Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOCTOBER 8, 2002 AGENDACity of Virginia Beach "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYEtL,I E. OBF_,RNDORF, At-Large VICE MAYOR ROBERT C. MANDIGO, JR., Kempsvitle - District 2 MARGARI:TT L. EUI~E, Cen terville - District 1 LOUIS R. JONES, Bays~de -Distrtct 4 REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall - District $ RICHARD A. MADDOX. Beach - District 6 JIM REEVE, Princess Anne - D~strict 7 PETER I{5 SCHMIDE At-Large RO,VA. V1LLANUEVA, At-Large ROSEMARY WII_~ON. At-Large JAMrES L. FLOOD. Lynnhaven -District 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JAMES K. SPORE, City Manager LESLIE L. LILLEY, City Attorney RLrfH HODGES SMITH, M3,(C, City Clerk CITY HALL B[/1LDIN( 2401 COURTHOUSE DRI~ VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-800 PHONE: (757) 427-430. F,4X (757) 426-566: E MAIL:Cty'cncl~vbgov. co~ October 8, 2002 I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 1:30PM Co AMENDMENT TO R-5S DISTRICT Karen R. Lasley, Zoning Administrator COMMUNITY LEGISLATIVE AGENDA Robert R. Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager SANDBRIDGE ROAD/NIMMO PARKWAY CORRIDOR E. Dean Block, Director - Department of Public Works II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS III CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 4:30PM' A. CALL TO ORDER'- Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Richard J. Keener Bayside Presbyterian Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMA~L AND FORMAL SESSIONS October 1, 2002 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. MAYOR'S PRESENTATIONS 1. PROCLAMATION a. Captain Cary A. "Dollar" Silvers Day, October 8, 2002 2. RESOLUTION a. Harold Heischober Field ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinances re the City Code: a. AMEND § 18-72 re business license taxes on coin-operated machines AMEND and REORDAIN § 21-321.2 re adding certain neighborhoods subject to maximum speed limits ("Traffic Calming") and providing penalties in those neighborhoods: (1) Stratford Chase (2) Bayville Park Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments into portions of the City's rights-of- way within Linkhom Shores: (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) WAYNE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE re maintenance of an existing timber retaining wall at 1200 Gloucester Lane. PAUL D. and MARIANNE WARREN re construction and maintenance of a split rai; fence, willow arbor and landscaping at 1517 Duke of Windsor Road. Resolution referring to the Planning Commission proposed amendments to §502 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re dimensional requirements for nonconforming lots in the R-5S residential district. Resolution to AUTHORIZE the issuance and sale of $28-Million Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series of 2002, heretofore authorized, re reimbursement for previous capital expenditures and funding for future water and sewer projects; and, AUTHORIZE the distribution of the preliminary Official Statement and other related actions. J. PLANNING Application of MOTHERS, INC. for the reconstruction and conversion of a nonconformin~ garage apartment into a nonconforming single family residence at 16th Street and Baltic Avenu (417 ½ 16th Street), containing 5,000 square feet (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) Recommendation: DENIAL Application of DAVID ELGIN for modification of acreage allowed by the Conditional Use Permit for a church at Providence Road and Waring Street (5724 Providence Road) (approved June 26, 1965), containing 2.02 acres (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Applications of HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. at North Landing and West Neck Roads, containing 65.1 acres: (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R-30 Residential re single family lots no less than 30,000 sq. ft. b. Conditional Use Permit re Open Space Variance Appeal re certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 4.4(b), that requires all newly created lots meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) and reduce required street width Deferred: Recommendation: July 9 and August 13, 2002 INDEFINITE DEFERRAL Application of TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP for a Conditional Use Permit re a church at Challedon and South Parliament Drives (5245 Challedon Drive), containing 16,247.88 square feet. (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Ko APPOINTMENT PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION L. UNFINISHED BUSINESS M. NEW BUSINESS N. ADJOURNMENT 10!03/02 AGENDA 10/0$t02\gw If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303 Hearing impaired, call: TDD only 427-4305 (TDD - Telephorfic Device for the Deaf) I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - · 1:30PM Ao AMENDMENT TO R-5S DISTRICT Karen R. Lasley, Zoning Administrator COMMUNITY LEGISLATIVE AGENDA Robert R. Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager Co SANE}BRIDGE ROAD/NIMMO PARKWAY CORRIDOR E. Dean Block, Director - Department of Public Works II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS III CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 4:30PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Richard J. Keener Bayside Presbyterian Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION Fo MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS October 1, 2002 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. MAYOR'S PRESENTATIONS 1. PROCLAMATION a. Captain Cary A. "Dollar" Silvers Day, October 8, 2002 2. RESOLUTION a. Harold Heischober Field cgVhereas: Captain Cary A. "Dollar' Si£vers, Commanding Officer, finitedStates Havy, is re£inquishing commandof Hava£Air Station Oceana; and Captain Si£vers received a $acheFor of $usiness Administration degree from the finiversity of Georgia in 1977 and was commissioned throuahAviation Officer Candidate Schoo£ in 1978, becoming a Havaf Avia tor in 1979; and c[~he reas : C~herea$: Captain Si£vers servedin q/T-24 as an instmctorpiLot, reported to VY-101for training in the ~-14A aircraft, andservedin V~-143 as Line Divia'on, TraininB, andAssistant Operations Officer as a TOPGZ)Hgraduate, making two Mediterranean deployments aboardthe ~)SS Dwight D. Bisenhower, and Captain Silvers ~ecame an adversary instructorpifot flying the B 3 8, P-5, A-4 and the P-2 I (K~FI~ aircrafts, being the first to train in the KPIR Israefi' aircraft and being the first HavalAir Training and Operating qYocedures Standardization Officer for the same; and Ne later completed a deployment in support of Operation Desert Shied on boarg the fiSS Owight D. Bisenhower, and ¢Vhereas: He servedas the ffvcecutive Officer of VP-101 andof V~-3 2, where he became the 46¢~ Commanding Officer of the Sworgsmen in 1994; and Captain SiFvers served on the fi)SS Independence as Air 05oss and after numerous deployments, reported to Commander Operational Test and Wovafuation ~orce asAssistant Chief of Staff forSpecia£qrograms; and Captain Silvers assuraed the duties of Bxecutive officer of HAS Oceana in q:ebruary 2001 andassumedCommanding Officer later that same year, and During his career, Captain Silvers has accumulated more than 4,000flight hours and688 carrier arrested landings; and Whereas: His awards include the Meritorious Service Nedal, Air NedalStri~ q~light Award, Navy Commendation Medal, Air q~orce Commendation Nedal, Joint Neritorious ~Onit Award, and various unit service medals; and Whereas: Captain Silvers' new assignment beginning April2003 will be as Captain, Z;nitedStates Navy, Retired; and Whereas: Captain Silvers is recognizedfor his masteUculleadership andmanagement of the east coast's Master Jet Sase, HAS Oceana, for his tremendous cooperation in workin8 with the Oty of Virainia Seach through the day-to-day operations of HAS Oceana, the successful 2002 Heptune BestivalAir Show, and the response to the terrorism attacks on September 11th; and Whereas: Captain Silvers is a warrior, a patriot, a tremendously loyalAmerican citizen, anda tribute to the ~OnitedStates Havy: Ho~;, Therefore, L Meyera B. Oberndo~, Nayor of the Oty of Virginia Seach, Virginia, do hereby ackno~vledge andcelebrate the service of Captain Cary A. "q)ollar"Silvers, 'USgs, to America and Virtlinia Seach, and do hereby Proclaim October 8, 2002 Dollar Silver's Oay In Virginia $each, and I call on all citizens to join the Virginia $each City Council in wishing Captain Silvers and his family the best of success in retirement, andwe thank him for his commitment to his country as a Patriot, a Wardor, andan Officer anda Gentleman. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my handand caused the Offi~qalSealof the Oty of Virginia $each, Virginia, to be affi~ed this Eighth day of October, Two Thousand-Two. Neyera B. Oberndo9c Mayor WHEREAS: Harold Heischober was elected to membership on the Virginia Beach City Council in 1980; WHERE~4$: Councilman Heischober served two years and was elected by his peers as the Vice Mayor, which he served 1980-1982; WHEREAS: Vice Mayor Heischober was elected by the Virginia Beach City Council to serve as Mayor 1984-1986. This represented the first time a member of City Council had been elevated each two years to the higher office from Councilman to Mayor; N~IEREAS: Mayor Heischober, with many years of professional leadership experience, exhibited his wisdom with vision to guide Virginia Beach, the largest city in the Commonwealth of Virginia, in its growth as a major American municipality; WHEREAS: Harold Heischober, formerly a professional baseball player, has throughout his long career of service consistently given of his unlimited talents for the enhancement of whatever community he was privileged to call Uhome'~ WHEREAS: After bis tenure as Mayor, Councilman Heischober continued to serve as a member of the City Council with a particular vision for a world-class sports facility to serve as a venue for a variety of participatory sports; WHEREAS: Harold Heischober's tenacity saw that vision become a reality in the form of the Virginia Beach Sportsplex; and, WHEREAS: The City of Virginia Beach continues to benefit, on a daily basis, the enhancement this Sportsplex has brought to local sports, school activities and economic benefit. NO~, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That, in recognition of these untiring achievements, the playing field at the Virginia Beach Sportsplex hereby be named and henceforth be known as the: HAlt OLD HEIS CHOBER FIELD Given under our hands and seals this Eighth day of October Two Thousand and Two. Margaret I~ Eure Richard A. Maddox Ron A. Villanueva Louis R. Jones Jim Reeve Rosemary W'dson Reba S. McClanan Peter W. Sckmidt James L. Wood Vice Mayor Mayor ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinances re the City Code: a. AMEND § 18-72 re business license taxes on coin-operated machines bo AMEND and REORDAIN § 21-321.2 re adding certain neighborhoods subject to maximum speed limits ("Traffic Calming") and providing penalties in those neighborhoods: (1) Stratford Chase (2) Bayville Park o Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary, encroachments into portions of the City's rights-ol way within Linkhom Shores: (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNI4_AVEN) ao WAYNE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE re maintenance of an existing timber retaining wall at 1200 Gloucester Lane. bo PAUL D. and MARIANNE WARREN re construction and maintenance of a split rail fence, willow arbor and landscaping at 1517 Duke of Windsor Road. ° Resolution referring to the Planning Commission proposed amendments to §502 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re dimensional requirements for nonconforming lots in the R-5S residential district. ° Resolution to AUTHORIZE the issuance and sale of $28-Million Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series of 2002, heretofore authorized, re reimbursement for previous capital expenditures and funding for future water and sewer projects; and, AUTHORIZE the distribution of the preliminary Official Statement and other related actions. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager An Ordinance To Amend the City Code Pertaining to Business License Taxes on Coin-Operated Machines MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002 Background: The City of Virginia Beach requires persons operating coin-operated machines to obtain a business license. The City Code, at § 18-72, outlines how operators of coin-operated machines are to be taxed, but its provisions are outdated and do not match the current state law on this subject. Considerations: Currently, every operator of three or more coin-operated machines must pay a license tax of two hundred dollars ($200) in addition to a license tax of 0.36 percent on the share of gross receipts actually received by the operator. The proposed amendment to Section 18-72 (b) reduces the license tax that operators of between three (3) and ten (10) coin-operated machines shall pay to $150.00 (in addition to a license tax on gross receipts actually received by the operator). This amendment also makes clear that this tax is applicable only to coin-operated amusement machines. Recommendations: Approval Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Commissioner of the Revenue City Manager: ~,~ ~' ~r~¢~,c/¢,~,,' UF:\Data~ATY~Ord~\NONCODE\18-072arf.wpd 1 2 -- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -' 13 14 15 -- 16 17 18 19 2O -- 21 22 23 -- 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 -- 32 33 34 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES ON COIN-OPERATED MACHINES SECTION AMENDED: § 18-72 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 18-72 of the City Code is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 18-72. Coin-operated amusement machines--Operators. (a) For the purpose of ~his section, the term "amusement operator" shall mean any person selling, leasing, renting or otherwise furnishing or providing a coin-operated amusement machine or device opezate~ w~ ~he coin ~-~=-~v~ principle, ..... ~,~ machine oz device io ~=~== ~=~ in the city, whether or not such operator has a fixed place of business within the city; provided, however, that the term "operator" shall not include a person owning less than three (3) coin machines and operating such machines on property owned or leased by such person. (b) (i) ~ Amusement operator~ with ten (10) or more machines shall pay ~ an annual license tax of two hundred dollars ($200.00), e~, in additionT to a license tax of 0.36 percent on the share of gross receipts actually received by %he operator [rom such business for the preceding calendar year. {ii) Amusement operators with at least %hree (3) but less than ten (10) machines shall pay an annual license tax of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00), in addition to a license tax of 0.36 percent on the share of qross receipts actually received by the operator from such business for the precedinq calendar year. (c) The operator's license tax of $200.00 shall not be applicable to operators of weighing machines, automatic baggage or parcel checking machines or receptacles, nor to operators of 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 63 64 65 vending machines which are so constructed as to do nothing but vend goods, wares and merchandise or postage stamps or provide service only, nor to operators of viewing machines or photomat machines, nor to operators of devices or machines affording rides to children or for the delivery of newspapers. (d) Upon making application for a license as an operator, the applicant shall file with the commissioner of the revenue, in duplicate, a list of the locations of all machines and devices sold, leased, rented or otherwise furnished to or placed with others and, during the current license year, every cperatcr shall notify the cormr~issicner of the revenue, in writing in du~licane, of all changes in locations of such machines and devices, within five (5) days after such changes are made. (e) Every operator, before com~encing doing business in the city, shall register with the commissioner of the revenue and deposit with him a bond in the amount cf one thousand dollars I$1,000.00~, payable to the city, to insure the keeping of adequate records, the filing of reports in such form and at such times as may be prescribed by the commissioner of the revenue and the proper payment to the city of the tax imposed by this section. The form and surety of such bond shall be determined by the commissioner of the revenue. (f) Every coin machine covered by this section shall be plainly marked by the owner thereof with the name and address of such owner. (g) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of not less than fifty dollars (S50.00~ nor more than five hundred dollars 15500.00~ for each offense and the machine or other device shall become forfeited to the city. COMMENT 67 68 69 70 71 72 This ordinance provides for a reduced fiat license tax of $150 for operators of less than ten coin-operated amusement machines (in addition to a license tax of 0.36 percent of the operator's share of gross receipts from machines operated in the City). This makes the CiW ordinance consistent with Virginia State Code § 58.1-3720, which requires that the fiat license tax for operators of less than ten coin-operated amusement machines be less than $200. This ordinance also makes clear that this section only applies to coin-operated amusement machines. -- 73 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 74 Virginia, on this day of , 2002. CA-8577 DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/18-072ord.wpd R5 September 23, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: ~venue APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Department o~aw ' r CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager An Amendment to City Code Section 21-321.2 Pertaining to Maximum Speed Limits in Designated Neighborhoods. MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002 Background: On February 13, 2001, an ordinance was passed to deter speeding on residential streets identified and qualified by the Traffic Calming Program. That ordinance allows a court to impose upon a driver convicted of speeding on these designated streets a fine up to $200. Considerations: Pursuant to § 46.2-878.2 of the Code of Virginia, the City of Virginia Beach can designate these problem streets by ordinance, and provide that the fine for a speeding violation on such streets is not prepayable. Consequently, if a person is charged with speeding on any such street, he or she would have to appear before, and be sentenced by the court. The Traffic Calming Program is designed as follows: Phase I is aimed at awareness and education, and generally takes place during discussions between Traffic Engineering and the neighborhood representative. In this phase, the neighborhood chooses the streets they want evaluated for inclusion in the program. Phase II consists of speed studies of the chosen streets. If the studies shows an 85 Percentile speed of at least 33 mph, or it shows an average speed of at least 29 mph, in a posted 25 mph speed zone, then the Police Department will conduct a series of selective enforcement on the designated streets, followed by follow-up traffic studies at the end of each enforcement cycle. If the speeds persist or increase, the streets will be eligible to enter Phase III of the program if at least 75% of the established neighborhood petition area sign a petition requesting the implementation of Phase II1. Phase III of the Program involves designated streets within a neighborhood being identified in the above-referenced ordinance, therefore subjecting violators to a non-prepayable fine up to $200.00. And finally, should this initiative fail, the neighborhood may request Phase IV, the installation of physical devices to prevent speeding. After advising all participating neighborhoods of the Program policies and the cdteria for inclusion in the Program, the streets added by this amendment have qualified for inclusion in the Program by meeting the minimum qualifications at the time they entered the Program. Stratford Chase and Bayville Park have submitted a petition showing at least 75% agreement from the petition area. Recommendations: It is recommended that the attached ordinance amendment, which adds new streets in Stratford Chase and Bayville Park to the street listing in § 21-321.2, be adopted. All of these streets were identified through the Traffic Calming Program. It is anticipated that these new streets will participate in the Program under Phase III for two years, after which time they will need to re- apply for the Program under the current Program policies. Public Information: This ordinance will be advertised in the same manner other Council agenda items are advertised. Attachments: Ordinance Map Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Depal~ment/Ag.en,.cy: Polic, e/Public Work~ City Manager ~ /',~ ~//~ ,j/ ' O~E'Auyang\Traffic Calming Oct8th.wpd 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 -- 15 16 17 -- 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 -- 33 34 35 AN ORDINANCE TO ADD A NEW SECTION TO THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS IN DESIGNATED NEIGHBORHOODS SECTION ADDED: 21-321.2 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 21-321.2. Traffic Calming via Maxim%un speed limits in certain residential districts; penalty. Pursuant to section 46.2-878.2 of the Code of Virginia, any person who operates a motor vehicle in excess of the maximum speed limit established for any portion of the following highways located within the designated neighborhoods, on or after the effective date, shall be guilty of a traffic infraction punishable by a non-prepayable fine of not more than $200, in addition to other penalties provided by law: Effective as of February 12, 2001: 1. L & J Garden: Norwich Avenue; Tajo Avenue; Fairlawn Avenue; Dulcie Avenue. 2. Acredale: Andover Road; Langston Road; Bonneydale Road; Olive Road, Alton Road; Old Kempsville Road. 3. Lake Shores: Jack Frost Road; Lake Shores Road. 4. Little Neck: Harris Road. Effective as of August I4, 2001. 1. Lake Shores: Oak Leaf Lane, Tern Road; Lake Road S; Regina Lane; Meredith Road, School Road, Mosby Road, Frizzel Drive; Finn Road; Charla Lee Lane; Smith Farm Road. 2. Brighton on the Bay: Templeton Lane; Wivenhoe Way; Starr Way. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 3. Baylake Pines/Baylake Beach: Ben Gunn Road; Indian Hill Road; Baylake Road; Rampart Avenue; Bayville Road;' Lookout Road; Sandy Bay Drive. 4. Country Haven: Stewart Drive. Effective as of April 9, 2002: 1. Fairfield: Lord Dunmore Drive. 2. Bellamy Manor: Homestead Drive. 44 45 46 Effective as of May 28, 2002: Church Point: Church Point Road; Church Point Place; Timber Ridge Drive. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Effective as of October 8, 2002: 1.~.. Stratford Chase: Stratford Chase Drive; Minden Road; Violet Bank; Kittery Drive. 2. Bayville Park: Greenwell Road (From Shore Drive to First Court Road). Comment The streets indicated under the heading "Effective as of October 8, 2002" will become part of the Traffic Calming Program. Drivers caught speeding on those designated streets can be fined up to $200.00. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA8524 F:\ordin\noncode\21-321.2.ord.wpd September 19, 2002 R3 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: P'O li~partmen~// APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Public Works APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Cit~y' ~tt'orney' s Offi~e' of the Traffic Calming Program, Ordinance 2619 Bayville Park * ~ ' ~ ~i~l Baylake Pines/ ..~;~. ~ ~?, t ~ ~ ~.~.,.,.~,,~. ~F.'~" Lnke Shores ~ .:' ['~:~'~ ~ '='~ Baylake Beach ~.~,. ,.. .... ~.,~..~, ., e~ · . -~,~;~.~u~.~.'=~, '~.~.:,'::~x '~=~X--'~.~n=~ ,'t'=~' ~= ~,L'~ ;'~:'"t~'~;4..['~'.~~ ~,:=~,~.l:~::.~,~,~=?:. ~ ~ ~(~ ~~ Little Neck: ~'.... I [ ~......[ ~:.~=.,~..,..,..,.==~ ~~. ~ ?:' "~=,, ~ Hnrr~ Road ..,~? ';"- :' ..... ' ' ~".",'..' ~" ~ · 3 ~ '~'~' ~ '::'~-~'~ g'~'~...,:.~t.-:~.-,~+~ ~-~'~. ' ~gl~- :~'.. ~Lc' :'~.d~=.'~'-;.~:,: 0 '~:"' [ ' : '~.~" ' i ',:=~'~'~"~-' /'~.~.:~'".'~' ~ ~'~, E'" .... ~': ® Ch.r.h Po~.t ;..~:'~'. :~? ~-~'~ ~~.~.,.'.,,~.,.,:,,:.,,...~......,.~,.,:...~:?~.~..~.... ?,,....:~,~ ~.'~, .................... :,.,,..:,.==t=:~,,,,,.:_~ , .... ...,,....~ ................. ,.,... ........ .. , A} ~ . ' ,.~ ~.~,~,:,..,. ...?. ~];,,...~,4," : ~,,.;:.. .... ..: ;..~..:. ~ ... . .'¥~?~.~'.~;...: ~:, . .... ~--.'~.'.~..'~', ~,~..-...~.=~ ;~/~ ' , ..~:~ ~-, : ~" ' . ..... '~'~~, ~ ~ ~A~'~ ¥'~" ,'~ '.-' -- ,I~,'~ ="'.:."'=~'" ..... .":":'.:.:.?... .: ~ ,.~ A~I, 'L : .... . -'"'"~ ''~ ' ',s ....... ]I ~-~"',4'/~ '~,~'g:~." ' . ".' 20 ' .. :.v."::~*...: .:.. ,.. ?......,~.,.., ~ ,.:.'. ~ · ~ · ~ ~ -'...:~,,:~,~ _--.---~ (~'..~' ~.~'~.%:' . ./- '~.,........~... '.:.', '"~':'~ ::"~"~" ':"?':~':':'~':": ~ ~: '~t~ ' '~ /"~ ~'*'~' /,~:~. ,~,~""' ~ .~', "'"':~.:/~.:: ~ ~:~Lg~ ~ ~ ~.~;~z '.'~ ...... / ." ~. '..' '".'.'":'.:.. ~ '"'.': Count~ Haven ~"~:~"' :"~;'~',~ I z~ ~.k '~-~:;~ P~'~'~Z:"; ~::';:/ ' : ,..;.'.=~ ..-," "'~.~ "L ~:'""~: '~:~/: ~] ~ ~'. -~~ '~'/~ ' " / ~'~"~ ~,4. ",' --~ ~,', ~ ,,":","=:"}:':: .:.:~-.'~/.~:.,i: .~,:.. :. '~., . ..: ;.. ...'....'...;':.....:. :~ :,...~.. ~ k, , .~-' · ~-'~::','.:t'.L ",:~::~g..":,:.~ ' · ':'.. j: ,. ." ~'..~:p"" . ;.,:'.:' ~,~-:] ". ~ .'~." '~'~'L:~:-:'.'~'.?.'~.:':'~ ~: .' "~:~: ~.:,~: .~:". :" ','~.'.. ~'.?:.~t~'~:'",. ",~':?~. :,.":~?...! ~:.:'~. ~E::':~.~.~ ~ ~ ~',. ,~ - _ .... I.A~ ', ~ ~. · ~' ' ~-. ~:..:'.. , . ....... .,,. .............. ....=, ........ ..~,,. ............. ~:..~,.::, .,...~. ............ .~. ~ , I~.'??':''.~..,.. ~=;~:.:~'::.:':".~'~:..,,~.,:: :.'?'"~:~..~.;:;~:.~'~:~'..~,~.;' :.,..:....,.:..:.?~....':~}.:~.~';~:::.~;,~.' .'~'~:~?.~:~:~:: ~ ,'. ~ ~~;. ~/·x-----,,,"- , ~.] .....':...~ s, ~.: .~x..~:., .,:~,~:...;A~..;. ~ ...................... , ...... ~ ~' ...'~:~:,:.~,~., .,~-?~,. · , ~".:~:~.::".~: ~.. ;.?~.~,... ,-. I ** '~:':~'~,:F{', ':'...:.~',~,...;..:,;/' ~ Brighton on the Bay will be '"'::-~ ": '"~'~ ~ ...... ,/ "" ~"i ": ':{~'''' '?;; :'1 ..~:. ' ~..:: ..: - ~ ". ~ removed from the Program ~'i . :' "'[ ~'"'.~ J' .'-, ':.:]:"?:::.1 ~". ' ~'~:'. ~.'.}' ~:;...' .:, .'~'" .: .'."::':: . .'.,': .:~ : .:. ;. "; . _~..::?.:~..; ..;:..., ::::. .,.:.~...~ :~ ........~¥... {.:..:~.:~: ..... ~, ........."- ~.~ . 7~"~ "' ::.:'.: .:,.'. '~..'.:.'::~ .:~'E-"- .'~. ;.:. '... .:'. '....'..~ .. ._'. .. .'.:~'.. ~ '~ ~'~'. . :'.. .....,: /' ~.~ :.....'..~ }../ - "~:;.'.:".:.'~ ".:'7.'.::~::' ."' "..::. ~. _ . ~ - '.."' .':" ~': . ...:~....,:.:...:... ,.. '.... / .:. ...:... . ... ... ,.. .... '.'?' . .... :;..... . ..: ..'/'. -'.'"- ) ' :..~..~ :..~..... '" :re :.',~. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Encroachment Request for Wayne Beagle and Kimberly A. Beagle at 1200 Gloucester Lane MEETING DATE: October 8., 2002 Background: Wayne and Kimberly Beagle have requested permission to encroach into the right-of-way for Gloucester Lane to maintain an existing timber retaining wall on their property in Alanton. Considerations: Staff has reviewed this request and has no objections to this encroachment from an operational and maintenance standpoint. The Department of Public Works supports the utilization of "hardened slope stabilization" revetment methods including bulkheading, grouted rip-rap and rip-rap with filter cloth to minimize and prevent soil loss along bank slopes associated with open drainage ditch, canal, and lake systems. These methods are successful in areas with soil types classified as highly erodible, especially during major rainfall events which create high velocities and wave action along bank slopes due to high winds. Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda. Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as requested, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by Council. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of this encroachment subject to the applicant complying with conditions set forth in the agreement. Authorize City Manager to sign agreement. Attachments: Ordinance Location Map Agreement with plat attached Photos Recommended Action: Approve request and authorize City Manager to sign agreement. Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate~-/~ City Manage~ l~~.~/c.~ -- 2 3 4 -- 5 6 7 8 9 10 __ 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 -- 18 19 2O 21 22 -- 23 24 25 26 27 -- 28 29 30 31 32 -- 33 34 35 36 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A PORTION OF THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY OF GLOUCESTER LANE BY WAYNE BEAGLE AND KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, WAYNE BEAGLE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE, desire to construct and maintain a timber retaining wall into the city's right-of-way known as Gloucester Lane. WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2- 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize a temporary encroachment upon the City's right-of-way subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, WAYNE BEAGLE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE, their heirs, assigns and successors in title, are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for a timber retaining wall in the City's right-of-way of Gloucester Lane as shown on that certain plat entitled: "SKETCH SHOWING RETAINING WALL ENCROACHMENT LOCATED ON SITE 45B-1 FOR WAYNE BEAGLE RESUBDIVISION OF SITE 45A AND 45B RESUBDIVISION OF SITE 45 LINKHORNSHORES VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works to which reference is made for a more particular description; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment is expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and WAYNE BEAGLE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE (the "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as WAYNE BEAGLE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE 37 38 39 40 and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement.' Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. 41 42 43 44 CA#- TKENN\ENCROACH\BEAGLE.ORD R-1 PREPARED: 8/26/02 APPRAVED AS TO CONTENTS (~/ SIGNAYURE DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND CITY ATTORNEY 2 WOODHOUSEi RD $ . / I COLONIAL · '~\ LOCATION MAP ..' >- SC&L[: 1" = 1,~00' LOCATION MAP FOR ENCROACHMENT FOR WAYNE AND KIMBERLY BEAGLE AT 1200 GLOUCESTER LANE SCALE: 1" = 100' PREPARED BY P/W ENG. DRAFT. 20-AUG-2002 PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTIONS 58.1-811 {a)(3) AND 58,1-811 (c}(4) REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 20 O~, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, ~IRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and WAYNE BEAGLE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE, his wife, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TIT?.R, "Grantee", even though more than one. W I T N E S S E T H: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract or parcel of land designated and described as "Site 45B-1, Subdivision of Linkhorn Shores" (Instrument No. 200207153001475), and being further designated and described as 1200 Gloucester Lane, Virginia Beach, VA 23454; and That, WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a timber retaining wall, a "Temporary Encroachment" in the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City right-of-way known as Gloucester Lane, "The Encroachment Area"; and the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachment Area. GPIN: 2408-87-4323 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the city of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to- wit: A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "SKETCH SHOWING RETAINING WALL ENCROACHMENT LOCATED ON SITE 45B-1 FOR WAYNE BEAGLE RESUBDIVISION OF SITE 45A AND 45B RESUBDIVISION OF SITE 45 LINKHORN SHORES VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", Revised date: August 6, 2002; a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee, and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and 2 expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit and have approved a traffic control plan before commencing work in The Encroachment Area. Also, the Grantee agrees that the Temporary Encroachment must stay at least three feet (3') from the edge of the existing pavement for Gloucester Lane. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees that no open cut of the public roadway will be I allowed except under extreme circumstances. Requests for exceptions must be submitted to the Highway Operations Division of Public Works for final approval. of the Department It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a right-of-way permit from the Development l Services Center of the Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to the issuance of a right-of-way permit the Grantee must post sureties, in accordance with their engineer's cost estimate, with the Development Services Center of the Planning Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must get an approved Joint Permit Application from the Waterfront Operations Division of the Planning Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability insurance, or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the city as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent~ with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment must conform to the minimum setback requirements as established by the City. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit, for review and approval, a survey of The Encroachment Area certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachment sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's office or the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Utilities. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner 1 provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and, pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The Encroachment Area the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and, if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WAYNE BEAGLE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE, his wife, the said Grantee has caused this Agreement to be executed by their signatures and seals duly affixed. Further, that the city of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. 5 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By city Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk ~ . (SEAL) Wayne Beagle STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. My Commission Expires: Notary Public 6 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY'OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF ~ '~~_~ w~ CITY/COUNTY OF 0 ~/~z~-'to-wit: The foregoing ~nstrument was acknowledged before me this /~ day of ~.~~ , 20zQ~__ , by WAYNE BEAGLE and KIMBERLY A. BEAGLE, his wife. ! Notary Publ i~ My Commission Expires: ~~~ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Y REAL ESTATE AGENT 7 ~0.00' N 80'44'10" E THIS SKETCH WAS PREPARED TO BE A FfACHED TO ENCROACHMENT APPLICATION AND IS NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT A BOUNDARY SURVEX DUKE OF W/NDSOR ROAD VALVE 45.5 WALL ~ ENCROACHMENT ,,& SITE 45A- 1 GPIN 24-08-87-6304 N 80'44'10' E 48. 