HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 13, 2003 AGENDACITY COUNCIL
MAYOR MEYERA E OBERNDORF At -Large
VICE MAYOR LOUIS R JONES Bui side - District 4
HARRY E DIEZ,EL, Kempstitlle - District 2
MARGARET L EURE Centerville - District t
REBA S McCLANAN Robe Hall - District 3
RICHARD A MADDOX Beach - Dtstrtct 6
JIM REEVE Prtnce s s Anne - Di strict 7
PETER W SCHMIDT At -Large
RON 4 VILLANUEVA, At -Large
ROSEMARY WILSON At -Large
JAMES L WOOD, Llnnhaven -Di strict 5
JAMES K SPORE, Ctn Manager
LESLIE L. LILLEY, Ctr% Attorney
RUTH HODGES SMITH XfAfC, Ctn Clerk
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
"COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME"
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
13 May 2003
CITY HALL BUILDING E
2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005
PHONE (757) 427430.3
FAX (757) 426-5669
EMAIL Ctycncl @ vbgov com
I. CITY MANAGER'S WORKSHOP -Conference Room - 3 :00 PM
1. Update on Legislative Weekend
Nancy Perry - Director, Virginia Beach Hotel/Motel Association
2. City Council "Perfect Match" Vignettes
Donald Maxwell - Director, Economic Development
FPublic/Pnvate Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002
Leslie L Lilley -City Attorney
H. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS
III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
IV. INFORMAL SESSION
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
D. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
- Conference Room - 5 :00 PM
V CITY COUNCIL INFORMAL DISCUSSION
VI. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
B. INVOCATION: Reverend Dr Coleman Taylor
Rector Gallider Episcopal Church
C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
E CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
F. MINUTES
1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS May 6, 2003
2. SPECIAL FORMAL SESSION May 1, 2003
3. SPECIAL FORMAL SESSION April 24, 2003
G. AGENDA FOR. FORMAL SESSION
H. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Sale of EXCESS property at Princess Anne Road & Flanangans Lane
I CONSENT AGENDA
J. RESOLUTIONS / ORDINANCES
1. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach concurring with and
AUTHORIZING the issuance of hospital revenue notes for Sentara Health Care
2. Resolution AUTHORIZING a cooperative agreement between the City of Virginia Beach
and Commonwealth's Attorney for the prosecution of misdemeanor offenses
3. Resolution re AUTHORIZING the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-
ZI), and provide appropriate funding.
4. Ordinances re FY 2003-04 Operating Budget:
a ESTABLISH the tax levy on Real Estate re FY 2004
b ESTABLISH the tax levy on personal property and machinery and tools re
calendar year 2004
C. AMEND the City Code §35-254 re telecommunications tax by simplifying the tax
structure for commercial customers and increasing the E-911 tax.
d. AMEND the City Code §31-35 re yard waste containers by establishing a Twenty
Five Dollar ($25) fee.
e. AMEND the City Code §21-364 re parking and increasing and fine for fire lane
parking violations.
f. AMEND the subdivision regulations §8.1 re fees for preliminary subdivision plat
review
g. AMEND the City Code §3.2 re fee for site plan review
h. AMEND the City Zoning Ordinance § 107 re the fee to amend supplement or change
the regulations, district boundaries or classifications of property and to ESTABLISH 1i
fee for the reconsideration of proffered conditions.
�. AMEND the City Zoning Ordinance §221 re fee for conditional use permit
applications re a fee for the reconsideration of conditions
J . AMEND the City Zoning Ordinance §8-3 re fee for subdivision variance applications
k. AMEND the City Code §6-138 re fee to construct, alter or repair landings, docks
and similar structures
1. AMEND the City Code § 8-31 re fees for building permits, reinspections and
certificates of occupancy
M. AMEND the City Code §8-34 re fees for electrical permits and special condition
electrical permits
n. AMEND the City Code §8-32 re fees for plumbing permits
o. AMEND the City Code §8-33 re fees for mechanical, life safety and gas permits.
P. REVISE the revenue sources re the major projects special revenue fund
q. AMEND the City Code § 1-12.3 re adding a section providing for the assessment of
court costs to support the local Criminal Justice Academy
r. AMEND the City Code §2- 10 1 re language of the work week
S. AMEND the City Code § 2-104 and 2-109 of re changes in pay for city employees
t. AMEND the City Code §35-64 and §35-67 re the exemption or deferral of real
estate taxes for elderly or disabled person by increasing income and new worth limits
U. APPROPRIATE re FY 2003-04 $1,311,825,979 to operations and $468,070,150 to
interfund transfers and re ulatin4 a ment from the Cit Treasury
V. AUTHORIZE the City Manager to subnut an Annual Funding Plan to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
5. Ordinance re FY 2003-04 Capital Budget
a. AUTHORIZE the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds in the maximum amount
of $61,900,000 for various public facilities and general improvements
b. AUTHORIZE the Issuance of Storm Water Utility System Revenue Bonds in the
maximum amount of $580,000
C. ADOPT the FY 2004-09 Capital Budget (CIP)
6. APPROPRIATE $1,525,983 RE Sheriff S FY 2002-03 operating budget to support functions
of the for one-time purchase of equipment and to supplement their retirement account.
7 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $50,000 in federal funds to the FY 2002-03 operating budget
of the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Substance Abuse (MHMRSA)
services to provide increased services to children with disabilities.
K. PLANNING
1. Ordinance to further EXTEND the date for satisfying conditions for the discontinuance
closure and abandonment of a portion of Morris Avenue and Katie Brown Drive in behalf of
UNITED JEWISH FEDERATION OF TIDEWATER (approved November 27, 2001)
Staff Recommendation:
APPROVAL
2. Application of MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. re Change of Zoning District Classification from
R-51) Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-1 Light Industnal District to construct a
mmnx warehouse use on the west side of Centerville Turnpike north of Kempsville Road,
containing 6.724 acres. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE)
Deferred:
Recommendation:
March 25, April 22, 2003
APPROVAL
3. Application of Royal Court, Inc re Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1,
AG-2 and R-20 to R-5D Residential Duplex District with a PD-H2 Planned Unit
Development District overlay on the north side of Princess Anne Road and Crossroads Trail,
containing 9 963 acres.
(DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE)
Deferred:
Planning Recommendation:
March 25 and April 22, 2003
APPROVAL
4. Application of TUEE' KNOW HIM FULL GOSPEL MINISTRIES re Conditional Use
Permit for a church at Newtown and Baker Roads (544 Newtown Road, Suite 146).
(DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE)
Planning Recommendation:
APPROVAL
5. Application of Kemp Fussell, L.L.C. re Chance of ZoninDistrict Classification from AG-1
and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-5D Residential Duplex District on the west
side of Holland Road and south of Monet Drive, containing 10.4 acres.
(DISTRICT 7 -- PRINCESS ANNE)
Planning Recommendation
APPROVAL
6. Application of Wendell C. Franklin of CA Associates re temporary encroachments into a
portion of the right-of-way of First Colonial Road and Wildwood Drive to construct and
maintain a decorative alununum fence adjacent to Colonial Arms circle.
(DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN)
Planning Recommendation: APPROVAL
7. Ordinances re City of Virginia Beach:
a. Old Princess Anne Road and Flanagan's Lane:
(DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE)
1 discontinuance, closure, abandonment
2. AUTHORIZE the City Manager to sell EXCESS property and dispose of
same by executing a Deed of Exchange.
Planning Recommendation: APPROVAL
b. AMEND the City Code:
1. §901re City of Virginia Beach / Colleges, Universities and Business Schools
to include public or private colleges and universities as conditional uses.
2. § 901 re Colleges In Business Districts to include public or private colleges
and universities as permitted uses in the B-2, B-3, B-3A, and B-4 Business
Districts.
3. §801 re to make business and vocational schools conditional uses in the B-1A, B-2,
B-3, B-3A, and B-4 Business Districts and make public or private schools, colleges
and universities conditional uses in the 0-2 Office District.
L. APPOINTMENTS
EASTERN VIRGINIA MEDICAL SCHOOL
FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
YOUTH SERVICES COUNCIL
M UNFINISHED BUSINESS
N. NEW BUSINESS
O. ADJOURNMENT
If you are physically disabled or visually impaired
and need assistance at this meeting,
please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303
Hearing impaired, call: TDD only 427-4305
nda 05/13I03 blb
(TDD - Telephonic Device for the Dean
Age
www vbt7o-Y com
City Council, in trying
to be more responsive to the needs of citizens who
attend the meetings, has adopted the following time Iimits for future Formal Sessions
Applicant or Applicant's Representative
10 Minute
Attorney or Representative for Opposition
10 Minutes
Other Speakers -each
3 Minutes
Applicant's Rebuttal
3 Minutes
THESE TIMES WILL BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO.
I. CITY MANAGER'S WORKSHOP - Conference Room - 3 :00 PM
1. Update on Legislative Weekend
Nancy Perry - Director, Virginia Beach Hotel/Motel Association
2. City Council "Perfect Match" Vignettes
Donald Maxwell - Director, Economic Development
3 Public/Private Educational facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002
Leslie L. Lilley - City Attorney
H. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS
III CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
IV INFORMAL SESSION
- Conference Room - 5 :00 P1Vi
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
D. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
V. CITY COUNCIL INFORMAL DISCUSSION
'in 911fill:U t I till
46
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.
VI FORMAL SESSION
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
B INVOCATION: Reverend Dr. Coleman Taylor
Rector Gallider Episcopal Church
- Council Chamber - 6:00 PMI
C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
D ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
F. MINUTES
1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS May 6, 2003
2. SPECIAL FORMAL SESSION May 1, 2003
3. SPECIAL FORMAL SESSION April 24, 2003
G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION
H. PUBLIC HEARING
Sale of EXCESS property at Princess Anne Road & Flanangans Lane
CONSENT AGENDA
J. RESOLUTIONS / ORDINANCES
1. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach concurring with and
AUTHORIZING the issuance of hospital revenue notes for Sentara Health Care
2. Resolution AUTHORIZING a cooperative agreement between the City of Virginia Beach
and Commonwealth's Attorney for the prosecution of misdemeanor offenses
3. Resolution re AUTHORIZING the Transportation Equity Act for the 2 1 " Century (TEA-
ZI), and provide appropriate funding.
4. Ordinances re FY 2003-04 Operating Budget.
a ESTABLISH the tax levy on Real Estate re FY 2004
b. ESTABLISH the tax levy on personal property and machinery and tools re
calendar year 2004
C. AMEND the City Code §35-254 re telecommunications tax by simplifying the tax
structure for commercial customers and increasing the E-911 tax.
d. AMEND the City Code §31-35 re yard waste containers by establishing a Twenty
Five Dollar ($25) fee.
e. AMEND the City Code §21-364 re parking and increasing and fine for fire lane
parking violations.
f. AMEND the subdivision regulations §8.1 re fees for preliminary subdivision plat
review
g. AMEND the City Code §3.2 re fee for site plan review
h. AMEND the City Zoning Ordinance § 107 re the fee to amend supplement or change
the regulations, district boundaries or classifications of property and to ESTABLISH z
fee for the reconsideration of proffered conditions.
i. AMEND the City Zoning Ordinance §221 re fee for conditional use permit
applications re a fee for the reconsideration of conditions
J. AMEND the City Zoning Ordinance §8--3 re fee for subdivision variance applications
k. AMEND the City Code §6-138 re fee to construct, alter or repair landings, docks
and similar structures
1. AMEND the City Code § 8-31 re fees for building permits, reinspections and
certificates of occupancy
M. AMEND the City Code §8-34 re fees for electrical permits and special condition
electrical permits
n. AMEND the City Code §8-32 re fees for plumbing permits
o. AMEND the City Code §8-33 re fees for mechanical, life safety and gas permits.
p. REVISE the revenue sources re the major projects special revenue fund
q. AMEND the City Code § 1-12 3 re adding a section providing for the assessment of
court costs to support the local Criminal Justice Academy
r. AMEND the City Code §2- 10 1 re language of the work week
S. AMEND the City Code § 2-104 and 2-109 of re changes in pay for city employees
t. AMEND the City Code §35-64 and §35-67 re the exemption or deferral of real
estate taxes for elderly or disabled person by increasing income and new worth limits
U. APPROPRIATE re FY 2003-04 $1,311,825,979 to operations and $468,070,150 to
interfund transfers and regulating payment from the City Treasury
V. AUTHORIZE the City Manager to submit an Annual Funding Plan to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
5. Ordinance re FY 2003-04 Capital Budget:
a. AUTHORIZE the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds in the maximum amount
of $61,900,000 for various public facilities and general improvements
b. AUTHORIZE the Issuance of Storm Water Utility System Revenue Bonds in the
maximum amount of $580,000
C. ADOPT the FY 2004-09 Capital Budget (CIP)
6. APPROPRIATE $1,525,983 RE Sheriff S FY 2002-03 operating budget to support functions
of the for one-time purchase of equipment and to supplement their retirement account.
7. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $50,000 in federal funds to the FY 2002-03 operating budget
of the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Substance Abuse (MHMRSA)
services to provide increased services to children with disabilities.
y C�a4 �~ 1�k��/
r�
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Resolution Approving Issuance of Hospital Revenue Notes (Sentara Healthcare)
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2003
■ Background:
The City of Virginia Beach Development Authority held a public hearing for the issuance
of revenue Notes for the Sentara Healthcare. The Notes are to be issued by the Industrial
Development Authority of the City of Norfolk in an amount not to exceed $160,000,000.
The Notes will be used to assist the Sentara Healthcare Group in (a) undertaking the
acquisition, construction and installation of certain capital expenditures, including building
renovations and improvements, diagnostic , therapeutic, surgical and fitness equipment,
medical office furnishings and equipment, health care business office furnishings and
equipment, motor vehicles and equipment and furnishings for in -patient and out -patient
procedures, treatments and consultations at hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices and
emergency centers and (b) to pay certain costs of issuance relating to the Notes. Certain
of the projects to be undertaken with the anticipated financing are located in the City of
Virginia Beach. The City of Virginia Beach Development Authority passed a resolution on
April 15, 2003, recommending that the City Council approve issuance of the Notes.
Revenue Notes are short-term tax-exempt financing instruments, with variable interest
rates that change every 5-8 days, and the revenues from these Notes are used for a
variety of operational and capital needs, pending the issuance of long-term revenue Notes.
Within Virginia Beach, immediate plans for this short-term financing include a $10 million
renovation and equipment upgrade project at Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital,
with ultimate financing to be included in the larger project that has been publicized over the
past few months.
The effect of this action, on approval by the City, will be to raise the present maximum
available to Sentara Healthcare for these Notes from the present limit of $130 million to a
new limit of $160 million. There is no exposure to the City with this debtor this action The
Sentara financial statements also indicate that Sentara practices a policy of providing 50%
equity in capital purchases, and this policy should provide comfort to private or public
underwriters or investors concerned about exposure with debt.
■ Considerations:
The matter comes before Council for its approval pursuant to Section 15.2-4906 of the
Code of Virginia, which provides that the highest elected governmental unit of the locality
having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity Notes and over the area in which any
facility financed with the proceeds of private activity Notes is located must approve the
issuance of the Notes.
■ Public Information:
The request was duly advertised for public hearing before the Norfolk Industrial
Development Authority, which has adopted a Resolution recommending that the City
Council approve the issuance of the Notes.
■ Alternatives: Not Approve
■ Recommendations: Approval
■ Attachments:
I DP Submission to Council
Notice of Public Hearing
Record of Public Hearing
Development Authority's Resolution
Disclosure Statement
Authority's Statement
Fiscal Impact Statement
Summary Sheet
Letter from Department of Economic Development dated April 15, 2003
Inducement Resolution for the City of Norfolk Authority
Resolution for City of Virginia Beach
Location M a p
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Development Authority Gary entress of Counsel
City Manager: � ��
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH CONCURRING WITH AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF
HOSPITAL REVENUE NOTES FOR
S ENTARA HEALTHCARE
WHEREAS, there has been described to the City of Virginia Beach Development
Authority (the "Authority") the plan of finance of Sentara Healthcare (the "Company") and
certain of its not -for -profit affiliates comprising a portion of the Company's integrated health care
delivery system and operation (collectively, with the Company, the "Sentara Healthcare Group"),
all of whose principal place of business is 6015 Poplar Hall Drive, Norfolk, Virginia 23502 for
the issuance by the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Norfolk (the "Norfolk
Authority") of its revenue notes (the "Notes") in an amount not to exceed $160,000,000 to assist
the Sentara Healthcare Group in (a) undertaking the acquisition, construction and installation of
certain capital expenditures, including building renovations and improvements, diagnostic,
therapeutic, surgical and fitness equipment, medical office furnishings and equipment, health
care business office furnishings and equipment, motor vehicles and equipment and furnishings
for in -patient and out -patient procedures, treatments and consultations at hospitals, clinics,
doctors' offices and emergency centers (collectively, the "Expenditures") and (b) to pay certain
costs of issuance relating to the Notes; and
WHEREAS, each such Expenditure will be or are owned and/or operated by one of the
members of the Sentara Healthcare Group and a portion of such Expenditures will be located at
one or more of the locations in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, described in Exhibit A
attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, as one of the acts required in order for the interest on such Notes to qualify
for exemption from the imposition of federal income tax, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") and Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code require
approval by the City Council of the City of Norfolk and by this Council of the issuance of any
private activity bonds by the Norfolk Authority with respect facilities located in the City of
Virginia Beach after the Norfolk Authority and the Authority have held public hearings to
consider the issuance of such Notes; and
WHEREAS, the Authority held a public hearing on April 15, 2003, in compliance with
the requirements of the Code and the Virginia Code and after such public hearing, did adopt a
resolution approving the plans of the Norfolk Authority as stated in the Norfolk Resolution and
recommending to this Council that it concur with the Norfolk Resolution, as required by Section
15.2-4905 of the Virginia Code, and approve the issuance of the Notes, as required by Section
15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's approving resolution, a reasonably detailed
summary of the comments expressed at the public hearing with respect to the Notes held by the
Authority and a statement in the form prescribed by Section 15.2-4907 of the Virginia Code have
been filed with this Council;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH -
I. The Expenditures proposed to be financed by the issuance of the Notes and to be
located in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, are deemed appropriate for such financing and,
accordingly, the Council hereby concurs in the issuance of the Notes by the Norfolk Authority, to
the extent required by the Code and Section 15.2-4905 of the Virginia Code, and approves the
issuance of the Notes, to the extent required by the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia
Code.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Notes does not constitute an endorsement to
the prospective purchasers of the Notes of the creditworthiness of the Sentara Healthcare Group
and the Notes shall provide that neither the City of Virginia Beach nor the Authority nor any
other political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall be obligated to pay the Notes
or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except for the revenues and moneys pledged
therefor, and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia
or any political subdivision thereof shall be pledged thereto.
