the roadway as a 70 foot wide undivided roadway in this area. A five (5) foot right-of-way reservation will be required during detailed site Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VIRGINIA BEACH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 9 Page 4 plan review. There are currently no projects to improve Pacific Avenue in the Capital Improvements Program. Traffic Calculations: Street Name ' Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use z_ Daily: 547 ADT / Sunday: 2,198 ADT Pacific Avenue 16,751 17,300ADT ~ ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3_ No additional trips will be generated Proposed Land Use - 20th Street No counts 6,200 ADT No additional trips will be available generated Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by 60,000 square foot church Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: The Police Department has no concerns at this time. The Fire Department has no concerns at this time. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as a Resort Area, planned for resort uses including lodging, retail, entertainment, recreational, cultural, and other compatible uses. The general land use, transportation and aesthetic provisions identified in the Oceanfront Resort Area Concept Plan apply to all development and redevelopment within this area of the city. The Oceanfront Resort Area Concept Plan, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, identifies Pacific Avenue as the Resort Area's main thoroughfare linking adjacent arterial roadways to the north and south, and notes that the aesthetics of the corridor should be improved to meet those associated with a high quality beach resort. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VIRGINIA BEACH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 9 Page 5 Summary of Proposal Proposal The applicant wishes to obtain a conditional use permit primarily for additional church parking, and to use the lots for commercial parking lot purposes from April through September. Lots 18 and 20 were purchased in April 1986; Lot 22 was purchased in April 2000. The church has been using Lots 18 and 20 as parking for the church and as a commercial parking lot. The lots are improved with curbing, gutter and asphalt. No landscaping exists on the sites. · Lot22 is unimproved. An existing nonconforming parking lot for the church exists south of these lots on 19th Street and Pacific Avenue. The church is across 19th Street on the southeast corner of 19th Street and Pacific Avenue. The church proposes to operate the lots as a commercial parking lot from April through September, during the tourist season. The hours of operation are: Sunday, 11:30 a.m. to Midnight Monday through Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to Midnight Friday and Saturday, 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. There will be 10 to 20 employees operating the lot. The lot would be closed to commercial parking during special events at the church. Site Desi,qn The lots will be tied into the existing nonconforming parking lot at 19th Street and Pacific Avenue. That lot is improved with curbing, gutter and asphalt. No landscaping exists on the site. There are two (2) entrances / exits to the lots on 19th Street: one entrance / exit that is blocked on Pacific Avenue and one entrance / exit on 20th Street. · Including the parking spaces on the existing nonconforming parking lot there will be a total of 120 parking spaces available to the church and available for Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VIRGINIA BEACH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 9 Page 6 commercial purposes. There are sidewalks along all the rights-of-ways. There are two landscaping areas in the right-of-way on 20th Street. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access Access to the site is previded through existing entrances / exits on 19th Street and 20th Street. On-site traffic circulation appears to be adequate. Sidewalks exist along 19th Street, Pacific Avenue and 20th Street. Architectural Desiqn · There are no buildings planned for the site. Landscape and Open Space Design · There is no landscaping shown on the submitted site plan. Section 5A of the Site Plan Ordinance - Parking Lot and Foundation Landscaping - requires street frentage screening and interior coverage landscaping in all parking lots. The applicant requested and received apprevat to defer the on-site screening requirements for a period of three (3) yeare due to the uncertainty surrounding the future of the immediate area. The approval expires April 1, 2004 at which time the parking lot screening will have to be installed. Evaluation of Request The request for a conditional use permit for an off-site parking lot for church use and a commercial parking lot during the months of April through September is acceptable subject to the conditions listed below. Site plans were submitted to the Planning Department's Development Review Center for review to improve the site in August 2001. The plans were disapproved because the site did not have a conditional use permit. The church then submitted this conditional use permit request for all of the lots they own and use for parking between 19th Street and 20th Street. The lot located at 19th Street and Pacific Avenue was not included in the application as it is a legal nonconforming use. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VIRGINIA BEACH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 9 Page 7 Although the submitted site plan is not consistent with the Oceanfroht Resort Area Concept Plan's long-term goals for high quality development in this area, the proposed use is appropriate at the present time as a temporary use. There is some uncertainty regarding the timing of future development for this particular area due to the current studies for 19th Street and the Convention Center as well as uncertainty regarding a timeframe for implementation of the recommendations of the studies. Staff feels that the proposed request for the parking lot is appropriate until such time as definitive plans are developed for the 19th Street Corridor, especially in regard to the connection of 19th Street to the main Resort Area at Pacific Avenue. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions. Conditions e o This use permit is valid for two (2) years from the date of City Council approval. The applicant shall submit a new conditional use permit application prior to the expiration of this use permit if continuation of the use beyond two (2) years is desired. The hours of operation for the commercial parking lot during the months of April through September shall be: a. Sunday, 11:30 a.m. to Midnight b. Monday through Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to Midnight c. Friday and Saturday, 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. An attendant shall be on duty at all times during the operation of the commercial parking lot. A lot attendant station shall be located be located a minimum of fifty (50) feet north of the entrances / exits on 19th Street to provide for on-site stacking and shall be situated so as to be on the driver's side of vehicles entering the lot during operation of the commercial parking lot. All points of-vehicular access shall be secured by a chain or gate during the hours that the parking lot is not being operated as commercial parking lot or.for church purposes. Six (6) trash receptacles, that are plainly visible and marked as such, shall I~e dispersed throughout the sites. 7. The site shall be improved in accordance with the Site Plan Ordinance. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VIRGINIA BEACH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 9 Page 8 8. The area of Lot 22 adjacent to Pacific Avenue and 20th Street shall be landscaped with a row of shrubs of size sufficient to serve as a screening buffer. ' NO !~: Fu~her conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet 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 March 13, 2002 VIRGINIA BEACH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 9 Page 9 ~9TH STREET 2O : B~¢h UMC ~,S-i~e plan) ,~' / i ,~;~.~ .~ ~ Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VIRGINIA BEACH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 9 Page 10 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 VIRGINIA BEACH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 9 Page 11 Item ~9 Virginia Beach United Methodist Church Conditional Use Permit for a Church Parking Lot District 6 Beach March 13, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: The next item is the Virginia Beach United Methodist Church with eight items. It's a conditional use permit for a church parking, the southeast comer of Pacific Avenue and 20th Street on lot 18, block 41. It's located at 208, 210 and 212 20~h Street. It contains 21,000 square feet. It's District 6, the Beach and it has eight conditions. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon and I have the privilege of representing the church on this application. First of all, I understood, although I was not in the informal when you discussed this that condition number 2 had been modified so the hours would reflect the hours that had been in existence. Am I correct about that? Dorothy Wood: Yes. Eddie Bourdon: Friday and Saturday night. I appreciate that. I have to let you know that the church is not in agreement with the new condition number eight and I will be happy to give you a very brief reason or if you want to drop it down. I don't want to impose on this issue. The church does not agree to condition number eight. Ronald Ripley: I think we need to drop it down if we have a problem. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Keep going. Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #16. Ronald Ripley: Hold on a second. Dorothy Wood: Sorry Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: I apologize. I understood the condition number 8 to be different then what it is. I don't have any objection to this. I apologize. Charles Salle': But in the informal... Item g9 Virginia Beach United Methodist Church Page 2 Eddie Bourdon: This says April 1, 2004. Oh, I'm sorry. Ronald Ripley: It's not that easy. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon, do you agree to the conditions or are we dropping it down? Eddie Bourdon: What I was just getting by Ms. Atkinson, I agree with. What was just handed to me as condition number 8 says that the parking lot landscaping would be installed by April 1, 2004, which the church does agree to that. Stephen White: When we broke for lunch, Mr. Bourdon knew of the revised conditions and told me that the church couldn't agree to that condition so I have not composed yet or drafted a condition for you. If you decide to ahead and approve it like that, I will be glad to draft a quick condition regarding the 5-foot wide landscaping buffer around the parking lot. Ronald Ripley: But we're going to hear, so... REGULAR AGENDA Robert Miller: Item gO, which is Virginia Beach United Methodist Church. Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Miller. For the record, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing Virginia Beach United Methodist Church, against an affiliate. A privilege. I guess you don't need a presentation. I guess I should ask since I don't have, what is the condition that was desired regarding landscaping so I can address that specifically? Ronald Ripley: My understanding that the - Bob, did you suggest it? Robert Vakos: Yeah, I did and it came from me. We'll just get right to it. The request -- The condition states there will be a waiver until the year 2004, right, for the on-site landscaping. And I feel it's important because I think the Commission needs to be consistent that we have perimeter landscaping. All other temporary, and I use the word temporary because that is what we approved them as, parking lots have the requirement, the condition that they have perimeter landscaping. I will talk about the Breakers - everyone -- The Tradewinds Hotel. Every one of them, we required the perimeter landscaping, even though they were on a temporary basis. Okay, that is where it comes from. Item g9 Virginia Beach United Methodist Church Page 3 Eddie Bourdon: Your desire in that regard would be to put it on the perimeter of the batting cage site that the church acquired? Robert Vakos: Whatever is here for approval today. Eddie Bourdon: Let me give the Commission some background. The church has been, I think, doing some work that is not only good, for obviously, the church, but also for the community. In assembling and acquiring a number of parcels starting actually between 17th and 18th Street, 18th and 19th and 19t~ and 20th. Cleaning up a lot of that area and a lot of different uses. Between 19th and 20th, if you all could put the zoning map back up there, the church over the years, has acquired a number of parcels and consolidated them. The aerial is fmc. The aerial is good. Cleaned up this area. The arial was still fine. Okay this works just as well. And the church has this parking lot that's, see its an RT-1, it's all one parking lot. The church has operated. This as a parking lot and this is a parking lot, but this was acquired later in '86 for years and years. The batting cage was on this piece of property, right here, which quite frankly was an eye sore. And the church acquired that. And the church took down the batting cage, which was just sitting there and wasn't even being used. Anyway, we won't get into all that. The church kept and maintained this parking lot. Very well maintained, cleaned and they have not had problems with the parking lot. I think the church has been a catalyst in cleaning up this area. Members of the church are very active in the resort community. The church is looking at putting a parking garage on this site but the church is also recognizant of what is going on with the City's plans in this area. And those plans are evolving and changing but there have been a number of ideas with the dome-site, convention hotel, not the convention hotel, but the Bay Inn. One time that was being talked about relocating there. So, the church is in a holding pattern but the church is at this point is looking towards building a parking garage on this site and I think that is what is going to happen although we can't be totally certain of that. And as consequence, you know, we saw no basis for coming in and planting landscaping here or on this site when it is just going to be tom out'when the garage goes in or some other plan or cars, we think that within two years were going to be building a garage. We had agreed that the entire parking lot would be landscaped in 2004 if we hadn't built the garage, aren't building the garage. The idea now, and this is only coming up because we acquired the batting cage. These parking lots here have been used for parking for years, was to put a strip of landscaping out here now, while the rest of it remains the same, just to tear it out in two years, just to us-is a waste of resource. And we think the condition that is in here. We've said we'll do the whole parking lot in 2004 being built the parking garage. You know, but, to put a little bit of landscaping in now, a little band-aid, the rest of it is going to stay the same and won't be permanent parking or landscaping on the rest of the parking lot, just doesn't, to us, you know, make any logical sense or economic sense. And that's it, in a nut-shell. We're not adverse in making it look clean. We think it is clean. I don't think we have any complaints about the way the parking lots been operating. You know, but, it's just a situation where it is Item g9 Virginia Beach United Methodist Church Page 4 truly temporary. We are already in the process of developing plans for a parking garage on the site which will be landscaped. The whole thing will change. But to put landscaping in just to turn around and tear it out, just doesn't, to us. Robert Vakos: Okay, well we obviously disagree. But, I am one of the biggest critics of requiting the City to come up with the same standards as we ask the private developer. I am going to reverse that because when we did 31~t Street, and that's a temporary parking lot, we required that part of that condition they put landscaping and that is what we have consistently done. Maybe two years, but this is 19th Street, and this is definitely an improvement from the Knock-a-homer. You know, I will not dispute that whatsoever. But we can do a little bit better and that little bit of landscaping is not that big of a cost. And I agree with you, that parking lot is well run. My daughter worked there for years. It's a great parking lot. It serves the church, serves the community and everything else. I just think we need that landscaping, so we can leave it at that and then let the Commission decide. Eddie Bourdon: I always have something to say. My response, and I agree with you Bob. I understand what your saying, but at the same time the church is and has been, if it had been someone else who bought that that piece of property they could have left. that eye sore sitting there. The church immediately came in and took it down, you know, tight away. They didn't come in and Use that as leverage and I guess maybe this what I am saying to you. The church is going to be a good Steward. The church is not going to. The church didn't try and hold it over anybody's head and say let's just go in and try to get something done and say if you don't, we'll just leave that sit there and let somebody... Robert Vakos: They can a be a better Steward and a little bit of landscaping. Betsy Atkinson: Bobby, what your saying is the landscaping would run along the batting cage property and tight around the comer but not around the whole parking lot. Robert Vakos: What's ever being requested. Betsy Atkinson: Rezoned? The additional landscaping? Four to five foot landscaping along Pacific Avenue and then coming back 20th Street. Eddie Bourdon: Twenthieth Street? We would have to tear out the existing asphalt that is in the existing parking lot along 20~ Street if your suggesting that has to be landscaped as well. There's a parking lot along 20a Street. Betsy Atkinson: I think he is just talking about that one Lot 22 that's being rezoned. Just a little bit, there and then around the comer. Item g9 Virginia Beach United Methodist Church Page 5 Robert Vakos: Whatever the conditions for, is on Page 10. Betsy Atkinson: It's just for the little comer Lot 22. Right? So what Bobby is talking about is just a little landscaping just around the comer. Eddie Bourdon: That is a very good question Ms. Atkinson. Betsy, I'm sorry. If we are talking about here, that is different than putting it all the way along here. Betsy Atkinson: No, I think he was just talking about all along the comer. Robert Vakos: Well actually. No, Betsy, don't put words in my mouth. I was talking about the entire lot. But, if it's more pallable, I don't have a problem with doing the area that has not been disturbed. Eddie Bourdon: Certainly, that would be more pallable. I'm not in a position to -- I don't have the authority to agree to that, would be far more pallable then to have to come in here and tear out existing asphalt to put a strip of landscaping. If we just require the landscaping on the old batting cage site, that's more easily accomplished at less expense. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Alright. Any other questions? Yes. Will? William Din: Mr. Bourdon. I agree with Mr. Vakos is saying here. You know, I originally brought up the situation. You know, if the church is going to be a good Steward, I think that entire block would be landscaped to some sort or improved the vista of what you are seeing there coming off of 19t~ Street or down Pacific should be improved where we can. You know, two years is temporary but it is still a two-year period of time and I think it's important to do what we can to improve those areas. So, I'm in full support of what Bobby is saying. Ronald Ripley: Did you have something else you wanted to add Eddie? Eddie Bourdon: No. I'm debating. I don't want to do the whole litany of all the things the church has done to improve that area with the bars and the things that the church has acquired. In close, so I'll let you all debate. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Anybody else? Aright, do we have a motion? Robert Vakos: Alright. I'm got to make a motion that we approve the application amending condition eight. I'm trying to see how I can word this. To a degree that the landscaping is required, that we would ask for that the length of time that the Conditional Use permit is approved that the section that is unimproved along Pacific Avenue and 20th Item #9 Virginia Beach United Methodist Church Page 6 Street be landscaped with a minimum.with a landscape buffer of- and Bob help me with this a little bit, because we've talked this morning about whether or not it was five feet or less, because I don't want to miss something. Robert Miller: I guess that just leave it up to the staff. Robert Vakos: Okay, we'll leave that up to staff, but that section be have a landscape buffer along those streets. Ronald Ripley: That's a motion? Do we have a second? William Din: Second. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion by Bob Vakos and a second by Will Din. Yes. Bob? Robert Miller: From my understanding then the only part that we're talking about is the batting cage area. That is the only part that we just identified was currently the non- paved areas? Robert Vakos: If you look on Page 11, what I'm talking about is there is unimproved. Robert Miller: Right. It's just that portion where the batting - is that what you understand Mr. Bourdon? ~ Kay Wilson: Let's refer to it as Lot 22. Eddie Bourdon: I was just going to say the same thing. Kay Wilson: Lets be clearer. Robert Vakos: Okay, Lot 22. Eddie Bourdon: Lot 22 is the way you should refer to it. Robert Miller: Is that what you understood? Eddie Bourdon: That is why I understood the motion to be. Again, I'm not in the position to say that is acceptable. That's far better. But, lot 22 is the way it should be identified. Robert Vakos: Okay. That's fine. Of lot 22. Item gO Virginia Beach United Methodist Church Page 7 Ronald Ripley: So we have a motion and a second and any other discussion? call for the question? AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSENT 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE 'DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you for your patience. Ron Ripley: Thank you. Can we ABS 0 APPLICATION ~ ~ PAGE 4 OF 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Na:ne: last Ail Cttrrcnt Properly Owners: '~....'X ~' ~ ~.'~ c~ PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If thc pr-petly owner is a CORI'ORATION, list all officers of rite Corporation be]ow: (AttacIt list if~eces, vao,) if the properly owner is a I'ARTNEi,ISHII', Flit, M, or other IflNINCORPORATEi) ORGANIZATION, Ii:st all members or pm~ocrs in thc organiznlion below: (Attach iixt iJ'nccevvar :~ _Thomas C. Broyl~s, Trustee Luc¥.~:._Spradli~, Trustee Gloria R. Earley, Trustee Dr. John P. Clarke, Trustee C. Or~.Lamber~, Jr., Trustee Isabelle D. Holmes, Trustee _.Day~d W. Mo~e, Trustee Steven M. Lantz, Trustee Earl V. Slattum, Sr., Trlus Check here if the property owncr is NOT a corporatio~l, partnership, Ih'm, or othcr unincorpo,'a, cd organization. f the. applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure sectiott below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE applicant is a CORI'ORA'~ION, Iisi all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) ' Ibc applicant i.~ a I'ARTNERSIIIP, FIRM, or -Iher UNINCORI'ORATED OII(:~ANIZA'I'I()N. list ail ~cmbcrs of' pm'tncrs in the organization below: (Atl~c:h Ii.vi if,ec'e.vsat:¥) I Check I]crc if tile applican! is NOT a coq)o,'ation, partnership, firm, or other unincorpm'atcd organizatio,. ERTII,'IL'ATION: I certify that the information contained hereht is true attd accurate. V±rginia Beach Un±ted Method'ist Church -- c_L-- -~gnaturc Earl V. Slattum, Sr., Trustee Print Name Map K-lO No~, 'co $co1~ Dale I-! B-2 [2] t~ PKWY. [2) AG'I Gpin 2405-83-5124 ZONING HISTORY Conditional Use Permit (borrow pit) Denied 7-1-97 Conditional Use Permit (single family dwelling) Approved 2-1-88 Conditional Use Permit (communication tower) Withdrawn 10-11-94 Conditional Use Permit (single family dwelling) Approved 10-10-88 Modification-of Conditions (from Rezoning 6-13-91) Approved 9-17-91 Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to conditional I-1 Light Industrial) Approved 6-13- 88 Rezoning (AG-1 Conditional Use 10-29-96 Conditional Use Conditional Use Agricultural to conditional B-2 Business) Approved 10-29-96 Permit (commercial outdoor recreational facility) Approved ' Permit (single family dwelling) Approved 8-1-83 Permit (single family dwelling) Approved 2-28-83 Conditional Use Permit (riding academy and horses for hire or board) Approved 10-26-81 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Shirley J. Dale, Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: April 9, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Shirley J. Dale for a Conditional Use Permit for a pet crematory on Lot A-22, Princess Anne Hunt Club (GPIN #2405-83-5124). Said parcel is located at 2284 London Bridge Road and contains 5.522 acres. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a crematory for small domestic animals. All pets will be picked up and delivered by the applicant, so there will be no customers coming to the site. The applicant's residence is located in the middle of a five-acre lot and is surrounded by trees. According to the manufacturer, the crematory unit will produce no odor, excessive noise, or other environmental impact that will affect neighboring properties. If these problems occur, the applicant is required through the attached conditions to re-apply for the use permit through the public hearing process. Recommendations: A motion was passed by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 10-1 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: The crematory unit shall be located in the area shown on the submitted site plan entitled "Exhibit of Conditional Use Permit, Lot A-22, Princess Anne Hunt Club" dated November 21,2001 by NDI, LLC. 2. The applicant shall receive approval from the Fire Marshall's office, if required, for any above ground fuel storage tanks. 3. No more than one employee not living at the residence on the property shall be permitted. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting City Mana¢ Shirley J. Dale Page2 All pickups and deliveries shall be made by the applicant or employee of the applicant. No more than four customers per month are permitted on-site in the event they wish to witness the cremation. No stockpiling or burial of carcasses or remains is permitted on-site. Carcasses shall be contained in airtight bags and placed in a freezer until cremation and must be cremated within 48 hours of time of pickup. 6. No more than four cremations per day are permitted. The crematory is approved with a one year administrative review. If the Planning Director or his designee determines that the crematory causes undue hardship on neighboring properties in terms of noise, odor, or other environmental impacts, the applicant shall re-apply through the public hearing process to continue the use. 8. The applicant shall use an FM Systems V15 or comparable unit in terms of emission and odor control. SHIRLEY J. DALE / # 7 March 13, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Conditional Use Permit (pet crematory) 2284 London Bridge Road Map K-lO No*. ScmI~ Dale © 0 Gpin 2405-83-5124 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 2405-83-5124 6 - BEACH 5.522 acres Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SHIRLEY J. DALE / # 7 Page 1 STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Ashby Moss To operate a pet crematory business at the applicant's residence. Major Issues: · Degree to which proposed business impacts neighboring properties. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property is currently used as a single-family residence and is zoned AG-1 Agricultural District. This is one of a small number of houses constructed on large, approximately five-acre lots in this unique area on the Hunt Club Farm. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · One large lot single-family dwelling / AG-1 Agricultural District · Beyond that residence is Corporate Landing Business Park / conditional I-1 Light Industrial District · A small number of large lot single-family dwellings /AG-1 Agricultural District · Vacant, heavily wooded property / AG-1 Agricultural District · Vacant, heavily wooded property / AG-1 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SHIRLEY J. DALE I # 7 Page 2 Agricultural District Zonin,q History The single family dwelling on the subject property was approved with a conditional use permit August 1, 1983 (# 5 on map). A conditional use permit request for a borrow pit was denied on the property southwest of the subject site July 1, 1997 (# 1). The dwelling on that property was approved February 1, 1988. The Corporate Landing property (# 3) north of the subject site was approved for rezoning from AG-1 Agricultural District to conditional I-1 Light Industrial District June 13, 1988. C~n 2405-~3-5124 2. 3. 4. Conditional Use Permit (borrow pit) Denied 7-1-97 Conditional Use Permit (single family dwelling) Approved 2-1-88 Conditional Use Permit (communication tower) Withdrawn 10-11-94 Conditional Use Permit (single family dwelling) Approved 10-10-88 Modification of Conditions (from Rezoning 6-13-91)Approved 9-17-91 Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to conditional I-1 Light Industrial) Approved 6-13-88 Rezoning (AG-1 Conditional Use 29°96 Conditional Use Conditional Use Conditional Use 10-26-81 Agricultural to conditional B-2 Business) Approved 10-29-96 Permit (commercial outdoor recreational facility) Approved 10- Permit (single family dwelling) Approved 8-1-83 Permit (single family dwelling) Approved 2-28-83 Permit (riding academy and horses for hire or board) Approved Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of greater than 75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics Most of the subject property is heavily wooded with the exception of the small area cleared for the house and driveway. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SHIRLEY J. DALE / # 7 Page 3 Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: City water is not available. A private well has been approved by the Virginia Department of Health. Sewer: City sewer is not available. A septic system has been approved by the Virginia Department of Health. Transportation The residential properties in this area are served by private roads that lead to a main access point on London Bridge Road. No additional traffic will result from the crematory as the applicant will pick up and deliver pets to customers. Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: Adequate - no further comments. Adequate - The applicant must contact the Fire Marshall's office to determine additional requirements for any above ground fuel sources, including vehicle barrier protection. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends Iow density suburban residential land use at or below 3.5 dwelling units per acre for this area. Summary of Proposal Proposal Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SHIRLEY J. DALE I # 7 Page 4 The applicant proposes to operate a crematory for small domestic animals. All pets will be picked up and delivered by the applicant, so there will be no customers coming to the site. Initially, there will be no employees other than the applicant. Only one additional employee will be permitted if necessary in the future. Site Design · The applicant's residence is located in the middle of a five-acre lot and is surrounded by trees. The crematory unit will be placed on a 10 foot by 12 foot concrete pad 30 feet from the west side of the applicant's residence and over 140 feet from the nearest property line (northwest). · A 25 foot diameter area will need to be cleared around the unit. This involves the loss of only three or four trees of the hundreds on site. Vehicular and 'Pedestrian Access The driveway for this home leads to a series of private roads shared by residents living on the Hunt Club property. These private roads lead to an access point on London Bridge Road. Design The pet crematory system is a steel device measuring three feet wide, six feet long, and 20 feet high. The unit can be used indoors or outdoors. The system is manufactured by FM Systems based in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. The manufacturer states that the system is in full compliance with state and federal emissions regulations and produces no smoke and no odor. Landscape and Open Space Design · No additional landscaping is necessary due to the densely wooded area within and surrounding the subject property. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SHIRLEY J. DALE I # 7 Page 5 Evaluation of Request The applicant's request for a crematory on the subject property is acceptable. The property is well screened from all adjacent properties in this unique, large lot residential area of the city. According to the manufacturer, the crematory unit will produce no odor, excessive noise, or other environmental impact that will affect neighboring properties. If these problems occur, the applicant will be required to re-apply for the use permit through the public headng process. Therefore, this application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions o The crematory unit shall be located in the area shown on the submitted site plan entitled "Exhibit of Conditional Use Permit, Lot A-22, Princess Anne Hunt Club" dated November 21, 2001 by NDI, LLC. The applicant shall receive approval from the Fire Marshall's office, if required, for any above ground fuel storage tanks. No more than one employee not living at the residence on the property shall be permitted. All pickups and deliveries shall be made by the applicant or employee of the applicant. No more than four customers per month are permitted on-site in the event they wish to witness the cremation. No stockpiling or burial of carcasses or remains is permitted on-site. Carcasses shall be contained in airtight bags and placed in a freezer until cremation and must be cremated within 48 hours of time of pickup. No more than four cremations per day are permitted. The crematory is approved with a one year administrative review. If the Planning Director or his Designee determines that the crematory causes undue hardship on neighboring properties in terms of noise, odor, or other environmental impacts, the applicant shall re-apply through the public hearing process to continue the use. The applicant shall use an FM Systems V15 or comparable unit in terms of emission and odor control. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002~~~....~ SHIRLEY J. DALE I # 7 Page 6 Furiher 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 March 13, 2002 SHIRLEY J. DALE I # 7 Page 7 Location propsoed  ";,'/ for unit · ..-../'% ~ x... / Ii ! '. N- ~ i...~ k-' ",. "x : \,. ,; ~'~,.~.,, · \ Planning Commission Agenda ~~~; March 13, 2002~" SHIRLEY J. DALE i # 7 Page 8 FM SYSTEMS SERIES "V" ANIMAL CREMATION SYSTEMS Large 35"Wx30"D Top Load Door Flat Hearth for Discrete Private Cremations Fully Automatic Dual Digital Temperature Control System NEMA 12 Weather Proof Control Panel Full Compliance with State & Federal EPA Regulations Full (1) Year Refractory Warranty The Most Fuel Efficient System Available Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SHIRLEY J. DALE I # 7 Page 9 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SHIRLEY J. DALE i # 7 Page 10 Item #7 Shirley J. Dale Conditional Use Permit for a Pet Crematoria 2284 London Bridge Road District 6 Beach March 13, 2002 REGULAR AGENDA Robert Miller: The next item is Item #7 Shirley Dale. 'Troy Titus: Good afternoon. My name is Troy Titus and I'm speaking on behalf of the applicant. Ronald Ripley: What is your name? Troy Titus: Troy Titus. I have the closest next-door neighbor, having written a letter in favor of this application that I would like to pass one copy out to each side. And I need to make note that in addition to the additional conditions that were added this morning, we've talked with another neighbor about adding some additional conditions for your consideration. The conditions 1, 2 and 3, the applicant has no objection to and is happy to comply with. Condition four, which is revised, she again is agreeable to but would like to add a condition near the end to that, that says but no more than four per month. And that's with regard to customers permitted on site. The reason for that is a concern by the neighbor, who is here today that there need not be too much traffic and she's happy to comply. In fact, she says that someone she spoke with who's in this business, who has much more volume than she expects to ever have, says the most viewings he's ever had is four people in one month, so she figured that she will never get to the volume and she's happy to put that restriction in there so it would read, if revised, customers are permitted on site in the event they wish to witness the cremation but no more than four per month. No objection to the additional condition 5 or 6. Number seven, no objection. And because of again, of our discussion with the adjoining property owner, who is here today, we ask that we add condition 8 and 9. Number 8 has to do with the size of the unit. The manufacturers specifications with regard, to the size of the unit that she's currently considering is FM Systems, Inc., Unit V-15. We propose that the condition be added, limit her to being able to install a unit that is comparable to the V-15. She at one point was considering the V-21, which is a much larger unit. She is not considering a unit of that size and is happy to limit herself to the smaller unit-. In addition, proposed additional condition 9, the property owner's concern, that although the manufacturers specifications and promotional materials says that there is no or will be no odor, he doesn't believe what manufacturers say about their products. Since we don't know anything different than what we read and what the manufacturer had told us, we're willing to agree to an additional condition that if after it is installed, there is odor, that she be required to, and she is happy to agree to this, add an upgrade which would be with this particular Shirley J. Dale Page 2 company, either upgrade a P-9 or a P-16 Upgrade, which is suppose to reduce the odor that the manufacturer says won't exist. Robert Vakos: How do you do something that doesn't exist? Betsy Atkinson: Yeah. Troy Tiros: That's why we were very happy to agree to add that because the manufacturers paperwork says it's odorless and yet, and we didn't know this because the manufacturer wasn't telling us that such a product existed. The fellow who came today found it on the intemet, and it's the same company promoting an upgrade that one of the things I guess it does, is it reduces the odor, so were happy to agree to that additional condition because frankly, the applicant doesn't want any odor and was told there was not going to be any odor. And if there is odor, whether this was a condition or not, she would be buying the upgrade to reduce or get fid of the odor that does exit, because this is her backyard. Ronald Ripley: So you're volunteering for a condition here? Troy Titus: Yes. Definitely. Ronald Ripley: Stephen? Would you all want to get together and try and work that up as to some wording? I don't know about using these typical numbers and things. Troy Titus: As long as it says or comparable. The other good suggestion we got from the gentleman who came today was that this particular manufacturer might not be the one she wants to work with because for example, she can't anywhere on the east coast go see one in operation because they haven't sold any on the east coast. Ronald Ripley: Are you saying too with these added conditions that you don't have any opposition at this point? Troy Tiros: Well, that's up to him. I didn't ask him to go away, he's still here. We just wanted to try to resolve whatever concerns we could by agreement. And that is all I got. I can answer any questions. John Baum: It possessed the staff with an interesting thing to reduce the non-existent odor. Ronald Ripley: Dot, you have a question? Item #7 Shirley J. Dale Page 3 Dorothy Wood: Yes. Troy Titus: Yes ma'am? Dorothy Wood: Mr. Titus, what is the difference, I think I was out of the room, between the Model 21 and the model your thinking about pumhasing? Troy Titus: Size and capacity. The 21 would have been able to handle larger volume and additional, I guess more than four animals at a time, and the applicant doesn't even expect ever to use the capacity of the smaller model. Dorothy Wood: Is this service regulated by any agency? The Health Department? Troy Titus: I understand that the Health Department does have to, and that is part... Dorothy Wood: I mean, theycome out occasionally and... Troy Titus: Of the Fire Marshal's Office. Dorothy Wood: I can see the Fire Marshall but does the Health Department come out occasionally and check? Troy Titus: I don't see that is part of the conditions but I did see that was part of what - see if I can give you a better answer. I might need to... Dorothy Wood: That's alright. I was just also concerned about the odor and the possible health concerns that I am hearing. Troy Titus: There is no objection in seeking approval from the Health Department if it is required. I remember reading something about it. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Troy Titus: Unfortunately. Ronald Riplay: Yes. Bob? Robert Vakos: And I guess I go back to what Bob Miller said, some things that we don't want to know about or beat this thing to death. But I'm looking at that drawing right there and I guess it didn't pick up on it this morning. It says full compliance with State Item #7 Shirley J. Dale Page 4 and Federal EPA Regulations. I assume that has something to do with compliance. I'm not sure what they are but if they are EPA, it's probably something of substance there. Troy Titus: We certainly wouldn't be adverse to any additional conditions that require us to comply with Health Department or any other state or federal permits that would be required. This was one of the potentially many permits that would be required. It's the one that the City has to give us for the use of the property itself. Ronald Ripley: I believe John you have a question? John Baum: Well, the reservations that I expressed this morning. Of course everybody is familiar with the Georgia case, human beings. But, I gather in most places, including Virginia, don't have any really meaningful regulations. Saying that means absolutely nothing. I don't think it says anything - well the Health Department will probably check into it. If you don't have somebody that comes by occasionally and on a surprise basis, you don't have anything. And I am sure that this lady will be fine and probably all work out great. But I am sort of leery of us getting into the business of approving crematoriums for the human or the pet. And, I look for trouble ahead. Troy Titus: I'm open to any suggestions with... Robert Miller: Well, first of all, I was just going to ask Ron this chaired. Do you want him to go out with staff and develop something better so we can move on or do we... Ronald Ripley: I'm looking