12 50.7 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL,-- {SEE DETAIL SHEET 2 OF 2~. SITE 4-5B- 1 GPIN 24-08-87-4-323 1200 GLOUCESTER LANE SKETCH SHOWING RETAINING ~/ALL ENCROACHMENT LOCATED ON SITE 4.5B- 1 FOR WAYNE BEAGLE RESUBDIVISION OF SITE 45A AND 45B . RESUBDIVISION OF SITE 45 ' LEG E N D L INKHORN SHORES ~ VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA PREPARED DY -- ENCROACHMENT __ __ __ 'B'E5 REVISED DATE.. AUG. G, 2002 T£C~Nm~ AN]] 'ENVIRBNHENTAL SERVICES GRAPHIC ~'CALE SCALE: 1"=20' ... JOB NO. LINKENCR REFERENCE PI_AT RECORDED IN MAP BOOK 47, PAGE 2.7 INSTRUMENT // 20020715,.7001475 SURVEYING. DIVISION Photo looking South showing retaining wall encroachment and edge of pavement for Gloucester Ln.; a distance of approx. 37'. Retaining wall encroaches into R/W of Gloucester Ln. approx. 23' wayne Beagle Photo looking North showing retaining wail encroachment and edge of pavement for Gloucester Ln.; a distance approx. 37'. End of retaining wall encroaches into R/W of Gloucester Ln. approx. 23' CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Encroachment Request -Construct and Maintain a Split Rail Fence, Arbor, and Landscaping Applicant - Paul D. Warren and Marianne Warren MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002 Background: Mr. and Mrs. Paul Warren desire to construct and maintain a 4' X 188' split rail fence, 3" wide willow arbor, and existing landscaping in the City's right-of-way on the eastern side of 1517 Duke of Windsor Road, which runs along Kent Lane. The landscaping, which has been in place for approximately three years has not been authorized by the City. There is opposition from the adjacent property owners. Considerations: City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the agreement. Roger R. Huff, Landscape Services Division has reviewed the request and supports the existing landscaping and approves of the fencing and arbor. There are authorized and unauthorized encroachments of similar nature in the Linkhorn Shores section of the City. The adjacent property owners received Council approval in February 2002 for similar encroachments. Public Information: There is opposition to this encroachment by the adjacent property owners. The Office of Real Estate will notify the opposition as to the date and time of City Council hearing. This opposition appears to stem from a difference in viewpoint between the two neighbors on a number of issues, most of which are unrelated to this request. Advertisement of City Council. Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as presented, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by Council. Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map, Agreement, Plat, and Pictures Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works ~c~, City Mana! 5 6 7 8 -- 9 10 11 _ 12 13 14 15 16 -- 17 18 19 -- 20 21 22 23 24 -- 25 26 27 -- 28 29 3O 31 32 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY 1517 DUKE OF WINDSOR ROAD BY PAUL D. WARREN AND MARIANNE WARREN, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, Paul D. Warren and Marianne Warren, desire to construct and maintain a 4' X 188' split rail fence, 3" willow arbor, and landscaping, into the City's rights-of-way located at 1517 Duke of Windsor Road. WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §~ 15.2- 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize a temporary encroachments upon the City's right-of-way subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §~ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended Paul D. Warren and Marianne Warren, assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment in the City's right-of-way as shown on the map entitled: "ENCROACHMENT PLAT FOR 1517 DUKE OF WINDSOR ROAD," a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular description; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and Paul D. Warren and Marianne Warren, (the "Agreement") which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Manager or his authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement. 33 34 35 36 37 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect Until such time as Paul D. Warren and Marianne Warren and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. 38 39 4O CA-# gsalmons/warren/ord. R-1 PREPARED: 09.02.02 CIT~ A~To~ 2 LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1" = 1,600' ~ // / ?/ x_/ / 2408-q8-5100 / \ A. OSMANTHUS FORTUNES B. ACUBA C. CAMELIA D. LEYLAND CYPRESS E. HYDi~U',dGEA F. RIVER BIRCH !408-98-B1~ 12 DUKE OF WINSOR. DGN M.J.S. 12 118 2408-R7-5488 28 EDGE OF MAP :, IT EEQUES'~ N 26 1' -- 100' R PREPARED BY P,4N' ENG. CADD DEPT. 10-SEP-2002 PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY AITORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTIONS 58.1-81 l(a)(3) AND 55.1-811(o)(4) REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORJZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 THIS AGREEMENT, made this ~ day o_~~, 2002, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and PAUL D. WARREN AND MARIANNE WARREN, husband and wife, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WlTNESSETH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "SITE 31 1.6 ACRES" as shown on "REVISED PLAT OF LINKHORN SHORES PROPERTY OF LINKHORN SHORES, INC. LYNNHAVEN MAG. DIST.-PRINCESS ANNE CO., VA. SCALE: 1" = 100' DECEMBER 16, 1953 SAMUEL W. MILLER, JR. CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR VIRGINIA CERTIFICATE NO 405,"and being further designated and described as 1517 Duke of Windsor Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454; WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a 4' X 188' Split Rail Fence, Arbor, and Landscaping, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City right of way that is located on the east portion of the property known as 1517 Duke of Windsor Road "The Temporary Encroachment Area"; and GPIN 2408-97-4860-0000 WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachment Area. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "ENCROACHMENT PLAT FOR 1517 DUKE OF WINDSOR ROAD," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Tempo~ Encroachment must be removed fi~om The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. 2 It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachraent Area. It is further expre~ly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least 'thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may'require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the C_n'amee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of 3 what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Paul D. Warren and Marianne Warren, the said Grantee has caused this Agreement to be executed by their signature and seal duly affixed. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreemem to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto afl, ed and attested by its City Clerk. Further, that the City of Virginia has caused this agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto aff~xed and attested by its Cit3' Clerk. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH (SE ) ATTEST: By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager City Clerk 4 Paul D. Warren ~Vl'~--~nne Warren STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrumem was acknowledged before me this ,2002, by THE CITY MANAGER. day of , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF My Commission Expires: Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, m-wit: The foregoing instnunem was acknowledged before me this day of · 2002, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMC, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. My Commission Expires: Notary Public 5 STATE OF ~,} ~ t',: ;' ~_,'~ % CITY/COUNTY 0_~ ~3,~:~:~. _l~o ~-- to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of ~u c ,~ t -,? ,... 2002, by Paul D. Warren and Marianne Warren. My Commission Expires: Not~c KATHLEEN'J. GIRDLER 1 NOTARY PUBUC COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 30, 2005 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO CONTENT AL ESTATE AGENT Rev. 07-24-02 Exhibit "A" OUILIrT/ FAWCEI DOC:*: SITE 30 PIN, FR. SHED ELEC. OUll,.ET · ~ PIN(f) Z PIN(f), t WA'II[R FA'~g£T - · --: 4; Dm~WAY I ~ ~AC[ ~ ~ "~ '~ J n'c~ ~o.o' t~ c~c.. T.~ RESD. ~j ~ ~CK 20. 29.62' ~ 11 PIN(f) S 16'06'30" E 132.00' S 16'15'07'¢ E 131.48'(0 DUKE OF WINDSOR ROAD LOCATION OF FLOOD ZONE LINE AS SCALED FROM F.I.R.M. PAl' L SITE 32 A/c c~ CONC. PIN(f) .(5o' R/W) ENCROACHMENT PLAT FOR 1517 DUKE OF WINDSOR ROAD PAUL D. AND MARIANNE WARREN 1517 DUKE OF WINDSOR ROAD Kent Lane looking towards the back of 1517 Duke of Windsor Road. will go on the outside of the encroaching landscaping. Fencing Three inch willow arbor will begin where the split rail fence ends and pick back up with the matching fencing on the outside of encroaching landscaping. · Kent Lane Looking towards Duke of Windsor Road PAUL D. AND MARIANNE WARREN 1517 DUKE OF WINDSOR ROAD Eastern portion of 1517 Duke of Windsor Road looking towards Kent Lane showing encroaching landscaping. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager A Resolution Referring to the Planning Commission Proposed Amendments to Section 502 of the City Zoning Ordinance, Pertaining to Dimensional Requirements for Nonconforming Lots in the R-5S Residential District MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002 Background: Currently, Section 502 of the City Zoning Ordinance allows the creation of a 35 foot nonconforming lot when contiguous nonconforming lots are resubdivided in the R-5S Zoning District. Considerations: The proposed resolution refers to the Planning Commission amendments to City Zoning Ordinance Section 502 which will delete the exception of a 35' lot in the R-5S Zoning District when contiguous lots are resubdivided. The Resolution also directs the Planning Commission to transmit its recommendation to the City Council within 60 days of the date of adoption of the Resolution. Public Information: The amendments themselves will be advertised as a regular planning item before both the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. Recommendations: Adoption of Resolution referring the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission. Attachments: Resolution Proposed Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Requested by Councilmember Richard Maddox City Manager: 1 2 3 4 5 A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 502 OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, PERTAINING TO DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IN THE R-5S RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT -- 6 7 13 -- 14 15 16 _ 17 18 19 2O 21 -- 22 23 -- 24 25 -- 26 27 28 29 _ 30 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so require; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: There is hereby referred to the Planning Commission, for its consideration and recommendation, proposed amendments to Section 502 of the City Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to dimensional requirements for nonconforming lots in the R-5S Residential District. A true copy of such proposed amendments is hereto attached. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the Planning Commission be, and hereby is, directed to transmit to the City Council its recommendation concerning the aforesaid amendments no later than sixty (60) days after the date of adoption of this Resolution. COMMENT The Resolution re~rs to the Planning Commissiona proposed amendments to § 502 of the Ci~ Zoning Ordinance. This amendment will delete the exception that allowed one substandard 35 ~ot lot when other substandard lots were resubdivided in the R-$S Residential Zoning District. The Resolution also directs the Planning Commission to transmit to the City Council its recommend~ion concerning the proposed amendments within 60 days of the date of adoption of the Resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. 31 32 33 34 CA-8626 noncode/CZO502(e) .res.wpd R-1 September 26, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Planning D~I~artrn~nt / APPROVED AS TO LEGAL Depa,~ment of Law 1 Requested by Councilmember Richard Maddox 2 3 4 5 6 7 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IN THE R-5S RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SECTION AMENDED: CZO ~502 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so require: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 502 of the City Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 502 Dimensional Requirements (e) (1) (2) (3) Nonconforming lots: Where a lot has less than the minimum requirements for the R-5S Residential District and said lot has continuously been a lot of record, in single and separate ownership from adjacent property, prior to and since the passage of this ordinance, said lot may be developed for any purpose permitted within the R-5S Residential District. However, if the owner of a lot which does not meet the minimum requirements of the R-5S Residential District, is the owner of or becomes the owner of another substandard lot adjacent to it and located in the same R-5S Residential District, he is not entitled to the exception in (1) above. In this instance, the owner of the two (2) or more adjacent substandard lots must combine the two (2) or more lots to form one which will meet or more closely approximate the frontage and area requirements of the ordinance applicable within the R-5S Residential District. The owner of contiguous substandard lots is prohibited from conveying one (1) or more of the substandard lots with the 35 36 37 38 41 --42 43 44 --45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 --53 54 55 _56 57 58 59 60 --61 62 63 -- 64 65 66 (4) result that both the grantors and the grantee possess lots entitled to an exception from the minimum lot requirements. Status as a single and separate owner may not be acquired after enactment of this ordinance by selling a parcel and reducing the remainder below the minimum lot requirements nor may an owner of several contiguous nonconforming parcels combine them so as to leave a substandard lot, and assert the right to exception in (1) above. As an =~=~v.~ to (~)'~), ~ ~ ~/ ~/ and .... 4) above, ~= oz more contlguou~ substandard lots ~n ~he I 5S Residential ~= .......... = ...................... to ........ h =.~,~ =~== == ~ ~.= d=~= of the passage of th~s oraznance, .... '' substandard~'-~ to a separate owner and may COhv6}- ~ %~/ s~ch ~ ...... ' ~ ,,,=3 be developed for any purpose permitted zn the ..... that he lot has ~uv~=~ that a~= satisfied as follows- ~ contiguous oubstandard loto in ~,,~,,~,, ownership ........................ describe than substandard lot of not less than thirty five (35) f~et ..... ty f .~,, and .............. ~hzz ~ve ,,~,,~=~ ,5~)~ square feet zn area. The remaining contiguous substandard lots shall be .................... to ....... : .... et lots ' conformity ................. ' ..... t'-- ~ .......... ...........................= - of -'' contlguous' substandard lots in cobb, on ownership shall be described on one (1) ............. plat 0.~.=~ who o==k to~=~=~ ....... on substandard lots shai' encouraged to adhere to ................... ~.= ~.~=~. ~=.~, infill .................... = .................... :- the Compzehen ..... 2 67 68 69 7O 71 72 73 74 75 76 eptl ................... = - -:-'- y rd - -th- -k '-=:-= : ........... pursuant to this subsection ............ '~' For the purposes of this section, lots are not regarded as adjacent where they form an "L", part of one being contiguous to the other. COUNT This amendment will delete the exception that allowed one substandard 35 foot lot when other substandard lots were resubdivided in the R-5S Residential ~ning District. 77 78 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-8626 Proposed\czo 502(e) R-3 September 25, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: 'Planning" ~ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Cit~ Attorney's' Off~c-e 3 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager $28 Million Water & Sewer Revenue Bond Sale MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002 Background: In the annual ClP process, City Council authorizes the issuance of Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds as a means of financing improvements to the Water & Sewer System. The Department of Public Utilities has indicated a need to issue $28 million of previously authorized Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds to meet its funding requirements. There are approximately 75 Water & Sewer projects associated with this bond sale. In some instances the bond proceeds will be reimbursing previous capital expenditures and for some projects the funding will be for future planned expenditures. After this issuance the City will have approximately $22 million of authorized but unissued Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds. Considerations: The City's Bond Counsel, Hunton & Williams, has prepared two resolutions. Under the Master Bond Resolution (MBR) approved by City Council in 1992, each bond sale is a supplement and amendment to the MBR. For this sale Bond Counsel has prepared the Seventh Supplemental Resolution providing for the issuance of $28 million Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series of 2002. In addition, a second resolution authorizes the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement and outlines the terms and conditions for the City Manager to award the bonds to the winning bidder. The bonds will be sold on a competitive basis provided, however, that the bonds shall have a true interest cost not to exceed 7% and a price not less than 99% of the principal amount. The bonds will be structured with principal maturities between 2013 and 2027. This structure will further the effort to produce annual level debt service for the outstanding debt of Water & Sewer Revenue Bond Program which is in the long term interest of the ratepayers. The proposed bond structure takes into consideration the FY03 debt service budget of the Department of Public Utilities. The bond sale is scheduled for pricing on October 29, 2002. The City will employ an electronic bidding system in accordance with the Official Notice of Sale. After today's Council action no further vote of the City Council will be necessary. The final terms of the bond sale will be provided to City Council. Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council Agenda process. The original Water and Sewer Revenue Bond authorizations were a part of the public information process for the Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program. Alternatives: There are no alternative funding sources at this time. This request follows previously approved ClPs. Recommendations: The two resolutions providing for the sale of $28 million Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds are recommended for City Council Approval. Attachments: Seventh Supplemental Resolution Amending the Master Bond Resolution Resolution Authorizing the Distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement (POS) and other actions in connection with the issuance of the bonds Draft of the Preliminary Official Statement Draft of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement (Appendix G of POS) Draft of the Official Notice of Sale (Appendix H of POS) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DISTRIBUTION OF A PRELIMINA11RY OFFICIAL' STATEMENT AND OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, OF ITS WATER AND SEW'ER SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES OF 2002 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City"), proposes to issue its Water and Sewer System Revenue Bonds, Series of 2002, in an amount not to exceed $28,000,000 (the "Bonds"); and WHEREAS, there have been presented to this meeting drafts of the following documents: (a) Notice of Sale, draft dated September 30, 2002 (the "Notice of Sale"), of the City relating to the advertisement of the public offering of the Bonds; (b) Preliminary Official Statement, draft dated September 30, 2002 (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), of the City relating to the public offering of the Bonds; and (c) Continuing Disclosure Agreement, draft dated September 30, 2002, pursuant to which the City agrees to undertake continuing disclosure obligations pursuant to Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule") promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") for the benefit of the holders of the Bonds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Council of the City (the "City Council") approves the following terms of the sale of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be sold by competitive bid, and the City Manager shall receive bids for the Bonds and award the Bonds to the bidder providing the lowest "me" or "Canadian" interest cost, subject to the following limitations. The Bonds (a) shall have a "tree" or "Canadian" interest cost not to exceed 7.0%, taking into account any original issue discount or premium, (b) shall be sold to the purchaser at a price not less than 99% of the principal amount thereof and (c) shall mature no later than the year 2027. 2. The City Manager, in collaboration with Government Finance Associates, Inc., and ARD/Govemment Finance Group, the City's financial advisors (the "Financial Advisors"), is authorized and directed to take all proper steps to advertise the Bonds for sale substantially in accordance with the form of Notice of Sale attached hereto, which is approved, provided that the City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisors, may make such changes in the Notice of Sale not inconsistent with this Resolution as he may consider to be in the best interest of the City. 3. The City authorizes the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement in form deemed "near final" as of its date, within the meaning of the Rule of the SEC, to prospective purchasers of the Bonds, xvith such completions, omissions, insertions and changes as may be approved by the City Manager. Such distribution shall constitute conclusive evidence of the approval of the City Manager as to any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes and that the City has deemed the Preliminary Official Statement to be near final as of its date. 4. The City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisors, is hereby authorized and directed to approve such completions, omissions, insertions and other changes to the Preliminary Official Statement necessary to reflect the terms of the sale of the Bonds and the details thereof appropriate to complete it as an official statement in final form (the "Official Statement") and to execute and deliver the Official Statement to the purchasers of the Bonds. Execution of the Official Statement by the City Manager shall constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes and that the Official Statement has been deemed final by the City as of its date within the meaning of the Rule. 5. The Mayor, the City Manager and such officer or officers of the City as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby author/zed and directed to execute the Continuing Disclosure Agreement, the form of which is approved, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes that are not inconsistent with this Resolution. 6. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bonds by manual or facsimile signature, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to countersign the Bonds and affix the seal of the City thereto or cause a facsimile thereof to be printed thereon, and the officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to deliver the Bonds to the registrar and paying agent for authentication and delivery to the purchasers of the Bonds. 7. The officers of the City are hereby author/zed and directed to execute, deliver and file all certificates and documents and to take all such further action as they may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds, including without limitation (a) execution and delivery ora certificate setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds 2 of the Bonds to show that such expected use and investment will not violate the provisions of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and regulations thereunder, applicable to "arbitrage bonds," (b) making any elections that such officers deem desirable regarding any provision requiring rebate to the United States of"arbitrage profits" earned on investment of proceeds of the Bonds, and (c) filing Internal Revenue Service Form 8038-G. The foregoing shall be subject to the advice, approval and direction of bond counsel. 8. Any authorization herein to execute a document shall include authorization to deliver it to the other parties thereto. 9. All other acts of the officers of the City that are in conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of the issuance and sale of the Bonds are hereby approved and ratified. 10. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. Adopted bythe Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ~ 2002. day of October, CA-8637 noncode/VAB 2002 W&S POS.res.wpd October 1, 2002 R1 Approved as to Content: Finance Depmmel~ ' Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: City Attorney's Offie¥ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA SEVENTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION SUPPLEMENTING AND AMENDING RESOLUTION ADOPTED FEBRUARY 11, 1992, ENTITLED "MASTER WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BOND RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE FROM TIME TO TIME OF ONE OR MORE SERIES OF WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH," AS PREVIOUSLY SUPPLEMENTED AND AMENDED, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF UP TO $28,000,000 OF WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SEI~W~S OF 2002, AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM, DETAILS AND PAYMENT THEREOF AND THE FINANCING OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY'S WATER AND SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES ADOPTED ON OCTOBER__, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I SEVENTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION Pace Section 7.101. Seventh Supplemental Resolution ........................................................................... 2 Section 7.102. Meaning of Terms; Definitions ................................................................................ 2 Section 7.103. Reference to Articles and Sections .......................................................................... 2 ARTICLE 2002 PROJECT Section 7.201. Authorization of 2002 Project .................................................................................. 3 ARTICLE III Section 7.301. Section 7.302. Section 7.303. Section 7.304. Section 7.305. Section 7.306. Section 7.307. ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SERIES OF 2002 BONDS Issuance and Sale of Series of 2002 Bonds ............................................................. 3 Details of Series of 2002 Bonds ............................................................................... 3 Book Entry System .................................................................................................. 4 Registrar ................................................................................................................... 5 Form of Series of 2002 Bonds ................................................................................. 5 Security for Series of 2002 Bonds ........................................................................... 5 Application of Proceeds ........................................................................................... 5 ARTICLE IV REDEMPTION OF SERIRS OF 2002 BONDS Section 7.401. Optional Redemption Provisions ............................................................................. 6 Section 7.402. Mandatory Redemption ........................................................................................... 6 Section 7.403. Manner of Redemption ............................................................................................ 6 Section 7.404. Notice of Redemption .............................................................................................. 6 ARTICLE V FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS Section 7.501. Limitation of Use of Proceeds ................................................................................. 7 Section 7.502. Rebate Requirement ................................................................................................. 8 Section 7.503. Calculation and Payment of Rebate Amount ........................................................... 8 (i) ARTICLE VI MISCELLANEOUS Section 7.601. Limitation of Rights ................................................................................................. 9 Section 7.602. SNAP Investment ..................................................................................................... 9 Section 7.603. Severability .............................................................................................................. 9 Section 7.604. Effective Date .......................................................................................................... 9 Appendix A - Description of the 2002 Project ........................................................................... A-1 Appendix B - Form of the Series of 2002 Bonds ......................................................................... B-1 (ii) SEVENTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION SUPPLEMENTING AND AMENDING RESOLUTION ADOPTED FEBRUARY 11, 1992, ENTITLED "MASTER WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BOND RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE FROM TIME TO TIME OF ONE OR MORE SERIES OF WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH," AS PREVIOUSLY SUPPLEMENTED AND AMENDED, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF UP TO $28,000,000 OF WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES OF 2002, AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM, DETAILS AND PAYMENT THEREOF AND THE FINANCING OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY'S WATER AND SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES WHEREAS, the Council (the "Council") of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City"), adopted a resolution on February 11, 1992 (the "Master Resolution"), providing for the issuance from time to time of water and sewer revenue bonds to finance the cost of improvements and extensions to its water and sanitary sewer system; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to issue pursuant to the Master Resolution up to $481,001 of the $14,560,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on December 6, 1990, up to $1,880,179 of the $13,770,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on November 12, 1991, up to $228,208 of the $5,450,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on November 23, 1993, up to $5,773,442 of the $14,080,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 10, 1994, up to $1,464,354 of the $6,593,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 9, 1995, up to $1,023,216 of the $6,960,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 14, 1996, up to $1,580,331 of the $12,730,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 13, 1997, up to $5,069,187 of the $11,600,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 12, 1998, up to $3,116,281 of the $9,513,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 11, 1999, up to $3,186,381 of the $7,890,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 9, 2000, up to $2,475,513 of the $11,000,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 15, 2001, and up to $1,721,907 of the $6,930,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 14, 2002, and to sell such bonds as a single issue in a collective amount equal to $28,000,000; and WHEREAS, the City is not in default under the Master Resolution or in payment of the principal of or interest on the Outstanding Bonds (as defined in the Master Resolution); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: ARTICLE I SEVENTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION Section 7.101. Seventh Supplemental Resolution. This Seventh Supplemental Resolution is adopted pursuant to and in accordance with Section 1101(g) of the Master Resolution. All covenants, conditions and agreements of the Master Resolution shall apply with equal force and effect to the Series of 2002 Bonds (as hereinai~er defined) and to the holders thereof, except as otherwise provided herein. Section 7.102. Meaning of Terms; Definitions. All capitalized terms used herein, and not defined either in this Section or elsewhere in this Seventh Supplemental Resolution (including the recitals hereto), shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Master Resolution. The following terms shall have the following meanings in this Seventh Supplemental Resolution. "2002 Project" shall mean the acquisitions, improvements, extensions, additions and replacements to the System as described in Article "II". "DTC" shall mean The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, a securities depository, as holder of the Series of 2002 Bonds, or its successors or assigns in such capacity. "Rebate Amount" shall mean the excess of (a) the future value of all nonpurpose receipts with respect to the Series of 2002 Bonds over (b) the future value of all nonpurpose payments with respect to the Series of 2002 Bonds, in each case calculated under Section 7.503 pursuant to the requirements of Section 148 of the Code, or such other amount of arbitrage required to be rebated to the United States of America under Section 148 of the Code. "Rebate Amount Certificate" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 7.503. "Registrar" shall mean The Bank of New York, New York, New York, as paying agent and bond registrar for the Series of 2002 Bonds. "Series of 2002 Bonds" shall mean the Water and Sewer System Revenue Bonds, Series of 2002, in the amount up to $28,000,000 to be issued in accordance with the provisions of Article "Seventh Supplemental Resolution" shall mean this Seventh Supplemental Resolution which supplements the Master Resolution. Section 7.103. Reference to Articles and Sections Unless otherwise indicated, all references herein to particular articles or sections are references to articles or sections of this Seventh Supplemental Resolution. 