3 This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption
A copy teste:
City Clerk, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
APPROVED AS TO
LEGAL S r`iGIENCY
---
2
Sentara Hampton General Hospital
3120 Victoria Blvd
Hampton, VA 23 661
Sentara Hampton General Hospital/
Medical Arts Building
3116 Victoria Boulevard
Hampton, VA 23661
Sentara Hampton General Hospital/
HOPE Medical Center
300 Marcella Road
Hampton, VA 23661
Sentara Hospitals/Sentara Norfolk
General Hospital
600 Gresham Drive
Norfolk, VA 23507
Sentara Healthcare/
MIS Data Center, Tarmac Bldg
1151 Azalea Garden Road
Norfolk, VA 23502
#831629 v1
EXHIBIT A
Sentara Hampton General Hospital/
Sentara CareP lex
3000 Coliseum Road
Hampton, VA 23 661
Sentara Hospitals/Sentara Leigh Hospital
830 Kempsville Road
Norfolk, VA 23502
Sentara Hospitals/Sentara Bayside Hospital
800 Independence Blvd
Virginia Beach, VA 23455
Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital
1060 First Colonial Road
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454
Sentara Healthcare
6015 Poplar Hall Drive
Norfolk, VA 23502
Williamsburg Community Hospital
301 Monticello Avenue
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
(York County)
VIRGINIA
BE.rAvPjmCH
April 15, 2003
The Honorable Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor
Members of City Council
Municipal Center
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
Re- Sentara Healthcare
Revenue Bonds
Dear Mayor Oberndorf and Members of City Council:
Virginia Beach
Development Authority
222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1000
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
(757) 437-6464
FAX (757) 499-9894
Website www vbgov cam
We submit the following in connection with project Sentara Healthcare principal place of
business is located at 6015 Poplar Hall Drive, Norfolk, Virginia 23502.
(1) Evidence of publication of the notice of heanng is attached as Exhibit A , and a
summary of the statements made at the public hearing is attached as Exhibit B The City of Virginia
Beach Development Authority's (the "Authority") resolution recommending Council's approval is
attached as Exhibit C.
(2) The Disclosure Statement is attached as Exhibit D.
(3) The statement of the Authority's reasons for its approval as a benefit for the City of
Virginia Beach and its recommendation that City Council approve the modification of the bonds
described above is attached as Exhibit E.
(4) The Fiscal Impact Statement is attached as Exhibit F.
The Honorable Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor
Members of City Council
April 15, 2003
Page 2
(5) Attached as Exhibit G is a summary sheet setting forth the type of issue, and identifying
the Project and the principals.
(6) Attached as Exhibit H is a letter from the appropriate City department commenting on
the Project.
(7) Attached as Exhibit I is an inducement resolution from the City of Norfolk.
Very truly yours,
RGJ/GLF/rab
Enclosures
EXH� .0. A
THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
The Virginian -Pilot
-- --------- - - - - ------------------------------- - - - - +- -- - - - - - -
THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT Tues
Public Hearings
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED I
REVENUE NOTE PLAN OF FINANCE I
SENTARA HEALTHCARE AND AFFILIATES
Notice is hereby given that the City of Virginia Beach Development
Authority (the Authority) whose address is 222 Central Park Avenue
Suite 1000, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462, will hold a public hearing
an the plan of financing of Sentara Healthcare (the "Company') and
certain of its not for profit affiliates comprising a portion of the
Company s integrated healthcare system and operation including Sen
tara Hospitals, Sentara Enterprises Sentara Hampton General Hospi
tal, Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital, Sentara Life Care Corpo-
ratio6 and Sentara Medical Group (collectively with the Company the
"Sentara Healthcare Group-) all of whose principal place of business
is 6015 Poplar Hall Drive Norfolk, Virginia 23502, for the issuance by
the Authority of its revenue notes in an amount not to exceed
$160 000,000 to assist the Sentara Healthcare Group in (a) undertak
mg (i) the acquisition, construction and installation of certain capital
expenditures including building renovations construction and
improvements (it) acquisition and installation of diagnostic therapeu
tic, surgical and fitness equipment, medical office furnishings and
equipment health care business office furnishings and equipment
equipment and furnishings for in -patient and outpatient procedures
treatments and consultations and (rri) acquisition of motor vehicles
all at the locations described below (collectively the "Expenditures")
and (b) to pay certain costs of issuance relating to the notes Each
such Expenditure will be owned and/or operated by one of the mem•
bers of the Sentara Healthcare Group Such Expenditures will be
located at one or more of the locations described below
Sentara Hampton General Hospital Sentara Hampton General Hospitai
3120 Victoria Blvd Sentara CarePlex
Hampton VA 23661 3000 Coliseum Road f
Hampton VA 23661 �
Sentara Hampton General Hospital/
Medical Arts Building Sentara Hospitals/Sentara
3116 Victoria Boulevard Leigh Hospital
Hampton, VA 23661 830 Kempsville Road
Norfolk Va 23502
Sentara Hampton General Hospital/
HOPE Medical Center Sentara Hospitals/Sentara
300 Marcella Road Bayside Hospital
Hampton VA 23661 800 Independence Blvd
Virginia Beach VA 23455
Sentara Hospitals/Sentara Norfolk Sentara Virginia Beach
General Hospital (5eneral Hospital
�600 Gresham Drive 1060 First Colonial Road
Norfolk VA 23507 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454
Sentara Healthcare/ Sentara Healthcare
MIS Data Center Tarmac Bldg 6015 Poplar Hall Drive
1151 Azalea Garden Road Norfolk, VA 23502
Norfolk VA 23502
Williamsburg Community Hospital
301 Monticello Avenue
Williarnsburg Virginia 23185
(York County)
The public hearing which may be continued or adjourned will be held
at 8 30 a m on April 15 2003, before the Authority at its offices
located at 222 Central Park Avenue Suite 1000 Virginia Beach
Virginia 23462 Any person interested in the issuance of the notes
should appear and be heard Any person who is disabled and will
require an accommodation in order to participate in the public hearing
may call the Authority at 437 6464 Please place such call at least
'three (3) days in advance of the meeting and public hearing
The notes will not constitute a debt or pledge of the faith and credit of
the Commonwealth of Virginia or any political subdivision thereof
including the Authority Neither the Commonwealth of Virginia nor any
political subdivision thereof including the Authority shall be obligated
to pay the notes or the interest thereon or other costs incident
thereto except from the revenues and monies pledged therefor and
neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth
of Virginia nor any political subdivision thereof including the Authority
will be pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on such
notes or other costs incident thereto
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
VP April 1 and April 8 2003 10241815
TOTAL COST: 1,139.04 AD SPACE: 168 LINE
FILED ON. _ 04/11 Q^i
-------------;�---- --�--' �— --
Legl A cant --------------- --------------------------
L f f
r
Subscr a and sw r to bef`r n my ity and state on the day and year
of oresai Lhis y
Notary,: ission expires January 31, 2004
KAUFMAN & CANOLES , P.C.
NICOLE H DUKE, ESQ.
150 w MAIN ST
NORFOLK VA 23510
REFERENCE: 10236406
10241815
State of Virginia
City of Norfolk
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA
This day, D Johnson personally appeared before me
and after being duly sworn, made oath that
1) She is affidavit clerk of The Virginian -Pilot,
a newspaper published by Landmark Communications
Inc., in the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth,
Chesapeake, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach, Common-
wealth of Virginia and in the state of North
Carolina 2)That the advertisement hereto annexed
has been published in said newspaper on the date
stated.
PUBLISHED ON: 04/01 04/08
Exhibit A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED
REVENUE NOTE PLAN OF FINANCE
SENTARA HEALTHCARE AND AFFILIATES
Notice is hereby given that the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the
Authority) whose address is 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1000, Virginia Beach, Virginia
23462, will hold a public hearing on the plan of financing of Sentara Healthcare (the
"Company"), and certain of its not -for -profit affiliates comprising a portion of the Company's
integrated healthcare system and operation, including Sentara Hospitals, Sentara Enterprises,
Sentara Hampton General Hospital, Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital, Sentara Life Care
Corporation and Sentara Medical Group (collectively with the Company, the "Sentara Healthcare
Group"), all of whose principal place of business is 6015 Poplar Hall Drive, Norfolk, Virginia
235021 for the issuance by the Authority of its revenue notes in an amount not to exceed
$160,000,000 to assist the Sentara Healthcare Group in (a) undertaking (i) the acquisition,
construction and installation of certain capital expenditures, including building renovations,
construction and improvements, (ii) acquisition and installation of diagnostic, therapeutic,
surgical and fitness equipment, medical office furnishings and equipment, health care business
office furnishings and equipment, equipment and furnishings for in -patient and out -patient
procedures, treatments and consultations, and (iii) acquisition of motor vehicles, all at the
locations described below (collectively, the "Expenditures") and (b) to pay certain costs of
issuance relating to the notes. Each such Expenditure will be owned and/or operated by one of
the members of the Sentara Healthcare Group. Such Expenditures will be located at one or more
of the locations described below:
Sentara Hampton General Hospital
3120 Victoria Blvd.
Hampton, VA 23661
Sentara Hampton General Hospital/
Medical Arts Building
3116 Victoria Boulevard
Hampton, VA 23 661
Sentara Hampton General Hospital/
HOPE Medical Center
300 Marcella Road
Hampton, VA 23661
Sentara Hospitals/Sentara Norfolk
General Hospital
600 Gresham Drive
Norfolk, VA 23507
Sentara Hampton General Hospital/
Sentara CarePlex
3 000 Coliseum Road
Hampton, VA 23661
Sentara. Hospitals/Sentara Leigh Hospital
830 Kempsville Road
Norfolk, VA 23502
Sentara Hospitals/Sentara Bayside Hospital
800 Independence Blvd.
Virginia Beach, VA 23455
Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital
1060 First Colonial Road
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454
S entara Healthcare
6 015 Poplar Hall Drive
Norfo lk, VA 2 3 5 02
Sentara Healthcare/
MIS Data Center, Tarmac Bldg
1151 Azalea Garden Road
Norfolk, VA 23502
Williamsburg Community Hospital
301 Monticello Avenue
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
(York County)
The public hearing, which may be continued or adjourned, will be held at 8:30 a.m. on
April 15, 2003, before the Authority at its offices located at 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite
1000, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462 Any person interested in the issuance of the notes should
appear and be heard. Any person who is disabled and will require an accommodation in order to
participate in the public hearing may call the Authority at 437-6464. Please place such call at
least three (3) days in advance of the meeting and public hearing.
The notes will not constitute a debt or pledge of the faith and credit of the
Commonwealth of Virginia or any political subdivision thereof, including the Authority Neither
the Commonwealth of Virginia nor any political subdivision thereof, including the Authority,
shall be obligated to pay the notes, or the interest thereon, or other costs incident thereto, except
from the revenues and monies pledged therefor, and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing
power of the Commonwealth of Virginia nor any political subdivision thereof, including the
Authority, will be pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on such notes or other
costs incident thereto.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE VIRGINIAN PILOT ON APRIL 1, 20039 AND APRIL S,
2003
#831642 v1
2
Exhibit B
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RECORD OF PUBLIC HEARING
(SENTARA HEALTHCARE COMMERCIAL PAPER REVENUE NOTE PROGRAM)
At S :30 a.m. on April 15, 2003, the Chairman of the City of Virginia Beach Development
Authority (the "Authority") announced the commencement of a public hearing on the request of
Sentara Healthcare, a Virginia non -stock corporation (the "Sentara"), and that a notice of public
heanng was published once a week for two consecutive weeks in The Virginian -Pilot, the second
publication being not less than six (6) days nor more than twenty-one (21) days pnor to the
hearing. The Chairman indicated that a copy of the notice and a certificate of publication of such
notice have been or will be filed with the records of the Authonty and will be provided to the
Clerk of the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach.
The following individual appeared and addressed the Authority: Mr. George Consolvo
appeared on behalf of the Sentara. Mr. Consolvo described the commercial paper revenue note
program of Sentara which is utilized to finance healthcare facilities in Norfolk, Hampton, York
County and Virginia Beach. Mr. Consolvo further added that it is necessary under federal and
Virginia law that the Authority hold a public hearing and that the issuance of the Notes by the
Economic Development Authority of the City of Norfolk be approved by the City Council of the
City of Virginia Beach. Mr. Consolvo closed his remarks by noting that the presence of the
Sentara facilities in the City of Virginia Beach greatly enhances the provision of healthcare
provided within the City of Virginia Beach and, accordingly, benefits its citizens and serves a
compelling public purpose.
Mr. Robert D O'Connor appeared and asked whether the Notes will be obligations of the
Authority or the City of Virginia Beach Mr Consolvo replayed that the Notes would not be an
obligation of any political subdivision of the Commonwealth. The Chairman closed the public
hearing.
The Authority then adopted a resolution (a) recommending that the Council of the City of
Virginia Beach approve the issuance of the Notes in an amount up to $160,000,000, (b) directing
the transmission of a Fiscal Impact Statement with respect to the Notes to the Council of the City
of Virginia Beach and (c) requesting that its recommendation be received at the next regular or
special meeting during calendar year 2003 at which this matter can be properly placed on the
Council's agenda for hearing.
#832399 Q
Exhibit C
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF VIRGRg1A BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, there has been described to the City of Virginia Beach Development
Authority (the "Authority"), the plan of finance of Sentara Healthcare (the "Company") and
certain of its not -for -profit affiliates comprising a portion of the Company's integrated health care
delivery system and operation (collectively, with the Company, the "Sentara Healthcare Group"),
all of whose principal place of business is 6015 Poplar Hall Dnve, Norfolk, Virginia 23502 for
the issuance by the Economic Development Authority of the City of Norfolk (the "Norfolk
Authority") of its revenue notes (the "Notes") in an amount not to exceed $160,000,000 to assist
the Sentara Healthcare Group in (a) undertaking the acquisition, construction and installation of
certain capital expenditures, including building renovations and improvements, diagnostic,
therapeutic, surgical and fitness equipment, medical office furnishings and equipment, health
care business office furnishings and equipment, motor vehicles and equipment and furnishings
for in -patient and out -patient procedures, treatments and consultations at hospitals, clinics,
doctors' offices and emergency centers (collectively, the "Expenditures"), and (b) to pay certain
costs of issuance relating to the Notes; and
WHEREAS, each such Expenditure will be or are owned and/or operated by one of the
members of the Sentara Healthcare Group and such will be or are located at one or more of the
locations described in Exhibit A attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Sentara Healthcare Group in its appearance before the Authority has
described the benefits to the provision of health care in the City of Virginia Beach to be derived
from the issuance of the Notes; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has been advised by the Company that the Norfolk Authority
has adopted a resolution approving the issuance of the Notes (the "Norfolk Resolution"); and
WHEREAS, a public hearing as required by Virginia law and the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), has been held by the Authority at this meeting;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF VYRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY:
1. It is hereby found and determined that the issuance of the Notes will promote
healthcare in the City of Virginia Beach, benefit its inhabitants and promote their safety, health,
welfare, convenience and prosperity.
2. To assist the Sentara Healthcare Group to finance the Expenditures and to pay
certain costs of issuance relating to the Notes, the Authority hereby approves the issuance of the
Notes by the Norfolk Authority and recommends that the City Council of the City of Virginia
Beach (the "Council") (a) concur with the Norfolk Resolution as required by Section 15 2-4905
of the Virginia Code and (b) approve the issuance of the Notes by the Norfolk Authority as
required by Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code. The Chairman or Vice Chairman of the
Authority is hereby directed to submit to the Council the statement in the form prescribed by
Section 15 2-4907 of the Virginia Code, a reasonably detailed summary of the comments
expressed at the public hearing held at this meeting pursuant to Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia
Code, and a copy of this resolution.