at the conditions and condition 7 probably covers it. I mean, it says that if there's, it's going to be reviewed in a year and if there is any obnoxious noise or odors and environmental, I mean, I rather keep it as general as we can because, you know your asking us to put specific things about equipment, which we don't know. Troy Titus: Indicating our willingness to add to the conditions. Robert Miller: Well, I think that's good of Troy but Stephen, and maybe this is a question? Do we know enough about what were trying to ask at this point or do we need to take a break and look at this and come back in here after we heard the other items today? Mr. Thatcher's here to speak in opposition, I guess. I don't want not to have him heard. Stephen White: Why don't you take a break? We'll hear the other item. Robert Miller: If that's okay. Mr. Thatcher? Is that alright with you if we... Mr. Thatcher: Sir, I'm not really in opposition but I'm just concerned. Item #7 Shirley J. Dale Page 5 Robert Miller: issues. John Baum: Before they draw that up. Ronald Ripley: Yes, John. Okay, well perhaps you can participate in helping resolve some of these We'll move on. You'll drop down. Joe Thatcher: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Robert Miller: Ronald Ripley: LATER ...... John Baum: I don't think that standard stuff of PETA won't hear any complaints in a year is okay. Is the staff going to go on a surprise basis and check? I used to test cows... Robert Miller: We're not going back to cows. John Baum: It means absolutely nothing. I think they didn't hear any complaints in Georgia for years? Troy Tiros: They didn't. John Baum: That's a great safeguard. Troy Titus: We have absolutely no objection to on-site visits with no warning. I don't know if there is a way to implement that but we're certainly opened to it. John Baum: Well, I think it should be in their condition. Troy Titus: And there's no lake on the property. Ronald Ripley: Alright. Well, then you're going to get with Stephen. Troy Titus: Yes, I can. Ronald Ripley: Perhaps you can get with him to. You all can talk. Item #7 Shirley J. Dale Page 6 LATER .... Robert Miller: Mr. White, are we ready with Item #7? Stephen White: Yes. Robert Miller: Mr. Titus? Troy Titus: Thank you. We did agree to modify the conditions with additional language to item four and only one additional condition at the end. Is that correct? Stephen White: If you would, look at number four, strike the word "customers" and then insert "no more than four customers per month are permitted on site in the event they wish to witness a cremation." Then we added number eight, which is, "the applicant shall use an FM System V-15 or comparable unit in terms of emission and odor control." Robert Miller: Okay. Troy Titus: And we did solve the mystery on the odorless upgrade issue. It appears that the upgrade that was advertised was actually for an older model. Basically, retrofitting it to make it equal to the emissions quality of this new model. So, there is no upgrade for this model. Betsy Atkinson: Hallelujah. Troy Titus: So that helps. Hopefully. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Do we still have opposition? Robert Miller: We didn't have opposition either. Troy Titus: We don't have opposition here. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Any other questions? Joe Thatcher: I have one question. Ronald Ripley: Yes sir. Will you come up here and state YOur name and address please? Item #7 Shirley J. Dale Page 7 Joe Thatcher: My name is Joe Thatcher. I own the land at 2885 London Bridge Road. It's farm-land. The only question is if there is any complaints or if there is any odor within a year, we are going to readdress this? Ronald Ripley: Yes sir. Joe Thatcher: Okay. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: You call the gentleman right over there. Robert Scott: We'll call you. John Baum: Is the staff going to do any surprise checks? Robert Scott: Well, we're going to call this gentlemen -- all the adjoining property owners in a year and ask them if they had any problems or observed any difficulty whatever and if the answer is yes, then they're going to have to come through the process again. John Baum: I'm sure the machine was okay. But if I remember reading in Georgia nobody smelled anything for years. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Any other? John Baum: And they made a point and actually did manage a short distance away you don't smell it. It's very interesting to learn these things. Ronald Ripley: More than I want to know. Could we get a motion9 Somebody willing to make a motion? ' Robert Vakos: I'I1 make a motion to approve with the amending conditions as stated. Betsy AtlOnson: I'll second it. Ronald Ripley: A motion by Bob Vakos, seconded by Betsy to approve. Ready for the vote? AYE 10 NAY 1 ABSENT 0 ABS 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE NAY Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-1, the motion passes. PAGEd 'OF 4 Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: DISCLOSURF STATEMENT PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner :s 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 ail 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 ff the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) 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. ~-ERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Rev. 9/15/98 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager City of Virginia Beach, Amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance, RT-1 Resort Tourist District MEETING DATE: April 9, 2002 Background: The 1994 Oceanfront Resort Area Concept Plan notes as one of the four basic concepts around which the plan is focused that We must continue to elevate generally the level of amenity both in and around the area, and to diversify it as greatly as possible. This includes.., opening and improving vistas to the ocean... (p. ii). Methods available to open and improve the vistas to the ocean are limited as the immediate oceanfront is already intensively developed. As private redevelopment and limited new development occurs along the oceanfront, new opportunities for introducing improved vistas are presented. However, these opportunities are few and the current provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) give little incentive to a developer to pursue new development or redevelopment that provides open space that is both publicly accessible and enhances the views from Atlantic Avenue to the ocean. Considerations: . The attached amendments are designed to introduce incentives to the City Zoning Ordinance for a development to provide such publicly accessible open space that also opens vistas to the ocean. The incentives focus on the height and density aspects of development in the RT-1 District (area between Atlantic Avenue and Atlantic Ocean). The following modifications are proposed in regard to the use of height as a means of encouraging open space: A property owner may increase the height of the principal building or structure (presumably, a hotel or motel) on his or her zoning lot by 10 feet for every 1,000 square feet of permanent open space provided, with a minimum open space area of 15,000 square feet and minimum frontage of 100 feet. The maximum height increase is to 200 feet. · As provided for in the proposed Section 1502(e), the open space must be Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval with conditions. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning City Managel~~)~- ' (~~L Department~ City of Virginia Beach - RT-1 Amendments Page 2 permanently dedicated to public use and must be relatively unobstructed, so as to provide a vista of the Atlantic Ocean, and must extend the entire way between the western property line (presumably, adjoining Atlantic Avenue) and the public property adjacent to the Boardwalk. This latter requirement ensures the ability of the public to access the Boardwalk and beach by using the open space. The following modifications are proposed in regard to the use of density as a means of encouraging open space: · Hotel and motel density may be increased by 1.5 units for every 1,000 square feet of open space meeting the requirements of Section 1502(e). This number of units is in addition to the number otherwise allowed under the other provisions of Section 1507. Thus, if qualifying open space is provided, the density of a particular hotel or motel may be increased over the maximum density allowed by Section 1507(c). Recommendations: The proposed amendments can prove to be a valuable tool for encouraging the provision of open space at the Oceanfront that not only serves as public places but that also creates vistas of the Atlantic Ocean as the Oceanfront Resort Area Concept Plan calls for. Approval of the amendments is recommended. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 11 March 13, 2002 Background: The 1994 Oceanfront Resort Area Concept Plan notes as one of the four basic concepts around which the plan is focused that We must continue to elevate generally the level of amenity both in and around the area, and to diversify it as greatly as possible. This includes.., opening and improving vistas to the ocean... (p. ii). Methods available to open and improve the vistas to the ocean are limited as the immediate oceanfront is already intensively developed. As private redevelopment and limited new development occurs along the oceanfront, new opportunities for introducing improved vistas are presented. However, these opportunities are few and the current provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) give little incentive to a developer to pursue new development or redevelopment that provides open space that is both publicly accessible and enhances the views from Atlantic Avenue to the ocean. The attached amendments are designed to introduce incentives to the City Zoning Ordinance for a development to provide such publicly accessible open space that also opens vistas to the ocean. The incentives focus on the height and density aspects of development in the RT-1 District (area between Atlantic Avenue and Atlantic Ocean). In regard to height, the current CZO provisions in Section 1502 note that the maximum height is 100 feet at the easternmost property line [the Boardwalk] and one and one-half (1~,,~) feet of height for each additional foot west of the easternmost propertY line not to exceed an overall maximum height of two hundred (200) feet. The result of this provision is building that is 100 feet at the eastem property line (Boardwalk) and then steps back in height up to 200 feet. This differs from the proposal in that the proposal would allow 200 feet of height at the Boardwalk side of the building. In exchange for the height along the Boardwalk, 100 feet of the property line along the Boardwalk is left open, which is not the case with the current ordinance. In regard to density, the