2 ARTICLE II 2002 PROJECT Section 7.201. Authorization of 2002 Project. The Council has authorized the acquisitions, improvements, extensions, additions and replacements to the System described on Appendix A, which are pan of the approved capital improvement program of the City. ARTICLE HI ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SERIES OF 2002 BONDS Section 7.301. Issuance and Sale of Series of 2002 Bonds. The City hereby provides for the issuance of water and sewer system revenue bonds in a principal amount up to $28,000,000, consisting of up to $481,001 of the $14,560,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on December 5, 1990, up to $1,880,179 of the $13,770,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on November 12, 1991, up to $228,208 of the $5,450,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on November 23, 1993, up to $5,773,442 of the $14,080,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 10, 1994, up to $1,454,354 of the $5,593,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 9, 1995, up to $1,023,215 of the $5,950,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 14, 1995, up to $1,580,331 of the $12,730,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 13, 1997, up to $5,059,187 of the $11,500,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 12, 1998, up to $3,115 281 of the $9,513,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 11, 1999, up to $3,186,381 of the $7,890,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 9, 2000, up to $2,475,513 of the $11,000,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 15, 2001, and up to $1,721,907 of the $6,930,000 water and sewer system revenue bonds authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Council on May 14, 2002, which such bonds shall be issued and sold. The proceeds thereof shall be used to pay the Cost of the 2002 Project. All such bonds shall constitute Bonds, as defined in the Master Resolution. Section 7.302. Details of Series of 2002 Bonds. (a) The Series of 2002 Bonds shall be designated "Water and Sewer System Revenue Bonds, Series of 2002," shall be numbered R-1 upward, shall be dated, shall be in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $28,000,000, shall bear interest at rates, payable semiannually on such dates and shall mature in installments on such dates and in years and amounts, all as determined by the City Manager to be in the best interest of the City. (b) Principal of the Series of 2002 Bonds and the premium, if any, thereon shall be payable to the holders upon the surrender of such Bonds at the principal corporate trust office of the Registrar. Interest on the Series of 2002 Bonds shall be payable by check or draft mailed tO the holders as of the 15th day of the month prior to each interest payment date, at their addresses as they appear on the registration books kept by the Registrar. (c) Except as otherwise provided herein, the Series of 2002 Bonds shall be payable, executed, authenticated, registrable, exchangeable and secured, all as set forth in the Master Resolution. Section 7.303. Book Entry System. Initially, one Series of 2002 Bond certificate for each maturity will be issued to DTC, which is designated as the securities depository for the Series of 2002 Bonds, or its nominee, and immobilized in its custody. Beneficial owners of the Series of 2002 Bonds will not receive physical delivery of the Series of 2002 Bonds. So long as DTC is acting as securities depository for the Series of 2002 Bonds, a book entry system shall be employed, evidencing ownership of the Series of 2002 Bonds in principal amounts of $5,000 or multiples thereof, with transfers of beneficial ownership effected on the records of DTC and its participants pursuant to rules and procedures established by DTC and its participants. Interest on the Series of 2002 Bonds shall be payable in clearinghouse funds to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Seres of 2002 Bonds. Principal, premium, if any, and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America by the Registrar. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC shall be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants of DTC will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The City and the Registrar shall not be responsible or liable for maintaining, supervising or reviewing the records maintained by DTC, its participants or persons acting through such participants. In the event that (a) DTC determines not to continue to act as securities depository for the Series of 2002 Bonds by giving notice to the City and the Registrar discharging its responsibilities hereunder, (b) the Registrar or the City determines that DTC is incapable of discharging its duties or that continuation with DTC as securities depository is not in the best interest of the City, or (c) the Registrar or the City determines that continuation of the book entry system of evidencing ownership and transfer of ownership of the Series of 2002 Bonds is not in the best interest of the City or the beneficial owners of the Series of 2002 Bonds, the Registrar and the City shall discontinue the book entry system with DTC. If the Registrar or the City fails to identify another qualified securities depository to replace DTC, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver replacement bonds in the form of fully registered certificates to the beneficial owners or to the DTC participants on behalf of beneficial owners, substantially in the form as set forth in Appendix B with such variations, omissions or insertions as are necessary or desirable in the delivery of replacement certificates in printed form. The Series of 2002 Bonds would then be registrable and exchangeable as set forth in Section 204 of the Master Resolution. 4 So long as DTC is the securities depository for the Series of 2002 Bonds (a) it shall be the registered owner of the Series of 2002 Bonds, Co) transfers of ownership and exchanges shall be effected on the records of DTC and its participants pursuant to rules and procedures established by DTC and its participants, and (c) references in this Seventh Supplemental Resolution to holders of the Series of 2002 Bonds shall mean DTC or its nominee and shall not mean the beneficial owners of the Series of 2002 Bonds. Section 7.304. Registrar. The selection of The Bank of New York as paying agent and bond registrar for the Series of 2002 Bonds is approved. Section 7.305. Form of Series of 2002 Bonds. The Series of 2002 Bonds shall be in substantially the form set forth in Appendix B with such variations, omissions and insertions as may be necessary to set forth the details thereof pursuant to Article H of the Master Resolution and Article IH hereof. Section 7.306. Security for Series of 2002 Bonds. The Series of 2002 Bonds shall be issued pursuant to the Master Resolution and this Seventh Supplemental Resolution and shall be equally and ratably secured under and to the extent provided in the Master Resolution with the Prior Parity Bonds, any Bonds that may be issued under the Master Resolution, any Parity Double Barrel Bonds that may be issued and any Parity Debt Service Components that may be incurred, without preference, priority or distinction of any obligations over any other obligations; provided, however, the Debt Service Reserve Fund will secure only the Bonds. Section 7.307. Application of Proceeds. The proceeds of the Series of 2002 Bonds shall be apphed as follows: (a) An amount representing accrued interest on the Series of 2002 Bonds from their dated date to their date of delivery shall be paid to the Fiscal Agent and deposited in the Interest Account in the Revenue Bond Fund. Co) The amount of Series of 2002 Bond proceeds necessary, together with amounts on deposit in the Debt Service Reserve Fund, to equal the Debt Service Reserve Requirement after the issuance of the Series of 2002 Bonds shall be paid to the Fiscal Agent and deposited into the Debt Service Reserve Fund. (c) The balance of the proceeds shall be retained by the City and deposited in a General Account in the Construction Fund to be used to pay the Cost of the 2002 Project and to pay expenses incident to issuing the Series of 2002 Bonds. ARTICLE IV REDEMPTION OF sERIES OF 2002 BONDS Section 7.401. Optional Redemption Provisions. (a) The Series of 2002 Bonds may be subject to redemption prior to maturity at the option of the City on or after dates, if any, determined by the City Manager, in whole or in part at any time at redemption prices equal to the principal amount of the Series of 2002 Bonds, together with any accrued interest to the redemption date, plus redemption premiums not to exceed 2% of the principal amount of the Series of 2002 Bonds, as such redemption premiums may be determined by the City Manager. Section 7.402. Mandatory Redemption. The Series of 2002 Bonds may be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption prior to maturity in years and amounts, upon payment of 100% of the principal amount thereof to be redeemed plus interest accrued to the redemption date, as may be determined by the City Manager. Section 7.403. Manner of Redemption. If less than all the Series of 2002 Bonds are called for redemption, the maturities of the Series of 2002 Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected in such manner as the City Manager or the chief financial officer of the City may determine to be in the best interest of the City. If less than all of the Series of 2002 Bonds of any maturity are called for redemption, the Series of 2002 Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by DTC or any successor securities depository pursuant to its rules and procedures or, if the book entry system is discontinued, shall be selected by the Registrar by lot in such manner as the Registrar at its discretion may determine. In either case, (a) the portion of any Series of 2002 Bond to be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of $5,000 or some integral multiple thereof and Co) in selecting Series of 2002 Bonds for redemption, each portion of $5,000 principal amount shall be counted as one bond for this purpose. Section 7.404. Notice of Redemption. (a) Notice of redemption of the Series of 2002 Bonds shall be given in the manner set forth in Section 402 of the Master Resolution. Co) In the case of an optional redemption, the notice may state that (1) it is conditioned upon the deposit of moneys, in an amount equal to the amount necessary to effect the redemption, with an escrow agent no later than the redemption date or (2) the City retains the right to rescind such notice on or prior to the scheduled redemption date (in either case, a "Conditional Redemption"), and such notice and optional redemption shall be of no effect if such moneys are not so deposited or if the notice is rescinded as described herein. Any Conditional Redemption may be rescinded at any time prior to the redemption date, and the Registrar shall give prompt notice of such rescission to the affected Series of 2002 Bondholders. Any Series of 2002 Bonds subject to Conditional Redemption where redemption has been rescinded shall remain Outstanding, and the rescission shall not constitute an Event of Default. Further, in the case of a Conditional Redemption, the failure of the City to make funds available on or before the redemption date shall not constitute an Event of Default, and the Registrar shall give immediate notice to all organizations registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as securities depositories or the affected Series of 2002 Bondholders that the redemption did not occur and that the Series of 2002 Bonds called for redemption and not so paid remain outstanding. ARTICLE V FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS Section 7.501. Limitation of Use of Proceeds. The City covenants with the holders of the Series of 2002 Bonds as follows: (a) The City shall not take or omit to take any action or make any investment or use of the proceeds of any Series of 2002 Bonds (including failure to spend the same with due diligence) the taking or omission of which would cause the Series of 2002 Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code, including without limitation participating in any issue of obligations that would cause the Series of 2002 Bonds to be part of an "issue" of obligations that are arbitrage bonds, within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.148- 10 or successor regulation, or otherwise cause interest on the Series of 2002 Bonds to be includable in the gross income of the registered owners under existing law. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the City shall comply with any provision of law that may require the City at any time to rebate to the United States of America any part of the earnings derived from the investment of gross proceeds of the Series of 2002 Bonds. Co) The City shall not permit the proceeds of the Series of 2002 Bonds or the facilities to be financed with such proceeds to be used in any manner that would result in either (1) 5% or more of such proceeds or the facilities being financed with such proceeds being considered as having been used in any trade or business carried on by any person other than a governmental unit as provided in Section 141(b) of the Code, (2) 5% or more of such proceeds or the facilities being financed with such proceeds being used with respect to any "output facility" (other than a facility for the furnishing of water) within the meaning of Section 14I(b)(4) of the Code, or (3) 5% or more of such proceeds being considered as having been used directly or indirectly to make or finance loans to any person other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(c) of the Code; provided, however, that if the City receives an opinion of Bond Counsel that compliance with any such covenant is not required to prevent the interest on the Series of 2002 Bonds from being includable in the gross income of the registered owners thereof under existing law, the City need not comply with such restriction. (c) The City shall not take any other action that would adversely affect, and shall take all action within its power necessary to maintain, the exclusion of interest on all Series of 2002 Bonds from gross income for federal income taxation purposes. 7 Section 7.502. Rebate Requirement. The City' shall determine and pay, from any legally available source, the Rebate Amount, if any, to the United States of America, as and when due, in accordance with the "rebate requirement" described in Section 148(f) of the Code and retain records of all such determinations until six years after payment of the Series of 2002 Bonds. Section 7.503. Calculation and Payment of Rebate Amount. (a) The City selects October 1 as the end of the bond year with respect to the Series of 2002 Bonds pursuant to Treasury Regulation Section 1.148-1. (b) Within 30 days after the initial installment computation date, the last day of the fifth bond year (October 1, 2007), unless such date is changed by the City prior to the date that any amount with respect to the Series of 2002 Bonds is paid or required to be paid to the United States of America as required by Section 148 of the Code, and at least once every five years thereafter, the City shall cause the Rebate Amount to be computed. Prior to any payment of the Rebate Amount to the United States of America as required by Section 148 of the Code, such computation (the "Rebate Amount Certificate") setting forth such Rebate Amount shall be prepared or approved by (1) a person with experience in matters of governmental accounting for Federal income tax purposes or (2) a bona fide arbitrage rebate calculation reporting service. (c) Not later than 60 days after the initial installment computation date, the City shall pay to the United States of America at least 90% of the Rebate Amount as set forth in the Rebate Amount Certificate prepared with respect to such installment computation date. At least once on or before 60 days after the installment computation date that is the fifth anniversary of the initial installment computation date and on or before 60 days every fifth auniversa~y date thereafter until final payment of the Series of 2002 Bonds, the City shall pay to the United States of America not less than the amount, if any, by which 90% of the Rebate Amount set forth in the most recent Rebate Amount Certificate exceeds the aggregate of all such payments theretofore made to the United States of America pursuant to this Section. On or before 50 days after final payment of the Series of 2002 Bonds, the City shall pay to the United States of America the amount, if any, by which 100% of the Rebate Amount set forth in the Rebate Amount Certificate with respect to the date of final payment of the Series of 2002 Bonds exceeds the aggregate of all payments theretofore made pursuant to this Section. All such payments shall be made by the City from any legally available source. (d) Notwithstanding any provision of this Article to the contrary, no such calculation or payment shall be made if the City receives an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that (1) such payment is not required under the Code in order to prevent the Series of 2002 Bonds from becoming "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code or (2) such payment should be calculated and paid on some alternative basis under the Code, and the City complies with such alternative basis. ARTICLE VI MISCELLANEOUS Section 7.601. Limitation of Rights. With the exception of the rights herein expressly conferred, nothing expressed or mentioned in or to be implied from this Seventh Supplemental Resolution is intended or shall be construed to give any person other than the parties hereto and the holders of the Series of 2002 Bonds any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or in respect to this Seventh Supplemental Resolution or any covenant, condition or agreement herein contained, this Seventh Supplemental Resolution and all of the covenants, conditions and agreements hereof being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the holders of the Series of 2002 Bonds as herein provided. Section 7.60:2. SNAP Investment. The Council has received and reviewed the Information Statement (the "Information Statement") describing the State Non-Arbitrage Program of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("SNAP") and the Contract Creating the State Non-Arbitrage Program Pool I (the "Contract"). The Council acknowledges the Treasury Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia is not, and shall not be, in any way liable to the City in connection with SNAP, except as otherwise provided in the Contract. Section 7.603. Severabitity. If any provision of this Seventh Supplemental Resolution shall be held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate any other provision hereof. Section 7.604. Effective Date. This Seventh Supplemental Resolution shall take effect immediately. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2002. CA-8635 R-1 October 2, 2002 9 APPRO.~'ED ~AS TO SIGNATUF..c- D;?-~' LT:..:,'.!. !..r Description of the 2002 Project City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Water and Sewer System Revenue Bonds Series of 2002 APPENDIX A The 2002 Project consists of extensions, improvements, enlargements, additions and replacements to the plants, systems, facilities, equipment or property owned, in whole or in part, acquired, operated or maintained by or on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in connection with the collection, treatment or disposal of sanitary sewer and the supply, treatment, storage or distribution of water. The water system improvements include but are not limited to replacement of existing water mains, construction of new water mains, modification of existing pump stations and small line improvements. The sanitary sewer system improvements include but are not limited to construction of new gravity sanitary sewers, construction of new force mains, modification of existing pumping stations and construction of new pumping stations. A-1 APPENDIX B FORM OF SERIES OF 2002 BOND Unless this certificate is presented by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company, a New York corporation ("DTC'), to the issuer or its agent for registration of transfer, exchange, or payment, and any certificate is registered in the name of Cede & Co., or in such other name as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC (and any payment is made to Cede & Co. or to such other entity as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC), ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE, OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR VALUE OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL inasmuch as the registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein. REGISTERED REGISTERED R- $ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Water and Sewer System Revenue Bond, Series of 2002 INTEREST RATE MATURITY DATE DATED DATE CUSIP % October 1, __ October 15, 2002 REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: DOLLARS The City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City"), for value received, hereby promises to pay upon surrender hereof at the principal corporate trust office of The Bank of New York, New York, New York (the "Registrar"), solely from the source and as hereinafter provided, to the registered owner hereof, or registered assigns or legal representative, the principal sum stated above on the maturity date stated above, subject to prior redemption as hereinafter provided, and to pay, solely from such source, interest hereon semiannually on each April 1 and October 1, beginning April 1, 2003, at the annual rate stated above, calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. Interest is payable (a) from October 1, 2002, if this Bond is authenticated prior to April 1, 2003, or (b) otherwise from the April 1 or October 1 that is, or immediately precedes, the date on which this Bond is authenticated (unless payment of interest hereon is in default, in which case this Bond shall bear interest from the date to which interest has been paid). Interest is payable by check or drai~ mailed to the registered owner hereof at his address as it appears on the 15th day of the month preceding each interest payment date on registration books kept by the Registrar. Principal, premium, if any, and interest are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. B-1 Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, this Bond is subject to a book entry system maintained by The Depository Trust Company ("DTC") and the payment of principal and interest, the providing of notices and other matters will be made as described in the City's Blanket Letter of'Representations to DTC. This Bond is one of an issue of $28,000,000 Water and Sewer System Revenue Bonds, Series of 2002 (the "Bonds"), of like date and tenor, except as to number, denomination, rate of interest, privilege of redemption and maturity, authorized and issued pursuant to ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council including a resolution adopted on February 11, 1992, as previously supplemented and as supplemented and amended by a resolution adopted on October 8, 2002 (collectively, the "Resolution"), and the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the City Charter and the Public Finance Act of 1991, to provide funds, together with other available funds, to pay the cost of the acquisition and construction of improvements and extensions to the City's water and sanitary sewer system (the "System"), as more fully described in the Resolution. The Bonds and the premium, if any, and the interest thereon are limited obligations of the City and are payable solely from the revenues to be derived from the ownership or operation of the System, as the same may fi.om time to time exist, except to the extent payable from the proceeds of the Bonds, the income, if any, derived from the investment thereof, certain reserves, income fi.om investments pursuant to the Resolution or proceeds of insurance, which revenues and other moneys have been pledged as described in the Resolution to secure payment thereof. The Bonds, the premium, if any, and the interest thereon are payable solely from the revenues pledged thereto in the Resolution, and nothing herein or in the Resolution shall be deemed to create or constitute an indebtedness of or a pledge of the faith and credit of the Commonwealth of Virginia or of any county, city, town or other political subdivision of the Commonwealth, including the City. The Bonds are issued under and are equally and ratably secured on a parity with the unpaid balance of the City's $5,100,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Notes, 1977 (P.A. Corp.), $2,000,000 Drought Relief Revenue Bond, 1978, $2,200,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Notes, 1982 (County Utilities), $1,800,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Notes, 1982 (Kempsville Utilities), $45,440,000 Water and Sewer System Revenue and Refunding Bonds, Series of 1993, $1,405,031.35 Taxable Water and Sewer System Revenue Bond, Series of 1994, $7,500,000 Taxable Water and Sewer System Revenue Bond, Series of 1997, $5,200,000 Taxable Water and Sewer System' Revenue Bond, Series of 1998, and $40,000,000 Water and Sewer System Revenue Bonds, Series of 2000 (collectively, the "Parity Bonds"), to the extent set forth in the Resolution. Reference is hereby made to the Resolution and all amendments and supplements thereto for a description of the provisions, among others, with respect to the nature and extent of the security, the rights, duties and obligations of the City, the rights of the holders of the Bonds and the terms upon which the Bonds are issued and secured. Additional bonds ranking equally with the Bonds and the Parity Bonds may be issued on the terms provided in the Resolution. The Bonds are subject to redemption beginning October 15, 2012, in whole or in part at any time, at the option of the City, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of Bonds to be redeemed plus interest accrued and unpaid to the redemption date. B-2 Bonds maturing on October 1, , are required to be redeemed prior to maturity, in part, in accordance with the sinking fund requirements of Section 7.402 of the resolution adopted on October 8, 2002, on October 1 in years and amounts upon payment of 100% of the principal amount thereof plus interest accrued to the redemption date, as follows: Year Amount Year Amount The amount of the Bonds required to be redeemed pursuant to the preceding paragraph may be reduced in accordance with provisions of the Resolution. If less than all the Bonds are called for redemption, the maturities of the Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected in such manner as the City Manager or the chief financial officer of the City may determine to be in the best interest of the City. If less than all of the Bonds of any maturity are called for redemption, the Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by DTC or any successor securities depository pursuant to its rules and procedures or, if the book entry system is discontinued, shall be selected by the Registrar by lot in such manner as the Registrar in its discretion may determine. In either case, (a) the portion of any Bond to be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of $5,000 or some integral multiple thereof and (b) in selecting Bonds for redemption, each portion of $5,000 principal amount shall be counted as one bond for this purpose. If a portion of a Bond is called for redemption, a new Bond in principal amount equal to the unredeemed portion thereof will be issued to the registered owner upon the surrender hereof. The Registrar will cause notice of the call for redemption identifying the Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed to be sent by registered or certified mail, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the redemption date, to DTC or its nominee as the registered owner thereof. The City will not be responsible for mailing notice of redemption to anyone other than DTC or another qualified securities depository or its nominee unless no qualified securities depository is the registered owner of the Bonds. If no qualified securities depository is the registered owner of the Bonds, notice of redemption will be mailed to the registered owners of the Bonds. Provided funds for their redemption are on deposit at the place of payment on the redemption date, all Bonds or portions thereof so called for redemption shall cease to bear interest on such date, shall no longer be secured as set forth in the Resolution and shall not be deemed to be outstanding under the provisions of the Resolution. The registered owner of this Bond shall have no fight to enforce the provisions of the Resolution or to institute action to enforce the covenants therein or to take any action with respect to any Event of Default under the Resolution or to institute, appear in or defend any suit or other proceedings with respect thereto, except as provided in the Resolution. Modifications or alterations of the Resolution, or of any supplement thereto, may be made only to the extent and in the circumstances permitted by the Resolution. B-3 The Registrar shall treat the registered owner as the person exclusively entitled to payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest and the exercise of all other fights and powers of the owner, except that interest payments shall be made to the person shown as owner on the 15th day of the month preceding each interest payment date. All acts, conditions and things required to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have happened, exist and have been performed. This Bond shall not be valid or be entitled to any security or benefit under the Resolution until the Registrar shall have executed the Certificate of Authentication appearing hereon and inserted the date of authentication hereon. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of V/rginia Beach, Virginia, has caused this Bond to be signed by the manual signature of its Mayor, to be countersigned by the manual signature of its Clerk, its seal to be impressed hereon, and this Bond to be dated October 15, 2002. COUNTERSIGNED: Clerk, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Mayor, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Date Authenticated: CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the within-mentioned Resolution. THE BANK OF NEW YORK, Registrar By Authorized Signature B-4 ASSIGNMENT FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned hereby sell(s), assign(s) and transfer(s) unto (please print or typewrite name and address including zip code of Transferee) PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF TRANSFEREE the within-mentioned Bond and all fights thereunder, hereby irrevocably constituting and appointing Attorney, to t~ansfer said Bond on the books kept for the registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Signature Guaranteed NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an Eligible Guarantor Institution such as a Commercial Bank, Trust Company, Securities Broker/Dealer, Credit Union or Savings Association who is a member of a medallion program approved by The Securities Transfer Association, Inc. (Signature of Registered Owner) NOTICE: The signature above must correspond with the name of the registered owner as it appears on the front of this bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever. B~5 PLANNING Application of MOTHERS, INC. for the reconstruction and conversion of a nonconforming garage apartment into a nonconforming single family residence at 16t~ Street and Baltic Avenu~ (417 ½ 16th Street), containing 5,000 square feet (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) Recommendation: DENIAL ° Application of DAVID ELGIN for modification of acreage allowed by the Conditional Use Permit for a church at Providence Road and Waring Street (5724 Providence Road) (approved June 26, 1965), containing 2.02 acres (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Applications of HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. at North Landing and West Neck Roads, containing 65.1 acres: (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Change of Zoning District Classification fi.om AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R-30 Residential re single family lots no less than 30,000 sq. ft. b. Conditional Use Permit re Open Space Co Variance Appeal re certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 4.4Co), that requires all newly created lots meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) and reduce required street width Deferred: Recommendation: July 9 and August 13, 2002 INDEFINITE DEFERRAL Application of TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP for a Conditional Use Permit re a church at Challedon and South Parliament Drives (5245 Challedon Drive), containing 16,247.88 square feet. (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL M~a~o M-6 ~o~ No~ ~o ~c~le Mother's, Inc. Gpin 2427-06-6534 ZONING HISTOFIY Rezoning (R-5S Residential to RT-4 Resort Tourist) and Conditional Use Permit (Childcare) -Withdrawn 9-26-88 Conditional Use Permit (Commercial / Church Parking Lot) - Approved 8-14-01 Conditional Use Permit (Church / School Expansion) - Approved 5-9-95 Conditional Use Permit (School) -Approved 9-25-90 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Mother's Inc., Expansion of a Non-Conforming Use MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002 Background: ' Application of Mothers, Inc. for the demolition and construction of a nonconforming use on the north side of 16th Street, 50 feet east of Baltic Avenue. Parcel is located at 417 ~ 16th Street and contains 5,000 square feet (GPIN #2427-06-6534). DISTRICT 6 - BEACH. Considerations: The applicant has been cited by the City's Housing Inspector of this area for numerous Housing Code violations on the exterior and the interior of the structure. The Housing Inspector has granted two (2) extensions of the notice based on the applicant's representation that she is receiving assistance from a local church to make the necessary repairs to the structure. The applicant's application states that as they began to repair the structure they realized "that due to poor drainage and ventilation this is a sick building". They do not want to cover up or otherwise beautify the building and risk the illness of a child or mother who may live there in the future. The applicant proposes to demolish the garage apartment and reconstruct a single-family dwelling with similar floor space. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing garage apartment and build a single-family dwelling in its place. The proposed structure is two stories with living area, kitchen, laundry room, and bathroom on the first floor. The second floor will contain two bedrooms. The applicant proposes to build the dwelling in the footprint of the existing garage apartment. The Council of Amedcan Building Officials (CABO) 1 & 2 Family Building Code requires that structures located less than three (3) feet from a property line have no unprotected openings, such as doors and windows, and the walls must have a minimum one (1) hour fire rating. Additionally the CABO 1 & 2 Family Building Code requires that all bedrooms have egress windows. With the current submitted building configuration, the applicant will not be able to meet the CABO 1 & 2 Family Building Code requirements. Recommendations: Pursuant to Section 105(e) of the City Zoning Ordinance, a nonconforming structure may be enlarged only if the City Council finds that the proposed structure, as enlarged, will be "equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than is the existing nonconformity." Staff concludes that the proposed enlargement is not reasonable, because it will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area, and will not be as appropriate to the district as Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Submitting Dep~rtment/Ager~cy: Planning Department City Manager: ~ ~/~-' _ Mother's Inc. Page 2 the existing non-conforming use. Approval of the request, resulting in demolition of a garage apartment and construction of a single-family dwelling unit in its place, would create more of a non-conformity than currently exists on the site. Approval of a second dwelling on the site would not be in keeping with the character of the immediate area and is not consistent with the City Zoning Ordinance provisions for the A-12 Apartment District. 