I All costs and expenses in connection with the financing plan, including the fees
and expenses of counsel to the Authority, shall be paid from the proceeds of the Notes to the
extent permitted by law or from funds of the Sentara Healthcare Group and the Authority shall
have no responsibility therefor.
4. All acts of the officers of the Authority which are in conformity with the purposes
and intent of this resolution and in furtherance of the issuance and sale of the Notes are hereby
approved and confirmed.
5. All future public hearings held with respect to the Notes may be held jointly with
the Norfolk Authority and other industrial development authorities or economic development
authorities in jurisdictions in which Expenditures are located.
6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
The undersigned hereby certifies that the above resolution was duly adopted by the
directors of the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority at a meeting duly called and held
on April 15, 2003, and that such resolution is in full force and effect on the date hereof.
Dated:
Se retary, City of Vir nia Beach Development
Authority
2
Sentara Hampton General Hospital
3120 Victoria Blvd.
Hampton, VA 23661
Sentara Hampton General Hospital/
Medical Arts Building
3116 Victona Boulevard
Hampton, VA 23661
Sentara Hampton General Hospital/
HOPE Medical Center
300 Marcella Road
Hampton, VA 23661
Sentara Hospitals/Sentara Norfolk
General Hospital
600 Gresham Dnve
Norfolk, VA 23507
Sentara Healthcare/
MIS Data Center, Tarmac Bldg
1151 Azalea Garden Road
Norfolk, VA 23502
#831623 vl
EXHIBIT A
Sentara Hampton General Hospital/
Sentara. CarePlex
3 000 Coliseum Road
Hampton, VA 23661
Sentara. Hospitals/Sentara Leigh Hospital
830 Kempsville Road
Norfolk, VA 23502
Sentara Hospitals/Sentara Bayside Hospital
800 Independence Blvd
Virginia Beach, VA 23455
Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital
1060 First Colonial Road
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454
Sentara Healthcare
6015 Poplar Hall Drive
Norfolk, VA 23502
Williamsburg Community Hospital
3 01 Monticello Avenue
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
(York County)
Exhibit D
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Date: April 15, 2003
Applicant's Name(s): Sentara Healthcare
All Owners (if different from applicant): N/A
Type of Application:
Rezoning: From To
Conditional Use Permit:
Street Closure
Subdivision Variance:
Other: Commercial Paper Revenue Notes issued through the Economic
Development Authority of the City of Norfolk, Virginia
The following is to be completed by or for the Applicant:
1. If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all the officers of the Corporation:
See attached schedule.
2. If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM or other Unincorporated Organization, list all
members or partners in the organization: N/A
The following is to be completed by or for the Owner (if different from the applicant)
1. If the Owner is a CORPORATION, list all the officers of the Corporation: N/A
2. If the Owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM or other Unincorporated Organization, list all
members or partners in the organization: NIA
SENTARA HEALTHCARE
By.
I�aa
Its.
Schedule to
Disclosure Statement
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
SENTARA HEALTHCARE
Donald H. Clark
William K Butler, II
Richard Clark, M.D.
James E. Crocker
David L Bernd
Alan G Donn
William P. Edmonson, Jr., M D
Aubrey E. Loving, Jr
John F Malbon
Alvin Ciccone, M.D.
John P. Clark, M D
Gwen Cumming
Thomas H Scott, Jr, M.D.
Frank Doczi
Albert R. Trevarthan
Frederick J. Napolitano
Richard T. Cheng, PhD
Nancy A Creech
Daniel McCready, M.D.
OFFICERS OF SENTARA HEALTHCARE
Donald H Clark, Charrman
William K. Butler, ]1, Vice Chairman
David L. Bernd, President & Chief Executive Officer
Howard P. Kern, Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer
Kenneth M Krakaur, Senior Vice President
Michael M. Dudley, Senior Vice President
Rodney F. Hochman, M D., Senior Vice President & Chief Medical Officer
Ronald Bennion, Vice President
Mary Blunt, Vice President
Robert Broermann, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer
Les A. Donahue, Vice President
Mark R. Gavens, Vice President
Robert Graves, Vice President
Donald V. Jellig, Vice President and Secretary
Bert Reese, Vice President & Chief Information Officer
Douglas Thompson, Vice President
Gail P Heagan, Assistant Secretary
#832400 Q
VIRGINIA
BE�-,CH
Exhibit E
`/ircrmia Bcach
1Lvelooment Authority
222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1 000
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
(757) 437-6464
FAX (757) 499-9894
Website www vbgov com
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF CITY OF NORFOLK
SENTARA HEALTHCARE
COMMERCIAL PAPER REVENUE NOTE PROGRAM
The Authority recommends approval of the captioned financing. The financing will
benefit the citizens of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by providing improved healthcare
facilities which promotes the health and welfare of the City's citizens.
Exhibit F
a
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Sentara Healthcare
Commercial Paper Revenue Note Program
In the Jurisdictions Described in Exhibit A
The undersigned applicant, in order to permit the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority
submission of the following information in compliance with Section 15.2-4907 of the Code of Virginia
of 1950, as amended, states:
Name of applicant: Sentara Healthcare
Facility Sentara Bayside Hospital and Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital, Virginia
Beach, Virginia
I Maximum amount of financing sought $160,0001000
2 Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be
constructed in the locality N/A
3. Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates N/A
4 Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates N/A
5 Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates
N/A
6 a. Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be
purchased from Virginia companies within the locality $2316485000
b. Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be
purchased from non -Virginia companies within the locality $198,5277000
C. Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be
purchased from Virginia companies within the locality $ 17547900 **
d. Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be
purchased from non -Virginia companies within the locality $146,536,000
7 Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis 4,953 * *
8. Average annual salary per employee $ 41,951
Dated- April 15, 2003 SENTARA HEALTHCARE
By _W(
Its V UW00790".�
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT
AUT14ORITY
B ��
y r ` AL'
�'� Chkinn n s
* * City of Virginia Beach only
EXHIBIT A TO THE FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DATED MARCH 26, 2003
CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
CITY OF HAMPTON, VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
YORK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
4831128 V2 - SENTARA/FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit G
SUMMARY SHEET
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CONCURRENCE WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
THE CITY OF NOR -FOLK
SENTARA HEALTHCARE COMMERCIAL PAPER REVENUE NOTE PROGRAM
1 PROJECT NAME:
2 LOCATION:
3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
4 AMOUNT OF NOTE ISSUE:
5. PRINCIPALS -
Sentara Healthcare
Sentara Hospitals/Sentara Bayside Hospital
800 Independence Blvd.
Virginia Beach, VA 23455
and
Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital
1060 First Colonial Road
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454
Acute care hospital facilities
$1 %000,000
See attached list of officers and directors
6 ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
a Present zoning classification
of the Property 02
b. Is rezoning proposed• Yes
c If so, to what zoning classification? NIA
No X
Schedule to
Summary Sheet
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
SENTARA HEALTHCARE
Donald H Clark
William K. Butler, II
Richard Clark, M D
James E Crocker
David L Bernd
Alan G. Donn
William P. Edmonson, Jr., M D
Aubrey E Loving, Jr.
John F Malbon
Alvin Ciccone, M.D
John P Clark, M.D
Gwen Cumming
Thomas H Scott, Jr , M D
Frank Doczi
Albert R Trevarthan
Frederick J Napolitano
Richard T Cheng, PhD.
Nancy A Creech
Daniel McCready, M.D
OFFICERS OF SENTARA HEALTHCARE
Donald H Clark, Chanman
William K Butler, II, Vice Chairman
David L Bernd, President & Chief Executive Officer
Howard P Kern, Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer
Kenneth M Krakaur, Senior Vice President
Michael M. Dudley, Senior Vice President
Rodney F Hochman, M.D., Senior Vice President & Chief Medical Officer
Ronald Bennion, Vice President
Mary Blunt, Vice President
Robert Broermann, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer
Les A Donahue, Vice President
Mark R Gavens, Vice President
Robert Graves, Vice President
Donald V Jellig, Vice President and Secretary
Bert Reese, Vice President & Chief Information Officer
Douglas Thompson, Vice President
Gail P Heagan, Assistant Secretary
#832401 Q
VIRGINIA
B� NCH
Exhiblt H
April 15, 2003
Mr. Robert G. Jones
Chairman
Virginia Beach Development Authority
222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1000
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
Re: Sentara Healthcare Group Revenue Notes
Dear Bob:
Viibinia Beach
Development Authority
222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1000
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
(757) 437-6464
FAX (757) 499-9894
Website www vbgov com
The Department of Economic Development concurs with the issuance of Revenue Notes
by the Economic Development Authority of the City of Norfolk in an amount not to exceed
$160,000,000 for Sentara Healthcare Group. These funds will be utilized for the acquisition,
construction and installation of building renovations and improvements, diagnostic, therapeutic,
surgical and fitness equipment, medical office furnishings and equipment, health care business
office furnishings and equipment, motor vehicles and equipment and furnishings for in -patient
and out -patient procedures, treatments and consultations at hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices and
emergency centers. The issuance of these Notes will promote healthcare in the City of Virginia
Beach, benefit its inhabitants and promote their safety, health, welfare, convenience and
prosperity.
1 will be happy to answer any questions you may have after our meeting of April 15'.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Wawner
Project Development Manager
MRW:Ils
Exhibit I
RESOLUTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK
WHEREAS, there has been described to the Economic Development Authority of the
City of Norfolk (the "Authority") the plan of finance of Sentara Healthcare (the "Company") and
certain of its not -for -profit affiliates comprising a portion of the Company's integrated health care
delivery system and operation (collectively, with the Company, the "Sentara Healthcare Group"),
all of whose principal place of business is 6015 Poplar Hall Drive, Norfolk, Virginia 23502 for
the issuance by the Economic Development Authority of the City of Norfolk (the "Norfolk
Authority") of its revenue notes (the "Notes") in an amount not to exceed $160,000,000 to assist
the Sentara Healthcare Group in (a) undertaking the acquisition, construction and installation of
certain capital expenditures, including building renovations and improvements, diagnostic,
therapeutic, surgical and fitness equipment, medical office furnishings and equipment, health
care business office furnishings and equipment, motor vehicles and equipment and furnishings
for in -patient and out -patient procedures, treatments and consultations at hospitals, clinics,
doctors' offices and emergency centers (collectively, the "Expenditures"), and (b) to pay certain
costs of issuance relating to the Notes; and
WHEREAS, each such Expenditure will be or are owned and./or operated by one of the
members of the Sentara Healthcare Group and such will be or are located at one or more of the
locations described in Exhibit A attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Sentara Healthcare Group in its appearance before the Authority has
described the benefits to the provision of health care in the City of Norfolk to be derived from the
issuance of the Notes; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has been advised by the Company that the Norfolk Authority
has adopted a resolution approving the issuance of the Notes (the "Norfolk Resolution"); and
WHEREAS, a public hearing as required by Virginia law and the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), has been held by the Authority at this meeting;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY OF NORFOLK
1. It is hereby found and determined that the issuance of the Notes will promote
healthcare in the City of Norfolk, benefit its inhabitants and promote their safety, health, welfare,
convenience and prosperity.
2 To assist the Sentara Healthcare Group to finance the Expenditures and to pay
certain costs of issuance relating to the Notes, the Authority hereby approves the issuance of the
Notes and recommends that the City Council of the City of Norfolk (the "Council") (a) concur
with the Norfolk Resolution as required by Section 15.2-4905 of the Virginia Code and (b)
approve the issuance of the Notes as required by Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code. The
Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Authority is hereby directed to submit to the Council the
statement in the form prescribed by Section 15.2-4907 of the Virginia Code, a reasonably
detailed summary of the comments expressed at the public hearing held at this meeting pursuant
to Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code, and a copy of this resolution.
3. All costs and expenses in connection with the financing plan, including the fees
and expenses of counsel to the Authority, shall be paid from the proceeds of the Notes to the
extent permitted by law or from funds of the Sentara Healthcare Group and the Authority shall
have no responsibility therefor.
4. All acts of the officers of the Authority which are in conformity with the purposes
and intent of this resolution and in furtherance of the issuance and sale of the Notes are hereby
approved and confirmed.
5. All future public hearings held with respect to the Notes may be held jointly with
the Norfolk Authority and other Economic development authorities or economic development
authorities in jurisdictions in which Expenditures are located.
6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
The undersigned hereby certifies that the above resolution was duly adopted by the
directors of the Economic Development Authority of the City of Norfolk at a meeting duly called
and held on , 2003, and that such resolution is in full force and effect on the date
hereof.
Dated.
Secretary, Economic Development Authority of the
City of Norfolk
2
Sentara Hampton General Hospital
3120 Victoria Blvd
Hampton, VA 23 661
Sentara Hampton General Hospital/
Medical Arts Building
3116 Victoria Boulevard
Hampton, VA 2 3 661
Sentara Hampton General Hospital/
HOPE Medical Center
300 Marcella Road
Hampton, VA 23661
Sentara Hospitals/Sentara Norfolk
General Hospital
600 Gresham Dnve
Norfolk, VA 23507
Sentara Healthcare/
MIS Data Center, Tarmac Bldg
1151 Azalea Garden Road
Norfolk, VA 23502
Sentara Healthcare/
Sentara Service Center/Materials Mgmt
1545 Crossways Blvd, Suite E
Chesapeake, VA 23320
Williarsburg Community Hospital
6601 Mooretown Road
Williamsburg, Virginia 23188
#831625 v2
EXHIBIT A
Sentara Hampton General Hospital/
Sentara CarePlex
3000 Coliseum Road
Hampton, VA 23661
Port Warwick Medical Arts
11803 Jefferson Avenue
Newport News, Virginia 23608
Sentara Hospitals/Sentara Leigh Hospital
830 Kemp sville Road
Norfolk, VA 23502
Sentara Hospitals/Sentara Bayside Hospital
800 Independence Blvd.
Virginia Beach, VA 23455
Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital
1060 First Colonial Road
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454
Sentara Healthcare
6015 Poplar Hall Drive
Norfolk, VA 23502
Williamsburg Community Hospital
301 Monticello Avenue
Williamsburg, Virgnaia 23185
(York County)
€)AMIN
to
FADN
AkuA
9
f6
Wolf Snare
n
�f
��wl%On _ll e
-9D __....CT
44 l
s_
p0 u
GROVE
x
V
�USh
_01 a
CFD4 ,
l�► � CVS RlM ���
,., M� BgRK� CIA
AM
S.1 REAT NEC
0 RAXE Sp C CIA
a
c4 14' aW 3 3 a
k S TWIN S Q`
Great Neck Lak
PROJECT NAME Sentara Healthcare
Commercial Paper Revenue Notes
PROJECT LOCATION Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital
1060 First Colonial Road
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454
TYPE OF PROJECT: Healthcare Facility
\01i-le Y14 N
t
r�
,S,01�A SAL o
EO �MQOP c+
ly s � xr
won �> a
p OR
` 94
r �
IN
HE
1 \�4
Val
4 r
G�` r
lependence JHS
�r
99 ��
\AGE
4�� '
s�
• WWSTTCi4 POINT,
�%fO yT ° 1
SPOIN,
1 0
M
ti
d
4a
1
= A
?r91�
'OOD LA t
r
PURR Q r
Y S 1 61 - %Nbw-,21 w —
Ala�fi4vAi /Y a i A 1s �r.� ' C i �f
PROJECT NAME Sentara Healthcare
Commercial Paper Revenue Notes
PROJECT LOCATION: Sentara Hospitals/Sentara Bayside Hospital
800 Independence Blvd.
Virginia Beach, VA 23455
TYPE OF PROJECT. Healthcare Facility
1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A COOPERATIVE
2 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
3 VIRGINIA BEACH AND THE
4 COMMONWEALTH' S ATTORNEY FOR THE
5 PROSECUTION OF MISDFIAEANOR OFFENSES
6 WHEREAS, the City Council and the Commonwealth's Attorney
7 wish to consolidate the responsibilities for the prosecution of
8 misdemeanor offenses in the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney
9 and ensure that the Commonwealth's Attorney has sufficient
10 resources to carry out this responsibility.
11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
12 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
13 1. That the "Cooperative Agreement Between the City of
14 Virginia Beach and the Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of
15 Virginia Beach Pertaining to the Prosecution of Misdemeanors" is
16 hereby approved, and the City Manager is hereby authorized to sign
17 this Agreement.
18 2. That this resolution shall be effective on July 1,
19 20030
20 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
21. Virginia, on the 13th day of May, 2003.
CA-8869
ORDIN\NONCODE\mi sdres . wpd
R--2 - April 30, 2003
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
ity Attorney
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
VIRGIIVIA BEACH AND THE COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY
FOR THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH PERTAINING TO THE
PROSECUTION OF MISDEMEANORS
Factual Background:
1. In accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-1542(D), City Council
has authorized the City Attorney to prosecute criminal cases charging either the
violation of City ordinances, or the commission of misdemeanors within the
City, and the Commonwealth's Attorney has concurred with this authorization.
2. With this authorization of City Council and the Commonwealth's
Attorney, the City Attorney has historically prosecuted all City misdemeanor
charges on appeal to the circuit court (currently approximately 6000 charges
per year), as well as prosecuting misdemeanor traffic and criminal offenses in
general district and juvenile and domestic relations courts when requested by
the Police Department, individual police officers, or the school administration.