current CZO provisions in Section 1507 allow increased density depending on the size of the parcel and the Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 11 Page I provision of certain design attributes or amenities as part of the project, such as convention facilities. The most common form of development allowed under these existing provisions of the CZO resembles the drawing below. The City Council has referred the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission via resolution (attached). The resolution calls for the Planning Commission to transmit its recommendation concerning the amendments to the City Council no later than 45 days after the adoption of the resolution. The deadline for transmission of a recommendation is, therefore, April 12. Proposed Amendments: The proposed amendments afford an incentive for the provision of open space in the RT-1 Resort Tourist District (which is located between Atlantic Avenue and the Atlantic Ocean). The following modifications are proposed in regard to the use of height as a means of encouraging open space: A property owner may increase the height of the principal building or structure (presumably, a hotel or motel) on his or her zoning lot by 10 feet for every 1,000 square feet of permanent open space provided, with a minimum open space area of 15,000 square feet and minimum frontage of 100 feet. The maximum height increase is to 200 feet or the maximum height established by Federal Aviation Administration regulation (which is incorporated in City Zoning Ordinance Section 202(b)) up to 200 feet. As provided for in the proposed Section 1502(e), the open space must be permanently dedicated to public use and must be relatively unobstructed, so as to provide a vista of the Atlantic Ocean, and must extend the entire way between the westem property line (presumably, adjoining Atlantic Avenue) and the public property adjacent to the Boardwalk. This latter requirement ensures the ability of the public to access the Boardwalk and beach by using the open space. The 15,000 square foot area requirement is appropriate since the most common width of the block between Atlantic Avenue and the Boardwalk is 150 feet and the proposal requires that the open.space have a width "at both the western and eastern property lines of no more than one hundred (100) feet, and extends continuously from Atlantic Avenue to the nearest public property lying east of the open space [Boardwalk]." The most common dimension of a minimum open space area then would be 100 feet by 150 feet. The following modifications are proposed in regard to the use of density as a means of encouraging open space: Hotel and motel density may be increased by 1.5 units for every 1,000 square feet of open space meeting the requirements of Section 1502(e). This number of units is in addition to the number otherwise allowed under the other provisions of Section 1507. Thus, the density of a particular hotel or motel may be increased over the maximum density of 190 units per acre allowed by Section 1507(c) of qualifying open space is provided. One possible form of development allowed under these proposed amendments to the CZO could resemble the drawing below. This form of development places the hotel building on the northern side of a 300 foot by 150 foot lot with the narrow side of the building turned parallel to the Boardwalk. Such an orientation allows the possibility of over 15,000 square feet of open space to be provided. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 11 Page 2 Evaluation: Staff finds that the proposed amendments can prove to be a valuable tool for encouraging the provision of open space at the Oceanfront that not only serves as public places but that also creates vistas of the Atlantic Ocean as the Oceanfront Resort Area Concept Plan calls for. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of the "Revised Ordinance." Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 11 Page 3 ! 2 5 6 ? 9 ! 0 14 15 i7 18 2O 21 22 23 24 25 27 29 3O 3! 32 33 34 AN O.RDINANCE TO AMEND AND RE©RDAIN THE CiTY ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAiNiNG TO ~4~,,~4,.~ BUILDING HEIGHT ANQ HOTEL DENSITY IN THE RT-i RESORT TOURIST DiSTRiCT SECTIONS AHENDED: CZ,O ~ _~ 1502 and 1507 BE it ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF ViRGiNiA BEACH, ViRGiNiA: That Sections 1502 an~ 1507 of the City Zoning Ordinance ~.re ihere~.y amended and .reordair~ed to read as follows: ~RTICT-~ 15. ~SORT TO~IST DIS~ICTS A. RT-i RESORT TOURIST DISTRICT Sec. 1502. D~ensional retirements IRT-1 ~sort Tourist District] . Minimum~ TM ot size: Fou~t~=~n· thousand ~ i ~., ~ ~',8n~ ~. ~ square {b} Minim'.:m l.o't width: Sever~.ty {~'~), ~. feet. five boa rdwa easternmost, propers, y line an~ one and one-half {i!/2} feet. of ~__~.~.~-~ fo~_ each additional foe~ wes~ ..~,;"~ ~he eas~aern~osL proper~y i .... ~ -~-~ not ~e} The heiq[hz of any ~u~ldin~ or structure may be Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ! # 11 Page 4 34 35 36 37 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 (ii} on another lot under the same ownership as the lot on which the buildinc or structure is located and separated from such solely by a Dub!lc street of no more than one hundred (100) feet in width and by e distance no qreater than the width of the public sr~reet, and~ {1) the open space consists of an area of no less ~han fifteen thousand {15,0001! scuare feeT, has a width at both the eastern and western proDer~y lines of no less than one hundred (I00) feet~ and extends continuously from Atlantic Avenue to the nearest public DroDerzv !yinq east of the open space; a ~erDetual easement or other ieqa~ tnstrument, in form and content acceptable to the Citv Attorney, ensurinc the permanent availability of such open space for use bv ceneral public is admitted to record in [he Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court; and such open space is artificial structure eighteen (!8) inches ~xcept for benches, decorative fixtures, ].ichtin~, bandshe!!s, unobstructed by any standinc more Lhan above cround level, p~anters or similar Dub!lc ar%~ site public rest rooms, ~taces. or other public amenities approved by the PlanninQ Director. The location of any such structures shall, where feasibie~ be located so as to oreserve views of ~h~ Atlantic Ocean. (f> Notwithstandinc the provisions of subsections ~d) and (e} hereof, no bui!din~ or other structure shall exceed th~n Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 11 Page 5 67 7O 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8O 81 $2 83 84 85 88 89 9O 92 93 95 97 98 height limit established bv section 202 Ih) r'eGardin~ .=~ ~ navicatJ on. COMMENT The proposed amendments afford an incentive for the provision of open space in the gT-1 Resort Tourist District (which is located between .atlantic Avenue and the Atlantic Ocean). A property owner may increase the height of the principal building or structure (presumably, a hotel or motel) on his or her zoning lot to 200 feet by providing permanent open space of at least 15,000 square feet in area and at least 100 feet in width at the eastern and western property lines. The open space must be permanently dedicated to public use and must be relatively unobstructed, so as to provide a vista of the Atlantic Avenue, and must extend the entire way betwee~ the western property line (presumably, adjoining Atlantic Avenue) and the public property adjacent to the Boardwalk. This latter requirement ensures the abili~' of the public to access the ]~oardwalk and beach by using the open space. Sec. 1507. Desired design .(a~ For those following desired (2) . o~wmtns~anding any design Minimum lot square feet. Setback from [10) feet features and uses which fea'Eures: size of incentives. incorporate all o.f the ~wenty thousand (20,000) east-west streets of at least 'ten with the area landscaped in accordance wi~h %he landscaping, screening and buffering specifications and standards. provision to the contrary above, the maximum density of hoEel and motel use shall be one hundred sixty units per acre, of which no more than ten (10) percent shall be dwelling units, and uses in conjunction with hotels and motels may occupy up to but not more than Ewen[y (20) percent of the floor area of all strucEures (excluding parking) iccated on %he lot. (b) For those uses which incorporate all of the following desired design features: (1) Minimum lot size of for~y thousand (40, 000) square feet. (2) Sezback from east-wes~ streets of at least fifteen (15) feet with Ehe area landscaped in Planning Commission Agenda ?-~.'~:,~ March 13, 2002 ;[~ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH /# 11 Page 6 100 i01 102 103 !04 105 106 107 108 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 accordance with the landscaping, screening and buffering specifications and standards. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary above, the maximum density of hotel and motel use shall be one hundred seventy-five (175) units per acre, of which no more than ten (10) percent shall be dwelling units, and uses in conjunction with hotels and motels may occupy up to but not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the floor area of all structures located on the lot. (c) For those uses which incorporate all following desired design feaUures: !) of uhe Minimum lot size of eighty ~housand {80,000) square feet or the accumulation of multiple parcels under common ownership totaling at least eighty thousand (80,000) square feet of land, such that the parcels are separated solely by a public street, of no more than one hundred (100) feet in width and by a distance not exceeding the width of the public street. 2) At least twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the hotel shall be used for convention and/or related facilities. 3) The entire lot or accumulated parcels are developed in a functionally integrated fashion. Upon complying with the foregoing conditions, the following shall apply, notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary: (1) The maximum density for hotel and mctel use shall be one hundred ninety (190) units per acre, of which no more than ten (10) percent shall be dwelling units, for the entire accumulation of parcels. 4 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 11 Page 7 13! 