1 2 3 4 5 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RECONSTRUCTION AND CONVERSION OF A NONCONFORMING GARAGE APARTMENT INTO A NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON' PROPERTY LOCATED AT 417 ~ 16TM STREET, IN THE BEACH DISTRICT 6 7 -- 8 9 10 -- 11 12 13 14 15 -- 16 17 18 -- 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 "27 28 29 __ 30 31 32 33 WHEREAS, Mother'S Inc., (hereinafter the "Applicant") has made application to the City Council for authorization to reconstruct and convert the use of a nonconforming garage apartment into a nonconforming single-family dwelling situated on a certain lot or parcel of land having the address of 417 ~ 16?~ Street, in the A-12 Apartment Zoning District; WHEREAS, the said garage apartment is a nonconforming structure, in that the dwelling does not meet setback requirements and garage apartments are not allowed in the A-12 Apartment Zoning District, and single-family dwellings are also not allowed in the A-12 Apartment ZonLng District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 105 of the City Zoning Ordinance, the reconstruction and conversion of a nonconforming structure is unlawful in the absence of a resolution of the City Council authorizing such action upon a finding that the proposed structure, as reconstructed and converted, will be equally appropriate or more appropriate to the zoning district 5han is the existing structure; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed structure, as reconstructed and converted in use, will be equally appropriate to the district as is the existing structure. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the proposed reconstruction and conversion of the Applicant's nonconforming garage apartment into a nonconforming single-family dwelling is hereby authorized. 34 35 the ~dopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on day of , 2002. CA-8630 bkw/wor k/nonconmothers, wpd R-1 September 25, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: -P!~nning ' APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: De~'r~m~t ot~ Lgw '-- 2 MOTHER'S INC. October 8, 2002 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: REQUEST: ADDRESS: M06 - 210 - NON - 2002 Change to a Non-Conforming Use The applicant proposes to demolish an existing garage apartment and to construct a single-family dwelling in its place. 417 16th Street, north side of 16th Street, 50 feet east of Baltic Avenue Mother's GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: 24270665340000 6 - BEACH 5,000 square feet Faith Christie Gpin 2427-06-6534 Major Issues: Insuring that the demolition of the nonconforming garage apartment and construction of a single-family dwelling is no more detrimental to the neighborhood, and is as appropriate to the district as the existing non- conforming use. It is the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance to allow Change to a Non-Conforming Use MOTHER'S INC. Page I nonconformities to continue until they are removed; however, it is not the · intent of the ordinance to allow nonconformities to be increased in magnitude by enlargement or expansion except by resolution of the City Council. Additionally, no nonconforming use shall be converted to another nonconforming use, which does not conform to the ordinance, except, by resolution of City Council. Single-family dwellings and garage apartments are both nonconforming uses in the A-12 Apartment district. The City Zoning Ordinance defines a garage apartment as "a structure above a private garage in which provision is made for one (1) dwelling unit, requiring an interior stairway to the second floor, provided that the living area does not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area and the height does not exceed twenty-eight (28) feet." Background Information: The applicant has been cited by the City's Housing Inspector of this area for numerous Housing Code violations on the exterior and the interior of the structure. The Housing Inspector has granted two (2) extensions of the notice based on the applicant's representation that she is receiving assistance from a local church to make the necessary repairs to the structure. The applicant's application states that as they began to repair the structure they realized "that due to poor drainage and ventilation this is a sick building", They do not want to cover up or otherwise beautify the building and risk the illness of a child or mother who may live there in the future. The applicant proposes to demolish the garage apartment and reconstruct a single-family dwelling with similar floor space. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zoning A single-family dwelling and a garage apartment occupy the property. The site is zoned A-12 Apartment District, Both structures are nonconforming as single- family dwelling and garage apartments are not permitted either as a principal or conditional use in the A-12 Apartment district. Additions to exist~rig single-family dwellings are permitted in the A-12 Apartment district. Surroundinq Land Use and Zonin,q NoAh: South: East: West: · Automobile sales and service and various small service establishments/RT-3 Resort Toudst District · 16t~ Street · Across 16th Street are single family dwellings with garage apartments / R-SS Residential District · Single-family dwellings with garage apartments / A-12 Apartment District · Single-family dwellings with garage apartments / A-12 Apartment District Change to a Non-Conforming Use MOTHER'S INC. Page 2 Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing Any of the principal or conditional uses permitted in the Zoning: A-12 APartment District With Proposed Zoning: Demolition of a nonconforming garage apartment and construction of a single-family dwelling. Zoninq History The existing home was constructed around 1927 and is typical of the beach type homes built in the early development of the oceanfront. The site was zoned R-3 Multiple-Family Residence District until 1973. From 1973 to 1988, the site was zoned A-1 Apartment District. The site has been zoned A-12 Apartment District since 1988. With the adoption of the City Zoning Ordinance in April 1988 single family dwellings and garage apartments were no longer permitted as principal or conditional uses in the A-12 Apartment district. All existing single-family dwellings and garage apartments in the Apartment districts then became nonconforming. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of 65-70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics A two story single-family dwelling and a garage apartment occupy the site. Mature trees and shrubs exist on the site. The site is in the Owls Creek Watershed. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: There is a six (6) inch water main in 16th Street fronting the site. The site has an existing 5/8-inch water meter that may be utilized. No further connections will be allowed. Sewer: There is a ten (10) inch sanitary sewer main in 16th Street fronting the site. This site is already connected to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP): 16th Street is a local street. This is an old established neighborhood with little through traffic. There are currently no projects in the Capital Improvement Program to improve the roadway. Traffic Calculations: Street Nam~ Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use z_ 10 16th Street N/A ADT ~ 6,200 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3.20 Change to a Non-Conforming Use MOTHER'S INC. Page 3 Average Daily Trips as defined by single-family dWelling and garage apartment as defined by two single-family dwellings Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: The applicant has been cited several times for code violations including an unkempt premises, operating a business in an apartment district, signs in the front yard, excessive traffic being generated for the purpose of donations of items, and the conduct of individuals living at and / or visiting the premises. These problems have created several conflicts with residents in the surrounding area. The Fire Department has no comments at this time. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as Resort Area, an area planned for resort uses including lodging, retail, entertainment, recreational, cultural, and other compatible uses. Summary of Proposal · The site is 5,000 square feet, occupied by a single-family dwelling and a garage apartment. There does not appear to be any improved on- site parking. The site is in the 400 block of 16th Street. The area is a fairly stable residential neighborhood, with W. T. Cooke Elementary School located just southwest of the site. The homes in the general area were built in the 1920s and 1930s, and are typical of the beach style homes of that period. Mature trees and landscaping grace the area. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing garage apartment and build a single-family dwelling in its place. The existing garage apartment is 2.1 feet from the east property line and 1.9 feet from the north property line. The existing structure is two stories, with a garage occupying the first floor and living area on the second floor. City real estate records indicate that the garage and the apartment are 420 square feet each. The proposed structure is two stories with living area, kitchen, laundry room, and bathroom on the first floor. The second floor will contain two bedrooms. The applicant proposes to build the dwelling in the footprint of the existing garage apartment. The Council of American Building Officials (CABO) 1 & 2 Family Building Code requires that structures located less than three (3) feet from a property line Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~'~~----'~ MOTHER'S INC. Page 4 ........ have no unprotected openings, such as doors and windows, and the walls must have a minimum one (1) hour fire rating. Additionally the CABO 1 & 2 Family Building Code requires that all bedrooms have egress windows. With the current submitted building configuration, the applicant will not be able to meet the CABO 1 & 2 Family Building Code requirements. Evaluation of Request The proposed enlargement is not reasonable, because it will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area, and will not be as appropriate to the district as the existing non-conforming use. The request, therefore, is not acceptable for several reasons. Approval of the request, resulting in demolition of a garage apartment and construction of a single-family dwelling unit in its place, would create more of a non-conformity than currently exists on the site. Although single family dwellings and garage apartments are nonconforming uses in the Apartment districts, staff could not find any evidence of lots in the immediate area that contain two separate single-family dwellings on one lot as proposed. Several single-family dwellings with garage apartments do exist in the area but not two single-family dwellings on one lot. Approval of a second dwelling on the site would not be in keeping with the character of the immediate area and is not consistent with the City Zoning Ordinance provisions for the A-12 Apartment District. The Council of American Building Officials (CABO) 1 & 2 Family Building Code requires that the structure have no unprotected openings, such as windows and doors, if it is less than three (3) feet from a property line. Additionally the wails of the structure must be constructed with a minimum of a one (1) hour fire rating. However, the CABO 1 & 2 Family Building Code also requires that the bedrooms have egress windows. The applicant proposes to construct the single-family dwelling in the footprint of the existing garage apartment, which is 1.9 feet from the rear property line and 2.1 feet from east property line. The proposed location of the structure prohibits the applicant from meeting the requirements of the CABO 1 & 2 Family Building Code. Staff recommends denial of the request to demolish a garage apartment and replace it with a single-family dwelling. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet ail applicable Cit~/ Codes. Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~'~~ MOTHER'S INC. ~ Page5 ~'~'" 19 Existing Garage ~).0'IN / 0.2'0UT 16 4g.8'(CALC.) 1 2 STORY FRAME PIPE-FD 2. t' WALL > . ON PROP. 8g LiNE 50' TO PtPE-FD BA;-TIC AVENUE 16TM STREET iN WALL (FORMERLY SOUTH CAROLINA AVENUE) 80' R/w Mother's Inc (Site Survey) Change to a Non-Conforming Use MOTHER'S INC. Page 6 Mother's Inc. (Alternative Building Elevations) Change to a Non-Conforming Use MOTHER'S INC. Page 7 t~ Az.- Mother's Inc. (Floor Plan) Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~'~ MOTHER'S INC. ~~ Page 8 Change to a Non-Conforming Use MOTHER'S INC. Page 9 Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE ythe prope, rty owner is a CORPORa_ TION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary,) [~ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If'the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSI~IP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. - - - ~;ignature Print Name .... Rev. 9/15/98 David !n C~i. 1456-.~.-3577 ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit- Chumh - Granted 7/13/65 2. Street Closure - Granted - 10/10/00 Modification of Conditions for Street Closure - Granted - 2/12/02 3. Conditional Use Permit - Church - Granted 8/14/65 4. Conditional Use Permit - Lodge - Granted 8/12/68 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager David Elgin - Modification of Conditions MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of David Elgin for a modification of conditions placed on a conditional use permit for a church on June 26, 1965. Property is located at 5724 Providence Road and contains 2.02 acres (GPIN 1456843691 AND 1456843877). DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE. Considerations: The Conditional Use Permit permitting the church on 3 acres was approved by the City Council on June 26, 1965. There were no conditions attached to this use permit. The applicant is requesting a modification to the conditional use permit to reduce the area for the church use to 1.4 acres. The southern portion of the site below Waming Street contains 1.9 acres. The applicant proposes to subdivide the southern portion into two lots consisting of a 1.4 acre lot fronting on Old Providence Road for the church and a 0.5 acre lot fronting on Warning Street for one single-family home. The proposed residential lot exceeds the lot area and width for the underlying zoning district of R-10. The lot area on the northem portion of the subject site, above Warning Street, is 0.8 acres. The applicant is not proposing a subdivision of this lot, but is asking to develop it with one single-family home. The proposed residential lot exceeds the lot area and width for the underlying zoning district of R-10. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because modification to the lot area requirement for the church use appears to be reasonable, staff recommended approval and there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting DepiartmentJAgency: Planning Department · : City of Virginia Beach Points of Interests Shopping Center Schools Parks & Recreation Centers Libraries & Museums Fire Stations Subdivision Abc Water Abc Water Label .... Ches. Bay P.A. ~ Water Polygon Storm Water --- Storm Water Line 200 0 200 400 600 FEET http://gis-server/amaplcvb.mwf Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:35, DAVID ELGIN / # 9 September 11, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Modification of Conditions placed on a conditional use permit for a church on June 26, 1965. 5724 Providence Road 14568436910000 and 14568438770000 2- KEMPSVILLE 2.84 acres Barbara Duke To modify the lot area used for church purposes under the conditional use permit approved in 1965. The remainder of the area is proposed for two single-family homes in accordance with the existing zoning. Major Issues: · The reduction in lot area for the church should not present any negative impacts on the surrounding uses. Planning Commission Agenda ~_~~.,~ September 11, 2002 DAVID ELGIN / # 9 Page 1 Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zoninq The property is currently used as a church and is zoned R-10 Residential District. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · Single Family Homes/R-10 Residential District · Providence Road · Single Family Homes/R-10 Residential District · Single Family Homes/R-10 Residential District Zoning History The subject site was approved for a use permit for a church on 3 acres on June 26, 1965. No conditions were attached to the use permit. In 1967, the right-of-way for Warning Street was dedicated across the rear of the site, thereby reducing the lot area to 2.84 acres and creating a separate lot on the north side of this right-of-way that is still owned by the church. In October 2000, City Council approved a street closure for Warning Street on property to the east of this site. Warning Street to the east of the subject site has since been replatted with a different alignment, slightly north of the original right-of-way, to serve a new subdivision of 21 single family home sites. One condition of the 2000 street closure was that access must be provided from the replatted right-of-way to the church property. This condition was met when the subdivision was developed. The right-of- way improvements completed with the new 21 lot subdivision abut the eastern boundary line of the subject site, so that the road can be extended to serve the two lots that are being proposed for single-family home construction within the area that will be eliminated from the conditional use permit should this request be approved. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of 65-70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics There is a church building and parking lot fronting on Old Providence Road on the southern portion of the site, below Warning Street. The northern portion of the site, above Warning Street, the property is wooded. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is an 8 inch water line existing in Warning Street. There is an 8 inch sewer line existing in Waming Street. Planning Commission Ager~da September 11, 2002 DAVID ELGIN ! # 9 .... Page 2 Transportation No increase in traffic' generation is anticipated with this request. Public Safety Police: No comment. Fire and No comment. Rescue: Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as a stable residential neighborhood. The Plan further states that it is important to maintain the quality of existing neighborhoods in the Kempsville area. Summary of Proposal Proposal The Conditional Use Permit permitting the church on 3 acres was approved by the City Council on June 26, 1965. There were no conditions attached to this use permit. The applicant is requesting a modification to the conditional use permit to reduce the area for the church use to 1.4 acres. The southem portion of the subject site, below Warning Street contains 1.9 acres. The applicant proposes to subdivide the southern portion into two lots consisting of a 1.4 acre lot fronting on Old Providence Road for the church and a 0.5 acre lot fronting on Warning Street for one single-family home. The proposed residential lot exceeds the lot area and width for the underlying zoning district of R-10. The lot area on the northern portion of the subject site, above Waming Street, is 0.8 acres. The applicant is not proposing a subdivision of this lot, but is asking to develop it with one single-family home. The proposed residential lot exceeds the lot area and width for the underlying zoning district of R-10. Evaluation of Request The modification to the lot area requirement for the church use appears to be reasonable and is recommended for approval. The applicant has indicated that there are no expansion plans for the church use. The property, is being sold to the applicant by the present church organization which owns the property and:which currently occupies the church. This church organization will continue to lease the building from the new owner (the applicant) for a period of two to three years. Once the current church organization vacates the property, the applicant hopes to lease the church building to another religious organization seeking a place for worship. The reduction in lot area for the church will not create any negative impacts on the surrounding uses. The request is recommended for approval with no conditions. Planning Commission Agenda September 11~ 2002 DAVID ELGIN; # 9 Page 3 NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet ali applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda ~~'~'~.~ September 11, 2002 DAVID ELGIN ! # 9 Page 4 Item ~ David Elgi.n Modification of conditions placed on a Conditional Use Permit for a church 5724 Providence Road District 2 Kempsville September 11, 2002 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: After I finish reading the item, Mrs. Atkinson will comment on that item for us. The next item is Item//9 that is for David Elgin. Application for a modification of conditions for a Conditional Use Permit placed on a church June 26, 1965. The property is located at 5724 Providence Road in the Kempsville District and there are no conditions. David Elgin: My name is David Elgin and I approve of them. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Elgin. David Elgin: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Is there any opposition to Item #9, application for modification of conditions in the Kempsville borough? Hearing none. Mrs. Atkinson, would you please review Item ~97 Betsy Atkinson: Yes ma'am. The first one is a modification of condition for a church that was put on in 1965. And it's on Providence Road. It's three acres of land. And the church is going to keep like 1.4 acres and they're going to make two building Jots. And the building lots, one is .8 acres and the other is about .6. The area around there is zoned R-10 and we felt that this was very acceptable and we agree with staff recommendations that this should be on our Consent agenda. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mrs. Atkinson. Betsy Atkinson: You're welcome. Dorothy Wood: Since there is no opposition to the Consent agenda Mr. Ripley, I would like to move that the item on the Consent agenda be approved, number 9 with no conditions. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Do we have a second to the motion? Betsy Atkinson: I'll second it. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Betsy Atkinson. Is there any other discussion on the motion? Planning Commission's ready to vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSENT 0 ABS 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Item g9 David Elgin Page 2 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. APPLICATION' PAGE 4 OF 4 MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Applicant's Name: List All Current DISCLOSURE STATEMENT David Elgin Property Owners: Trustees of the Church o£the Brethren PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: necessary) (Attach list if If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Michael Bloom, Trustee Jer~_ Dretsch, Trustee [~l Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, parmership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. David Elgin Print Name Jerr}, Dretsch Print Name Rev. 9/15/98 July 9, 2002 to promote responsible growth in this area and to promote responsible growth in this area and to promote the uniqueness that this area does afford us. MAYOR OBERNDORF: You made a motion to defer until August 13th? COUNCILMAN REEVE: Yes, ma'am, I did. MAYOR OBERNDORF: COUNCILMAN MADDOX: Is there a second? I second that. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. Are we ready for the question? CITY CLERK: COUNCILMAN REEVE: Mr. Villanueva and Mr. Reeve, may I have your verbal? Aye. COUNCILM~NVILLANUEVA: Aye. CITY CLERK: The vote is 11 to 0, Your Honor. MAYOR OBERNDORF Thank you. 41 July 9, 2002 as a new Councilman to give me the information I request and I think the Applicant has worked extremely well with the Staff to come up with a plan'that they felt met the comprehensive requirements. For that matter, I would like to defer it for 30 days with the notion that I will make a motion at the next Presentation and I would like to have it on the first available Meeting after our Work Session, Ma'am. CITY CLERK: August the 13th is 30 days. COUNCILMAN REEVE: 13th. If can be on the 6th, I would appreciate that, if the Agenda allows. If not, the MAYOR OBERNDORF: Historically, we haven't done rezonings on the first Meeting of the month. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Okay. EDDIE BOURDON: We would be very happy with the 13th. COUNClLM;~N REEVE: Great. EDDIE BOURDON: Councilman Reeve, we're fine. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. COUNCILMAN REEVE: I also would like to talk about the Green Line Policy. There's been a lot of talk about moving the Green Line. We need to remember .the Green Line was put in place as the urban services boundary. That was the intent. It fulfilled its intent. It was well-done. I applaud what the Green Line did. We have to move beyond that. Every new development that has come down in this area has paid its own way. This development will pay its own way. We need to find new innovative ways to house our people 4O July 9, 2002 tough decisions in front of us. As I have spOken to many of you over the last week and as I have spoken to the paper and as reported today, I'm in no hurry to make decisions that we cannot in 20 years look back and be proud of. I want to make sure that everyone is on board and everyone is comfortable with where we're going, what we want to promote and what we want to discourage. As the Editorial Board of the Paper printed, "haste does make waste" I agree with that, but this Council has to make decisions based on facts, not on rhetoric, not on hyperboles and definitely not on fearful speculation. We have a lot of work to do and for that reason I am announcing tonight that I will have my first Princess Anne Forum two weeks from now on July 23rd at 6:00 p.m. in these Chambers. This Forum is an Informal Session. It will be open to all Public, all Press, all current and past Council People to come and be part of the process. We want to hear from you. We want your ideas. The fact of the matter is since this Comp Plan was adopted seven years ago the City has changed. In the Comp Plan we asked for Amphitheaters. We asked for golf Courses. We have that. We need move beyond that. We need to find new ideas that promote where the City wants to go and what it wants to be. The question is not whether we grow or not. It's how we do we grow and what do we want to promote. For that reason, I would like to defer this for 30 days. I apologize to the Applicant. This is y no means a reflection.of your Application. I think it's a very strong Application. I believe if it was pressed tonight it would pass, but that is not the point. The point is that we need some time to talk amongst ourselves, to talk with the residents as well as the landowners and potential developers. I also want to thank the Staff. They have been very courteous to me 39 July 9, 2002 lives, I can assure you as a lifelong resident who grew up and his parents still live in Great Neck, there are no developments in Great Neck that ar'e comparable to this in terms of the open space amenity and the way it's been laid out. What's been put into it in terms of dollars and cents doesn't exist in Kempsville or in Great Neck. So, the only thing that's comparable is there are some houses in both communities that are of comparable value, but not the kind of open space in the development that we are talking about here. The City is the biggest developer in the Transition Area. I guess we're going to get $12-Million from Sentara for a nice sale of property for a heath care, health center, in the Transition Area. It's an area to live, work and play and I think that properties like this one and others where living is a part of the Application. I will certainly, as my client will, defer this as per the Body's wishes tonight. This is as good a plan as you're going to see. It has been borrowed from some of the best planners in the country, but that doesn't mean that it can't be made better. But, the problem is having all 11 of you become planners and figure out, you know, what plan works. That's going to be a difficult process. We will work with you, but we need to move quickly. With the contract that my clients have on the property, they have got to close by the end of September. So, we would certainly expect to be back before this Body in August, if this Body is going to defer, which is what I am kind of hearing from the tone of the discussion. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. Mr. Reeve. COUNCILM~N REEVE: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would first like to thank the Applicant and Mr. Bourdon for providing, what I believe is a superb new community for our area. I think it would be one that will support this area in the high-end home. I believe we need to support new economic development, but the fact of the matter is we are a young Council and we have a lot of 38 July 9, 2002 EDDIE BOURDON: moving the Green Line, The first thing Mr. Byrne, who lives in Fox Fire, in his rhetorical statement about if we move the Green Line to Indian River 'Road then we would be developing 3.5-units per acre above Indian River Road. No one is suggesting moving the Green Line, so that's 'way out in left field. The Planning Commission has a number of very, very experienced Members who have been there for a long time, who have been involved with the Comp Plan that is in place now and maybe even before that, in the case of Mr. Baum. I'm sure he was and others. There are people with a huge amount of experience with the Comp Plan, which has a Transition Area, this Transition Area. As I said before, I think it's well over 12, 15 years. They have recommended approval of this plan unanimously, as they have a couple of other plans that have been in the pipeline now for going on three years, that they meet the Comp Plan Guidelines. So, you know the idea that we're changing something that just doesn't ring true. In fact, this Council may need some time to put their arms around it, tweak it a little bit and appreciate that. Indian River Plantation was ignored by Mr. Barrow whose comments actually for the most part, you know, I found something that I would be more than willing to talk to him about and don't disagree with a lot of what he had 'to say. But, Indian River Plantation is an existing one-unit per acre development that you can't distinguish from this that was approved after the Green Line was put into place, and he already acknowledged the one on Seaboard Road, which is, you know, the same thing. It doesn't even compare to this in terms of its quality. approved in the old Transition Area Number III. That was So, yet Kempsville has a lot of wonderful great neighborhoods, phenomenally nice neighborhoods, as does Great Neck where Mr. Barrow 37 July 9, 2002 Land owners who want to develop should be encouraged to hire land designers who are innovative and able to put together projects that really meet'our goals. The proposal before you today is just a rezoning to one-unit per acre using fragmented open space. Mr. Bourdon will surely state that the open space is generous. Bear in mind that the stormwater management ponds, which the Staff refers to as water amenities or utilities exist to control water on the site and are presently counted towards open space. Please view this project as a portion of the remaining 3,685 acres to be developed in the Transition Area and be very careful about setting any future densities and style and keep the taxpayers in mind and keep our expectations -- our expectations are high for the Transition Area. I would like you to know. And I want to throw out one other idea that perhaps at this point you might consider hiring some outside consultants to help you achieve the original goal. I think that when you have worthy projects that they will receive the support of citizens. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you, Ms. Constant. GEORGETTE CONSTANT: Thank you. MAYOR OBERNDORF: That's all the speakers? CITY CLERK: Yes, Your Honor. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. EDDIE BOURDON: do need to respond to. because I think I know where we are headed tonight; but, clear up some misinformation. Madam Mayor, I promise I will be brief, but there are a few things that were said that I I'm not going to respond to all of them, I do want to M~YOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Bourdon. I'm listening. 36 July 9, 2002 chuckle. Mrs. McClanan, you might appreciate this. On Page 4 of the Staff Report it says this project is not impacted by any proposal found within the Master Transportation Plan. I think that's an absurd and backward way of looking at it. The development density-calculation Worksheet for the matrix devised by Mr. Scott to help you decide the opinion questions A and B on Page 74 of the Comprehensive Plan is scored too liberally. The only example I have time to cite tonight is on Page 2, under natural resources. It states that the only significant natural resource existing on the cite is a stand of trees located at the northeastern corner. You can see it it's at the end there. These trees are retained to the extent that the only clearing is the envelope for the houses and the area for the street. This is incorrect in that the large clearing necessary for one of the stormwater management ponds is not included and you can tell by looking at that and looking at the aerial view. If you look at the concept plan, you will see what I'm seeing. Wi~h the houses, roads and stormwater management pond, would not you agree' that at least half the trees would be removed? Now, I understand that Proffer Number 1 states that this project, for planting of trees, to have double the total canopy required. So, this comment is not about trees. It's about how the matrix is scored. If you read the other items under that part, lA on Page 2, the score that's given for that is a .9 out of a possible 1. I mean I find that frustrating. What should be done? The Transition Area is big. The recreational mecca goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan are lofty and as desirable as the Town Center, the Academic Village, Lake Gaston and Resort Beautification, the ARP and the other projects requiring patience. The Comp Plan is currently clear about what is and what is not acceptable by giving examples on Page 75. Projects that intergrade open space, not fragmented projects like the one before you today, have a better chance of achieving a recreational goal. Let's use imagination. 35 July 9, 2002 CHRIS CAROBINE: Yes. Yes, I am. COUNCILMAN REEVE: And are you aware that the traffic plan has been reviewed on North Landing and can support this development? CHRIS CAROBINE: Yes, I was. COUNCILMAN REEVE: As well as the schools can support the number of children? CHRIS CAROBINE: (Nods head in the affirmative.) COUNCILMAN REEVE: Thank you. CHRIS CAROBINE: There were two accidents at the Intersection of West Neck and Indian River Road in the last six weeks, very serious. Nightingale had to come in. The City does not believe there's a traffic problem there either. Thank you. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Thank you. CITY CLERK: Georgette Constant. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Good evening. GEORGETTE CONSTANT: Good evening. Thank you. I'm Georgette Constant. I'm a resident of the North Beach. This should be just at three minutes, but I think there are some things that haven't been covered. I would like to state, first of all, that Courthouse Estates was approved and built in 1982. This Harbour Development Corporation is not a good proposal. The flat density of one-unit per acre is too high. If you do the math, you will see that if only two additional developments like this one occurred on North Landing Road, you would be at the capacity of 9,900 average daily trips. There are no plans to improve this road and no public funds planned for this improvement -- and I got a bit of a 34 July 9, 2002 arms around it and get some co~ununity participation'in what it is we want to do with that area. Ail people should have a choice of where they live, what kind of neighborhood, how big the houses are and how small they are. That's why we have a suburban area, a Transition Area and we have the farm land. You can make a choice. You can go wherever you want, but we have to define what we want in those areas, so that people can be happy and live in the environments they want. That development is beautiful. It looks like Kempsville. By pushing it back away from the road and putting up a fountain and a lake, all you're doing is hiding 65 houses on 65 acres. All of which will dump onto the road that you-all come to work on everyday. We're not going to be able to jog through here or next door, because you are going to get hit by cars if you try to cross the street. The traffic is going to be huge, the schools are going to be over-powered, the infrastructure will not be able to support this many homes and this will set a precedence. This is the first, and there will be more and you're not going to be able to stop this once it starts. So, I ask you to stop, think, read the Comprehensive Plan and help guide your Planning people,, give them good criteria, give them a good evaluation system so that you know what you want to pass, so that they know what you want to pass and so that the developers know what development to bring to you. Any questions? MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Reeve. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Which part of Kempsville does this look like? CHRIS CAROBINE: Most of it. COUNCII/~%N REEVE: Really. Okay. I need to go back to Kempsville. Are you aware that water and sewer is available to the site already? 33 July 9, 2002 of one-lot per acre and you would not be able to deny it from here on out. Mr. Block sent a memo to the Planning Department last February where he was concerned about the density and speed of development in the Transition Area that before the Southeastern Expressway was built that need to be built into the plan. We have never done a scientific study on the aquifers. Many of these houses will have their own wells to irrigate with and we need to know the impact to the aqUifers. This is the top end of the peninsula. It's surrounded by brackish water and everybody below has wells. Before you go forward we need to know about the aquifers and what they can do. And I will stay to that shortness because I feel the folks are here to do what I hope to accomplish this evening. Thanks for your consideration. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you, Mr. Eliassen. CITY CLERK: Chris Carobine. CHRIS CAROBINE: Munden Point Road. I'm not here speaking for the civic league. know who I am. Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council, my name is Chris Carobine and I live on I am President of Back Bay/Pungo Civic League and I just wanted you to I am opposed to this development for a couple of reasons, most of what you have heard from the other people speaking before me. But, I wanted to hit a couple of things that we heard. There seems to be confusion in the community and amongst you members .on what the Comprehensive Plan says we should do with that Transition Area. Is it public open space? Is it private open space? What does open space mean? What should we be able to do? What shouldn't we be able to do? And I commend Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Maddox and Mr. Mandigo for saying that maybe we need to stop, step back, read it, understand it, get our 32 July 9, 2002 pending developments coming out of the pipeline here in the next 90 days. Some of them good developments and some of them not so good. I think that this is one of the good ones, but it just goes to show us that we have got to be consistent in our approach here to how we are going to deal with' it. TIM BARROW: Thank you. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. CITY CLERK: Jan Eliassen. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Eliassen, in all due respect -- JAN ELIASSEN: I will be real short. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. JAN ELIASSEN: be here this late. I'm Jan Eliassen. Madam Mayor and Members of City Council, I know you didn't expect to I agree with much of what you have said and I'm pleased to think that you're not going to make this decision hastily tonight. I look forward to all of us being part of the dialogue that shapes where you go in the future. I was on the Planning Commission five years ago when this Comprehensive Plan was drawn up. This is the first time I have ever came back because this is the most important thing since then that has borne real serious involvement to everybody in this community. It's not just because it's this Application. It's because of the serendipity of the timing of this Application and despite Mr. Bourdon's assertions to the contrary, all of those other developments were either grand-fathered and brought to us by Court Order or have large recreational situations that are in compliance. This is the first one that, if approved, would establish a precedent 31 July 9, 2002 street and maintenance of that and believe me it starts to add up. It doesn't cost a whole lot for the first few years, but it cost a bundle later on and we can cut it'off right now. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Maddox. COUNCILMAN MADDOX: I would just like to make a comment. First of all, I agree with a lot of what he said. In Virginia Beach sometimes it's hard to find two people that agree on anything. But after having just come through a campaign, I can tell you that the thing that they do agree on is a genuine concern for what we do south of the Green Line and in the Transition Area. I think as developments go, this is a pretty-darn good development. I think it has about 40% open space, over 25 acres, when only 15% is required and 50% brick or stone finishes on the buildings, a high-price point quality product. It has double the tree canopy required and the post develop ten-year grow-out, tree canopies equal to what it is now in the pre-development. It's got trails, park benches and picnic areas. All of those things that if you were to look at it as a normal development -- I think, you know, they have done a great job. I'm not prepared to vote for that today, because I don't have my arms around exactly what I want to see in the Transition Area and I think that once we build something it's there forever. I think we need to be very, very careful about what we do. It's a great development and we might bring it back here at some point and vote for it, but I think that I need to do a little bit more homework and your example is kind of enlightening that there is more than one way to look at things. TIM BARROW: And I'm sure there are a lot more ways to look at it and I think it is very important. There are 3,800 acres, I think, in the balance here and that's important. COUNCILM~NMADDOX: I think, as you said there is some 30 COUNCILMAN REEVE: July 9, 2002 And real quick, on your plan what size are those lots? TIM BARROW: They range between 15 and 20,000 square feet. COUNCILMAN REEVE: And you mentioned Randal Arendt. In regard to his last Presentation, the interesting thing about his Presentation was he started at 20,000 square foot lots and then reduced in size down to a 1/6 or even an 1/8 of an acre lots in order to achieve the open space. TIM BARROW: He's an advocate of clustering to reduce the lot sizes individually and bring that into common open space. I think in general among the planning community you will find that that is very much supported almost across the board. COUNCILMAN REEVE: But you could also agree that different people have different likes. TIM BARROW: No question about it. COUNCILMAN REEVE: I think it would be wise to give people choices on where they could live, either be larger lots or smaller lots. TIM BARROW: That's absolutely correct. I think you even could look at this plan if you wanted to cluster even more closely. You could probably end up with 75% of the land in open space versus that, but I've tried "to stay consistent with the single-family lot pattern that the Applicant requested. But I think the key thing here for Council to remember if you do this kind of plan right, you can reduce the cost to taxpayers of this City for years and years to come for each, you know, hundred feet of that street that's in there that you don't need to have. You're paying for the water. You're paying for the sewer. You're paying for the 29 July 9, 2002 Bourdon's client has to build and pay for, a 1,000 feet less that the City has to maintain and work with in the future. The amount of pavement area approximately would be four acres less area paved in this quiCk concept sketch than is in that plan and I think that -- and this is not to take any pride in authorship of this because you can forget it. It is a very quick sketch. Bu~, I think it shows that if we think about these things a little bit more we can get the development we are looking for, the tax base expansion we might look for and in a way that's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that you set up. I would just urge you to defer the Application. I'm not suggesting that you deny it, but I'm suggesting a deferral to allow the Council at your Retreat or whenever you want to sit down and discuss more fully what the Transition Area direction might be and how it can be accomplished. Frankly a lot of the things that work against accomplishing your Comprehensive Plan proposals are the result of City requirements that, in fact, work against the very plan that you're trying to do. I think it's something that this Council has a chance to look at and see if you can get these things in sync, which will ~educe cost to the development community, give us better communities as we develop and also end up with a lot better plan in the long term. I apologize for taking extra time. MAYOR OBERliDORF: Thank you. COIINCIIAfAN REEVE: Madam Mayor. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yes, Mr. Reeve. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Quick question, sir. I'm sorry. Can you state your name again for the record. TIM BARROW: Tim Barrow. 28 July 9, 2002 us as taxpayers to support. That's one of the objectives in the Transition Zones. The amount of pavement that is included in this section, probably not at the Applicant's wish, but at the Staff's wish is actually greater than you would get with the traditional subdivision. The width of the streets, the paved area and the sidewalks are actually wider than you would get in an R-30 and more coverage involved, meaning more runoff to our streams and more damage potentially environmentally in the program. So, I think that there are very real concerns about the plan. Now, the question becomes are there other ways that we might look at that that could accomplish the development and still do it? I think that there are, without making a major plan. We have to look at some of the work that -- Randall Arendt had a Presentation for Council a short while ago that pointed out a number of ways that this might be accomplished. I will be try to be very brief, Madam Mayor, if I could. MAYOR OBERNDORF: I saw some of my Council Members looking at their watch. TIM BARROW: I'm finished, but you I think there are options that are available. I did have a very quick sketch, and I will have to apologize. There was about an hour spent on this.' It took the same area, same program, 65 lots. This plan has -- 50% of the area is devoted to open space, a 30-acre coffee, unity common is provided in the center of the development that all of the lots in the development have access to, can see and relate to. That common area accounts for 50% of the space. It does become an open space community. That plan, this sketch, has 1,000 feet less street than is in that alternative plan, which means it's 1,000 feet less than Eddie 27 July 9, 2002 that you would possibly consider would be for open space and/or recreational use and that the residential component would be secondary to the intended open space focus of the Plan. Most of the other Applications which have been approved previously in the Transition Zone, with the exception of that one small one, which is a small acreage Application, have been centered on golf course developments where there were very large open space components and I think it could certainly be argued that they, in fact, did set up a precedent of being primarily recreational or open-space focused. This plan I think you simply have to look at it -- despite the fact that I'm complimentary of the planning and the effort that went into it. If you look at it, it is a residential subdivision. A good one? Yes. If it were up in Great Neck where I live, it would be a very positive subdivision; but, I don't think that is what the Transition Zone Policies call for. It calls for us to do something better and to do something that, in fact, provides that transition between suburb and rural. I don't think -- I'm already blinking. I don't think that this plan accomplishes that despite the best effort of the Council -- not of the Council, but of the City Staff and of the Applicant. I think there has been a lot of work on it. I just point out a couple of things that I think make that problematic. One, the open space. That area that is in the plan is only about 1/3 of the area that's involved, 39% including the drainage lakes that are a part ot it. The open space that is in it is fragmented by a number of roads that divide the open space into several components. The open space over almost half of the lots do not have any relationship to the open space that's provided. They don't adjoin the open space. They are across from it. They don't related to that space. Also, one of the goals it said is to minimize the pavement areas and the amount of streets so we have lower costs in the future for all of' 26 JIM KINCAID: July 9, 2002 Thank you. CITY C?.~.RK: · Tim Barrow. TIM BARROW: Madam Mayor and Members of Council, I apologize in advance for the staggered and disjointed nature of these comments. But I speak tonight as a planning consultant and development consultant and a lifelong resident of the City of Virginia Beach. The comments I bring are that I am very concerned about a number of Applications, several Applications, that are pending before you in the Transition Zone, this being one of that that will in affect dramatically set the course for the development with the rest of the Transition Zone, because impact -- contrary to what Mr. Burden advanced, I think a precedent will be set in the course of this. I think, also, that it will put into question depending on what decisions you make the viability of the Council's Green Line Policy, which is again critically important and part of what this Council and what previous Councils have stood behind. So, I think in that sense the decisions you will make here are dramatically important. I think probably one of the most important decisions that this Council makes setting the course for your entire tenure on this Council. So, I think you should take it under great advisement in terms of making this decision and making it right. I think it's importan~ that the decisions that you make on these Applications -- in fact we enforce the policy directive that is said in the Comprehensive Plan, which I think has gotten very strong support overall in terms of what we are looking to do in accomplishing the Transition Zone. Now, in reference to this particular Application, one of the key criteria -- and this has been pointed out earlier -- is that Applications should be considered for residential development in the Transition one. That's allowed for and called for. However, it is stated in the Comp Plan that the primary purpose of any Application 25 July 9, 2002 ROBERT SCOTT: No, it's not necessarily specified that each piece of open space needs to be publicly owned and publicly accessible, but I think that by the time we are through with the development there ought to be a nice mixture of the two. I think different opportunities lend themselves to different solutions. What may be appropriate in one area may not be in another. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Thank you, sir. CITY CLERK: Jim Kincaid. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Good evening. JIM KINCAID: Beach for 18 years. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Councilmen and Women. I've been a resident of Virginia Almost as long as you have been here. MAYOR OBERNDORF: You give me credit for more than I have served. JIM KINCAID: One of the most significant achievements of the Council since I have been here is the Green Line and, of course, the Transition Area. It's hasn't been too many weeks ago since almost half of the Council, current Council, was campaigning to get where you are. No one had any bad words about the Green Line at that time. For that reason, I, as well' as quite a few other citizens in Virginia Beach, have voted for you. The Green Line is important. The Transition Area is important and every one of you supported it in your campaign. Ail I can say is that I certainly hope that you continue to support it, continue to support the concept and refuse to compromise any further. That's all I have. Do you have any'questions? MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you very much. 24 TOM SHEARER: July 9, 2002 Yes. COUNCILMAN REEVE: you say is recommended? Are you aware that this proposal has over 39% open space as opposed to the 30% that TOM SHEARER: I understood. Well, are we counting those drainage lakes as well? I mean, he said six acres is what COUNCILMAN REEVE: Six acres is the front, but the Staff's review gives him 39% open space. just wanted to make sure that you were aware of that. TOM SHEARER: Okay. It may be. But are those people going to allow me to park in front of their house and walk through their yard to get to that trail? I don't think they do. It doesn't look like it's public recreation area to me. It looks like it's an open space somewhere in the middle that no one could get to. There is no parking allowed for it. i think the Plan is that it's made for public recreation. Transition Area is public recreation. How are we going to get to it? Any other questions? MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. TOM SHEARER: Thank you. CITY CLERK: James Kincaid. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Madam Mayor MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Reeve. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Let me ask a quick question of Mr. Scott. Is there an exact reference in the current Comprehensive Plan of the requirement for public parking facilities for Open Space Promotion in individual developments? 23 July 9, 2002 I live in Fox Fire. COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: I thought -- yeah, I recognize the address. Thank you. CITY CLERK: Tom Shearer. TOM SHEARER: Good evening, Madam Mayor -- MAYOR OBERNDORF: Good evening. TOM SHEARER: -- Members of Council. I'm here in opposition because when I see the Comprehensive Plan that has been approved and the public has agreed with, we are looking for the open space in this Transition Area and i think if people who were aware that they are going to be shortchanged of all this open space for this one development, we probably would have a full Chamber here and a lot more speakers. My understanding is that Transition Area should have close to 30% of recreational area, something that Mr. Mandigo is alluding to. I live well below the Green Line and I teach -- I've been teaching at a middle school in the Transition Area for 23 years and I see every development that happens around here impacts the quality of education that we have and the traffic that we have to drive through everyday, and I think that -- you know like you're saying, you have said our arguments already. You're setting a precedent if this is approved and I think you really need to look at this closely and make sure that, you know, everything is done from now on. Let's follow the Plan. Okay. It's a good Plan. It's one we have all agreed on and, you know, making allowances or provisions for the builder is not enhancing the development. People like a bigger lot. It's not enhancing the development. It's enhancing what people are putting into their pocket. Ail right. Thank you. VICE MAYOR MANDIGO: Excuse me, sir. 22 BERNARD BYRNE: July 9, 2002 Madam Mayor, I'm in.opposition to this. Is there a time jeopardy? M~YOR OBERNDORF: Certainly. You can be heard. CITY CLERK: Ail the rest of you are opposed according to what you (Inaudible). MAYOR OBERNDORF: Good evening. BERNARD BYP/~E: Good evening. Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council, my name is Bernard Byrne. I am opposed to this rezoning proposal, because it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Use Plan that this City has adopted and consistently supported since the last Plan was enacted in 1997. As has been pointed out by certain Councilmen, the primary use in this project is housing, not public recreation, which is an essential feature that's desirable in the Transition Area. In affect, these developers want to abandon the Comprehensive Use Plan in the Transition Area. If you accept this rezoning, you are essentially changing the Plan and you will have to accept all similar proposals that are coming before you for rezoning in the Transition Area. Let's be honest about it. A new Comp Plan is in the works. If you want to move the Green Line to Indian River Road, put that in the plan and live with all the consequences, but don't adopt a back-door approach by incrementally step by step rezoning properties in the Transition Area. Any questions? MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you, Mr. Byrne. COUNCIL LADY McCI~AN: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor. Mr. Byrne, BERNARD BYRNE: Yes. COUNCIL I~%DY McCLANAN: Which subdivision do you live in? 21 COUNCIL LADY WILSON: July 9, 2002 Sure. COUNCILMAN REEVE: If you look at the scale, they are very large. They dwarf the Bay Colony fields. So, there's plenty of room for activities of all sorts. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: That would be nice for the children in the area. MAYOR OBERNDORF: As soon as you-all finish, I would like to recognize Mr. Schmidt. COUNCILMAN SCHMIDT: Are you-all finished? I don't have a question, Eddie. Thank you. I'm not a stranger to nor do I object to development in any fashion whatsoever. I believe that the developer has worked hard to fashion a thoughtful and comprehensive plan here. But I, like Mr. Mandigo, am very concerned. You know we are going to have one bite at this apple to do this right and as a Council we have never had an opportunity to really get a sense of where we are in this critically important issue. I think we have got a lot of work to do. I think everyone is acting in good faith, but I sure would hate to do it wrong coming out of the box. I believe that I would certainly support backing off for just a little while to get a sense of where we are on this issue before we revisit. Thank you. MAYOR OBERNDORF: heard. With your permission, Council, I would like to call the people who have not been MAYOR 0BERNDORF: Mrs. Smith, do you have the same list I do? CITY CLERK: I hope so. Bernard Byrne. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. that. I'm sorry. July 9, 2002 COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I'm sort of intrigued by Mr. Mandigo's suggestion about the ballfield. There's a lot of children living in that area and there may be a lot of children that will live in this neighborhood. I know Bay Colony has a multipurpose field and a lot of times the kids go and they knock the ball around and all that and that might be, you know, something interesting. Maybe not to rent out to a league but -- EDDIE BOURDON: Mrs. Wilson, clearly what -- COUNCIL LADY WILSON: If there's any way -- I don't think we are going to approve this tonight. EDDIE BOURDON: Let me suggest to you that what you're speaking about that's what this does. It does it and it does it in quadruplicate from that small, little field that Bay Colony has. That is what this is times about ten. You can do ballfields and you can do soccer, you know, impromptu; but, we're putting the Plaza Little League there. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Yeah. EDDIE BOURDON: But the opportunity to have, you know, ballfields for the people in the neighborhood and the adjoining neighborhoods that's what that open space absolutely does. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I don't think we are going to approve this tonight. When you come back, maybe you could sort of sketch out where we could have a field or something like that that could be utilized in that way. COUNCILMAN REEVE: You might still have your map, but if you look in the middle there's a large -- he's labeled them as community activity area. 19 ~YOR OBERNDORF: July 9, 2002 Mr. Mandigo then Mrs. Wilson. VICE M]%YOR MANDIGO: I don't know if that's the right answer either, Eddie. The whole issue that I have is this Council hasn't had a chance to discuss that. We have a scoring system that's in here. We've got a lot of things that we haven't been over and my fear is that once we approve the first one, you're going to expect us to do that for the next and that's a reasonable expectation. My only concern is that we haven't had a chance to sit down with this guy. EDDIE BOURDON: And I'm not going to try to deprive you of the chance of having to discuss that. I do point out that the plan on Seaboard Road that they talked about earlier was approved on the Consent Agenda by the previous Council with open space that had none of the amenities that this has. VICE MAYORMANDIGO: It wasn't this Council. weren't on then. Rosemary and I EDDIE BOURDON: That's true. on. It was right before you came COUNCILM~N MANDIGO: You are absolutely correct. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Wilson. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Mr. Bourdon, please don't go away yet. EDDIE BOURDON: signed up to speak. Actually, I don't want to be rude. I do believe that there are other people that are M~%YOR OBEP~NDORF: There are. EDDIE BOURDON: I'd didn't want that Council to neglect 18 open areas. July 9, 2002 Well, that's' kind of what we're doing here and we are kind of not doing it here, but if we take Applications like this in the Transition Area, then we have lost the opportunity to do any of that in the future because this Council will have said this is what we want to do and we really haven't had a chance to sit down and discuss this as a Council. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Reeve. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Mandigo makes some goods points, but also I would like to ask a question. If we did this by right, sir, on one-per 15, could that support the construction of athletic fields for outside purposes, economically? EDDIE BOURDON: guess correct something. No, Councilman Reeve. You know I think I know where this is heading, but I want to I The entrance feature here is 18 inches tall. You know we have got -- part of your Comprehensive Plan talks about vistas from the street and having all this open area and that's what we've done consistent with the Comp Plan. Now, there is a part of it that's more than that, but the wall is only 18 inches. It's a brick wall across. So, this isn't being, you know, blocked off. It's totally -- it's going to have a beautiful vista from North Landing Road as you enter. So, that part is false. I think you would have to look at every piece of property and how it fits in. Some pieces of property -- clearly providing ballfields can be done. Others -- it doesn't fit. That's a discussion that I guess you-all need to have and Staff needs to have. You know the idea of having ballfields there where it's located I don't know you know that that's the best use of that piece of property, but we can discuss that further. VICE MAYOR MANDIGO: Can I make a clarification? 17 July 9, 2002 the pond is looking at the size -- it's probably an acre and-a-half. I think you could basically put three lots in it. It's over and acre in size. COUNCIL LADY EURE: Thank you. MAYOR OBERNDO~tF: Mr. Mandigo. Thank you, Mrs. Eure. VICE MAYOR ~%NDIGO: Well, I just want to respond that I know we raised taxes last year to finance $50-Million worth of open space. Here we have an Applicant whose agricultural. We have an opportunity to have just exactly what the plan calls for in the Comp Plan on Page 73. The Transition Area is to be seen as an open space and recreational mecca with residential development present only to the extent it supports the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. Well, we're taxing in buying land both south of the Green Line for open space. You know we clearly have a need for fields. We have groups that -- if we think innovatively, there are ways to accomplish all of this and still have a development. But, I guess what I was thinking is that if we're promoting open space and recreational use, I don't see where that is going to add to the City. You can't even see their open space because of the entrance monument that they have. That's where I was going. We have an opportunity, when someone wants to do a rezoning, an Application like this, to figure out how to make that work together in some of the other programs that we are trying to implement in the City. Now, I'm not going to tell you who I think hasn't done this, but this is 65 acres. It's too small for a golf course. But, is there a way to squeeze a field hockey field or a soccer field out of this that could be subleased? I know in Kempsville 30 years ago when developers came in and rezoned a hundred acres, two hundred acres or 300 acres, they had to dedicate land for schools and parks and other 16 around lake. park. July 9, 2002 There is a path all the way around the lake with a The public at-large is prohibited from swimming in the lake if you are not a resident of the community, but they can use the public streets and run around the park and use it like that. But in this instance, you're really providing open space and recreation more for the community of 65 lots and once it's adjoining to another community, then, if you're a jogger or a biker they are public streets you can use it. I don't think the term open space -- there's a difference in the last Application we heard. Open space can be owned by a Homeowners' Association and restricted, but yet it's still open space. It's passive open space. It's not buildable. So, I think the term, "open space" doesn't necessarily mean it's public open space. There is public open space and there is private open space. And I think, Bob, you were trying to get at that. That this is not generally considered public open space, bus they can access it and they are public streets. Are they not? So, I don't know what you could do with a piece of property that would make it an entertainment center for the public like Mount Trashmore or something. They have dedicated a lot of land, you know, for that use and I'm real impressed with -- how large is that first pond? Eddie, do you know? The oval pond? EDDIE BOURDON: I'm sorry, Mrs. Eure. COUNCIL LADY EURE: Out of the six acres -- EDDIE BOURDON: Well, actually the six acres -- COUNCIL LADY EURE: It's pretty sizable? EDDIE BOURDON: -- doesn't even include that. I would say 15 July 9, 2002 you don't have this traffic backed up and you sit and wait to get out to go to school or work. ROBERT SCOTT: I'm trying to convey that there isn't just one thing that needs to be done to address your concern. There are a whole lot of things that need to be done. Yes, we are looking at connecting them, one to the other. You know we have done that in other cases too. We think it's the way to go. Future residents tend to object to that more than -- you know we at the Staff level really think that's a good idea and we tried very hard and have gotten, for instance, this particular street lighting put in there. We hope when the adjoining property comes into develop, there will be a willingness to make that street connection; but, we have seen some reluctance by residents to have that happen in the past. When that happens, I think you have problems of the type you're talking about. I think you have more streets coming out to the main road than you really need and a lack of coordination as to how access is handled. So, we do need to rely on these neighborhoods connecting with one another, as has been provided for here. We need to remember that, when we adjoin the properties who come in for development. COUNCIL LADY EUl%E: Madam Mayor. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Eure. COUNCIL LADY ED-RE: I like the plan. I think it's a nice-looking plan, but I wanted to make a further conunent about the open space. I happen to serve on that Committee that is helping you decide, with your taxpayers' dollars, what to do with $50-Million; which, we have already bought Stumpy Lake and quite a few other properties. But it was clearly in the plan that some of it would be passive. happen to live in a development that has ll0-acre lake and it's amazing to me that more people don't access our community to run I 14 response from me. July 9, 2002 VICE MAYOR MANDIGO: No. Thank you, Madam Mayor. MAYOR OBERNDORF: You're welcome. COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: Madam Mayor, may I ask Mr. Scott a question? MAYOR OBERNDORF: Please, Mrs. McClanan. Mr. Scott. COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: My concern about -- and I noticed there's a street connection here for adjacent future development. My concern in this area has more to do with the traffic on North Landing Road. I think this is a very nice plan and I think the way the entrance is done and, you know, the trails and all the other stuff. But at some point -- and even going back to a few years ago when I represented this District, the people on that road have a terrible road time getting out in the morning and the evening, you know, that live in those developments. Are you-all planning as these different communities come in so that they do interconnect and at some point there can be lights along there so the traffic can -- I know right now you can't get down that road. ROBERT SCOTT: Yeah, actually that particular road there that is a legitimate concern and a concern as to whether a development like this goes in or not. It's already problematic. Unlike most of the other roads in that area, there is a long-term solution to this that you have on your Master Transportation Plan, which is Nimmo Parkway that runs parallel to North Landing Road. COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: But that reduces and gives an alternative. I'm talking about in terms of looking ahead and coordinating these so that where the lights will be -- so that ¢ 13 July 9, 2002 the public, in other words, the communities that are around here. Now, is there a parking lot where somebody is going to come and park here and walk these trails? No, there is not. But will there eventually be the opportunity to do that when all these different developments connect and somebody says, you know, the villages at West Neck and they go through here? Sure. Somebody at the Municipal Center, you know rides their bike down. Sure, no problem. That's what very much I'm sure will happen. The intention is that all of the open spaces be connected and trails be connected from one area to the next area over. That's why they all go to the property lines. VICE ~YOR MANDIGO: Ail right. I can't speak for the other Members of Council, but one of the concerns I have had with this is when you get into the Comprehensive Plan we talked about this area in Transition being a recreational mecca. Public space that's accessible and used by the public and with residential housing only as kind of an add-on. It's not the primary use and this is the first Application that this Council has seen. The last Council, we had great debates, one at the Workshop and with Planning. The concern that I have -- and, again, I'm just speaking for me. Is that this doesn't seem to be what we talked about in the Transition Area. It's not useful, except to the residents; but, I mean others may disagree. But, that's the issue that I have. The concern I have is to make a decision on this really puts this Council in a position where if we approve this then what we have said is, this is what we want and we really haven't had an opportunity as a'Body to talk about this. I know you have been through this, because we have done this on another one of your Applications, Eddie, and that's Bob Mandigo's concern. So, I just wanted to bring that to the attention of Council. EDDIE BOURDON: I don't think you are looking for a 12 July 9, 2002 multipurpose field, then that would actually open up some public space under that lease to another group and take away the Homeowners' Association"s expense of maintaining it and it would also add to the recreational value for the public. EDDIE BOURDON: VICE MAYOR~NDIGO: EDDIE BOURDON: I'm sure we wouldn't be opposed to looking at that, if that's an option that is -- That's hypothetical. -- desirable. VICE M~YOR MANDIGO: I'm just talking about what could be versus what is. What ~hat actually is is not something the public would likely access, is it? EDDIE BOURDON: I fully expect that members of the public especially, you know. Folks who work in this area, when this whole area is developed with the plans that are in place, what we're going to see because we are going to have interconnectivity of these park areas and these trails running throughout as Mr. Foster has started with Indian River Plantation. Villages of West Neck and Courthouse Estates and with what Staff and what the people at LDR out of Columbia Maryland who have been -- you know their ideas have been utilized. We have Steven Fuller from Atlanta whose ideas are being utilized. I think that we can -- I think clearly our vision is and has been that we are going to do something totally different here and we are going to have all these open space areas connected in these different developments so that you will have the opportunity.to ride a bike, jog or whatever from the Municipal Center and from these other developments. These trails will connect because if you make them that way to begin with people buy knowing that they are there versus trying to put them in later when it doesn't -- then, people object to them. So, the intent is that these trails will be used by the members of 11 EDDIE BOURDON: No. July 9, 2002 VICE MAYOR ~%NDIGO: Who owns the common area? EDDIE BOURDON: The Homeowners' Association owns the common area and maintains the conunon area. VICE MAYOR ~IGO: So, is this open for public recreation? EDDIE BOURDON: It would be open for public recreation in all likelihood. I mean, if there were to be a problem you get into some issues of, you know, of liability. If there were a series of problems, you could have some issues arise there, but that's certainly not been the history in Virginia Beach that that's been necessary. VICE MAYOR MANDIGO: control the land. It really isn't public area. the Homeowners' Association. It belongs to They actually EDDIE BOURDON: They control the land, correct. VICE MAYOR ~L~NDIGO: And it's available to public use unless they decide it's not, which would be the case with any use unless they decide it's not. EDDIE BOURDON: Which would be the case with any open space controlled by a Homeowners' Association, unless there was some condition put on it to the contract. VICE MAYOR MANDIGO: Or if there was a lease cr some other use that somebody was using it for. EDDIE BOURDON: You couldn't use it for any other purpose. VICE MAYOR ~%NDIGO: Well, in this case if I had a field say in the back and the Homeowners' Association and wanted to sublease that to a recreational association to use it for a 10 July 9, 2002 depth, but the value of that bench there is that it allows wetland vegetation to grow in there more aggressively and beneficial. That's a technique that is used in many places. We call it the "benching technique". It's a way of actually constructing your wetlands area. COUNCIL I2%DY EDI~E: I thought maybe it was some kind of bench you sit on that was environmentally good for you. Thank you, Mr. Scott. I have never heard that term. EDDIE BOD-RDON: I understood wetland benches. That's why when you used bio, I said, well, maybe that's something I am not versed in. COUNCIL L~Y EUI~E: Thank you. EDDIE BOIIRDON: I knew what this was. VICE MAYOR~%1~DIGO: Can I ask a question, Mayor? ~YOR OBERNDOP. F: Mr. Mandigo, please. VICE MAYOR ~a/~DIGO: The open space that you have on this particular part or this land is at the center part and at least two of those are the stormwater management retention ponds, aren't they? EDDIE BOUP~ON: They double as that. VICE MAYORMANDIGO: But you have to have them. EDDIE BO%TRDON: Yeah, I don't know that we would actually -- I actually don't think that we would need that many, but that's correct. VICEMAYORM~/~DIGO: And they don't usually get counted as open space? July 9, 2002 there are features in the park area at the opening and there are trails going from that. They cross the streets on both sides where there will be stamped concrete -- you know the paver affect. Then, the trails are elliptical in the front and then go around the initial lake there at the beginning, tie into the sidewalk and then they come back together in a triangular shaped area. Then, they go back through the park. If you follow, it's the gray or brownish color that goes all the way through the park and ties back in at four different areas, both to the east and west with the sidewalk -- I hope you-all can follow -- then, it goes to the west. As you go down, there are stars there where benches will be, where tables will be and there are also picnic shelters that are shown on the plan. It goes all the way around the lake in the back and eventually,goes through the woods back to the very lake in the far south end of the property. The trails are extensive. They will be improved trails, again as I said, with benches and picnic shelters, picnic tables and eventually there will be, you know, equipment that will go through Parks and Rec review and subject to your review also will be included. But, where that will be -- we didn't get into that much detail. This is more detail than has previously been, that I'm aware of, submitted with an Open Space Plan for the park areas beforehand. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Eure. COUNCIL LADY EURE: What is a bio-retention ditch? I have never heard of that. EDDIE BOURDON: take a shot at that. That's probably a request that Staff could better answer than me. I will let Stephen ROBERT SCOTT: A bench in wetlands is where the immediate area from the shore going out is extremely shallow like just a few inches deep and then it drops off to a deeper COUNCIL LADY WILSON: July 9, 2002 So, it's more of West Neck? EDDIE BOURDON: Yes, ma'am. MAYOR OBERNDORF: and little club? It's the townhouses? Are we talking about those that you go in and go to a golf course EDDIE BOURDON: It's one of the residential villages at the villages at West Neck for active adults over 55. I do not know which -- there are a number of villages and different types of housing within that. I don't know which one that is. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: So, it's right here? EDDIE BOURDON: property on the -- Oh, no. I'm sorry. That property is not -- I thought you were talking about the COUNCIL LADY WILSON: No. It's been cleared. EDDIE BOURDON: NO, that's an adjoining -- I apologize. That's an adjoining property owner who has timbered his land. That property is not under development. I apologize. I thought you meant the property that was denuded on one of the -- COUNCIL LADY WILSON: That property between this one and the Votech Center. I apologize. EDDIE BOURDON: I have got a number of maps. both sides of the roads have sidewalks. Ail right. sidewalks on both sides of the road. I misunderstood. First of all, There are The second page really doesn't provide much in the way of any type of illustration of the trails, but if we start at the beginning you see 7 are, Mr. Bourdon? July 9, 2002 EDDIE BOURDON: I will try. In your packages, you-all did not get the nice green -- I thought we had given -- if you give me just one second, I will go and grab some out of my file. I apologize. COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: We only get the black ones. VICE MAYOR MANDIGO: very often. It would be a perk if there are electronic pictures available, but we don't get those MAYOR OBERNDORF: Would it make a difference? VICE MAYOR MANDIGO: Yes . COUNCIL LADY WILSON: May I ask a question of Mr. Scott while we are waiting? MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yes, please. Mrs. Wilson, Mr. Scott. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Mr. Scott, the property that is between this piece of property and the VoTech Center looks like there is a lot of land that was cleared on these aerials that went a cross. What's going on there, do you know? ROBERT SCOTT: Yes. there. the adjoining property to that. That's part of the other development That's Indian River Plantation and COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Oh, that's part of the Indian River Plantation? EDDIE BOURDON: around the golf course. It's actually the Villages of West Neck. I'm sorry. It's the residential development 6 July 9, 2002 open space. No proffer -- actually the monies were proffered here and there. We have proffered 48-thousand plus for acquisition of additional Open space for maintenance and preservation of open space under our Outdoors Plan and we did the same thing with Seaboard Woods, but no improvements to the open space here. There are tens of thousands of dollars of improvements, hundreds of thousands of dollars of improvements that are being made to the open space on this piece of property to make it totally usable, to interconnect with the adjacent properties when they develop. That Seaboard Woods Application was approved on the Consent Agenda by the City Council I think about three years ago. So, you know where this became potentially controversial. I don't know. But, I would simply say it is an excellent Transitional Area development. It is keeping within your Comprehensive Plan to a "T". With the precedents that already exist in the Transition Area, it's a great compliment to the development that's occurring in this particular section of the Transition Area. A section of the Transition Area, by the way, the Agricultural Reserve Program is not even available. This is not an area where %he Ag Reserve Program is anticipated. It doesn't exist. You can't do it here and that's because it wasn't deemed to be agriculturally valuable and viable. I don't know what concerns would exist that would cause this to become controversial, but we hope it isn't in your mind. We don't think it is in ours. These developers have done what they have been asked to do and have created a wonderful, wonderful plan. The entrance feature, which I neglected to mention -- this is a rendering of it. This is, again, located in about six acres of land as you look at the plan along -- all of this area here from North Landing Road, you know back -- the first houses are way back in this area, this six acres of land, and then obviously goes all the way through. We have a central park all the way through with tie-ins to the east and to the west with trails throughout the open space. COUNCILMAN JONES: Can you kind of show us where the trails 5 July 9, 2002 situation that doesn't exist elsewhere in the City of Virginia Beach. We have a road section that is unique to the Transition Area that has been recommended by Staff, and that's the reason for the Subdivision Variance request. The notion has been put forth -- and this comes to you with a unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission and your Planning Staff. The conununity has met and they have no objection. That's the area here around the Courthouse. In fact, the lots all along North Landing Road are an acre and some of them are smaller than an acre. The density is no different than what you see right along North Landing Road. This project has not engendered any controversy whatsoever up un~il I guess maybe now. It doesn't set any precedent. It complies with the precedents that are already on the book. If we were suggesting to build something like this with water and sewer, which are already here, you are suggesting doing that below Indian River Road below the blue lane, than the area that is you know agricultural area, then, it would truly be a precedent. But when you compare this proposal to Indian River Plantation, for instance, you know we are talking the same density and we are talking actually more open space. We are further from the red line or the blue line. Down here we have Indian River Plantation at one-unit per acre. Villages of West Neck at two-units, age-restricted per acre, equivalent traffic Of one. Courthouse Estates is over three. Up here we have Courthouse Woods on the north side of North Landing Road at ten-units per acre. Here we are with Victoria Park at one-unit per acre with an absolutely super plan. The notion that there is something new and different occurring here if that's -- if someone happens to believes that, it certainly isn't the case. Over here on Seaboard Road Seaboard Woods -- it's called Maple Ridge on here, but it's now called Seaboard Woods. That plan was approved at 20,000 square-foot lots with Open Space Promotion like we have here and really no improvements at all in the July 9, 2002 Neighborhoods: Fox Fire, Highgate Greens, Three Oaks, Court House Estates, neighborhoods that have been approved since there was a Green Line, 'i.e., in the Transition Area such as Indian River Plantation, Heron's Ridge, Seaboard Woods and the Villages of West Neck. This piece of property is located just to the East of VoTech and the North Landing Elementary School. The aerial photos that I passed around you will see that the property adjoins the Villages of West Neck Community that is under development today. That development has two-units per acre of age restricted, plus a small commercial component and obviously the Arnold Palmer Signature Golf Course. Just to the west of Votech is the Courthouse Estates Community, which is over three-units per acre and then below us and below West Neck is Indian River Plantation at one-unit per acre density. The property, as you can see, is in a part of the Transition Area where there is already significant residential development. The proposal is for a plan that is completely in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations to the Transition Area and is in keeping with the precedents that exist. Those four developments that I have already referenced: Indian River Plantation, Villages cf West Neck, Seaboard Woods and Heron's Ridge. The property is not large enough to build a golf course on. We have a very beautiful community which features about six acres of parkland at the entrance -- far more park land in total. We have a development that includes putting in turn lanes on North Landing Road, houses that will be 350 to a half a million dollars in price. We have houses that do not back up to the other houses. We have a Central Park running throughout the property along with many improved trails, picnic shelters and benches. There are miles of trails throughout the property. The open spaces adjoin all the other properties that adjoin us so that when those properties develop, those open spaces will be able to be connected, so the houses in those developments won't backup to the houses in ours. So, you have that sense of openness, that unique 3 going.on 20 years. July 9, 2002 If it's not 20, it's well over a decade. The property' is located -- I will give you a little bit of the background. What is shown on here in blue is the Green Line. that part of the City, we are talking about densities at three and-a-half units per acre. Above What we have here shown in red for stop is actually the blue line basically at Indian River Road. In between Indian River Road and the Green Line is the Transition Area. This map shows the existing developments both in place and that have been in the pipeline, some things in the pipeline for close to three years. The subject property right here, Victoria Park, the Applicants, Harbour Development Group, are here this evening, Mr. Kinser and Mr. Saddler. The Transition Area already has significant development located in it. As I said previously, there are 4,300 homes already in the Transition Area, five existing elementary schools, plus one in the CIP and Red Mill Elementary which is right on the line just North. There is Landstown High School in the Transition Area, the Catholic School, again right on the line North of the Transition Area right at the Green Line, two middle schools in the Transition Area, plus this entire Municipal Center Complex. Where we are this evening is in the Transition Area, one of the biggest employment centers, one of the largest employment centers in the City including the Fire Station Precincts and the Landscape Services Center under construction. Our entire Judicial Complex is again in the Transition Area, Hope Haven, Food Lion Center down at Sandbridge Road and Princess Anne Road. We have got a lot of roads coming through here, Princess Anne Road being widened to four-lanes coming all the way down to the Municipal Center, Nimmo Parkway coming through, West Neck Parkway, West Neck Road in the Master Transportation Plan and work being done on those projects as we speak, including the HRSD force main coming through there. 2 July 9, 2002 CITY CT.RRK: The next Application is Harbour Development Corporation at North Landing and West Neck Roads in the Princess Anne - District 7, Change of Zoning from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R-30, a Conditional Use Permit for open space and a Variance Appeal for lots meeting the requirements of the CZO and reducing the required street width. VICE MAYOR MANDIGO: CITY CLERK: EDDIE BOURDON: VICE MAYOR M~NDIGO: EDDIE BOURDON: ascendancy -- Election. Earlier on the Consent Agenda -- Mr. Bourdon is representing the Applicant. Give me a minute to get set up. Okay. Mister Vice Mayor, I apologize. I have been remiss. I haven't congratulated you on your Congratulations. VICE MAYOR MANDIGO: Thank you, Mr. Bourdon. I think you did mention something last week. EDDIE BOURDON: I'm getting senile in my old age. This is the Application of Harbour Development Corporation for three things: A Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 to AG-2 to a Conditional R-30 Residential, a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion and a Subdivision Variance in and requirements of Section 4.1(m) of the Ordinance dealing with street widths. The proposal is an executive community of upper-end home sites, them located within just a few hundred yards of where we sit and stand tonight at the Municipal Center Complex. It's down North Landing Road. 65 of The subject property -- I've got a map of the Transition Area, because the property is located in the Transition Area, the Transition Area that we've had in our Comprehensive Plan now for Virginia Beach City Council July 9, 2002 7:50 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor Robert C. Mandigo, Vice Mayor Margaret L. Eure Louis R. Jones Reba S. McClanan Richard A. Maddox Jim Reeve Peter Schmidt Ron A. Villanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood At-Large District 2 - Kempsville District 1 - Centerville District 4 - Bayside District 3 - Rose Hall District 6 - Beach District 7 - Princess Anne At-Large At-Large At-Large District 5 - Lynnhaven CITY MANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Planning Application of Harbour Development Corporation, L.L.C. Map 1 13 ~o~ to $ca~e AG'I ". Harbour Development Corp. ', ',,AG-2 '~ '"'~ AG'2 ~ AG-2 AG'I AG'2 / / ; AG-I ; AG'2 C,l~in 1493-58-7581 ZONING HISTORY Conditional Use Permit (preschool/daycare) - Granted 7-3-01 Conditional Use Permit (church/daycare) - Granted 9-9-97 Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to PD-H1 District) - Granted 5-11-99 Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to PD-H1 District) - Granted 5-11-99 Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to P-1 Preservation District) - Granted 5-11-99 Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to P-1 Preservation District) - Granted 5-11-99 Conditional Use Permit (communications tower) - Granted 10-13-98 Conditional Use Permit (communications tower) - Granted 7-3-89 Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District) - Denied 8-27-86 Amendment to the Land Use Plan - Granted 9-22-93 Change of Zoning (AG-I& AG-2 Agricultural District to PD-H1 District) - Granted 8-27-86 Change of Zoning (PDH - PDH-1 District) - Granted 1-11-82 Conditional Use Permit (home occupation) - Granted 5-14-91 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Harbour Development Corporation, L.L.C., Change of Zoning District Classification Conditional Use Permit (Open Space Promotion) Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002 Background: CHANGE OF ZONING: An Ordinance upon Application of Harbour Development Corporation, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-30 Residential District on certain property located on the south side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road (GPIN #1493-58-7581). The proposed zoning to Conditional R-30 is for single-family land use on lots no less than 30,000 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for appropriate growth opportunities, consistent with the economic vitality policies of Virginia Beach. Said property contains 65.1 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. OPEN SPACE PROMOTION: An Ordinance upon Application of Harbour Development Corporation, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, for a Conditional Use Permit for an Open Space Promotion on certain property located on the south side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road (GPIN #1493-58-7581). Said property contains 65.1 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. SUBDIVISION VARIANCE: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Harbour Development Corporation. Property is located on the south side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road (GPIN #1493-58-7581). Said property contains 65.1 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. These requests were deferred by the City Council on July 9, 2002 to August 13, to provide the City Council with time to discuss the Comprehensive Plan's recommsndations regarding the Transition Area, On August 13, these requests were deferred to the October 8 City Council meeting in anticipation of a Transition Area study being conducted. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends indefinite deferral., Submitting Depa~tmentJAgency: Planning Department~ City Manager: ~ v~'- Harbour Development Page 2 of 3 Considerations: The applicant is requesting a Change of Zoning district classification from AG-1 and AG-2 to Conditional R-30, a Conditional Use Permit for an Open Space Promotion, and a Subdivision Variance to reduce the required street width. The applicant proposes to develop a 65.1 acre site into 65 residential lots resulting in an overall density of 1 dwelling unit per acre. The request consists of a Conditional Use Permit for R-30 Open Space Promotion that allows the square footage of the home sites to be a minimum of 18,000 square feet, although the actual size of the proposed lots ranges between 20,000 and 25,000 square feet. This allows a greater percentage of the parcel to remain in "open space" for park space (passive recreation in this case) and scenic vistas with the goal of creating openness within the development as one travels through it. Approximately 25 acres of land (39 percent of the total area) will be dedicated to passive recreational open space. The minimum open space requirement of the R-30 open space promotion option is 15 percent. At the request of City Council, staff developed a set of criteria for assessing a development's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan's policies for the Transition Area. The result was the establishment of a "Transition Area Matrix" that is now used to calculate the potential density of a development proposal in the transition area. Application of the matrix to the submitted plan resulted in a final "rating" that would allow a maximum of 64 dwelling units on the property. The applicant is requesting 65 units. A factor that must be entered into the equation, however, is the fact that the matrix calls for variation in lot size for the purpose of clustering and gaining open space. This component of the plan scored relatively Iow. A significant issue to be considered in this Iow score, however, is the opinion expressed by several City Council members in the review of other rezoning requests in the Transition Area during the last year that lots should have a minimum size of 20,000 square feet. This applicant, knowing that several Council members expressed that opinion, redesigned the proposed layout a number of times to increase the lot sizes to the desired 20,000 square feet while still trying to achieve the other objectives as expressed by the Transition Area Density Matrix. The result is a plan that scores high on almost all of the matrix items with the exception of the one calling for variation in lot sizes. Further details regarding the plan and its scoring are provided in the attached staff report. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the plan creates a high quality neighborhood that has been designed to preserve a large amount of open space, staff recommended approval and there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: On August 13, these requests were deferred to the October 8 City Council meeting in anticipation of a Transition Area study being conducted. The time frame for the study at that point was not known, and thus the requests were deferred for approximately 60 days. Since the August 13 meeting, the Transition Area Technical Advisory Committee (TA TAC) has been created and appointed and meetings of the committee have commenced. The committee was directed to submit any recommendations regarding the Transition Area to the Planning Commission by November 30, 2002. As the work of the TA TAC is not yet complete, these requests should be indefinitely deferred. The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request as proffered and with the following conditions: When development takes place upon that portion of the property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more than 65 building lots and shall be landscaped substantially in conformance with the Exhibit Harbour Development Page 3 of 3 entitled "REZONING EXHIBIT OF VICTORIA PLACE, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,' VIRGINIA, SHEET 2 OF 2", dated May 7, 2002, prepared by Hassell & Folkes, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. This includes adherence to: the species of plants listed on the plan, the design of the bio-retention benches in the stormwater management ponds, and all other notes on the said plan. The entry feature shall be constructed substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "Entry Feature for Victoria Park", dated May 28, 2002, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. The design and building materials for the proposed picnic shelters shall be of similar style and quality of the specifications of the shelter entitled "The Timberland" design, identified in the EnWood Structures catalog, a detail of which has been exhibited to the City Couoncil and is on file with the Planning Department. The final design shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C./# 27, 28 & 29 I I June 12, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: 27)Chanqe of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-30 Residential District 28)Conditional Use Permit for an Open Space Promotion 29) Subdivision Variance to Section 4.1 (m) for street width Property is located on the south side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road ~'~ ~ ~ Harbour De'oelopment Corp. C,~. 1495-5a-758] Planning Commission Agenda ~;~'~ June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page I GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: #1493-58-7581 7 - PRINCESS ANNE 65.1 acres Carolyn A. K. Smith To subdivide and construct 65 single-family dwellings on the 65 acre parcel while providing approximately 25 acres of open space Major Issues: Degree to which the proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan's and City Council's plans and policies for the Transition Area. · Compatibility with the surrounding, existing uses. Impact on City's infrastructure - roads, utilities, schools. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zonin,q The property is currently vacant, but has been under cultivation in the past. The 65 acre parcel is currently zoned both AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: · Single family dwellings / AG-2 Agricultural District · Wooded, proposed single family / PD-H1 Planned Unit Development District · Wooded / AG-1 Agricultural District Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 2 West: Single family, proposed single family / AG-1 & AG- 2 Agricultural Districts, PD-H1 Planned Unit Development District Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing Zoning: Under the existing agricultural zoning, the 65 acre parcel could potentially be developed into four (4) single family lots or could continue to support uses allowed by right under the agricultural district. With Proposed Zoning: The proposal allows up to 65 units on the 65 acre parcel. The R-30 Open Space Promotion option allows for a reduction in the minimum lot size from 30,000 square feet to 18,000 square feet. The lot sizes range from 20,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet. Zoninq History On a large parcel to the south and southwest, City Council granted a Change of Zoning from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District and P-1 Preservation District in 1999 for a small lot (5,000 square feet) age-restricted community. Further to the west, in 1982, City Council also approved a request to rezone agricultural property for single-family development. Modifications to this original request were later granted and the development is known today as "Courthouse Estates." Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The proposed use is compatible with this AICUZ district. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics This property is within the Southern Watersheds Management Area. Soils consist of predominately Acredale with areas of Tomotley along the northem portion of the property. The southeast comer of the site, approximately 7.5 acres, exists as woods. There are several existing wooded hedgerows on the property as the site has been segmented into numerous farm fields. The majority of the site had been under cultivation in the past and, as such, this proposal will remove approximately 60 acres of farmland from the City's inventory of agricultural property. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. ! # 27, 28 & 29 Page 3 Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: There is a sixteen (16) inch water main in North Landing Road that fronts the northern property line. This subdivision must connect to City water. Plans and bonds for construction of the water system will be required. Sewer: There is a sixteen (16) inch sanitary sewer force main and a four (4) inch force main in North Landing Road that fronts the northern property line. This subdivision must connect to City sewer. Plans and bonds will be required for construction of the sewer system. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP): This project is not impacted by any proposal found within the Master Transportation Plan. This development is included, however, in the CIP 6-039 service area and presently, construction of two (2) pump stations and associated sewer lines in the North Landing Road right-of-way are underway. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use z_ 40 ADT North Landing Road7,836 ADT 1 9,900 ADT ~ Proposed. Land Use 3_ 650 ADT Average Daily Trips as defined by the existing AG-1 & AG-2 zoning with 4 houses allowed by right as defined by R-30 zoning with 65 dwelling units Planning Commission Agenda HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 4 P~'o~ect ~ a~d Title:: 6-039 Norih L.m~ding Roa~Weet Neck Road Sewer Impro.v~ments Responsible Oept.: Public Lltllltlea I guslneas Area.: Ouall~f Pllllralcal ErMrOfllrlant Total Total Budget Uno F~roprfatld sul~eq uent years Future Prograrnme~ Apl:fol3'lation" Year 1 year 2' ' year 3 Year 4 Y~ar 5 Year I~ Punalng Funas To Date I:Y2002-03 FY 2003.-(34 FY 3304-06 FY 3305-0SI FY 330607 I:Y2C07-08 Requirement 3.520,[300 3,330,0B0 'llO.nnl CO T~ D O Thio project F:o:widea ,eweroa~inetothe residential properties along por~om of North Landing Rda a wear an y ~:3nstructinn of gravity sewers, a I~mpino &ration, and eel,-,-iated E:me main leafed in ~o 1:3rir~e,~ Anr~ r'J~b.ict. ~ CordTact. A includes 1he ~eaign en:l oonetructi3n ,'g' ,l.~,-.-= inlately 4,E~O ~ of 12' and 16' gravity amr and 3.800 Met of 10 ~rT:~ rr~ m fern 1he pump stadicn Ne b3 the intefse~a~ of We~ Neck I~:~d and Norih Lending Road. (b) Conb-ac~ B ircludes the dedgn and a3n~ruclion ~ a new pump Matbnfedlk'y~n We~t Na~. Rood. (c) Coff~'act C indudl d~a dMign a~l ,,',ne'cucdo.n of al:~r~imately 6.500 feet ¢r B". lO" and 12' gravity egw~'~. ~ ~ho eno'ahaB of ~rlhou~e EeIaIaa fo ~a=rg~ Macon ~,~vanue. Thi~ project ia -,cx3~linaad with the'wear ulJlity project as.Om2 'Wa=t Nook I~ad Water Improvemante. Thi~ project area he~ bean idantiSed by the bcad HeaRh Oopm'0'ne~t ee · C~ P. h~allh pmbMm. Coneb~ciion o~ I~eCt ii needed t~ l:a~3vida aew~m ~3 ralde~g failing ~e~c ay~ern~with Fo3' repair potential and p~vant health hazan~a. .