In addition,, the City Attorney has emphasized prosecutions for driving under
the influence violations, ensuring the presence of a prosecutor in the district
courts to handle complex cases and all second offense charges.
3. The Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Virginia Beach is
a constitutional officer, and the duly elected criminal prosecutor of the City of
Virginia Beach. In addition to the duties and powers imposed upon him by
general law, the Commonwealth's Attorney is also specifically authorized by
Virginia Code § 15.2-1627 to prosecute Class I, II and III misdemeanors.
Objectiv%.s:
The objectives of the City Council and the Commonwealth's Attorney
are to consolidate the responsibilities for prosecution of criminal offenses in
the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney, maintain existing levels of
prosecution assistance for police officers, and to transfer positions from the
City Attorneys Office to the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney, that,
along with necessary office space and equipment, will enable performance of
these responsibilities.
Agreement:
1. Effective July 1, 2003, or as soon thereafter as feasible, the City
Attorney will no longer prosecute misdemeanors as a regular function, except
as otherwise described in this Agreement. The City Attorney shall handle any
cases appealed to the Virginia Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.
2. Effective July 1, 2003, or as soon thereafter as feasible, the
Commonwealth's Attorney will prosecute appeals of City Code misdemeanors
in circuit court. In the district courts, the Commonwealth's Attorney will
provide the same level of assistance previously provided by the City Attorney,
as referenced in paragraph 2 of the "Factual Background" section of this
2
Agreement. In implementing this Agreement, due consideration will be given
for the time required for advertising, interviewing and selecting the attorneys
and staff for vacant positions that must be hired by the Commonwealth's
Attorney, which will result in a total of eight additional employees (7.5 FTEs),
with two ofthese positions being funded from Commonwealth's Attorney asset
forfeiture funds.
3. Effective July 1, 2003, the City will transfer and assign three full-
time attorney positions, and two full-time and one part -rime (half-time) staff
positions, to the Commonwealth's Attorney.
4. The Commonwealth's Attorney authorizes the City Attorney to
continue prosecuting misdemeanor charges in general district court and circuit
court when requested by the Planning Department, Department of Housing and
Neighborhood Preservation, Department of Public Works, Conunissioner of
the Revenue, Treasurer, Environmental Crimes Task Force, Wetlands Board
or Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board, and other matters as specifically
authorized by the Commonwealth's Attorney. Furthermore, the City Attorney
shall handle any appeals of such matters to the Virginia Court of Appeals or
Supreme Court.
5. This Cooperative Agreement is not a contract to be enforced by
either party but is rather an agreement by which to establish the relative
3
responsibilities of the City Attorney and the Commonwealth's Attorney for
criminal prosecutions in the City of Virginia Beach. It shall remain and
continue in effect from year to year, from July 1 through June 30, until
formally modified or terminated by the parties.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
James K. Spore, City Manager
COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
Harvey L. Bryant, III
F:\Data\ATY\Ordin\NONCODE\coopagmtrmsappeall.wpd
4
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONGRESS TO REAUTHORIZE THE
TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY (TEA-21)
AND PROVIDE INCREASED FUNDING FOR SUCH
REAUTHORIZATION
MEETING DATE: MAY 1312003
■ Background: On March 12, 2003, House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee leaders formally announced their intent to pursue highways and transit
funding in the next reauthorization cycle at $375 billion over six years. In order to raise
that level of funding the committee leaders proposed several schemes, the include
■ Drawing down the existing balance in the Highway Trust Fund
■ Restoring the interest to the Highway Trust Fund
■ Eliminating user fee evasion
■ Directing all revenue from existing gasohol user fees to the Highway Trust Fund
■ Reimbursing the Highway Trust Fund for lost revenues from gasohol use fee
subsidy or eliminate the subsidy
■ Restoring and preserving the purchasing power of the motor fuel user fee by
linking the user fee to the Consumer price Index
■ Considerations: Federal support for transportation has become increasingly
important in Virginia for the timely movement of people, goods, and services. With
public transportation improvements, the quality of life in our community will provide
freedom, access, mobility and choice for our citizen. Improved transportation will also
stimulate the economy, create jobs, reduce traffic congestion, provide access to jobs,
and preserve the environment.
■ Public Information: This will be accomplished through the advertising and
agenda process
■ Alternatives: If the authorization is not approved or a entirely new legislative
approach developed, federal funding for transportation would come to an end, which
would cut funds available to all forms of transportation by over two-thirds.
■ Recommendations: The City Council of Virginia Beach should consider
requesting Congress re -authorize and grow the transit and highway funding levels of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 St Century for six years.
■ Attachments: None.
Recommended Action: Adoption of Resolution
Submitting Department/Agency: City of Virginia Beach Councilmember, Richard Maddox
City Manager
Requested by Councilmember Richard Maddox
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE AUTHORIZATION OF
A REPLACEMENT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
EQUITY ACT FOR THE 215' CENTURY (TEA=21)
WHEREAS, the current act authorizing federal participation supporting
transportation, both road construction and mass transit expires on September 30, 2003;
and
WHEREAS, Congress is in the process of developing legislation to authorize a
replacement to the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 St Century (TEA-21); and
WHEREAS, federal support for transportation has become increasingly important
in Virginia for the timely movement of people, goods and services; and
WHEREAS, in just a few years, federal support has gone from 25 percent of the
state's road building budget to more than 65 percent; and
WHEREAS, federal support for mass transit has always provided the majority of
funds for both capital and maintenance expenditures; and
WHEREAS, public transportation improves the quality of life in our community
providing freedom, access, mobility, and choice for citizens; and
WHEREAS, transportation system improvements stimulates the economy,
creates jobs, reduces traffic congestion, provides access to jobs, and preserves the
environment; and
WHEREAS, the need for road construction in Hampton Roads over the next 20
years is in an excess of $30 billion with less than $5 billion being forecasted to be
available; and
WHEREAS, there is a commensurate short -fall in funds available for the
identified needs in mass transit; and
WHEREAS, the existing TEA-21 allowed for the enhanced role of local decision
making and its emphasis on flexibility and intermodal goals, which have contributed to
increased consideration of local concerns;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA, that Congress is requested to authorize a replacement for TEA-21
for the next six years that retains its core structure with sufficient funding allocations (at
least $375 billion) to meet the nations transportation infrastructure needs for both
maintenance and construction. In order to increase current funding levels to the $375
billion level, Congress should:
1. Draw down the existing balance in the Highway Trust Fund;
2. Restore the interest to the Highway Trust Fund;
3. Eliminate user fee evasion;
4. Direct all revenue from existing gasohol user fees to the Highway Trust Fund;
5. Reimburse the Highway Trust Fund for lost revenues from gasohol use fee
subsidy or eliminate the subsidy;
6. Restore and preserve the purchasing power of the motor fuel user fee by linking
the user fee to the Consumer price Index; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, that Congress be called upon to consider codifying the
recommendations from the President's Task Force on Environmental Stewardship and
Transportation; and
BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY of
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, that Congress create, if needed, an independent task
force to identify substantive and procedural requirements of Federal laws and
regulations that inhibit efficient implementation of transportation solutions and make
recommendations to revise Federal laws and regulations to coordinate and expedite
project reviews and incorporate those recommendations into the next reauthorization of
TEA-21; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, that Congress provide the United States Department of
Transportation authority to resolve disputes amongst federal agencies in order to
expedite projects delivery; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY of
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, that Congress is requested to provide flexibility to the
state's to place tolls upon existing interstate roads when other funding is not available.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Virginia Beach, Virginia this day of
, 2003.
APPROVED as to content:
City Manager's O ice
Approved a� to legal s iciency:
I)A
City Aftorney's Office
„ R yha i
A
n
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: The FY 2003-04 Operating Budget and Related Ordinances
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2003
■ Background: On April 1, 2003 the City of Virginia Beach FY 2003-04 Proposed
Resource Management Plan, which includes the Operating Budget and Capital
Improvement Program, was presented to City Council. City Council Workshops
were held on April S, 15, 22,242 29, May 1, and 6th to provide information to the
City Council. On April 24 and May 1, public hearings were held to provide the
public the opportunity to comment on the proposed Resource Management Plan.
Ordinances were updated to reflect City Council's direction at the May 6, 2003
Reconciliation Workshop.
■ Considerations: The following ordinances are provided for the Council's
consideration and approval to implement the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget, and
unless otherwise noted, require an affirmative vote by the majority of the
members of City Council.
1. An Ordinance Establishing the Tax Levy on Real Estate for Fiscal Year
2004
2. An Ordinance Establishing the Tax Levy on Personal Property and
Machinery and Tools for the Calendar Year 2004
3. An Ordinance to Amend the City Code Pertaining to Telecommunications
Tax by Simplifying the Tax Structure for Commercial Customers and
Increasing the E-911 Tax
4. An Ordinance to Amend the City Code Pertaining to Yard Waste
Containers by Establishing a Twenty -Five Dollar Fee
5. An Ordinance to Amend the City Code Pertaining to Parking by Increasing
the Fine for Fire Lane Parking Violations
6. An Ordinance to Amend the Subdivision Regulations Pertaining to Fees
for Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review
7. An Ordinance to Revise the Revenue Sources for the Major Projects
Special Revenue Fund
8. An Ordinance to Amend the City Code Pertaining to Fees for Mechanical,
Life Safety and Gas Permits
9. An Ordinance to Amend the Site Plan Ordinance Pertaining to Fees for
Site Plan Review
10. An Ordinance to Amend the City Code Pertaining to the Fee to Construct,
Alter or Repair Landings, Docks and Similar Structures
11. An Ordinance to Amend the City Code Pertaining to Fees for Building
Permits, Reinspections and Certificates of Occupancy
12. An Ordinance to Amend the City Code Pertaining to Fees for Electrical
Permits and Special Condition Electrical Permits
13. An Ordinance to Amend the City Code Pertaining to Fees for Plumbing
Permits
14. An Ordinance to Amend the City Code by Adding a Section Providing for
the Assessment of Court Costs to Support the Local Criminal Justice
Academy
15. An Ordinance to Amend the City Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to the Fee
to Amend, Supplement or Change the Regulations, District Boundaries or
Classifications of Property and to Adopt a Fee for the Reconsideration of
Proffered Conditions
16. An Ordinance to Amend the City Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to the Fee
for Conditional Use Permit Applications and to Adopt a Fee for the
Reconsideration of Conditions
17. An Ordinance to Amend the Subdivision Regulations Pertaining to Fee for
Subdivision Variance Applications
18. An Ordinance to Amend Sections 2-104 and 2-109 of the City Code
Pertaining to Changes in Pay
19. An Ordinance to Amend the Language of the City Code Pertaining to the
Work Week
20. Budget Ordinance for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2003 and Ending
June 30, 2004
21. An Ordinance to Authorize the City Manager to Submit An Annual Funding
Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
22. An Ordinance to Amend the City Code Pertaining to the Exemption or
Deferral of Real Estate Taxes for Elderly or Disabled Persons by
Increasing Income and Net Worth Limits
A Resolution Approving a Cooperative Agreement Between the City of
Virginia Beach and the Commonwealth's Attorney for the Prosecution of
Misdemeanors Offenses
■ Public Information: Information will be disseminated to the public through the
s normal Council agenda process involving the advertisement of City Council
agenda and public hearings, pursuant to local and state code requirements.
■ Alternatives: No alternatives are available to implement the FY 2003-04
Operating Budget.
■ Recommendations: It is recommended that the attached ordinances
implementing the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget be approved.
■ Attachments: FY 2003-04 Operating Budget Ordinances
Recommended Action: Approval of Ordinances
Submitting Department/Agency:
City Manager:
1 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE TAX LEVY ON
2 READ ESTATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
3 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
4 VIRGINIA:
5 Sec. 1. Amount of Levy on Real Estate.
6 There shall be levied and collected for fiscal year 2004 taxes
7 for general purposes on all real estate, including all separate
8 classifications of real estate set forth in the Code of Virginia,
9
not exempt
from taxation
and not otherwise provided for in this
10
ordinance,
at the rate of
one dollar twenty-two cents ($1.22) on
11 each one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed valuation thereof. The
12 real property tax rate that has been prescribed in this section
13 shall be applied on the basis of one hundred percentum of the fair
14 market value of such real property, except for public service real
15 property, which shall be on the basis as provided in Section 58.1-
16 2604 of the Code of Virginia.
17 Sec. 2. Amount of Levy on "Certified Pollution Control Equipment
18 and Facilities" Classified as Real Estate, "Certified
19 Storm Water Management Developments and Property,"
20 "Certified Solar Energy Recycling Equipment, Facilities
21 or Devices" Classified as Real Estate, and "Environmental
22 Restoration Sites," Real Estate Improved by Erosion
23 Controls, and Certain Wetlands and Riparian Buffers.
24 In accordance with Sections 58 . 1-3660 (A), 58 . 1-3660. 1, 58 . 1-
25 3661, 58.1-3664, 58.1-3665 and 58.1-3666, of the Code of Virginia,
26 there shall be levied and collected for general purposes for fiscal
27 year 2004, taxes on all real estate (a) certified by the
28 Commonwealth of Virginia as "Certified Pollution Control Equipment
29 and Facilities," (b) certified by the Department of Environmental
30 Quality as "Certified Storm Water Management Developments and
31 Property," (c) certified as provided by Code of Virginia Section
32 58.1-3661 as "Certified Solar Energy Equipment, Facilities or
33 Devices," or "Certified Recycling Equipment, Facilities or
34 Devices," (d) defined by Code of Virginia Section 58. 1-3664 as an
35 "Environmental Restoration Site," (e) improved to control erosion
36 as defined by Code of Virginia § 58 . 1--3665, or (f) wetlands and
37 riparian buffers as described by Code of Virginia § 58.1-3666, not
38 exempt from taxation, at a rate of one dollar twenty-two cents
39 ($1.22) on each one hundred dollars of assessed valuation thereof.
40 The real property tax rates imposed in this section shall be
41 applied on the basis of one hundred percentum of fair market value
42 of such real property except for public service property, which
43 shall be on the basis as provided in Section 58.1-2604 of the Code
44 of Virginia.
45 Sec. 3. Amount of Levy on Real Estate Within the Sandbridge
46 Special Service District.
47
48 There shall be levied and collected for fiscal year 2003,
49 taxes for the special purpose of providing beach and shoreline
50 restoration and management at Sandbridge on all real estate within
51 the Sandbridge Special Service District, not exempt from taxation,
52 at the rate of twelve cents ($.12) on each one hundred
53 dollars ($100) of assessed value thereof. This real estate tax
54 rate shall be in addition to the real estate tax rate set forth in
2
55 Section 1 of this ordinance. The real estate tax rate imposed
56
herein shall be
applied
on the basis on one
hundred percentum of
57
the fair market
value of
such real property
except public service
58 real property, which shall be on the basis as provided in Section
59 58.1-2604 of the Code of Virginia.
60 Sec. 4. Amount of Levy on Real Estate Within the Town Center
61 Special Service District.
62 For the -sipecial 10ur oses of operating and maintaining the
63 parking �,age and„rovidi,nq enhanced services for the plaza and
64 public spaces within the boundaries of the service district at the
65 Town Center, there shall be levied and collected for fiscal ear
66 2004, taxes on all real, estate within _ the Town Center Special
67 Service District, not exempt from taxation, at the rate of fifty
--
._....1■9._L.....�...�_._L.1_I_P_41.11_I
68 seven ,cents ( $ . 57 ) on each one hundred dollars ( $100 ) of assessed
69 value thereof. This real estate tax rate shall be in addition to
70 the real estate tax set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance. The
71 real estate tax rate imposed herein shall be applied on the basis
72 of one hundred percentum olf.the �fair market value of such real
73 property except _public service real propertv,,which shall be on the
74 basis as provided in Section 58.1-2604 of the Code of Virginia.
75 Sec. 5. Severability.
76
77
m
If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason de
be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not a
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
t
79 Sec. 6. Effective date.
80 The effective date of this ordinance shall be July 1, 2003.
81 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
82 Virginia on this 131h day of May, 2003.
83 Requires an affirmative vote by a ma3 on ty of the members of
84 City Council.
CA-8806
F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\taxrealestateord.wpd
R-2
April 28, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
J
Management Services
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
/100
Law Department
4
1 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE TAX LEVY ON
2 PERSONAL PROPERTY AND MACHINERY AND TOOLS FOR
3 THE CALENDAR YEAR 2004
4 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
5 VIRGINIA:
6 Sec. 1. Amount of Levy on Tangible Personal Property.
7 In accordance with Chapter 35 of Title 58.1 of the Code of
8 Virginia, taxes shall be levied and collected for general
9 purposes for the calendar year 2004 on all tangible personal
10 property, including all separate classifications of personal
11
property
set
forth in the Code of Virginia;
not exempt
from
12
taxation
and
not otherwise provided for in this
ordinance, at
the
13 rate of three dollars and seventy cents ($ 3.7 0) on each one hundred
14 dollars ($100) assessed valuation thereof.
15
Specific
cate ories of personal_ property taxed at this rate
16
include
--but are not limited to, the following •
17
a.
`�
aircraft and flight simulators as described
■ ■ .r■■r■ri i��u. n ■r rr..r rr■ i rr
in Code of
.