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 15i 152 153 (d) (2) Uses in conjunction with a hotel may occupy up to fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the structures. (3) Required parking shall be at least one (!) space per lodging or dwelling unit or one space per two hundred (200) square feet of floor area used for uses in conjunction with the hotel, whichever is greater. In addition to the number of units otherwise allowed pursuant to this section, where open space meeting the criteria set forth in Section 1502 (e) is provided, the number of hotel or mote] units may be increased by one and one-half (1.5) units, of which no more than ten (10) percent may be dwelling units, for every one thousand (1,000) square feet of open space provided. COMMENT The proposed amendments afford an additional incentive for the provision of open space in the RT-1 Resort Tourist District. Under subsection (d), hotel/motel density may be increased by 1.5 units for every 1,000 square feet of open space meeting the requirements of Section 1502 (e). The number of units allowed under Section 1507 (d) is in addition to the number otherwise allowed. Thus, the density of a particular hotel or motel may be increased over the maximum densiW of 190 units per acre allowed by subsection (c) if qualifying open space is provided. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-8388 wmmkordres kCZO1502ord, wpd March 1, 2002 R-3 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Planning ~epartment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL City Attorney' s Office Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 11 Page 8 Item 11 City of Virginia Beach Ordinance to Amend to the City Ordinance March 13, 2002 REGULAR AGENDA Robert Miller: The next item is Item #11 which is the City of Virginia Beach and the ordinance of the maximum building heights and hotel density for RT-1. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Bob, do you want to take this one? Robert Scott: I will be happy to give you a presentation on what we done. This matter has been referred to you by the City Council. And a form of an ordinance has been drafted and presented to you for your review and recommendation. The purpose behind the ordinance is to create an opportunity of open space on Atlantic Avenue at the oceanfront. Open space, large enough and sufficient enough so that vista's can be opened up from Atlantic Avenue so people walking down, driving down or standing on Atlantic Avenue can see the beach and the ocean without actually having to go all the way out to the Boardwalk or without actually having to be at one of the street stubs that are there, which are numerous but narrow. The ordinance works by providing an incentive to hotel developers to configure their development in such a way as to open up at least 100 feet of open space permanently, which is if it is on the block that's 100 feet deep and the open space extends all the way from Atlantic to the Boardwalk, which it would have to do to satisfy your criteria, would create, we think, or should create we think, a 15,000 square feet of open space. And upon having that secured for the public benefit, we would offer in exchange, additional density to be developed in the hotel and also some relief from height requirements. Now at this point, let me say that I am going to suggest to you that you set aside the specific ordinance sent to you by the City Council and consider instead a substitute ordinance that we have prepared and which is in your package. The current height requirements work like this. At Atlantic Avenue, one is allowed to construct a hotel that is 200 feet tall. And that height will extend on almost every lot down there, 200 feet will extend from Atlantic Avenue, eighty-three feet back toward the Boardwalk and at the eighty-three foot mark, has to taper down at the rate of one and half feet of height for every additional foot closer to the Boardwalk the building gets until it reaches the 100 foot limit at the Boardwalk line itself. The proposal we are offering is the idea that in exchange for opening up this publicly assessable vista and open space that we set aside the requirement to step down and that just as would always be the case, such a person under this ordinance would have the- right to build a 200 feet at Atlantic but instead of stopping at 200 foot height, eighty-three feet into the lot could go all the way to the Boardwalk with the 200 foot limit. This is not a result of buildings being built taller, at least according to the zoning ordinance. But the height would extend over a larger percentage of the lot in exchange for the open space. We think it's badly needed. We think it's something that the public has been bringing to our attention as a desireable element for some time. We think the elements that have been brought into discussion by some regarding shade or shadows in truthfully the purpose behind that step back provision that Item #11 City of Virginia Beach Page 2 I mention to you is shade. We don't think that ends up being particularly significant. We think that shadows is an important issue in general, in the summer months, but vista's are an important issue all year around. We think that in addition that the additional shadows these buildings would cast on the beach are not particularly great during the middle of the summer and during the middle of the afternoon. Ms. Atkinson addressed the issue that you brought up, we think that there might be 30 to 40 feet more of shadow cast on the beach or I should say oceanward of the building. However, for an additional portion of the - the amount of shadow cast will be reduced from whatever length there was to zero, because there will be no building there. We think that makes up for it, plus the fact that we have a much wider beach at this point, where it can be observed that most of the people are down near the water and there are few near the Boardwalk where they enjoy the surroundings. We don't think that is going to be much of an effect at all and even if it did, we think that the vista that's opened up in a manner of a trade-off is well worth it, so we are recommending this ordinance to you. We think that it's responsive to the concerns that we reached or we've heard down there. We think it presents an alternative to developers in that area, not a mandatory change. If there were a developer that said, "you know, I've looked at this ordinance and I've considered the additional cost that it would present to me, and I've considered the difficulties and the problems so forth and I just, I don't think this is for me." There is no obligation on that developer's part. He can continue to develop his hotel as he would today because those provisions under which the current set of hotels are being built are still going to be available to that developer with no obligation on his part. But it represents an opportunity we think, for other people to consider and hopefully adopt, in a way that will open up that area for a greater sense of openness in the beachfront and for that reason and because we think that is so valuable, we recommend approval of this ordinance. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Mr. Scott. Anybody have questions? Bob? Robert Vakos: I need to read this first and then I got a couple of points that I will bring up if I could? And this is for the record and I will submit this to staff when I finished with it. I have been advised by the City Attorney's Office that because I am a member of a group the members of which are affected by the transaction, pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-3112 (A)(2), I may participate in the Commission's discussion of and vote on the transaction so long as I declare my interest by stating: (1) the transaction involved; a proposed change in the height and density requirements in the RT-1 zoning district; (2) the nature of my personal interest affected by this transaction; that is specifically I own a hotel located in the RT-1 zoning district; (3) that I am a member of a group the members of which are affected by the transaction: the group being property owners and hotel owners in the RT-1 zoning district; and (4) that I am able to participate in the transaction fairly, objectively and in the public interest. I am making this declaration orally, and I ask that it be recorded in the minutes. Okay, and I'm encouraged to see that we have lowered it from 250 to 200. I think that's certainly in the spirit of what we have existing Item #11 City of Virginia Beach Page 3 in the zoning ordinance. I guess the problems that I have with the proposal is one, currently there are no 200 foot tall buildings east of Atlantic Avenue, even though this particular ordinance has been in place for over ten years. And I think from a developer's standpoint, and I have build hotel and have been involved with several of them, there's a cost factor as to why that is practical and why that is not. There is some increased density that would be allowed as part of this ordinance change. I think we talked this morning, there's twenty-two units. I'm still not 100% sure that's enough for a developer to warrant the extra cost to go forward. But as Bob said, that's all strictly a voluntary ,process that would be up to the developer whether or not he wants to do it. My main concern with the increased height in the building is not so much on the Boardwalk side, because with the extra width of the beach, I think it's going to have minimum impact and to be honest with you, a 300 foot beach, if you go out there in the middle of July everyone's fifty feet of the water. There's 250 feet where no one's there, so I don't think that is going to have an impact and I'm not that concerned about the Boardwalk, the shading part of it. Where my concern comes is along Atlantic Avenue. And I guess, and that's a good visual fight there, Atlantic Avenue is a finite width. I think it's sixty feet and may go up to seventy-five further south. That will never change. The Boardwalk, again, we've increased the beach. There's a lot of vista's, lots of open space out there. If you build a building 200 feet, which you could do currently, but again, we don't have any, along Atlantic Avenue or if you compress the site as were proposing to do with even higher density, you're going to end up with a fairly good sized building that butts Atlantic Avenue with a five foot setback. Which is all that's required fight now. And if you take into account parking, you could theoretically, have a 7 or 8 story parking deck with a 200-foot building directly behind it.. I have grave concerns about that. I don't think this addresses that nor does and it may even aggravate that possible scenario. The other part and you know, I may be in the minority on this. I'm not so sure where that the greater concern is for open space as much as it is for open vistas. And I do agree that if you have all the buildings, even 100 feet or 200 feet that mn the length of Atlantic Avenue, you don't allow enough light through there, you don't allow enough vistas. I would much rather see us to possibly look at splitting the lot up and having some side higher and one side lower and allow those type of vistas as opposed to dedicating'public property or dedicating property for open space. And I guess to sum up what'I am saying here is, I know we're required to respond to this within a certain amount of time. I'm not sure that we've done a very good job with it because we haven't addressed a lot of the issues that I think need to be addressed. And my comments are to pass on to city Council because basically, I think we have too, we can't defer this, we need to move forward with it, but my comments are we need to have a much more comprehensive approach to the heights that we are encouraging or allowing in that district and not only understanding what the impact would be for the Boardwalk or for the beach, but also what the impacts would be for Atlantic Avenue. I know there's going to be some other comments about even looking at what we would like to see on the area between Atlantic and Pacific. And again, those lots are much wider and probably have more opportunity. So, I'm not sure if I'm going to vote Item #11 City of Virginia Beach Page 4 for or against it. I'm not sure it is going to matter which way I go with it, but I do feel that things need to be addressed at some point before this ordinance is acted on or put into the zoning ordinance. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Bob. Betsy? Betsy Atldnson: Mr. Scott I have a question. It says on page 3 that a hotel/motel density may be increased by 1.5 units for every 1000 square foot of open space, if you had, say, 25 or 30,000 square feet of open space would you get 1.5 times whatever that number is? Robert Scott: If you had. Betsy Atkinson: Instead of fifteen, let's say you had 30,000 square feet of open space, would you then get 45 more? Robert. Scott: You have to have at 15,000 to even qualify. Betsy Atkinson: I understand that. Robert Scott: But after that it's increased on a pro-mm basis. Betsy Atldnson: So I had 30,000 square feet I could get 45 more rooms. Robert Scott: Yes. That's correct. Robert Vakos: Those lots are only 45,000 square feet. Betsy Atkinson: There are some that go further than that. Robert Vakos: No, they're uniform. Robert Scott: That's a big if as far as the geometry of the lot's telling you. You understand the principal correct? Betsy Atkinson: Right. Robert Scott: That's the way it would work. Ronald Ripley: Okay? Charles? Charles Salle': I just have a few comments. This is not one of those situations where Council has seen fit to refer this matter to us to be reacted on within 45 days, which Item # 11 City of Virginia Beach Page 5 means acted on within the time frame of one meeting. And there by, I guess it satisfies certain legal requirements and then Council can get on with whatever it wants to do with it. And that's happened before and that is the way these things work. But, I have some concerns that you know, that maybe this a really good idea but it just hasn't been carried far enough in the sense that I have no idea whether the incentive, if there is really any incentive that offers a few extra units, would be enough for somebody to take advantage of this opportunity and it seems to me that what we really need to do and perhaps hopefully Council and staff will have time to do is determine what it would really take to make this work because I'm not really sure that anybody's done the economic studies and the architectural studies that determine whether this particular ordinance is written would encourage anybody to do this, if in fact, it's a great idea then maybe I will be. I'm thinking, perhaps it could be a good idea and will work very well. I just have no idea whether we have an ordinance that will actually achieve it. And there's probably information from other cities that may or may not be available to us. But, I haven't seen any other material that would be of a real benefit to me. I suspect that I'll vote for,it because I think it has the possibility of a good idea although probably everybody who's , asked me about it has been opposed to it. Because particularly I think they don't have faith in the City's ability to keep the open space open. But at this point, after all these years I still have that faith so I'm not concerned about that. But anyway, I understand the process has to go on at the speed that it's going on but I would have liked to have had an opportunity to get more information and to be more confident that what we're doing will exactly work. You know, we've had the incentive to go to a higher height with added density for years and nobody took advantage of it. I'm not sure that we haven't just created the same situation with this ordinance. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Charlie. Bob Miller? Robert Miller: Well, I'm going to be in agreement with some of the concems. I think that the basic point here is that, and we do need to look at this comprehensively and we've been assured that from the conversations this morning that we will look at the entire motion for an area more comprehensively as to what alternatives ought to be looked at and Charlie just eluded to that. I believe this would be one of the alternatives. And trying to mn numbers, and Bobby had said he'd run some numbers trying to figure out how tall the buildings could get with what incentive. I'm not sure that we wouldn't want to provide even more of an incentive at some point in oui comprehensive look at things to balance out what the economics may play out to be for a pretty good easement. I presume in perpetuity over for that other property that would not allow that be developed. And I think those are things we do need to look at. I also agree and I'm the one who brought up the west side of Atlantic, that we need to look at the west side of Atlantic to see how we ultimately going to develop on that side of the street in a redevelopment type model not that the things that are there are not important but they would be changing in the future and that there will be, as was pointed out this morning, a Item gl 1 City of Virginia Beach Page 6 larger distance between Atlantic and Pacific to work with, opportunities to perhaps, put hotels in there but to give Atlantic Avenue enough breathing room so that it doesn't become a tunnel with buildings on one side and on the other. I also think that the idea of putting parking underneath the building is something that this gives that flexibility too. I think the previous ordinance allowing 100 feet at the Boardwalk, and then as Bob says, sixty-seven feet further in. Was that the right number? You get to go up to 200 feet? I think that some of that is a little less easy to administer architecturally and economically then dealing with a whole block and dealing with the 200 foot all the way across. So I · personally think this is one of the options we would give anyway and I'm going to support it and as we go forward, I to believe there needs to be very comprehensive look at the oceanfront so that as we encourage private developers to come to our City and do new things and perhaps improve some of the areas at the oceanfront that we have given them the right pieces to do that with and not structuring something that never get used which was eluded to before but the previous one did not get used. Ronald Ripley: Betsy, did you have another question? Betsy Atlcinson: No. I just wanted to reiterate something that Mr. Scott said this morning that this open space would not be used for parking or surface parking. It would be for recreational uses, maybe outdoor cafes or a little bands playing or little ice cream stands or something like that. It would not necessarily be pumhased or maintained by the City. Ronald Ripley: Unfortunately, the informal meetings' aren't filmed and the public doesn't have the opportunity unless they sit in and listen to the Planning Commission. A great deal of discussion has perceeded this meeting. And a lot of things that's been said here have also been reiterated so, but you know, I will just make a couple of comments if I will. I think what I heard most from the public to was the concern, about the height, the 250. I think the reconunendation to stay at 200 is wise at this point. And you know looking at the amount of extra bonus density that you could achieve by this example, the 15,000 square feet, it doesn't seem like it's significant enough, I don't think, from the standpoint of being able to generate more of an incentive. I think that really does bear study on behalf of the Planning staff and behalf of the development community as far as contributing to that and trying to come up with an incentive that really does make sense. And I feel actually the way Charlie says. I think you have possibly the makings of a very good ordinance, but I think it needs to be thought through a little further. I think more incentives need to be there in order to achieve maybe an extra three floors or whatever you're going to get. Because you're going to end up with parking garages probably as you mentioned and those are very costly. So, they just don't happen out of thin air. There's economics to the cost of creating the parking garage and to have corresponding income to help offset it is critical. So if it's just menial income it's going to be dismissed, I would think. So I really hope that will be something that is taken into consideration. Item #11 City of Virginia Beach Page 7 And I want to get my shot in there for a comprehensive look at both sides of Atlantic and as well as Pacific. We're getting into 19th Street very shortly and all of this needs to be tied together because the development potential and the benefit to the City is tremendous along that area. Eugene you? Eugene Crabtree: Ron, just one additional bit of comment. I agree to what you say and that fact that we need to look at both sides of Atlantic. But I think with this plan the open space that were creating there, the additional sunlight that were going to gain on the beach in the late afternoon is going to set quite well with our public and our ci~zens of Virginia Beach because it will enable those people who work until 4:30-5:00 o clock in the evenings to be able to come to the beach and still enjoy a great deal of sunlight by this open space is going to create. So I think this will set much better with the public then the pre-existing ordinance. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Any other comments9 Then the chair will entertain a motion? ' Robert Miller: We normally would have Mr. Vakos make that motion but I'm afraid of him. Robert Vakos: You don't want me to make a motion. Robert Miller: I will make a motion that we recommend approval of this ordinance change. Eugene Crabtree: I second it. Robert Vakos: And just a comment. I am going to vote against it and not because it's not a good idea it's just an incomplete idea. And I don't think we ought to pass any incomplete ideas Ronald Ripley: So we have motion by Bob Miller and a second by Gene Crabtree to approve. AYE 10 NAY 1 ABSENT 0 ABS 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS WOOD AYE NAY Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-1, the motion passes. Is there any other item to come before this Commission? Hearing none, the meeting's adjourned. APPOINTMENT 1. COMMUNTfY SERVICES BOARD K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS L. NEW BUSINESS M. ADJOURNMENT