~¢rc~imMaly BI3 lot= will be affecte.d, by o~n~'ucti~n of ~wer in .l~ie anco. With3Jt 1hie project, pell.~i.'on mn ba e~T)acted rise in 1he future due to an e,rpecta¢l increase in eaplic e~iwtam fai~uraa. 1~3rab'uclion of'll'M [~roj~-t wi, ebahe pollution of ti'ia area. CaMcit~in 1ha pump atatJa~ and gravity aew~r ay~tem will bo included fo maxJmi,,a em-vim omo etd rririmia~ b'~ nun'~ar ~d l:umpir~ f acilitiea in the area. The fa-ca main el(ag 'West Neck Rd ia needed fo l~c~ide an out t1~w ~r aftra and : davebpmant. Thig project fire appeared in the FY 1gG2-~3 CIP at en aetimefod co~t of $1,300;Q30. CO," mlimal~ have been re~ed in FY 200243 CIP ~ mtleat ,Wlaanded a~pe d'~:~k end ,,~uol bid Basis for E~dmetl ~:Y :~002-03 FY 2OC~-~I k"Y 201~1-0~ FY 2IOS,.O~ r'l' 2001..07 FY 2007-a9 0 0 0 0 {3 0 i I. · *-,, Munlcl~.. '?,~'gol1~ Total Budgetan/Ct:mt Eetimoto "3,520.000 :i ' -':'..'. · '~ -. Re~rIJe Bondl ; ...... '~' -*, ':. I Total Pr~rem'aed Finendng F~cal Year 2002..03 4 - 182 O.uality ~hyeical ]Ef~vi'mnmortt Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. ! # 27, 28 & 29 Page 5 Schools' School Name Current Capacity Generation Enrollment North Landing 590 651 20 .. Elementary School Princess Anne Middle School 1,424 1,615 11 Kellam High School 2,200 1,995 13 "generation" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning Lnd under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: Adequate - It is essential that the common area be visible by adjacent residences. A review of the covenants reveals that the height of any fencing adjacent to common areas will be limited in terms of height and building style (no stockade). This will help will visibility and safety. It is recommended that the street trees be spaced no closer than ten (10) feet from a light pole to help eliminate shadows and blockage of light. Shrubs should not be planted any closer than eight (8) feet to the proposed walking path. Adequate - no additional comments. Comprehensive Plan The Courthouse / Sandbridge Issues and Policies section of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the land uses and densities must not be a continuation of either the northern urban or the southern rural areas but a transition. (A transition by definition is a change, evolution, shift, alteration or modification.) The Comprehensive Plan states "this area of the City serves as a land use buffer between the clearly urbanizing area of the north and the clearly rural area of the south. Land uses and densities must not be a Planning Commission Agenda ~ 'i~ June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 .......... ' Page 6 continuation of either form, but a transition from one to the other" (page 72). The Plan recommends that residential, development in this area adhere to the following guidelines: Create high quality neighborhoods through careful planning of land uses, transportation systems, landscape treatments and public improvements (page 72 Policy Document). Staff Comment: The goal is to create a sense of openness by maintaining a large, landscape entrance (approximately 6 acres) and a swath of open space through the interior of the site. The applicant has proposed a neighborhood that maintains scenic vistas as one travels through the development and incorporates an extensive pedestrian trail system throughout with thought to future connections as we//. Along with the well-planned pedestrian system, park benches and large picnic shelters are proposed within the open space area. Design with nature, making a special effort to preserve and showcase significant environmental resources. Carefully integrate such natural features and use them as a basis, where possible, to enhance and define neighborhoods, recreation areas, open spaces, and views of special natural areas (page 72). Staff Comment: The amount of significant environmental features on this site was limited. A stand of trees exists in the southeast corner of the site. It was essential that this single environmental feature be incorporated into the overall design of the subdivision in terms of the number of homes in the wooded area, minimizing the size of the lots, particularly in this area of the site, and forethought on the actual location of the proposed homes within the woods so as to minimize disturbance. The design establishes a means for an expectation that adjacent parcels, should they ever develop, respect the efforts to maintain a natural buffer of value. In addition to preserving the majority of the trees within this stand, open areas are proposed in strategic locations along the roadway to establish a sense of openness as one travels through the development. Construct local roads with minimal pavement width, wide shoulders and side swales. Include a well-planned pedestrian circulation system to connect neighborhoods, recreational areas and open spaces. Minimize through consolidation of the number of street accesses to artedal roadways (page 73). Planning Commission Agen¢la June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 7 Staff Comment: The proposed 50 foot right-of-way that serves as the single access to North Landing Road is a departure from the typical.urban interior road design of $0 feet of pavement. The road width wi//be 24 feet with four (4) feet of paved shoulder on either side of the road. Beyond the pavement, adjacent to the street, street/ights and street trees are proposed. A five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed beyond the trees and fights that serve as a buffer between the pedestrian and vehicular traffic. A swale is then proposed within a ten (10) foot utility and drainage easement. As discussed above, a network of trails and sidewalks is proposed within the development with future potential connections with adjacent properties. Growth in this area should be viewed as a special type of development with its own standards suitable to the character of the area. The development standards should be environmentally sensitive, including narrow streets with less pavement, rural drainage techniques and appropriate aesthetic treatments. The transition area is to be seen as a recreational mecca with residential development only if it supports the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. Residential uses without an open space element are not encouraged (page 73). Staff Comment: This development proposal consists of 25.2 acres or 39 percent of the 65. 1 acres as dedicated passive open space, in addition, the applicant has proffered $750. O0 per lot for a total of $48,750. O0 to be used for the purchase of open space pursuant to the City's Outdoors Plan. The cash proffer, combined with the amount of open space and the "usability" of the proposed open areas, lends support to the conclusion that this project appears to qualify as one that will advance public accessibility to open space and recreational uses with the residential component as minor. Development that takes place in the transition area should be fiscally neutral. Fiscally neutral means that development must both a) generate more in tax revenue than the public services cost to support it, and b) be of such a density that, when coupled with existing and potential development in the area, it will not generate the need for substantial infrastructure improvements. As an alternative to fiscal neutrality, cash proffers to offset negative fiscal impacts can be considered. In the absence of a finding of fiscal neutral, there should be an extraordinary public benefit to be derived from the project (page 74). Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 8 Staff Comment: While the cash proffers could aid in balancing projects that do not appear to be fiscally neutral, the proposed cash proffers in this instance are specifically designated for the purchase of open space. In light of this, upon examination of the quality of the building materials and the value and amenities within the open space and the character of the surrounding development, these houses wi//have a value of approximately $350,000 to $450,000 and up. In addition, access to water and sewer is available along North Landing Road; however, plans and bonds for construction of both the water and sewer systems wi//be required. The development wi//not generate the need for the City to incur any substantial expense due to infrastructure improvements. The Department of Public Utilities is currently upgrading the existing system along this portion of North Landing Road. The entire project should be developed at a density that is the lowest of the following: 1. establishes the residential as secondary, 2. assures that the project is in keeping with the character of the transition area, and 3. generates no more traffic than the equivalent of one (1) dwelling unit per developable acre (page 74). Staff Comment: At the request of City Council, staff developed a 'set of criteria for assessing a development's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan's policies for the Transition Area. The result was the establishment of a '~ransition Area Matrix" that is now used to calculate the potential density of a development proposal in the transition area. Application of the matrix to the submitted p/an resulted in a final "rating" that would allow a maximum of 64 dwelling units on the property. The applicant is requesting 65 units. A factor that must be entered into the equation, however, is the fact that the matrix calls for variation in lot size for the purpose of clustering and gaining open space. This component of the plan scored relatively/ow. A significant issue, however, is the recent opinion expressed by several City Council members to other rezoning applicants in the Transition Area to have a minimum lot size of 20, O00 square feet. This applicant, knowing that several Council members expressed that opinion, redesigned the proposed layout a number of times to increase the lot sizes to the desired 20, 000 square feet while still trying to achieve the other objectives as expressed by the Transition Area Density Matrix. The result is a p/an that scores high on a/most all of the matrix items except the one calling for variation in lot sizes. The scored matrix is included at the end of this report. Planning Commission Agenda ~'~.~-'~ June 12, 2002~' HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. ! # 27, 28 & 29 Page 9 The need for widening roads should not be necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Projects of high merit and Iow density should be favored. Staff Comment: The construction of 65 homes on this property will not necessitate modification to the existing roadway. Traffic Engineering staff from the Department of Public Works have reviewed the plan and have concluded that North Landing Road is under its capacity. Summary of Proposal Proposal · The applicant is proposing to develop a 65.1 acre site into 65 residential lots resulting in an overall density of 1 dwelling unit per acre. The request consists of a Conditional Use Permit for R-30 Open Space Promotion that allows the square footage of the home sites to be a minimum of 18,000 square feet. However, the proposed lots range in size from 20,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet. The reduction from 30,000 square feet as required under straight R-30 zoning allows a greater percentage of the 65 acre parcel to remain in "open space" for park space (passive recreation in this case) and scenic vistas with the goal of creating openness within the development as one moves through it. · In addition to the use permit, a rezoning application is required to change the underlying zoning from AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District to R-30 Residential District. A subdivision variance is also sought as the proposed and preferred road design is atypical of City standards for a residential street. The proposed road section depicts the use of swales for drainage and a smaller width of asphalt (24 feet rather than the required 30 feet). In addition, the sidewalk is not directly adjacent to the roadway but rather buffered from vehicular traffic with street trees and street lighting. Site Design · The concept plan depicts a single entrance into the proposed development off of North Landing Road. Masonry walls parallel to North Landing Road on each side of the entrance road are proposed. There are approximately six (6) acres of passive open space, free from development, as one enters the site. A large entry feature is proposed within this open space area. The rendering of the entry feature depicts a predominately reddish brick outdoor pavilion with a cupola on the dark color roof and dentil molding surrounding the top. The design of the pavilion is consistent with the Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 .......... Page10 Princess Anne Commons Guidelines and complementary to the municipal center and the historic, rural character of the area. The central feature of this subdivision plan is a swath of open green space within the interior of the development. A'majority of all of the dwelling units will face or directly back up to some form of open space - either passive recreational open space or a lake (stormwater management pond). The homeowners' association will maintain this open space. Twenty-five (25) acres of total open space is proposed with six (6) foot wide mulched pedestrian trails, park benches, and picnic shelters throughout. Included in the development is a well-planned pedestrian circulation system that internally connects the proposed neighborhood as well as future neighborhoods. · Three (3) large stormwater management ponds are proposed and have been incorporated into the design of the subdivision as visual amenities. · Two (2) future street connections are proposed to accommodate potential development of adjacent properties. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · Vehicular circulation within the development is acceptable. Both the proffer agreement and the concept plan indicate that right and left turn lanes from North Landing Road will be constructed. The proposed streets within the development reflect the rural character of the transition area as they propose less pavement width, wide shoulders and side swales. The two (2) travel lanes are twelve (12) feet in width with four (4) feet of paved shoulder on both sides of the street. Included in the development is a well-planned pedestrian circulation system that connects the dwelling units to the open space and provides future pedestrian connections to adjoining properties as well. Five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalks within the rights-of-way are depicted on both sides of the streets with the exception of two (2) cul-de-sacs. Architectural Design · The Conditional Zoning Agreement states that visible exterior surfaces of the homes, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, must be no less than fifty percent (50%) brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. Any one-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2,400 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2,600 square feet of enclosed living Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 11 area excluding the garage area. The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two (2) car garage. The application states that the anticipated value of the homes should exceed $300,000 although the applicant has stated verbally that the finished homes will ultimately sell for $350,000 to $450,000. Deed Restrictions, administered by a Property Owners' Association, will limit the height and material of fencing so that all open space areas are easily visible and safe. The Deed Restrictions also require that all outbuildings be constructed of the same material and color as the principle dwelling and shall not exceed 200 square feet in size. They also require that all front yards be sodded. Landscape and Open Space · The Conditional Zoning Agreement indicates that 25.2 acres of land (39 percent of the total area) will be dedicated to passive recreational open space. The minimum open space requirement of the typical R-30 open space promotion option is 15 percent. These landscaped parklands will feature walking trails, park benches, picnic areas, and lakes outside the residential lots and roadways. Two (2) covered picnic shelters (12 feet by 20 feet) with a concrete base are proposed. Each building lot will be developed with double the total canopy cover specified in the City of Virginia Beach's "Residential Tree Requirement Table." For example, a 20,000 to 29,000 square foot lot requires at least 900 square feet of tree canopy. This can be accomplished by using all small, medium or large trees or a combination thereof. Small trees, such as a dogwood or crape myrtle, are given 100 square feet of canopy cover. Medium trees, such as river birch and American holly, are given 150 square feet of canopy cover. Large trees, such as bald cypress and Ioblolly pine, are given 200 square feet of canopy cover. Small trees must be at least five (5) feet in height at the time of planting and medium to large trees must be a minimum of 1 1/2 inch caliper at the time of planting. The pre-development tree canopy is 18 percent. With the proposed proffered landscaping the estimated post-development tree canopy at 10-year grow out will also be 18 percent. Proffers Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 12 PROFFER # 1 When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single. family residential community of no more than 65 building lots substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "REZONING EXHIBIT OF VICTORIA PLACE", dated May 7, 2002, prepared by Hassell & Folkes, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan"). Each building lot shall be developed with double (i.e. two times) the 'q'otal Canopy Cover Required" as specified in the City of Virginia Beach's "Residential Tree Requirement Table" published by the Virginia Beach Department of Planning as of the date hereof. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. This development proposes a centralized open space with additional pockets and ribbons of open space that serve buffers to adjacent uses and visual relief for both the pedestrian and motorist. The proposal is at a density of 1.0 unit per acre. Because the applicant is utilizing the R-30 open space promotion option, the lots are required to be a minimum of 18,000 square feet. The proposed lots range in size from 20, 000 to 25,000 square feet. The use of smaller lots than the typical R-30 30,000 square feet provide additional land available for open space. PROFFER # 2 When the property is developed, a central park containing approximately 25.2 acres of landscaped parklands and lakes featuring passive park areas, community activity areas featuring an extensive pedestrian pathway system, park benches, covered shelters and picnic areas lying outside the residential lots and roadways depicted on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Property Owners' Association. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. The applicant has proposed a neighborhood that maintains scenic vistas as one travels through the development and incorporates an extensive pedestrian trail system throughout with thought to future connections as well. Along with the well planned pedestrian system, park benches and large picnic shelters Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 13 PROFFER # 3 Staff Evaluation: are proposed within the open space area. When the property is developed, the pedestrian pathway system and open space improvements shall be constructed substantially as depicted on the Concept Plan. This proffer is acceptable. The plan incorporates an extensive pedestrian trail system including a six (6) foot wide mulched trail within the open space areas and a five (5) foot wide sidewalk throughout the subdivision. Future connections to adjacent properties are also depicted on the submitted plan. PROFFER Cf 4 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 4 Staff Evaluation: At the entrance to the community, the Party of the First Part will construct both right and left turn lanes from North Landing Road and a brick wall, 18 inches in height parallel to North Landing Road on each side of the entrance road as depicted on the Concept Plan. The proposed rezoning will generate sufficient turning volumes to warrant left and right turn lanes on North Landing Road. Department of Public Works standards specify the storage and bay taper must each be a minimum of 100 feet for the left and right turn lanes. The entrance location may need slight adjustment to provide for the turn lanes. This refinement will be determined during final site plan review should these requests be approved.. When the Property is subdivided it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a Property Owners' Association which shall be responsible for maintaining all Common areas, including the community owned open space with pedestrian pathway system, the entrance feature and community activity area. This proffer is acceptable. Beyond defining maintenance responsibilities, the Deed Restrictions will also limit the height and materials of fencing adjacent to open space areas, restrict the building materials of accessory Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 ..... Page14 structures, limit the placement of flags and other decorative items, etc. PROFFER # 5 All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, which is no less than fifty percent (50%) brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. Any one stow dwelling shall contain no less than 2,400 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two stow dwelling shall contain no less than 2,600 square feet of enclosed living area excluding the garage area. The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two (2) car garage. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. The size of the proposed homes and the quality of the building materials will contribute to the high quality appearance of this subdivision. The required two (2) car garage for each dwelling will help alleviate the necessity for on-street parking on the proposed street. PROFFER # 6 The Grantor recognizes that the subject site is located within the Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted on November 4, 1997. The Comprehensive Plan states that development taking place in this area should support the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. In addition to committing thirty-three percent (33%) of the property to open space preservation, via the dedication of the 20.6 acres to the Property Owners Association as permanent open space the Grantor agrees to contribute the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty and 11 / 100 Dollars ($750.00) per lot to Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee to acquire land for open space preservation pursuant to Grantee's Outdoors Plan. If the funds proffered by the Grantor in this paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. Grantor agrees to make payment for each residential lot as shown on any subdivision plat prior to recordation of that plat. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page15 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 7 Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. The cash proffer of $750.00 per lot equates to a total of $48,750.00 for afl 65 lots. Further Conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to R-30 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. This proffer is acceptable as it reaffirms that all provisions of the City Code must be met and that the rezoning proposal does not eliminate the applicant's responsibility to adhere to adopted rules and regulations. City Attorney's Office: The City Attomey's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request These requests are recommended for approval. The applicant proposes to develop a 65.1 acre site into 65 residential lots resulting in an overall density of 1 dwelling unit per acre. The request consists of a conditional use permit for R-30 opens space promotion that allows the square footage of the home sites to be a minimum of 18,000 square feet, although the actual size of the proposed lots ranges between 20,000 and 25,000 square feet. This allows a greater percentage of the parcel to remain in "open space" for park space (passive recreation in this case) and scenic vistas with the goal of creating openness within the development as one travels through it. The Conditional Zoning Agreement indicates that 25.2 acres of land (39 percent of the total area.) will be Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 16 dedicated to passive recreational open space. The minimum open space requirement of the R-30 open space promotion option is 15 percent. During the design phase of this development during discussions with staff, the applicant recognized that it was essential that the important environmental feature (the large stand of trees) be incorporated into the overall design of the subdivision in terms of the number of homes in the wooded area, particularly in minimizing the size of the lots in this area of the site. As a result, the actual location of the proposed homes within the woods has been predetermined so as to minimize disturbance. The retention of a majority of the trees dictates an expectation that adjacent parcels, should they ever develop, respect the efforts to maintain a natural buffer of value. In addition to preserving the majority of the trees within this stand, open areas are proposed in strategic locations along the roadway to establish a sense of openness. This development attempts to create a high quality neighborhood that has been designed to preserve a large amount of open space and showcase the environmental resources on the site. Staff approached the review of this plan in the Transition Area differently than one for a subdivision typically found in the northern part of the City. This development is a special type of project with its own development standards suitable to the atmosphere and character desired for this area. Development in the Transition Area should be associated with significant open space and recreational amenities. This development builds off of a centralized open space as well as additional pockets and "ribbons" of open space at the property's perimeter. These ribbons of open space aid in preventing an undesirable scenario, atypical of the rural character of the area, of back-to-back rear yards. A substantial amount of the parcel (39 percent) will remain as undeveloped open areas, but perhaps equally important to the amount of land reserved for open space is the actual accessibility and usability of the proposed open areas. A vast majority of the homes will back up to or be adjacent to either open space or forested areas. This includes lots 56 through 65 that will back up to a platted ingress/egress easement to the property to the west that varies in width from approximately 35 feet to 140 feet wide. This easement will serve as a buffer to the existing uses to the west. Also included in the open space component is a well-planned pedestrian circulation system with extensive internal connections. Along with the pedestrian system, park benches and large picnic shelters are proposed within the open space area. Approximately six (6) acres will be heavily landscaped as the entrance into the community from North Landing Road as well that will also aid in maintaining the rural vistas from the road. At the request of City Council, staff developed a set of criteria for assessing a development's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan's policies for the Transition Area. The result was the establishment of a "Transition Area Matrix" that is now used to Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 17 calculate the potential density of a development proposal in the transition area. Application of the matrix to the submitted plan resulted in a final "rating" that would allow a maximum of 64 dwelling units on the property. The applicant is requesting 65 units. A factor that must be entered into the equation, however, is the fact that the matrix calls for variation in lot size for the purpose of clustering and gaining open space. This component of the plan scored relatively Iow. A significant issue, however, is the recent opinion several City Council members expressed to other rezoning applicants in the Transition Area to have a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. This applicant, knowing that several Council members expressed that opinion, redesigned the proposed layout a number of times to increase the lot sizes to the desired 20,000 square feet while still trying to achieve the other objectives as expressed by the Transition Area Density Matrix. The result is a plan that scores high on almost all of the matrix items with the exception of the one calling for variation in lot sizes. The design of the subdivision and the amount of cash proffers set aside for acquisition of open space demonstrate the promotion of open space within this proposal. Staff concludes that the applicant's proposal meets the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area and recommends approval of these requests subject to the conditions below as part of the Open Space Promotion. Conditions When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more than 65 building lots and shall be landscaped substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "REZONING EXHIBIT OF VICTORIA PLACE, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, SHEET 2 OF 2", dated May 7', 2002, prepared by Hassell & Folkes, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. This includes adherence to: the species of plants listed on the plan, the design of the bio-retention benches in the stormwater management ponds, and all other notes on the said plan. The entry feature shall be constructed substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "Entry Feature for Victoria Park," dated May 28, 2002, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. The design and building materials for the proposed picnic shelters shall be of similar style and quality of the specifications of the shelter entitled "The Timberland" design, identified in the EnWood Structures catalog, a detail of which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file with the Planning Planning Commission Agenda ~~-~ June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page18 Department. The final design shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. I # 27. 28 & 29 Page 19 Planning Commission Agenda ~~.~ June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 20 Planning CommissionJune 12, Agenda 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. ! # 27, 28 & 29 Page 21 Planning Commission Agenda ~..~~ June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 22 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 23 Proposed Shelter Planning Commission Agenda of, ~ June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 ............ Page 24 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. ! # 27, 28 & 29 Page 25 TRANSITION AREA DEVELOPMENT DENSITY CALCULATION For Harbour Development, N. Landing.Road, June, 2002 The purpose of the following is to provide a means for evaluating a development that has been proposed against criteria based on the stated policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. Criteria " Total comments Natural Resources Degrees to which the project preserves and integrates into the overall 2.0 project the natural resource amenities on the site. Amenity Nature and degree of the 4,0 ,amenity Design Degree to which the 4.6 project incorporates good design into the p..roject (A) TOTAL: (c) (D) TOTAL / 11 possible points TOTAL / 11 * 0.5 = Line (C) + 0.5 du/acre = (E) Line D * total 10.6 0.96 0.48 .98 du/acre developable acres (65.1 acres) = I64 units Line A -- Line B-- Line C -- Line D -- Line E -- total number of points from the worksheets on the following pages. total divided by the total number of possible points, which is 11 total from Line B multiplied by 0.5, which is the amount between the baseline density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre and the possible 1 dwelling unit per acre (alu/ac). total from Line C added to 0.5 du/ac (the baseline density) tc obtain the maximum density for the site. total from Line D multiplied by the number of developable acres on the site, thus providing the maximum number of units for the site. Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 1 of 7 The following worksheets judge the development proposal according to the proposal's consistency with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area, particularly in regard to natural resources, amenity, and design. As appropriate, sketches, pictures and narrative are provided to clarify the concepts as a means of helping to make the determination of consiency with the criteria. (1) Natural Resources: existing forests, wetlands, meadows, cultivated fields, and related features Total a) Are natural resources protected? Comments: · The site consists of abandoned farmfields, : YES (0 to 1 broken up by wooded windbreaks. The 1.0 northeastern corner of the site possesses the point) only substantial stand of trees. · There are no other significant natural resources. , · The stand of trees in the northeast comer is retained to the extent that the only clearing is the 'envelope' for the houses and the area for the street. · The windbreak at the front of the site, which NO (0 points) provides a nice screen that helps in preserving the rural vista, is not preserved. I b) Are natural resources integrated into project? Comments: YES (0 to 1 · The woodedarea in the rearcomeris 1.0 retained except for building envelopes and point) streets. · Tree windbreaks are removed. ' NO (0 points) TOTAL (NATURAL RESOURCES) i 2.0 I Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 2 of 7 (2) Amenity: a feature that increases the attractiveness or value of the site consistent with the goals and objectives Total of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. a) Is the amenity, if present, visually or operationally available to those who do not own property in the development? ' Comments: I YES (0 to 1 · Yes, the amenity, in the form of the open ' point) 1.0 space and trails that run through it, is both I visually and operationally available to those who do not own property in the development. ~ NO (0 points) b) Does the amenity consist of active recreational components? ! Comments: YES (0 to 1 · Yes, but only to the extent that walking and 1.0 I running on trails and within the open space is point) ! considered 'active.' ~ · A factor to be considered, however, is that on a parcel less than 1 O0 acres, it is difficult to provide a significant active recreational , component while still achieving the other objectives expressed in this Matrix. NO (0 points) Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 3 of 7 c) Are physical improvements made that improve access to the natural resources on the site OR does the amenity consist of physical improvements to the property? YES (0 to 1 1.0 , point) Comments: · Trails · Picnic shelters I i NO (0 points) d) Is there connectivity linking any open space and/or amenities between this development and adjacent existing or future developments? YES (0 to I 1.0 Comments: I point) · Yes I NO (0 points) TOTAL (AMENITY) 4.0 Transition A;ea Deve;opment Density Calculation Page 4 of 7 (3) Design: creation or execution in an artistic or highly- skilled manner consistent with the goals and objectives of the Compressive Plan for the Transition Area. Are natural or manmade water features incorporated into the development in a way that they serve as amenities? a) Comments: · Yes b) Is there an attempt to integrate units with amenities within the development? Comments: · Yes, the open space and trails run around clustered areas of residential tots. YES (0 to1 point) NO (0 points) YES (0 to 1 point) NO (0 points) Total 1.0 1.0 Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 5 of 7 c) Does the development retain or create views or scenic vistas that can be seen from the road? YES (0 to 1 point) Comments: , · The existing vista at the front of the development created by the treed windbreak is removed and replaced by a formalized landscaped open space area. · An entry feature anchors the entrance, with the homes to be built in the development seen in the background. · The 'rural' vista is replaced by a formal, more suburban/exurban vista. NO (0 points) d) Are a mixture of lot sizes and the clustering of homes used to achieve a primarily open space development? YES (0 to 1 Comments: point) 0.6 · Mixture of lot sizes is not used. · Homes are clustered into four areas, providing open space and trail opportunities. NO (0 points) Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 6 of 7 e) Does the develop~nent use distinct roadway and "hard infrastructure" that fits the image of the existing rural community? Comments: 1 YES (0 to 1 : point) 1.0 yes , I NO (0 points) TOTAL (DESIGN) 4,6 Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 7 of 7 Item #27, 28 & 29 Harbour Development Corp. Change of Zoning District Classification from AG- 1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-30 Residential District; Conditional Use Permit for an Open Space Promotion; Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain Elements of the Subdivision Ordinance South side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road District 7 Princess Anne June 12, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: We'll go to Items 27, 28 & 29. Number 27 is a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-I and AG-2 to Conditional R-30 Residential; number 28, is a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion; and number 29, is an Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance. This is for Harbour Development Corporation. The property is located on the north -- excuse me, on the south side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road in the Princess Anne District and there are three conditions. Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mrs. Wood. Again, for the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon representing the applicants Mr. Kensler, Mr. Sadler, who are here today. All the conditions -- the three conditions are'all acceptable. On behalf of my clients, we want to briefly thank Carolyn Smith, Stephen White and the Planning staff for all their work on this application. My clients have worked very closely with them and I think, as you said at the informal session this morning, this a first rate plan. It's an excellent plan not like anything else that's been done in the City. And we appreciate you recognizing that by putting it on the Consent agenda. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. John Baum: I wanted to ask a question. There's another parcel in between that and the Vo Tech School. Is that right? Do you know who owns that? Eddie Bourdon: There's a - John, I have an aerial of that if that would be of any use to you. John Baum: Yes. Robert Miller: John, there it is. John Baum: Well. Eddie Bourdon: Oh, there we go. We got it here to. One that's been timbered? John Baum: Yes. Item 4/27, 28 & 29 Harbour Development Corp. Page 2 Eddie Bourdon: I just asked mY clients. I do not know who owns that parcel that's been timbered that's between us and at Vo Tech. John Baum: You know, you drive by frequently you see something happen and one reason why I wanted to bring that up, our crazy government -- Wetlands definition -- Wetlands by their definition. There's nothing wrong with developing it in my opinion, but it's been so erratic that I just wish people would notice some of these go up, some go down. Who knows who approves? The reporters have no interest in Freedom of Information Act. I love to read the language when they approve these and when they disapprove, so that's not your client's fault. Eddie Bourdon: I do know Mr. Baum and from my personal experience, you have forest a piece of property in this area and you timber it without taking the proper precautions and having delineation to go first, it all becomes Wetlands once you timber it. John Baum: Right. Well, if it delineated before the tree's cut it's not Wetlands. Eddie Bourdon: That's correct. John Baum: In last October, they become no longer Wetlands and you could do anything you want to and soon as you work it, it looks greasy and wet and everything else, but, that's government reasoning. Eddie Bourdon: You're absolutely correct. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Scott. So much time and effort has been spend developing additional guidelines, additional approaches to properties in the Transition Area that are up for development. This property seems to - it seems to meet the criteria and I think, from my opinion, that the developer and the staff have done an excellent job in putting this together. Would you like to comment on this because this is a little more sensitive area then we typically deal with here. Robert Scott: I would. I appreciate the opportunity. I can't think of an area that's been more difficult for us to deal with than in the policy areas related to the developing of the Transition Area over the last nine months or so. In fact, some people would say longer than that. But recently, we've developed with the Planning Commission's help, a matrix for evaluating these applications and we've consistently applied them to applications that have come in over the last several months now. In this case, first of all, let me say that the matrix takes into account a number of different factors. It takes inte account ,'.he design of the subdivision. It takes into account the appearance from the street. Takes into account protection of natural resources. It takes into account the design and the layout and the relationship of open space to the development. In all of those cases, two things can be said. First of all, I do affirmatively believe that Council is comfortable with the direction we are heading from a policy point of view on every one of those issues. They expressed that through their words and through their actions. And also, I can say, that the application here rate very high no every one of those points. It does not rate Item #27, 28 & 29 Harbour Development Corp. Page 3 particularly high on the issue of lot sizes and the way lot sizes are employed throughout the subdivision but I can in good faith say I have the same degree of comfort about Council's view on that point. Council has not express to us as they have with those other points a level of comfort with our approach to lot sizes. And I think the fact is something that we need to work on further and we are working on further. And we hope that we can bring to a truthful conclusion with all the parties involved. The difficulty that our staff in this is asking the developer to amend his plans to accommodate a policy we're not sure Council is comfortable with. I would really have a difficulty with that. So, I think it just needs to be noted that where as the matrix one when applied as drafted - I think 62 lots on its property. We are recommending the 66 because the short comings is in an area of doubt that we have about how solid everybody is on the policies related to lot size in that area. We felt that it was probably inappropriate to hold an applicant responsible for building or complying with the condition that evidentially lacks a level of confidence. And I just think that needs to be noted so that everybody knows where were coming from. I do have a great deal of faith generally in the approach of applying this matrix. I think it does some good. I think it provides clarity. I think it provides some points that people can see and understand and relate to easily. And I think it's something that we would like to continue to do. By enlarge, this application has matched up very well against it and my write up reflects that. But I did want to make sure that the Planning Commission knows about that one point and why we differed on that one point regarding the matrix and what our reason behind that was. If you feel that our reasoning is not sound and that we should have gone in a different direction, well you have the facts here at your disposal to do that. But I felt it was encumbered upon us to explain why we did what we did with the matrix and as it relates to this application. I appreciate the chance to explain that. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Dot? Eddie Bourdon: I just want to add one thing I forgot to add. My clients also met with the group out there on N. Landing Road, one of the primary members being another former Chairman Dick Cockrell. We've met with all the folks who live out in that area. I wanted to let the Commission know that as well. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon: Again, number 27, 28 & 29 is Harbour Development Corporation. A Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 to R-30, number 28, it's a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion; number 29, it' s an Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance. This property is located on the south side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road. Are there any objections to items 27, 28 & 29? If not, I would move to approve number 27, 28 & 29 with three conditions. Ronald Ripley: So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Ronald Ripley: Motion by Dot Wood, seconded by Eugene Crabtree. We're ready to vote. Item #27, 28 & 29 Harbour Development Corp. Page 4 AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE YAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. ABSENT 1 ABSENT .... .. APPLICATION. PAGE 4 OF 4 · . .: .: ...... C gI IONAL.... .ZONING ':.':::':..:;.:?:::..:.:...: .::'....: :.:: :'i::'.'.' '-: '.':::i':.."::::'::.': : ::':. "':: . :..'.. '::..'.::::. Applicant's Name: L List All Current Property Owners: Harbour DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Development C.orporation, L.L.C. Butch Family Ltd. Partnership L Arline M. Rosenmier~ Successor Trustee Michael J. Stafford, Sr., Trustee PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE -ff the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) m .f the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list ._~1 members or partners in the organiz~ion below: (At.ch list ~necessary) Timothy A. Butch, Sr., General Partner Pearl S. Butch, Partner James H. Butch, Partner Nancy Mikutowicz, Partner Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) I the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) _~obert R. Kinser _d Sadler _~.reston Fussell Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. C-ERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Bt ch Fam±lv Ltd. Partnership Harbouf~Dlfvelopment Corporation, L.L.C., ~ ~ ~///~/ ~C! L ~a Virj~~ed liablity company ' S'gn t Timothy A.~;h, Sr., General ~ Partner Robert R. Kinser, Managing Member Print Nam~ Rev. 9/15/98 F'O~M /40. F).'c:. lq City of Virginia Beach. ":' In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5542 DATE: June 26, 2002 TO: PROM: Leslie L. Lilley B. Kay Wilson~k'*~ DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application Harbour Development Corporation, L.L.C., et als The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on July 9, 2002. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated May 21,2002, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure tEPARED BY: i_. K[$, I~O[~RDON. : AII~N ti t.[VY. HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C., a company, BURCH FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP, ARLINE M. ROSENMEIER, Successor Trustee of the Joseph Revocable Trust MICHAEL J. STAFFORD, SR., Trustee of the ROBERT E. REVOCABLE TRUST Virginia limited liability,. TO {PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) H. Howlett, Jr., STAFFORD, SR. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth Virginia of THIS AGREEMENT, made this 21st day of May, 2002, by and between HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the first part; BURCH FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP, ARLINE M. ROSENMEIER, Successor Trustee, and MICHAEL J. STAFFORD, SR., Trustee, Grantor, parties of the second part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the third part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties of the second part are the owners of that certain parcel of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing a total of approximately 65.1 acres and described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel is hereinafter referred to as the "Propertf'; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of the Property and has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classifications of the Property from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-30 Residential District with a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion; and GPIN: 1493-58-7581 RETURN TO: SYKES, BOURDON, AHERN & LEVY, P.C. PEMBROKE ONE BUILDING, THE FIFTH FLOOR VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462 PREPARED BY: WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly developmen,t,. of la_nd for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the. Grantor acknowledges that the competing a_nd sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on e_nd in the area of the Property end at the same time to recognize the effects of change, e_nd the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to la~d similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for t. he R-30 Zoning District by t. he existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, end use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said ~mendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without e_ny element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govem the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title 'and which will not be required of the Grantor until the Property is developed: 1. When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is tO be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more '~':IEPARED BY: i'lES. I:IOUI,~I)¢}~'. ~\II[I,~N & LEW. p.l:. than sixty-five (65) building lots substantially in confo~-,e, nce with the Exhibi~.[ entitled ~REZONING EXHIBIT OF VICTORIA PARK", dated May 7, 2002, prepared by Hasseil & Folkes, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia ]~each City Council a_nd is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (~Concept Plan"). Each building lot shall be developed with double (i.e. two times) the '~I'otal Canopy Cover Required" as specified in the City of Virginia Beach's ~Residential Tree Requirement Table" published by the Virginia Beach Department of Planning as of the date hereof. 2. When the property is developed, a central park containing appro:~mately 25.2 acres of landscaped parklands and lakes featuring passive park areas, community activity areas featuring an extensive pedestria~ pathway system, park benches, covered shelters and picnic areas lying outside the residential lots and roadways depicted on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and malnt~r~ed by the Property Owners Association. 3. When the property is developed, the pedestrian pathway system and open space improvements shall be constructed substantially as depicted on the Concept Plan. 4. At the entrance to the community the Party of the First Part will construct both right arid left turn lanes from North Landing Road and a brick wall, 18 inches in height parallel to North Landin§ Road on each side of the entrance road as depicted on the Concept Plan. 5. When the Property is subdivided it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (~Deed Restrictions") administered by a Property Owners Association which shall be responsible for maintaining all common areas, including the community owned open space with pedestrian pathway system, the entrance feature and community activity area. 6. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, which is no less than fEW percent (50%) brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. Arty one story dwelling shall contain no less than 2400 square feet of enclosed living area excluding §aral~e area and any two-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2600 square feet PREPARED BY: ISY[L~, [}OURDON. AII[I~N & LEVY. RC. of enclosed living area excluding garage area. The Deed Restrictions shall require,. each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two (2) car garage. · 7. The Grantor recognizes that the subject site is located within the Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted on November 4, 1997. The Comprehensive Plan states that development taking place in this area should support the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. In addition to committing thirty-nine percent (39%) of the Property to open space preservation, via the dedication of 25.2 acres to the Property Owners Association as pe~,,,anent open space the Grantor agrees to contribute the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty and 00/100 Dollars ($750.00) per lot to Grantee to be uHli~.ed by the Grantee to acquire land for open space preservation pursuant to Grantee's Outdoors Plan. If the funds proffered by the Grantor in this paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty {20} years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. Grantor agrees to make payment for each residential lot shown on any subdivision plat prior to recordation of that plat. 8. Further conditions may be required by thc Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-30 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by thc Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, 4 1EPAREO BY: i'o ;MIS. ItOURDON. AIlI:RN & [LsVY. P.C however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, .and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.9.-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with al/necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy pei-aiits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and {4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning DeparLuient, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantor and the Grantee. 5 PREPARED BY: ISY[[S. I~O[~DON. ~ql~ & LL:'VY. P.C WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ., to-wit: HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C.~ginia limited liability company By: Managing Mem(~eErAL) June The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 10th day of 1~ 2002, by Robert R. Kinser, Managing Member of Harbour Development Corporation, L.L.C., a limited liability company, Grantor. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2002 5 REP~RED BY: I~ f[l:~;. I~OUiIDON. AIIEI~N & LEVY. WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: BURCH FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP STATE OF VIRGINIA ~ ' ~PPY/COUNTY OF /~-~/~.d.r~, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2002, by Timothy A. Partnership, Grantor. ~.'~O'l~day of May, Burch, Sr., General Partner, of the Butch Family Ltd. Notary Public My Commission Expires: '~-~C0mrd~i~n E,:p[r~ r,s, czch 3~o 2055 PREPARED BY: iSYK[$. I~OURDON. WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: the Joseph H. Howlett, Jr. Revocable Trust STATE OF ~ CITY/COUNTY OF ~2k~L,~ E-. ., to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ - day 2002, by Arline M. Rosenmeier, Successor Trustee of the Joseph H. Howlett, Jr. Revocable Trust, Grantor. My Commission Expires: '"~IEPARED BY: '[[$. t~OURDON. Allk'P.N & LEVY. P.C WITNESS the following signature and seal: .,. GRANTOR: .... (SEAeLrt) l~lichael J. ~_affo~-d,-~., Trustee of the Rob E. Stafford, Sr., Re-go,able Trust STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged/~efore 2002, by Michael d. Stafford, Sr.,F~xrustee/a~ the I~obert Trust, Grantor. r~ My Commission Expires: O~- ~L~-0'[ me this q.*d ~k day of May, E. Stafford, Sr. Revocable 9 ExHr~IT "A' PREPARED BY: All of that certain piece or parcel of land situate near Princess Anne Courthouse in the Seaboard Magisterial District in the County of Princess Anne, Virginia, and mqre particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southern side of State Highway Route 165 known as North Landing Road, as evidenced by the dedication of a fifteen (15} foot strip of land to Princess Anne County, where same intersects the eastern line of the lane to the Boomer residence, as shown on the plat entitled "Survey of M. W. Flora Property, Seaboard Magisterial District, Princess Anne County, Virginia", dated December 5, 1961, made by Wilfred P. Large, Certified Land Surveyor, said plat to be recorded simultaneously with this deed; and running thence easterly along the southern side of North Landing Road, N. 70° 15' E. a distance of 419.47 feet to a point and running thence S. 23° 19' E. a distance of 279.01 feet to a point; and running thence N. 66° 41' E. a distance of 189.39 feet to a point; and running thence S. 32° 01' E. a distance of 365.79 feet to a point; and running thence S. 32° 32' E. a distance of 733.05 feet to a point; and running thence S. 32° 37' E. a distance of 997.11 feet to a point; and running thence S. 32° 27' 45" E. a distance of 402.31 feet to a point; and running thence S. 49° 56' 35' W. a distance of 1144.41 feet to a point; and running thence N. 32° 24' 51' W. a distance of 1483.87 feet to a point; and running thence N. 26° 40' 06 W. a distance of 102.86 feet to a point; and running thence N. 13° 48' 31" W. a distance of 107.93 feet to a point; and running thence N. 8° 37"24" . W. a distance of 553.62 feet to a point; and running thence N. 11° 59' 58' W. a distance of 909.02 feet, to the point of beginning. GPIN: 1493-58-7581 CONDR. E~ / F,~'~BOUR/PROFFER? REV.5/2 ~/02 10 Map D-08 Map ,%:t so Sc~e Christian C, pin 1466-58-2655 ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (church expansion) - Granted 12-11-01 Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 2-13-01 2. Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 5-25-93 3. Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) -Granted 5-12-92 4. Change of Zoning (B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-18 Apartment District) - Granted 5-27-97 Change of Zoning (R-10 Residential District to Conditional A-18 Apartment District) - Granted 5-27-97 5. Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 7-3-89 6. Change of Zoning (Ro5 Residential District to B-lA Business District) - Granted 5-23-88 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Trinity Christian Church - Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Trinity Christian Fellowship for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on the south side of Challedon Drive, 642.54 feet east of S. Parliament Drive (GPIN 1466582655). Said parcel is located at 5245 Challedon Drive and contains 16,247.88 square feet. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a 40 member church with related activities within an existing building. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because this request is compatible with the existing surrounding land uses, staff recommended approval and there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The parking lot shall be re-striped so as to clearly delineate all parking spaces, including the required handicap space. 2. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Official prior to occupancy. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. ~ S.u. bmitting D.~rtment/Agency: Planning Department ~ TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP / # 10 September 11, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Conditional Use Permit for a church. South side of Challedon Drive, 642.54 feet east of S. Parliament Drive. Said parcel is located at 5245 Challedon Drive. ~ ~ Christian GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Gi~n 1466-5~-2655 14665826550000 2 - KEMPSVILLE 16,247.88 square feet Carolyn A. K. Smith To use this property for a 40 member church and related activities. Major Issues: Degree to which the proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses. Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP / # 10 Page 1 Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning There is a vacant 4,950 square foot, one-story office building with 14 parking spaces on this property currently zoned B-2 Community Business District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq North: South: East: West: · Challedon Drive, office, mixed retail/B-2 Community Business District · Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River · Office, retail/B-2 Community Business District · Office, warehouse / B-2 Community Business District Zonin,q History There have been several requests for Conditional Use Permits for churches in the vicinity of this property. The most recent request for a church was approved by City Council in December 2001 within a shopping center to the north. Several rezoning requests have been approved near this site as well. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics This site is located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and more specifically within the Resource Protection Area, the most stringently regulated portion of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. The rear of the building is located at the top of the bank that ultimately slopes down to the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River. Additional review by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board is not required, as the applicant does not have plans to expand the existing structure. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is an eight (8) inch water main in Challedon Drive. This site has an existing meter that may be used. There is an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer main in Challedon Drive. Planning Commission Agenda =~'~.-~~=.. ~ September 11, 2002 TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP / # 10 Page 2 This site is cOnnected to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Challedon Drive is a two (2) lane undivided collector. It is not designated on the Master Transportation Plan nor are any upgrades to this facility planned at this time. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capac. ity Existing Land Use z_ 46 ADT Challedon Drive No counts 7,400 ADT ~ available Proposed Land Use 3_ 46 ADT weekday 183 ADT Sunday Average Daily Trips as defined by 5,000 square foot office/warehouse 3as defined by 5,000 square foot church Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: Adequate - no further comments. Adequate - no further comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as planned for retail, service, and office uses. Page 52 states that when desired by the community, support proposals for new or readapted development that carefully integrate residential, commercial, employment and other acceptable uses for the purpose of achieving a complementary, well- organized, efficient and attractive arrangement of land uses are acceptable. Summary of Proposal Proposal The applicant is requesting to operate a church with a small office, a nursery, and rooms for other related activities within an existing 4,950 square foot building. A Conditional Use Permit is required for this use. Site Desi,qn The site plan depicts an existing one-story, 4,950 square foot building on a 0.373 acre site. Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP / # 10 Page3 There is a roll-up (garage style) door with ramp access on the west end of the .building. The plan also depicts 14 parking spaces with access off of Challedon Drive. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · Both vehicular and pedestrian access is adequate. Architectural Design · No modifications to the exterior of the existing building are proposed. The existing building is a white, one-story structure and appears to be constructed of masonry block units with dark trim around the windows and doors and along the roof. · There is a roll-up (garage style) door with ramp access on the west end of the facade facing the right-of-way, Landscape and Open Space Design · No interior parking lot, foundation or streetscape landscaping exists on the site. · The site plan depicts small shrubs to be installed along the street in front of the parking lot. · Staff has conditioned the approval subject to the installation of foundation landscaping as well. Evaluation of Request This request is acceptable as conditioned. The church plans on holding services and other gatherings within the existing 4,950 square foot building. The church is also proposing a small office, a nursery, and rooms for other related activities such as Bible study, etc. The typical hours that the building will be occupied are Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and Thursday evenings from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Currently, the church does not have any employees. There are 40 active members (adults and children). The 14 parking spaces can adequately accommodate this size congregation. The request is compatible with the existing surrounding land uses and is in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions The parking lot shall be re-striped so as to clearly delineate all parking spaces, including the required handicap space. Foundation landscaping within planters shall be installed along at least 50 percent of the front fa(;:ade facing Challedon Drive. Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002~....~.~i~..~:-.: .~" Y7 TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP / # 10 ~ Page 4 3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Official prior to occupancy. NOTE: Fu~her conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet ail applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP / # 10 Page 5 Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 TRINITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP / # 10 Page 6 Item #10 Trinity Christian Fellowship Conditional Use Permit for a church South side of Challedon Drive, east of S. Parliament Drive 5245 Challedon Drive District 2 Kempsville September 11, 2002 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: After I finish reading the item, Mrs. Atkinson will comment on that item for us. The next is Item #10, which is Trinity Christian Fellowship. It's an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on the south side of Challedon Drive, east of S. Parliament and it is in the Kempsville District and it has two conditions. Lucien Thompson: Hi. I'm Lucien Thompson, Associate Pastor with Trinity Christian Fellowship and we are in agreement with the stipulations. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Thompson. Lucien Thompson: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Is there any objection to Item #10, Trinity Christian Fellowship? Mrs. Atkinson, would you please review Item #107 Betsy Atkinson: Yes ma'am. The item is for a 40-member church on Parliament Drive and it's in a very industrial area and we felt this was very appropriate use. The staff had also recommended landscaping planters in front of it and the Commission felt in our informal session that this was not really necessary unless the church chose to put the planters in. And again, we agree with staff that this should be on our Consent agenda. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mrs. Atkinson. Betsy Atkinson: You're welcome. Dorothy Wood: Since they're no opposition to the Consent agenda Mr. Ripley, I would like to move that the item on the Consent agenda be approved, number 10 with two conditions. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Do we have a second to the motion? Betsy Atldnson: I'll second it. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Betsy Atkinson. Is there any other discussion on the motion? Planning Commission's ready to vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSENT 0 ABS 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. .' USE 'PERMIT ! .ONAL. '" CITY OF VIRGINIA. BEACH O/: Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list (f neccs.~ If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION ali members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list iJ'necessa~-y) x~Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section belo, APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers.of the Corporation below: (Attach list ifnecessao,) If the applicant is a PARTNERSItIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list al' members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ~ here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organizatie' CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true attd accurate. Signature Print Name Activity Report Trinity Christian Fellowship 5245 Challedon Dr. V~rinia Beach, VA 23462 (757) 420-8210 8/19/2002 11) Trustee -- Member Phone Jack Haga 1948 Blue Knob Rd. Virginia Beach, VA 23464 Ray Shourds 1028 Sherry Ave. V/rgin/a beach, VA 23464 Lucian Thompson Ig0$ Guadal Ct. Chesapeake, VA 23320 Ed Wasson 1712 River Rock Arch Virginia Beach,. VA 23456 479-1901 420-1369 420-8210 471-1703 APPOINTMENT PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION L. UNFINISHED BUSINESS M. NEW BUSINESS N. ADJOURNMENT , Ruth Smith - Docl_.doc Page 1 Dear Madam Mayor and fellow Counciimembers, Thank you for your consideration of the resolution to expedite the school personnel's raises from January 2003 to November 15, 2002. I am sending a video of the School Board Meeting of October 1, 2002 for your information. Under discussion (immediately after the Consent Agenda) is the vote on reversion funds. In that discussion Vicky Lewis is asked about using some of this money to move up the timing of the pay raises. She states that the City will look at it like they did when the schools asked for 18 new security guard positions, that it would be a recurring expense. New positions in a budget is a recurring expense. Moving the pay raises to an earlier date is not a recurring expense, the raises are already in the budget. This Council voted at its July 9, 2002 meeting to allow the schools to use $400,000 in reversion monies for salaries (please see accompanying documentation). I think it is very important that we as a Council not be used as an excuse for not expediting the teachers and other personnel a raise earlier than January, 2003 especially when it is a small portion of the $18.2 million of reversion money. I also believe the School Board did not ask us for this use of the reversion money because they were told by staff that it would be against our policy. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. With highest regards to you, And with pride in our city, Rosemary Wilson