18
Virginia
§ 58.. 1_-3506 (A) (2) and (3);
19
b.
antique motor vehicles as described in Code
of Virginia
20
58.1-3506 A 4 •
21
C.
heavy construction eau pment ,as described _
n Code of
22
Virginia
§ 58.1-3506„ )(6)„
23
d.
computer e„ uipment� as described in Code of
Virginia ,§
24
58. 1-3506 (A) (9) ; and
. ■ rrirrrr-
25
26
e.
Virginia---,
tangible ersonal iproperty
58 . 1-3 660 as "certified
as described in a Code of
ollution control e wiloment and
27
facilities" or ,�.b Code of Virginia
58.1-3661 as "certified solar
28
ecruilpment,
facilities or devices and
certified recycling -equipment
29
30
facilities
or devices."
' '
'
'
31
32
Lvil
33 Comment
34 The categories added to this section were previously set out individually in sections 4,6,7, 8 and
35 11 of this ordinance. The exemption for household goods and personal affects is deleted because it is
36 contained in City Code § 35-7.
37 Sec. 2. Amount of Levy on Manufactured Homes.
38
In accordance with
Section 58. 1-3506 (A) (8 )
of the
Code of
39
Virginia, there shall be
levied and collected for
general
purposes
40 for the calendar year 2004 taxes on all vehicles without motor
41
power used
or designated
to
be
used
as manufactured homes as
42
defined by
Section 36-85.3
of
the
Code
of Virginia, at the rate of
43 one dollar twenty-two cents ($1.22) on each one hundred dollars
44 ($100) of assessed valuation thereof.
45 Sec. 3. Amount of Levy on All Boats or Watercraft Weighing Five
46 Tons or More.
47 In accordance with Section 58. 1-3506 (A) (1) of the Code of
48 Virginia, there shall be levied and collected for general purposes
49 for the calendar year 2004 taxes on all boats or watercraft
50 weighing five (5) tons or more, except as provided for in Section
2
51
12 of this
ordinance, at the rate of one
dollar and fifty cents
52
($1. 50) on
each one hundred dollars ($100)
of assessed valuation
53 thereof.
54
`
Men t:
55all,
'
r00
56
r
.
r
57
.
• w r !dP •11 1• • t ! • • • ! —
• 1W 0 1
,
• ! ! ! • r !
• • ! ! ! " r ! • ! r •
! f • • !
! i! r ! rJill! !
• - - ! • r -
i • •ll WIFAIN 11 Nil II 1 11111111! • ! - r►
• it • —!lw�Wtlj 4 1111
11�1�*1�1��1�����!�t�7
68 Comment
69 This category of property is now addressed in Section One.
70 Sec. S. Amount of Levy on Machinery and Tools.
71 In accordance with Section 58.1-3507 of the Code of Virginia,
72 there shall be levied and collected for general purposes for the
73
calendar
year
2004
taxes
on machinery
and tools,
including
74
machinery
and
tools
used
directly in the
harvesting
of forest
75 products or semiconductor manufacturing, not exempt from taxation,
76 at the rate of one dollar ($1.00) on each one hundred dollars
3
77 ($100 ) of assessed valuation thereof. As_„prov_ided by Code of
78 Virginia 58.1-3506 B the f ollowing personal vroerty-shall
79 also be taxed at the rate of machinery and tools:
80 a. all tangible ,personal iDroyerty used in research and
�i.r - - .� --ram �✓'r wr.�w. i��.r�.�.. i _
81 development businesses, as described in Code of .Virginia § 58.1-
82 3506 (A) (5) ;
r _ _
83 b. energy conversion equipment, as described in Code of
84 Virginia 58. 1-3506 (A) (7) and
85 C. all motor vehicles, trailers and semitrailers with -a
86 crross vehicle weight of 10 000 ounds or more used to trans ort
87 T)roT)erty for hire by a motor carrier enaacied in interstate
88 commerce, as described in Code of Virginia, § 58_. 1--3506 (A) (7) .
Comment
90 The categories added to this section were previously set out individually in sections 9, 10 and
91 150
92
PIN Omer-R
�*�-�R•1+mot+s•_��iRrem S"9§�-A! qWmWxWAIWI -fir"��LR+ ■L�Jr�
•
•
•
%J •
q '1 4- "a &M
• ao -- - - 10 a � I I. - • y • • . • 4 , 1- .4 - .0 � � - - 4. Im m, -FL -I- -P- ! •
r
• • L • r ! ! • UL I CL J. J. r • • !
- - -
it i 1-i��� �`_�'1•l�i�i•�•1�2�' • EiwtGL--@6IiOs
-
4
- — --
• r • • ! • — . ! • i
• ! !LIP 0 SI • • rSKSI • M
107 Comment
108 This category of property is now addressed in Section One.
109go `
.
WASP WAIN
-i•�•��W ���*� ��•s•��i s- *i-��1�■��*�-1-�gRIVW�01Por-_v �������z--�is����i�r ��•���i��ri■r�+��r
— —MMMMGVA - —
• • • • r ! • • . • . • r •
115 Comment
116 This category of property is now addressed in Section One.
117
118
• •
f�-F %,mXW%Wffl MWCdway *�!Ii•�•�1•>*r■■!rl•L��rir1�L����r��a�•��•������:�i ri l•_���-�
USES
• rr + • s • �r - •
• • err r W • • �r rr
125 Comment
126 This category of property is now addressed in Section Five.
127 '
• •
• r • • rINIIIIIIIIIIIII III W10INRY• ! • • • r
5
132
133
134 Comment
135 This category of property is now addressed in Section Five.
136
•
• • ! - i • - - • - • i • • - - • • • - i • ■ • -
_ _ ! i
• ■ - - • r • 4 P-q- NIP - 1 `1- - %tj! • • •oft • ■ • ! •q -1 • rM 4-- .0 • 1 •
RIM M - -
r • •IIII • • • , • - • ! r
144 Comment
145 This category of property is now addressed in Section One.
146 Sec. 12. Amount of Levy on Privately Owned Pleasure Boats and
147 Watercraft Used for Recreational Purposes Only.
148 In accordance with Sections 58 . 1-3506 (A) (10) , (A) (2 6) , and
149 (A) (27) of the Code of Virginia, there shall be levied and
150 collected for general purposes for the calendar year 2004 taxes on
151 all privately owned pleasure boats and watercraft used for
152 recreational purposes only, at the rate of one millionth of one
153 cent ($.000001) on each one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed
154 valuation thereof,
0
155 Sec. 13. Amount of Levy on Privately Owned Camping Trailers,
156 Privately Owned Travel Trailers, and Motor Homes Used for
157 Recreational Purposes Only, and Privately Owned Horse
158 Trailers.
159 In accordance with Sections 58. 1-350 6 (A) (16 ) and (A) ( 2 8 ) of
160 the Code of Virginia, there shall be levied and collected for
161
general purposes
for the calendar
year 2004 at the rate of one
162
dollar and fifty
cents ( $1. 50 ) on
each one hundred dollars ( $100 )
163
of assessed valuation thereof on the
following property: (a) all
164
privately owned
camping trailers
and motor homes as defined in
165
Section 46.2-100
of the Code of
Virginia, and privately owned
166
travel trailers as defined in Code
of Virginia § 46.2-1900, which
167
are used
for recreational purposes
only;
and
(b) privately owned
168
trailers
as defined in § 46.2-100 of
the
Code
of Virginia that are
169 designed and used for the transportation of horses.
170 Sec. 14. Amount of Levy on One Motor Vehicle Owned and Regularly
171 Used by a Disabled Veteran.
172 In accordance with Section 58. 1-3506 (A) (17 ) of the Code of
173 Virginia, there shall be a reduced tax, levied and collected for
174
general
purposes
for the calendar year 2004 at the rate
of one
175
dollar
and fifty
cents ($1.50) on each one hundred dollars
($100)
176 of assessed valuation, on one (1) motor vehicle owned and regularly
177 used by a veteran who has either lost, or lost the use of, one or
178 both legs, or an arm or a hand, or who is blind, or who is
179 permanently and totally disabled as certified by the Department of
180 Veterans' Affairs. Any motor vehicles in addition to the one (1)
181 so taxed shall not qualify for the taxation at the rate established
7
182 herein, and shall be taxed at the rate or rates applicable to that
183 class of property. To qualify, the veteran shall provide a written
184 statement to the Commissioner of the Revenue from the Department of
185 Veterans' Affairs that the veteran has been so designated or
186
classified by the Department of Veterans'
Affairs as
to
meet he
187
requirements of Section 58.1-3506 (A) (17) ,
and that
his
or her
188 disability is service connected. for purposes of this ordinance,
189 a person is blind if he or she meets the provisions of Section
190 4 6.2 -7 3 9 of the Code of Virginia.
191 '
192 '
193
• / - - •
! !C ! • U• - ! !!- !
•
• I'dqz;qZ_• •
L.
N • • lit'�1t�■�1�1!_ ■1���5+���7�1/ffliq 1111��!I iiiii W 1W 111L11111111 �+���!E!j Mrl+il1
• • �*��*�■i��1■l��■1�111�+���R���tli��+�#�■■•�����■11����1J•l��!�1����������■i■1�����vi�l�•1
201 Comment
202 This category of property is now addressed in Section Five.
203 Sec. 16. Amount of Levy on a Motor Vehicle Owned and Used
204 Primarily by or for Someone at Least Sixty -Five Years of
205 Age or Anyone Found to be Permanently and Totally
206 Disabled.
207 a. In accordance with Sections 58.1--3506.1 et seq. of the
208 Code of Virginia, there shall be a reduced tax, levied at the rate
209 of three dollars ($3.00) on each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of
0
210 assessed valuation, on one ( 1) automobile or pickup truck owned and
211 used primarily by or for anyone at least sixty-five years of age or
212 anyone fund to be permanently and totally disabled, as defined in
213 Section 58. 1-350 6.3 of the Code of Virginia, subject to the
214 following conditions:
215 1. The total combined income received, excluding the
216 first $7,500 of income, from all sources during calendar year 2003
217 by the owner of the motor vehicle shall not exceed twenty-two
218 thousand dollars t $22, 000 3 .
219 2. The owner's net financial worth, including the
220 present value of all equitable interests, as of December 31 of
221 calendar year 2003, excluding the value of the principal residence
222 and the land, not exceeding one (1) acre, upon which it is
223 situated, shall not exceed seventy thousand dollars ($70,000).
224 3. All income and net worth limitations shall be
225 computed by aggregating the income and assets, as the case may be,
226 of a husband and wife who reside in the same dwelling and shall be
227 applied to any owner of the motor vehicle who seeks the benefit of
228 the preferential tax rate permitted under this ordinance,
229 irrespective of how such motor vehicle may be titled.
230 b. Any such motor vehicle owned by a husband and wife may
231 qualify if either spouse is sixty-five or over or if either spouse
232 is permanently and totally disabled, and the conditions set forth
233 in subsection (a) have been satisfied.
234 Sec. 17. Assessed Value Determination.
235 In accordance with Section 58.1-3103 of the Code of Virginia,
236 personal property mentioned in the above sections shall be assessed
237 at actual fair market value, to be determined by the Commissioner
238 of the Revenue for the City of Virginia Beach.
239 Sec. 18. Severability.
240 If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason declared to
241 be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the
242 validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
243 Sec. 19. Effective Date.
244 This ordinance shall be effective on January 1, 2004.
245 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
246 Virginia, on this 1311 day of May, 2003.
247 Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of
248 City Council.
CA8805
F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\taxperproord.wpd
R-4
April 28, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
` y r
1 }
Management Services
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
C)
Department of Law
10
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE PERTAINING
2 TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX BY SIMPLIFYING THE
3 TAX STRUCTURE FOR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS AND
4 INCREASING THE E-911 TAX
5 SECTION AMENDED: § 35-254
6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
7 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
8 That section 35-254 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach,
9 Virginia is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows:
10 Sec. 35-254. Imposed.
11 (a) Pursuant to section 58. 1-3812 of the Code of Virginia, as
12 amended, there is hereby imposed and levied on every taxable
13 purchase by a consumer of local telecommunication service, when
14 such consumer's service address is located in the city, a tax at a
15 rate equal to twenty (20) percent of the monthly gross charge to
16 the consumer of such service; provided, however, that this tax
17 shall not be applicable to any amount so charged in excess of
18 fifteen dollars ( $15.00 ) per month for each residential consumer.
19 (b) Pursuant to section 58.1-3812 of the Code of Virginia, as
20 amended, there is hereby imposed and levied on every taxable
21 purchase by a consumer of mobile local telecommunication service,
22 when such consumer's service address is located in the city, a tax
23 at a rate equal to ten (10) percent of the monthly gross charge to
24 the consumer of such service; provided, however, that this tax
25 shall not be applicable to any amount so charged in excess of
26 thirty dollars ($30. 00 ) per month for each mobile service consumer.
27 (c) With respect to commercial consumers. -t ? 0��-1-
28 kJ i L U L L LA I i -LCL L. in n serv-2:ce;r the tax shall be twenty (20) percent trn
29 for local telecommunication service, and
30 .
31 . The tax imposed by this
32 section shall not be applied to any portion of a monthly charge for
33 any single telephone utility service to a commercial or industrial
34 consumer that exceeds five hundred dollars ($500.00).
35 (d) Pursuant to section 58.1--3813.1 of the Code of Virginia,
36 as amended, in addition to the taxes imposed by subsections (a),
37 (b) and (c) of this section, there is hereby imposed and levied on
38 every consumer of telephone service or services provided by any
39 corporation subject to the provisions of Title 58.1, Chapter 26
40 (section 58. 1- 2600 et seq.) of the Code of Virginia) , a tax for,
41 Enhanced 9-1-1 service in the amount of '
42 two dollars and twenty cents ($2.20) per month. The
43 amount of this tax shall increaseto two dollars„■, and forty cents
44-($2.40) per month on July 1, 2004, and it shall increase to two
■■ i _ rw.�w�.._._� i ■ - __ - ■ ■__-�i__■ _r�__nr r i .- _ram.
45 dollars and sixty cents 2.60 per month on July 1, 2005
46 month. The tax imposed by this subsection (d) shall not apply to
47 any local telephone service where a periodic bill is not rendered.
COMMENT
49 Subsection (c) is amended to eliminate a four percent tax on "all other services provided in
50 connection with local telephone service." Local telecommunication service remains taxable up to $500
51 of service. The revision more closely tracks the language of Virginia Code § 58.1-3812, which
52 authorizes this tax.
0)
53 The E-911 tax increases in subsection (d) are for the funding of public safety communications
54 infrastructure, maintenance replacement and upgrades, as well as E-911 operations. The increase
55 is effective in three steps, with the final rate of $2.60 effective on July 1, 2005. The first increase
56 becomes effective on October 1, 2003. (Increases in telecommunication tax rates do not become
57 effective until 120 days after providers receive notice of the increase.) The second increase will be
58 effective on July 1, 2004, and the last rate increase becomes effective on July 1, 2005.
59 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
60 Virginia, on this 13th day of May, 2003.
CA-8782
F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\35-254ord.wpd
R-4
April 30, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Management Services
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
aw Departmen
v" V
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE PERTAINING
2 TO YARD WASTE CONTAINERS BY ESTABLISHING A
3 TWENTY-FIVE DOLLAR FEE
4 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
5 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
6 That
section 31-35 of
the
Code of the
City of
Virginia Beach,
7 Virginia
is hereby amended
and
reordained
to read
as follows:
8 Sec. 31-35. Use of yard waste containers.
9 The city shall make available to those homeowners who are
10 residents of the city a yard waste container, which shall be picked
11 up and delivered by city employees. There shall be a fee of twenty
12 five dollars ( $25. 00) , which shall be paid to the city before the
13 container is delivered, for the use of a vard waste container for
14 a 24-hour period. The city employees shall deliver and place the
15 yard waste container on the property of the homeowner of an
16 occupied dwelling who has requested the yard waste container.
17 Deliveries made on Fridays shall be picked up on Monday, Prior to
18 delivery of the yard waste container, the homeowner shall sign a
19 statement which shall state:
20 (1) That he is not a contractor and that his need
21 arises from his homeownership;
22
(2) That the
yard
waste container shall only be used
23
for tree
limbs,
leaves, shrubbery, grass trimmings
24 and yard debris;
25
( 3 )
That he will not place hazardous waste, stumps,
26
building and construction materials or other bulky
27
items within the yard waste container;
28
( 4 )
That he will not fill the load above the top of the
29
container; and
30
(5)
That he will release the city from liability for
31
any damages resulting from city equipment or
32
personnel being on private property to deliver or
33
remove the yard waste container.
34
(6)
That he will be responsible for any injuries and/or
35
damages that result to individuals using the
36
container or directly to the container while being
37
used by the homeowner.
38
(7)
That he will reimburse the city for any costs
39
associated with the handling and disposal of any
40
material or items placed in the yard waste
41
container in violation of any of the provisions of
42
this section.
43
44 COMMENT
45 A $25.00 fee is established for the use of yard waste containers.
46 The effective date of this ordinance shall be July 1, 2003.
2
47 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on this 13th day of May, 2003.
CA-8776
F:\Users\CBuringa\Wp\Work\budgetord\31--035ord.wpd
R-2
April 25, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
Management Services aw Depart n
3
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE PERTAINING
2 TO PARKING BY INCREASING THE FINE FOR FIRE
3 LANE PARKING VIOLATIONS
4 SECTION AMENDED: § 21-364
5 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
6 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
7 That Section 21-364 of the City Code is hereby amended and
8 reordained to read as follows:
9 Sec. 21-364 . General parking prohibitions; penalties for
10 violation.
11 (a) No person shall park a vehicle, except when necessary to
12 avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the
13 directions of a police officer or traffic -control device, in any of
14 the following places:
15 (1) Within fifteen ( 15 ) feet of a fire hydrant.
16 (2) Within any designated fire lane.
17 ( 3 ) At any place so as to block any fire department
18 connection.
19 (4 ) Within fifteen (15 ) feet of the driveway entrance to any
20 fire station and, on the side of a street opposite the
21 entrance to any fire station, within seventy-five ( 7 5 )
22 feet of the entrance, when properly signposted.
23 ( 5 ) Within fifteen (15 ) feet of the entrance to a building
24 housing rescue squad equipment or ambulances, provided
25 such buildings are plainly designated.
26 (6) In front of a public or private driveway.
27
(7)
Within an intersection.
28
(8)
On the roadway side of any vehicle parked at the edge or
29
curb of a street (double parking) .
30
(9)
Upon any bridge or other elevated structure upon a street
31
or highway or within a tunnel.
32
(10)
On the left-hand side of roadway of a two-way street.
33
(11)
At any place so as to impede or render dangerous the use
34
of any street or highway.
35
(b)
No person shall park a vehicle, except when necessary to
36
avoid conflict
with other traffic or in compliance with the
37
directions of a police officer or traffic -control device, in any of
38
the following places:
39
(1)
On a sidewalk.
40
(2)
On a crosswalk.
41
(3)
Within twenty (2 0) feet of a crosswalk at an
42
intersection; provided, however, that where there is no
43
crosswalk at an intersection, no person shall so park a
44
vehicle within twenty (20) feet from the intersection of
45
curb lines or, if none, then within fifteen (15) feet of
46
the intersection of property lines.
47
(4)
Within thirty (30) feet upon the approach to any flashing
48
beacon, stop sign or traffic -control signal located at
49
the side of a roadway.
2
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
(5) Between a safety zone and the adjacent curb or within
thirty (30) feet of points on the curb immediately
opposite the ends of a safety zone, unless a different
length is indicated by official signs or markings.
(6) Within fifty ( 50 ) feet of the nearest rail of a railroad
grade crossing.
(7) Alongside or opposite any street excavation or
obstruction, when such parking would obstruct traffic.
( 8 ) At any place where official signs prohibit, reserve or
restrict parking.
(9) In a residential or apartment district (area), if such
vehicle is a commercial vehicle in excess of twenty ( 20 )
feet in length and/or seven (7) feet in height. This
restriction shall not apply to commercial vehicles parked
while engaged in the normal conduct of business or in the
delivery or provision of goods or services in a
residential or apartment district (area).
(10) At any place so as to prevent the use of a curb ramp
located on public property or on privately owned property
open to the public.
(11) At any place, angle parked or perpendicular to a curb,
unless street markings permit.
3
72 (12) On any street or highway or any city parking lot,
73 displaying a sign or lettering indicating that the
74 vehicle is offered for sale or rent.
75 ( c ) No person shall park on any street or highway, or on any
76 city parking lot, any vehicle which fails to display one (1) or
77 more of the following:
78 (1) A valid state vehicle safety inspection decal.
79 (2) Valid state license plates.
80 (d) When a notice or citation is attached to a vehicle
81 found parked in violation of any provision of this
82 section, the owner of the vehicle may, within
83 fourteen (14) calendar days thereafter, pay to the
84 city treasurer, in satisfaction of such violation,
85 a penalty of fifteen dollars ($15. 00) , for a
86 violation of any provision of subsection (a) or
87 (c) , except (a) (2) , or ten dollars ($10. 00) for a
88 violation of any provision of subsection (b), for
89 each hour or fraction thereof during which such
90 vehicle was unlawfully parked. Such payment shall
91 constitute a plea of guilty of the violation in
92 question. If such payment is not postmarked or
93 received by the city treasurer within fourteen (14 )
94 calendar days after rece±pt issuance of such notice
95 or citation, the penalty shall be thirty dollars
4
96 ($30.00) for a violation of any provision of
97 subsection (a) or (c) of this section except
98 (a) (2_)—,- and twenty dollars ($20.00) for a violation
99 of any provision of subsection (b) of this section.
100 (2) For violations of subsection a 2 the enalt
101 shall be fifty dollars ($50.00) if paid to the city
102 treasurer within _ fourteen (14) days after t,he.
103 notice or citation is issued, and if payment is not
104 postmarked or received by the city treasurer within
105 fourteen (14) days after issuance of the notice or
106 citation, the penalty shall be one hundred dollars
107 100.00 .
108 (e) The failure of any owner to make payment in accord with
109 subsection (d) above or present the notice or citation for a
110 violation of this section at an office of the city treasurer for
ill certification to the general district court, within thirty (30)
112 days, shall render such owner subject to a fine of not more than
113 fifty dollars ($50.00) in addition to the penalty prescribed by
114 subsection (d) .
115 COMMENT
116 The amendment increases the fee for parking in fire lanes to $50 if paid in 14 days from the
117 date of issuance, or $100 if payment is not made until after 14 days have passed.
118 The effective date of this ordinance shall be July 1, 2003.
5
119 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
120 Virginia, on this day of
Ir 2003.
CA-8807
cburinga\work\budgetord\21-364ord.wpd
R2
April 30, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS:
Management Services
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SIIFFICIENCY:
Department f aw
0
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION
2 REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO FEES FOR PRELIMINARY
3 SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW
4 SECTION AMENDED: § 8.1
5 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
6 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
7 That Section 8.1 of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
8 amended and reordained to read as follows:
9 Sec. 8.1. Plat fees.
10 ( a ) At the time preliminary subdivision plats are submitted,
11 the following fees shall be due and payable:
12 (1) Residential two (2) lot plats;
13 Three hundred_ testy -six .dollars ( $ 33 6. O_0 }_ .
14 ( 2 ) Residential three ( 3 ) to five ( 5 ) lot platsmm
15 Eight hundred forty_dollars
16 ($840.0plus one hundred sixty eight dollars
17 _L_ 168.o�,� per lot.
18 ( 3 ) Residential six (6) or more lot plats: �iIIL
19 ' One thousand one hundred ei ht -
20 ei ht dollars 1 188.00 plus seven dollarsaQ4
21 ( $7 . 00 ) per lot after the first five ( 5 ) lots.
22 ( 4 ) Nonresidential plats: '
23 . One thousand one hundred eighty-two dollars
.,.. ._.
24 1 182.00 plus fifty-one dollars
25 __($51.00} per lot.
26 (5) As an exception to the above, there shall be no
27 preliminary subdivision review fee for residential lot
28 plats in the AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts where
29 standard conditional use permit fees have been paid.
30 . . .
31 COMMENT
32 The proposed amendments increase fees to the level at which they equal the cost of providing
33 the service.
34 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
35 Virginia, on this day of , 2003.
36
37 CA-8791
38 F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\appb8.lord.wpd
39 R1
40 March 25, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS:
W 6 10-#01 - A I ?)
r
Plane n epartment
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUF ICIENCY:
epartment of Law
2
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE SITE PLAN ORDINANCE
2 PERTAINING TO FEES FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
3 SECTION AMENDED: § 3.2
4 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
5 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
6 That Section 3.2 of the Site Plan Ordinance is hereby amended
7 and reordained to read as follows:
8 Sec. 3. Procedures.
9 . . .
10 3.2. .Procedure for site development plan approval:
11
A.1. The developer shall cause to be prepared
a site
12
development plan with other material as set
forth in
13
sections 4 and 5.
14
A.2. At the time the site development plan is presented,
the
15
following fees shall be due and payable:
16
(a) Residential site plan for two (2)
or more
17
residences: '
18
One thousand fourteen dollars ($1,
014. 00}
19
plus . thirty
dollars
20
($30.0 per unit after the first
five (5 )
21
residential units.
22
(b) Nonresidential site plan: One thousand
rnm three
23
hundred fifty-six dollars1::�Q
Q04
24
( „ 1, 3�w00 ) plus
one
25
hundred_ two dollars ( � 102„ : O } per acre.
26 (c) Duplex site plan: Five hundred sixty dollars
27 ( $560. 00) .
28 r •
29 COMMENT
30 The proposed amendments increase fees to the level at which they equal the cost of providing
31 the service.
32 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
33 Virginia, on this day of , 2003.
34
35 CA-8790
36 F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\site3.2ord.wpd
37 R1
38 March 25, 2003
APPROVED
A5 TO CONTENTS:
f
Pla "a
partmeat
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SIIFFICIENCY:
Department of Law
2
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY ZONING
2 ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE FEE TO AMEND,
3 SUPPLEMENT OR CHANGE THE REGULATIONS, DISTRICT
4 BOUNDARIES OR CLASSIFICATIONS OF PROPERTY AND
5 TO ADOPT A FEE FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF
6 PROFFERED CONDITIONS
7 SECTION AMENDED: § 107 OF THE CZO
8 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare
9 and good zoning practice so require;
10 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
11 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
12 That Section 107 of the City Zoning ordinance is hereby
13 amended and reordained to read as follows:
14 Sec. 107. Amendments.
15 . . .
16
(g ) Fee.
A petition of any property owner to
amend,
17
supplement or
change the regulations, district boundaries, or
18
classification
of property shall be accompanied by a fee
in the
19
amount of
nine hundred dollars
20
900.00 plus
ten dollars ($10.00 ) per acre for each acre
or part
21
thereof over one
hundred (100) acres. A, petition of any property
22
owner for a reconsideration of proffered conditions shall be
23
accompanied by
a fee in the,, amount of two hundred
dollars
24 _($200_. 00 ) .
25 . . .
26 COMMENT
27 The proposed amendments increase fees to the level at which they equal the cost of providing
28 the service.
29 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
30 Virginia, on this day of
31
2003.
32 CA-8799
33 F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\czo107ord.wpd
34 R1
35 March 25, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS:
Planning4epartment
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
c
Department of Law
K
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY ZONING
2 ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE FEE FOR
3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND TO
4 ADOPT A FEE FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF
5 CONDITIONS
6 SECTION AMENDED: § 221 OF THE CZO
7 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare
8 and good zoning practice so require;
9 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
10 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
11 That Section 221 of the City Zoning Ordinance is hereby
12 amended and reordained to read as follows:
13 Sec. 221. Procedural requirements and general standards for
14 conditional uses .
15 . . .
16 (b) Fees. The application shall be accompanied by the
17 following fees to cover the costs of processing the application and
18 publication of the notice of public hearing: Eight hundred
19 dollars ($800._00_)_ for all applications
20 except applications submitted by a nonprofit organization or for a
21 home occupation under section 234 of this ordinance. The fee for
22 such applications shall be one hundred thirby fift dollars
23 t $1,50.00 )_. An application to „r_econsider exist
24 conditions shall be accompanied by a fee of two hundred dollars
25 ($200.00).
26 . 0 0
27
COMMENT
28 The proposed amendments increase fees to the level at which they equal the cost of providing
29 the service.
30 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
31 Virginia, on this day of
32
CA-8798
F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\czo221ord.wpd
R1
March 25, 2003
2
! 2003.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS:
P1 n epartment
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY: �
W
De gartment of Law
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION
2 REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO FEE FOR SUBDIVISION
3 VARIANCE APPLICATIONS
4 SECTION AMENDED: § 8-3
5 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
6 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
7 That Section 8-3 of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
8 amended and reordained to read as follows:
9 Sec. 8.3. Subdivision variance fees.
10 Any appeal for a variance shall be accompanied by the
11 following fees to cover the costs of processing the appeal and
12 publication of the notice of public hearing- ice+
13 fcrr five hundred
14 twenty-five dollars ( $ 52 5. 00) .
15 COMMENT
16 The proposed amendments increase fees to the level at which they equal the cost of providing
17 the service.
18 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
19 Virginia, on this day of 2003.
20 CA-8797
21 F:\Users\CBuringa\Wp\Work\budgetord\appb8-3ord.wpd
22 R1 - March 25, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS:
(I Zv -0$
Plan n epartment
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
i
La Departmen
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE PERTAINING
TO THE FEE TO CONSTRUCT, ALTER OR REPAIR
LANDINGS, DOCKS AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES
SECTION AMENDED: § 6--138
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That Section 6-138 of the City Code is hereby amended and
reordained to read as follows:
9 Sec. 6-138. Fee.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The fee for a permit required by this article shall be
one hundred dollars _ $ 0_.00)_.
COMMENT
The proposed amendments increase fees to the level at which they equal the cost of providing
the service.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
17 Virginia, on this day of
18 CA-87 96
19 F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\06--138ord.wpd
20 R1 - March 25, 2003
2003.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICI CY:
L _
P1a3 An6l Planning Law Department
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE PERTAINING
2 TO FEES FOR BUILDING PERMITS, REINSPECTIONS
3 AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY
4 SECTION AMENDED: § 8-31
5
6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
7 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
8 That Section 8-31 of the City Code is hereby amended and
9 reordained to read as follows:
10 Sec. 8-31. Permit fees --Building permits.
11 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to construct,
12 enlarge, alter, repair or demolish any building or structure as
13 defined in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code without
14 first obtaining a building permit therefor and paying the permit
15 fees set forth in this section.
16 (b) The minimum fee for any building permit shall be
17 thirty dollars ( $ 3 0. 00) .
18 (c) For the construction of any building or addition thereto
19 where the floor area is increased and for the installation or
20 erection of any industrialized building unit, the fee shall be
21 based on the floor area to be constructed, as computed from
22 exterior building dimensions at each floor, as follows:
23
24 (16) Reinspection fee: There shall be a minimum of
25 fift dollars ($50.00)
26 additional fee charged for each reinspection.
27 (17) Appeal: The fee for submitting an appeal to the
28 board of building code appeals shall be one hundred
29
dollars ($100.00). Such fee shall be paid by the
30
appellant.
31
(18) Change of use/certificate of occupancy for existing
32
structure (s) :
33
a. The minimum fee
for the inspection of any new
34
construction or
existing structure requested
35
by the permit
holder shall be '
36
fift dollars
($50 .w00) for each
37
inspection.
38
b. The minimum fee
associated with a change of
39
use or request for a certificate of occupancy
40
for an existing
structure or structures on the
41
same property
shall be seventy-five
42
dollars
($75. 00) .
43
44 COMMENT
45 The proposed amendments increase fees to the level at which they equal the cost of providing
46 the service.
47 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
48 Virginia, on this day of 2003.
49 CA-8795
50 F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\08-031ord.wpd
51 R1 - March 25, 2003
APPROVED AS T4 CONTENTS: APPROVED AS TO LEG SUFFI ENCY:
1 114;04W
lot W
P10-ii epartment Law Department
K
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE PERTAINING
2 TO FEES FOR ELECTRICAL PERMITS AND SPECIAL
3 CONDITION ELECTRICAL PERMITS
4 SECTION AMENDED: § 8-34
5 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
6 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
7 That Section 8-34 of the City Code is hereby amended and
8 reordained to read as follows:
9 Sec, 8r-34 . Same --Electrical permits.
10 ( a ) The fee for a permit for electrical work, as required by
11 the building code, shall be as specified in _ sccrrr this,
12 section.
13 (b) There shall be charged a minimum fee of thirty dollars
14 ( $30. 00 ) for each permit issued.
15 (c) For a permit issued for a temporary service, such as a
16 trailer, house meter or meter loop added to an existing service,
17 the fee shall be thirty dollars ( $ 30.0 0) .
18 (d) For a permit for any special condition, such as and
19 including temporary electrical release for construction purposes,
20 buildings moved, swimming pools, carnivals, services relocated but
21 not increased and the like, the fee shall be a minimum of
22 fift dollars ( $50.00) . The fee for a
.,
23 permit for prefabricated buildings for out---of-city use shall be
24 twenty-five thirty dollars ( $30. 00) .
25 (e) For a permit issued for original construction, the
26 following fees include all equipment outlets only if specifically
27 listed on the application and installed by the permit holder before
28 the final inspection, such fees being based on the maximum current
29 carrying capacity of each set or subset of service conductors
30 installed, to the nearest fifty (50) amperes:
31 (1) Single-phase: Thirty dollars
32 (U0.00) plus twenty dollars ($20.00) for each fifty (50 )
33
amperes.
34 (2) Three-phase: Eighty dollars
35 80. 00 for the first fifty (50) amperes plus twenty
36 dollars ($20.00) for each additional fifty (50) amperes.
37 When services are increased or phases added, the fee shall be
38 one-half the rate above, plus the added equipment fee. For fee
39 purposes, the service -panel nameplate amperage rating shall be
40 used.
41 . . .
42 COMMENT
43 The proposed amendments increase fees to the level at which they equal the cost of providing
44 the service.
45 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
46 Virginia, on this day of 2003.
47 CA-8794
48 F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\08-034ord.wpd
49 R1 - March 25, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS:
W
•
P1 'n epartment
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFF CIENCY:
r
r
a
Law Department
2
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE PERTAINING
2 TO FEES FOR PLUMBING PERMITS
3 SECTION AMENDED: § 8-32
4 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
5 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
6 That Section 8--32 of the City Code is hereby amended and
7 reordained to read as follows:
8 Sec. 8-32. Same --Plumbing permits.
9
(a)
The fee for a permit for plumbing work, as required by
10
the building code, shall be thirty dollars �y . VVI
11
( $30. 00 )
and, in addition thereto, the following:
12
(1)
Each plumbing fixture, floor drain or tap: Six dollars
13
($6.00) .
14
(2)
Each house sewer connection: Twenty-five dollars
15
( $25. 00) .
16
(3)
Each house water connection: Twenty-five dollars
17
( $25. 00) .
18
(4)
On -site sanitary sewer collector lines: one
19
building --twenty-five dollars ( $ 2 5. 0 0) , two ( 2 ) or more
20
buildings --fifty dollars ($50.00) for each building.
21
(5)
On -site potable water distribution lines: one
22
building --twenty-five dollars ( $25.00) , two ( 2 ) or more
23
buildings --fifty dollars ($50.00) for each building.
24
(6)
Public utilities ultra low flush toilet program:
25
Twenty-five dollars ( $25. 00 ) for the first three ( 3 )
26 toilets plus five dollars ($5.00) for each toilet over
27 three (3) .
28 (b) The fees prescribed in this section shall be in addition
29 to the sewer and water connection fees and charges provided for in
30 chapters 28 and 37 of this Code.
31 (c) On any plumbing work commenced before a plumbing permit
32 has been issued and the requisite fee paid therefor, an
33 administrative fee of one hundred dollars ( $100. 00 ) per unit shall
34 be added to the fee due. Payment of such administrative fee shall
35 not in any way relieve the violator from such penalties as may be
36 imposed by the courts.
37 COMMENT
38 The proposed amendments increase fees to the level at which they equal the cost of providing
39 the service.
40 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
41 Virginia, on this day of 2003.
42 CA-8793
43 F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\08-032ord.wpd
44 R1 - March 27, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS:
j - 19 A k --
Plaan hnqAepartment
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SIIFFIC NCY:
c
jW
Law Department
2
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE PERTAINING
2 TO FEES FOR MECHANICAL, LIFE SAFETY AND GAS
3 PERMITS
4 SECTION AMENDED: § 8-33
5 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
6 BEACH, VIRGINIA :
7 That Section 8-33 of the City Code is hereby amended and
8 reordained to read as follows:
9
Sec. 8--33 .
Same ---Mechanical , life safety, elevator and gas
10
permits.
11
(a) The
minimum fee for the installation or replacement of
12
mechanical/life
safety systems or equipment shall be
13
,thirty dollars $ 3 0.0 0) plus five dollars ($ 5. 0 0) for each
14
one thousand
dollars ($1, 000.00) of value or fraction thereof.
15
(b) The
minimum fee for the installation of gas outlets for
16
a gas piping
system shall be thirty dollars
17
(�30.00)_ plus
four dollars ($4 . 00) for each outlet.
18
(c) The
minimum fee for the relocation of a gas meter shall
19
be thirty dollars
($30. 00) .
20
(d) For
annual inspections of elevators and escalators, the
21
fees
shall be as follows:
22
(1) Annual
safety test and inspection:
23
a.
Tractor/cable elevator--$100.00.
24
b.
Hydraulic elevator----$100.00.
25
C.
Freight elevators--$100.00.
26
d.
Escalator--$100.00.
27 (2) Five-year full rate load safety test and inspection:
28 a. Tractor/cable elevators----$100.00.
29 (e) On any mechanical, life safety, elevator or gas work
30 commenced before a mechanical permit has been issued and the
31 requisite fee paid therefor, an administrative fee of one hundred
32 dollars ($100.00) per unit shall be added to the fee due. Payment
33 of such administrative fee shall not in any way relieve the
34 violator from such penalties as may be imposed by the courts.
35 COMMENT
36 The proposed amendments increase fees to the level at which they equal the cost of providing
37 the service.
38 Adopted
by the
City Council
of the City of Virginia Beach,
39 Virginia, on
this
day of
, 2003.
40 CA-87 92
41 F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\08-033ord.wpd
42 R1
43 March 25, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS:
PlAannqtn;epWartmen
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SIIFFZCZENCY:
J I %%
/)] JN�"o A ilvavl
Department of Law
2
1 AN ORDINANCE TO REVISE THE REVENUE
2 SOURCES FOR THE MAJOR PROJECTS
3 SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
4 WHEREAS, by ordinance adopted May 15, 2001 (ORD-2641H) , the
5 City Council established that eighty percent ( 80% ) of the revenues
6 generated from the levy of the admissions tax that accrue in the
7 Tourism Growth and Investment Special Revenue Fund are to be
8 redirected to the Major Projects Special Revenue Fund; and
9 WHEREAS, it is necessary to correct this ordinance to provide
10 that the sources of these revenues include the tax on participatory
11 sports.
12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
13 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
14 1. That Ordinance # ORD-2641H, adopted on May 15, 2001, is
15 hereby amended, as follows:
16 . . .
17 2. That, subject to appropriation, eighty
18 percent (80%) of the revenues generated
19 from the levy of the admissions tax,
20 including the tax on
21 participatory sports, that accrue in the
22 Tourism Growth and Investment Special
23 Revenue Fund shall be redirected to the
24 Major Projects Special Revenue Fund.
25 .
26 2. That the provisions of this ordinance are effective
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
retroactively to May 15, 2001.
COMMENT
This change revises the original ordinance to make clear that the amusement tax on
participatory sports is included in the revenues that are being redirected to the Major Projects Special
Revenue Fund.
Adopted
by
the
Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on
this
13th
day of May, 2003.
CA-8777
F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\correctrevenueord.wpd
R-5
May 5, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Q/1
Management Services
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
l�"VV✓VV� � r W�!
L Department of w
2
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE BY ADDING
2 A SECTION PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF
3 COURT COSTS TO SUPPORT THE LOCAL CRIMINAL
4 JUSTICE ACADEMY
5 SECTION ADDED: § 1-12.3
6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
7 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
8 That Section 1-12.3 of the City Code is hereby added to read
9 as follows:
10 Sec. 1-12.3 Assessment_ _of _court_ costs to _spRRort local criminal
11 justice academy..
12 An additional_ fee of five -dollars _(5.00) to support,the
13 city' s criminal justice academy is hereby imposed in every case- in
14 which costs are assessable Rursuant to Code of Virginia- 16.1-
15 .69.48:1, 17.1-275.1, 17.1-275.2, 17.1-275.3, 17.1-275.4, 17.1-
16 27 5.7 , 17. 1-275.8 , or 17 .1-27 5. 9. The clerks of the district and
i�-u .rnri m r nnn�nnnnn.i . r
17 circuit courts shall charge and collect this assessment as a part
18 `of the fees taxed as costs.
19 After collection by the clerk of the court in which the
wi....wr-rrr.rwr•i n.. rrTi-�i ... r i i i. i � i��n
20 case is heard, the assessment shall be remitted to the city
21 treasurer and hed,. subj,_, _o a,p ,,,,,ropr,i=on by the city council to
22 su „wort. the city' s criminal i ustice academy
23 COMMENT
24 Existing state law provides that one dollar ($I) of the court fees assessed in criminal cases goes
25 to the Regional Criminal Justice Academy Training Fund. In its 2003 session, the General Assembly
26 authorized localities operating independent criminal justice academies to charge a similar fee to
27 support these local academies. The proposed five dollar ($5) fee for the local criminal justice academy
28 will be assessed in addition to the one dollar ($1) collected for regional criminal justice academies.
29 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall be effective
30 on July 1, 2003.
31 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
32 Virginia, on this day of , 2003.
CA--8857
DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/01--12.3ord.wpd
R3
May 6, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS:
L
i
Management Services
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
(-
Department of 16
2
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LANGUAGE OF THE CITY
2 CODE PERTAINING TO THE WORK WEEK
3 SECTION AMENDED: § 2-101
4 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
5 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
6 That section 2-r101 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach,
7 Virginia is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows:
8 Sec. 2 -101. Definitions.
9 For the purposes of this division, unless otherwise indicated,
10 the following terms shall have the meanings respectively ascribed
11 to them in this section:
12 Class: A grouping of jobs having similar duties and
13 responsibilities, requiring similar knowledge, skills and
14 abilities, and demanding similar qualifications so that the jobs
15 may be appropriately titled and described, and the employees
16 performing such jobs may be equally compensated.
17 Full-time employee: A city employee who is scheduled to
18 actually work forty (40) hours
19 or more per consecutive workweek.
20 Part --time employee: A city employee who is scheduled to
21 actually work less than fort
22 .(40) hours per consecutive work week, or a city employee who is
23 scheduled to actually work '
24 fort 40 hours per consecutive work week for less than fifty-two
25 (52) consecutive weeks.
26 Permanent employee: A full-time city employee who has
27 completed the required probation period as provided in section 2-
2 9 Probation employee: A full --time city employee who is has not
30 completed the required probation period as provided in section 2-
31 1080
32 Range: The minimum through maximum salary levels assigned to
33 a class.
34 COMMENT
35 This ordinance increases the work week of full-time employees from thirty-seven and one-half
36 hours to forty hours a week.
37 The effective date of this ordinance shall be July 1, 2003.
38 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia,
39 on this 13th day of May, 2003.
CA-8781
F:\Users\CBuringa\Wp\Work\budgetord\02-101ord.wpd
R-1
April 23, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
QA;ja
Management Services
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
Law Department
2
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 2-104 AND 2-109
2 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO CHANGES IN PAY
3 SECTIONS AMENDED: §§ 2-104 and 2-109
4 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
5 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
6 That Sections 2-104 and 2-109 of the City Code are hereby
7 amended and reordained to read as follows:
8 Sec. 2-104. Original employment.
9 (a) Original employment shall be defined as an employee's
10 initial period of continuous employment with the city. The
11 effective date of original employment shall usually be the date on
12 which the employee actually begins work and shall constitute the
13 first day of the probation period. In cases when a city -recognized
14 holiday, weekend, or city manager -designated inclement weather
15 period prohibits the employee from reporting to work on the first
16 day of a pay period, the effective date of original employment
17 shall be appropriately established by the director of human
18 resources.
19 (b) An individual beginning employment for the first time
20 shall be placed at the minimum salary of the pay range established
21 for the class in which employed, or at the lowest salary received
22 by any incumbent(s) in such class, whichever is lower; provided,
23 however, that based on a new employee's prior experience,
24 proficiency, or related criteria,'ALLCay
25 placement may be accelerated up to twenty (20)
26 percent above the minimum salary of the assigned pay range upon
27 written recommendation by the employing authority and approval of
28 the director -crr of human resources . Further acceleration within the
29 assigned pay range may be authorized upon written recommendation by
30 the employing authority, and approval by the director of human
31 resources and the city manager.
32 COMMENT
33 In this section the proposed change eliminates the use of signing bonuses for new employees;
34 however, in this ordinance, at § 2-1 o9(f), it is proposed that the City Manager be authorized to
35 establish a comprehensive program for the use of bonuses, including recruitment bonuses.
36 Sec. 2 --10 9 . Changes in pay generally.
37 (a) Administrative increase. An administrative increase
38 shall be defined as
39
an increase within
a class that is awarded to
an
40
employee
'
41
based on criteria
42
established bv City olic .
Employees may be recommended for
an
43
administrative increase upon submission of a letter
of
44
justification by the respective department head to the director
of
45
human resources, subject to
the approval of the city manager.
An
46
administrative increase does
not affect the employee's merit date.
47
(b) Merit increase. A
merit increase shall be defined as
a
48 salary increase within the pay range of the class to which the
49 employee is assigned that is awarded based on job performance in
50 accordance with the city' s performance appraisal program. A formal
2
51 performance appraisal shall be conducted for each employee on the
52 employee's respective merit date and each succeeding merit date
53 thereafter. Merit increases shall become effective on the
54 employee's merit date as provided in section 2-116 and shall only
55 be awarded to full --time permanent employees. Merit increases shall
56 be prorated if a promotion, career progression, or a change in job
57 duties occurs prior to the merit date. The amount of the merit
58 increase shall be prorated based on the length of time assigned to
59 the classification during the appraisal period.
60 (c) Administrative decrease. An administrative decrease
61 shall be defined as a `
62 salary reduction within a class as disciplinary
63 action resulting from unsatisfactory job performance or misconduct
64 as defined by applicable City olicy.. An administrative decrease
65 may be recommended at any time and requires a letter of
66 justification submitted by the appropriate department head. This
67 action is subject to approval by the director of human resources
68 and the city manager. Merit dates are not affected by an
69
administrative decrease. The
effective
date of all administrative
70
decreases will be the first
day of the
pay period.
71
(d) Market adjustment.
A market
adjustment shall be defined
72 as a percentage increase to pay ranges on the city's compensation
73 plans that may be provided to employees whose job classification is
74 assigned to an affected pay range. A market adjustment shall be
3
75
recommended by the
city
manager and approved by the city council.
76
Market adjustments
are
not dependent on an employee's individual
77 performance within a job class.
78 (e) Shift differential. A shift differential shall be
79
authorized whenever an employee
compensated
in a classification
80
which is not designated by the
director of
human resources to
81 require shift work is permanently assigned to work a shift which
82
commences
on or
between the
hours of 3:00 p.m.
to 3:00
a.m. Such
83
employee
shall
receive the
equivalent of a
five (5)
percent
84 increase in his or her normal salary rate for all hours worked
85 during such time period only. Employees assigned to regularly
86 scheduled rotating shift as designated by the director of human
87 resources and the city manager, and employees designated by the
88 director of human resources as "exempt" under the Fair Labor
89 Standards Act, work shall be ineligible under the provisions of
90 this subsection.
91 The city manager_ is _authorized to establish _o
92 procirams to address -a variety of needs, including recruitment,
93 retention, and 'Performance. Bonuses may ---be provided to employees
94 in accordance with applicable City policies and guidelines. A
95 "bonus" _shall be defined as a lump -sum _-payment to an employee that
96 is not part of the base salary.
..r_
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
COMMENT
The proposed change in subsection (a) eliminates the two levels of pay increases currently
authorized, and provides that the amounts of the increases, along with the criteria, will be established
by City policy.
Similarly, at subsection (b), the ordinance proposes that the amounts of salary reductions will
also be determined by City policy.
Finally, in subsection (f) the City Manager is authorized to establish bonus programs to meet
a variety of needs, which will also be governed by City policies.
The effective date of this ordinance shall be July 1, 2003.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on this 13th day of May, 2003.
CA8780
F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\02-104&109ord.wpd
R-4
April 30, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
C� r •
Management Services
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
4 C
Law Depar t
5
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE PERTAINING
2 TO THE EXEMPTION OR DEFERRAL OF REAL ESTATE
3 TAXES FOR ELDERLY OR DISABLED PERSONS BY
4 INCREASING INCOME AND NET WORTH LIMITS
5 SECTIONS AMENDED: §§ 35-64 AND 35-67
6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
7 VIRGINIA:
8 That Sections 35-64 and 35-67 of the City Code are hereby
9 amended and reordained to read as follows:
10 Sec. 35--64 . General prerequisites to grant; effect of residency
11 in hospital, nursing home, etc.
12 ( a ) Either the exemption, deferral or freeze, but not more
13 than one, as provided for in this division shall be granted to
14 persons subject to the following provisions:
15 (1) The title to the property for which exemption, deferral
16 or freeze is claimed is held, or partially held, on June
17 thirtieth immediately preceding the taxable year, by the
18 person or persons claiming exemption, deferral or freeze
19 and is occupied as the sole dwelling of such person or
20 persons.
21 (2) The head of the household occupying the dwelling and
22 owning title or partial title thereto or either spouse in
23 a dwelling jointly held by a husband and wife is either
24 permanently and totally disabled or is sixty-five ( 65 )
25 years of age or older on June thirtieth of the year
the taxable year; provided,
tel preceding and
immediately b a husband
26 � jointly heldYhata dwelling
howeve r � t • xt - f ive (6 5 �
2
� use is over s 1 Y
i f i f either spouse
wife may qual Y
28
years of age- 1 combined income
2 � rams r the total
tax exemption prQg
For the t ceding calendar
o (3 � in the pre
3 during
from all sources
received dwelling who use
31 owners of the
W the owner °r or
ear by: �� the owner s
2 y � ce and tit }
3 i al residence as their print p ha11 not
It
the dwelling► s
33 who live �n
wners► relatives ed dollars
o Six hundred
34 -Wt�
exceed twenty seven thousand
. the first eight
o.a0 provided rovlded that
�o
- of income of
36 s ($8r500.00�
hundred dollar
thousand five who is
3� her than a spouse of the owner►
h relative. at in such
each be included
3g shall not
in the dwelling► thousand
living i r st seven
39 er that the f
rovided further
total. and p portion thereof
40 . oo } or any
e hundred dal
lays ($�7,540
five 11 disabled
nt l and totally a Y
41 b a permanently
of lnc
ome received Y
42 in such total.
owner shall not be included
coined Income
43 the total
freeze Pr°gra'�,
For the tax preceding calendar
4 (4 in the
4 during
from all Sources
received dwelling who use
4 5 owners o f the
i � the owner o r
year by ; ( the owner's or
6 Y nce and tl��
4 reside
It
as their principalshall not
-� . n the dwe 11 ing r
4 live i
relatives who
owners •
48 hundred dollars ,
forty six
exceed fo Y thousand
49
2
50
($40, 600.00„L; provided that
the
first eight thousand five
51
hundred dollars ( $ 8 , 500. 0 0 )
of
income of each relative,
52 other than a spouse of the owner, who is living in the
53 dwelling, shall not be included in such total; and
54 provided that the first seven thousand five hundred
55 dollars ($7,500.00) or any portion thereof of income
56 received by a permanently and totally disabled owner
57 shall not be included in such total.
58
(5) For the tax exemption programs, the net combined
59
financial worth, including
equitable interests, as of
60
December thirty-first of the
year immediately preceding
61
the taxable year, of the owners,
and of the spouse of any
62
owner, excluding the value of
the dwelling and the land
63
(not exceeding one acre) upon
which it is situated, shall
64
not exceed one hundred
thirty-one thousand_____;
65
nine -hundred dollars ,
131 900.00 .
66
(6) For the tax freeze program,
the net combined financial
67
worth, including equitable
interests, as of December
68
thirty --first of the year
immediately preceding the
69
taxable year, of the owners, and of the spouse of any
70
owner, excluding the value of
the dwelling and the land
71
( not exceeding one acre) upon
which it is situated, shall
72
not exceed one hundred
thirty-one thousand
73
nine -hundred dollars
($131, 900. 0 0).
3
74
(7) For the tax deferral program, the total combined income
75
received from all sources during the preceding calendar
76
year by: (i) the owner or owners of the dwelling who use
77
it as their principal residence and (ii) the owner's or
78
owners' relatives who live in the dwelling, shall not
79
exceed fifty-two thousand dollars ($52, 000. 00) provided
80
that the first eight thousand five hundred dollars
81
($ 8, 500. 00) of income each relative, other than a spouse
82
of the owner, who is living in the dwelling, shall not be
83
included in such total; and provided further that the
84
first seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7, 500. 00) or
85
any portion thereof of income received by a permanently
86
and totally disabled owner shall not be included in such
87
total.
88
(8) For the tax deferral program, the net combined financial
89
worth, including equitable interests, as of December
90
thirty --first of the year immediately preceding the
91
taxable year, of the owners, and of the spouse of any
92
owner, excluding the value of the dwelling and the land
93
(not exceeding one acre) upon which it is situated, shall
94
not exceed one hundred ninety-five thousand dollars
95
($195, 000 00) .
96
(9) The dwelling is occupied.
97
.
4
98 Sec. 35 - 67 . Amount of exemption.
99 When a person claiming exemption under this division conforms
100 to the standards and does not exceed the limitations contained in
101 this division, the tax exemption shall be as shorn on the following
102 schedule:
103 Total income,
104
All Sources
Tax Exemption
105
106
. $0 :00 - 20L
FYI. 19 ■IP�■
3�04 _, 00
100 0
107
. $20, 300.01
- 21L900. 00
80 0
108
$21 ^900.01
- 23, 00.00
60 0
109�23F400.01
- 24 900 . fl0
40 0
110
$24, 900.01
- 27, 600.00
20 0
ill
No lien shall accrue as a result of the amount certified as exempt.
112 COMMENT
113 The income and net worth increases in this ordinance reflect current City Council policy to
114 regularly adjust these amounts.
115 Be it further ordained that this ordinance shall be effective on
116 July 1, 2003.
117 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia,
118 on this 13th day of May, 2003.
119 CA-8779
120 F: \Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\35-064&67ord.wpd
121 R-2 -- April 25, 2003
122 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
123
S
124 Management Services Law Department
5
I AN ORDINANCE MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
2 FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 11 2003 AND ENDING
3 JUNE 30, 2004 IN THE SUM OF $1r311r825,979 FOR
4 OPERATIONS AND $468,070,150 IN INTERFUND
5 TRANSFERS AND REGULATING THE PAYMENT OF MONEY
6 OUT OF THE CITY TREASURY, AS AMENDED
7 WHEREAS, the City Manager has heretofore submitted an Annual
8 Budget for the City for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003, and
9 ending June 30, 2004, and it is necessary to appropriate sufficient
10 funds to cover said budget.
11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
12 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
13 Section 1. That the amounts named aggregating $1, 779, 896, 129
14 consisting of $468, 070, 150 in interfund transfers and
15 $1, 311, 825,979 for operations, are hereby appropriated subject to
16 the conditions hereinafter set forth for the use of departments,
17 and designated funds of the city government, and for the purposes
18 hereinafter mentioned, as set forth in the Annual Operating Budget,
19 which is hereby incorporated by reference, for the fiscal year
20 beginning July 1, 2003, and ending June 30, 2004, a summary of
21 which is attached to this ordinance as "Attachment A
22 Appropriations."
23 Section 2. That in accordance with Section 5.04 of the City
24 Charter, Estimated Revenue in support of Appropriations is set
25 forth in said Annual Operating Budget, with a summary of Estimated
26 Revenue in Support of Appropriations attached to this ordinance as
27 "Attachment B -- Revenues."
28 Section 3. With the exception of the School Operating Fund,
29 and the Sheriff's Special Revenue Fund, the total of full-time
30 permanent positions shall be the maximum of positions authorized
31 for the various departments of the City during the fiscal year,
32 except for changes or additions authorized by the Council or as
33 hereinafter provided. The City Manager may from time to time
34 increase or decrease the number of part-time or temporary positions
35 provided the aggregate amount expended for such services shall not
36 exceed the respective appropriations made therefore. The City
37 Manager is further authorized to make such rearrangements of
38 positions within and between the departments as may best meet the
39 needs and interests of the City.
40 Section 4. To improve the effectiveness and efficiencies of
41 the government in service delivery, the City Council hereby
42 authorizes the City Manager or his designee to transfer
43 appropriated funds and existing positions throughout the fiscal
44 year as may be necessary to implement organizational adjustments
45 that have been authorized by the City Council. Unless otherwise
46 directed by the City Council, such organizational adjustments shall
47 be implemented on such date or dates as the City Manager
48 determines, in his discretion, to be necessary to guarantee a
49 smooth and orderly transition of existing organizational functions.
Sa The City Manager shall make a report each year to the City Council
2
51 identifying the status and progress of any such organizational
52 adjustments.
53 Section 5. All current and delinquent collections of local
54 taxes shall be credited to the General Fund and, where appropriate,
55 to any special service district special revenue fund or any tax
56 increment financing funds created by City Council. Transfers shall
57 be made from the General Fund to the respective designated funds to
58 which a special levy is made in the amount of collection for each
59 specially designated fund.
60 Section 6. All balances of the appropriations payable out of
61 each fund of the City Treasury at the close of business for the
62 fiscal year ending on June 30, 2004, unless otherwise provided for,
63 are hereby declared to be lapsed into the fund balance of the
64 respective funds, except the School Operating Fund which shall
65 lapse into the General Fund Balance, and may be used for the
66 payment of the appropriations that may be made in the appropriation
67 ordinance for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2004. However,
68 there shall be retained in the General Fund Balance an amount not
69 less than the range of seventy-five ( 7 5 ) to one hundred (100 )
70 percent of the budget for city and school debt service payments for
71 that fiscal year, for contingency and emergency situations, not to
72 be used to support appropriations approved in the ordinance for the
73 fiscal year beginning July 1, 2004, except upon subsequent
74 authorization by City Council.
75 Section 7. That the City' s debt management policies for the
76 Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund shall serve as a basis for
3
77 developing financial strategies for the water and sanitary sewer
78 system based on the following guidelines; (a) for the Water and
79 Sewer Fund, the goal of retaining working capital equal to 80% to
80 100 0 of one year's operating expense shall be pursued; ( b ) for the
81 Water and Sewer Fund, the goal shall be for debt service coverage
82 on its water and sewer revenue bonds at not less than 1.50 times
83 and, on a combined basis, including water and sewer general
84 obligation bonds, at no less than 1.20 times and (c) for the Water
85 and Sewer Fund, contributions from non -borrowed funds, on a f ive-
86 year rolling average basis, will be sought for approximately 25 0 of
87 the annual capital program for the water and sewer system.
88 Section 8 . All balances of appropriations in each fund which
89 support authorized obligations or are encumbered at the close of
90 the business for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2004, are
91 hereby declared to be reappropriated into the fiscal year beginning
92 July 1, 2004, and estimated revenues adjusted accordingly.
93 Section 9. No department or agency for which appropriations
94 are made under the provisions of this Ordinance shall exceed the
95 amount of the appropriations except with the consent and approval
96 of the City Council first being obtained. It is expressly provided
97 that the restrictions with respect to the expenditure of the funds
98 appropriated shall apply only to the totals for each Appropriation
99 Unit included in this ordinance and does not apply to Interfund
100 Transfers.
102 Section 10. The City Manager or the Director of Management
102 Services is hereby authorized to approve transfers of
4
103 appropriations in an amount up to $100,000 between any
104 Appropriation Units included in this ordinance. The City Manager
105 shall make a monthly report to the City Council of all transfers
106 between $25, 000 and $100, 000. In addition, the City Manager may
107 transfer, in amounts necessary, appropriations from all Reserves
108 for Contingencies except Reserve for Contingencies - Regular,
109 within the intent of the Reserve as approved by City Council.
110 Section 11. Funds in the amount of $400, 000 shall be
ill appropriated from the General Fund Balance for the purpose of
112 making a loan or loans to the City of Virginia Beach Development
113 Authority ("Development Authority"). The City Manager shall be
114 authorized to transfer these funds to the Development Authority for
115 this purpose provided that the aggregate amount of all such
116 transfers does not exceed $400,000. Such transfer(s) shall be
117 based upon a specific request by the Development Authority and upon
118 the Director of Management Services' verification that the funds
119 are necessary for the Development Authority to maintain an adequate
120 cash f low. Any such transfer(s) shall be made upon terms and
121 conditions to be determined by the City Manager, and shall be
122 repaid by the Development Authority in an expeditious manner
123 through the sale of land. The City Manager shall make a report to
124 City Council identifying the status of Development Authority
125 finances and any transfers made under this section.
126 Section 12. Funds_ in the amount of $2 , 000, 000 are hereby
127 aRproDriated from the General Fund Balance to the Risk Management
128 Internal Service Fund Balance. The Cit Manacfer is hereby
5
129 authorized to transfer these funds ■to the (Risk Manaaement Internal
130 Service Fund, to ensure that the Risk Management Internal Service
131 Fund has sufficient resources to meet anticipated claims,-- provided
- - ___ - __ ■r�i�. .._ir i_..rr��mr - _ - ■.r✓�ir._ i r.rr.r_r. .ter
132 that such transfers do not conflict with the provisions of Section
133 6 of this ordinance.
134 COMMENT
135 This new section provides additional funding for the Risk Management Internal Service Fund,
136 Section 13. The City Manager or the Director of Management
137 Services is hereby authorized to establish and administer budgeting
138 within Appropriation Units consistent with best management
139 practices, reporting requirements, and the programs and services
140 adopted by the City Council.
141 Section 14. The City Manager or the Director of Management
142 Services is hereby authorized to change the Estimated Revenues
143 included in this ordinance to reflect expected collections. If the
144 Estimated Revenue in support of an Operating Appropriation Unit
145 declines, the City Manager or the Director of Management Services
146 is hereby authorized to reduce, subject to any other provision of
147 law, those appropriations to equal the decline in Estimated
148 Revenue. The City Manager must give prior notice to the City
149 Council of any reduction to total appropriations exceeding
150 $100, 000. The notice to City Council shall identify the basis and
151 amount of the appropriation reduction and the Appropriation Units
152 affected. The accounting records of the City will be maintained in
153 a manner that the total of Estimated Revenue is equal to the total
C1
154 of the Appropriation Units for each of the City' s funds. The City
155 Manager or the Director of Management Services is hereby authorized
156 to transfer any excess appropriations to the Reserve for
157 Contingencies after all anticipated expenditures for which those
158 funds were appropriated have been incurred. Nothing in this
159 section shall be construed as authorizing any reduction to be made
160 in the amount appropriated in this ordinance for the payment of
161 interest or principal on the bonded debt of the City Government.
162 Section 15. Allowances made from the appropriations made in
163 this ordinance by any or all of the City departments, bureaus, or
164 agencies, to any of their officers and employees for expenses on
165 account of the use by such officers and employees of their personal
166 automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall not
167 exceed thirty-two and one half cents ( $ . 325 ) per mile of actual
168 travel for the first 15,000 miles and fifteen ( $ . 15 ) per mile for
169 additional miles of such use within the fiscal year.
170 Section 16. All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on
171 forms approved by the Director of Finance and according to
172 regulations approved by the City Council. Each account shall show
173 the dates expenses were incurred or paid; number of miles traveled;
174 method of travel; hotel expenses; meals; and incidental expenses.
175 The Director of Finance is specifically directed to withhold the
176 issuance of checks in the event expense accounts are submitted for
177 "lump -sum" amounts.
178 Section 17. Violation of this ordinance may result in
179 disciplinary action by the City Manager against the person or
7
180 persons responsible for the management of the Appropriation Unit in
181 which the violation occurred.
182 Section 18. This ordinance shall be effective on July 1,
183 2003.
184 Section 19. If any part of this ordinance is for any reason
185 declared to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
186 affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.
187
Adopted
by
the
Council
of the
City of Virginia Beach,
188
Virginia, on
this
the
13th day
of May,
2003.
189 Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of City Council.
CA-8804
F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\operbudgetord.wpd
R-4
May 7, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
r
Management Services y
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
l
Law Departm
0
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2003-04 Budget Ordinance
Attachment A -Appropriations
FY 2003-04
Budget
002 General Fund
Agriculture
933,156
Audit Services
434,010
Benefits Administration
257,060
Board of Equalization
19,040
Circuit Court
964,552
City Attorney
219729236
City Clerk
498,204
City Manager
210890705
City Real Estate Assessor
293939628
City Treasurer
4 526,577
Clerk of the Circuit Court
688,863
Commissioner of the Revenue
39600,103
Commonwealth's Attorney
511599852
Communications and Information Technology
21263,594
Community Organization Grants
630,525
Convention and Visitor Development
69044,683
Director of Finance
41799,489
Economic Development
1 8491O7
Emergency Medical Services
2,964,791
Employee Special Benefits
19776,439
Fire
3196839176
General District Court
252,396
General Registrar
190549238
General Services
27,315,209
Health
2,8009205
Housing and Neighborhood Preservation
105259153
Human Resources
3t670,822
Independent Financial Services
1349000
Juvenile Detention Center
596,583
Juvenile Probation
31713,728
Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
167,982
Library
1492049013
Magistrates
152,017
Management Services
1 414 798
Mass Transit Operations
11584,285
Microcomputer Support
43,274
Municipal Council
468,135
Museums
6802633
Planning and Community Development
89745,836
Police
67,8949469
Public Works
5796179402
Regional Participation
11439,185
Reserve for Contingencies
89350,350
Revenue Reimbursements
39280,940
Social Services
32,100,568
Transfer to Other Funds
427,138,173
Wetlands Board of Virginia Beach
13,925
Zoning Board of Appeals
399383
Fund 002 Appropriation Totals 742,8469492
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2003-04 Budget Ordinance
Attachment A - Appropriations
FY 2003-04
Budget
108 School Instructional Technoloqv Fund
Instructional Technology 2,760,000
Fund 108 Appropriation Totals 29760,000
109_School VendinaOperations Fund
Education - Athletic
112 School Communication Tower Technology, Fund
Instructional Technology
114 School Cafeteria Fund
Education - Cafeteria
115 School Orwatina Fund
Administration, Attendance, and Health
Instruction
Operations and Maintenance
Pupil Transportation
116 School Grants Fund
Education - Grants
117 School Textbook Fund
Education - Textbook
119 School Athletic Special Revenue Fund
Education - Athletic
120 Federal Police Department Grant Fund
Police (Uniform Patrol Grant)
Reserve for Contingencies
130 Law Library Fund
Library (Law Library)
Reserve for Contingencies
Transfer to Other Funds
131 Pendleton Child Service Center Fund
Reserve for Contingencies
Social Services (Pendleton Child Service Center)
134 E-911 Communications Special Revenue Fund
Communications and Information Technology
Reserve for Contingencies
Transfer to Other Funds
194709000
Fund 109 Appropriation Totals 19470,000
8009000
Fund 112 Appropriation Totals 800,000
22,222,420
Fund 114 Appropriation Totals 22,2229420
' 189899,361
423,8259993
68,0959411
23,5229956
Fund 115 Appropriation Totals 5349343,721
4690079752
Fund 116 Appropriation Totals 461007,752
8,691,102
Fund 117 Appropriation Totals 8,691 ,102
394629619
Fund 119 Appropriation Totals 31462,619
1,180,603
16,072
Fund 120 Appropriation Totals 11196,675
3299936
5,264
60,000
Fund 130 Appropriation Totals 3955200
89040
193757060
Fund 131 Appropriation Totals 1,383,100
755959408
166,809
i ooq n7.q
Fund 134 Appropriation Totals 81985,290
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2003=04 Budget Ordinance
Attachment A - Appropriations
FY 2003-04
Budget
137 MH/MR/SA Special Revenue Fund
Mental Health/Mental Retardation/Substance Abuse 29,820,973
Reserve for Contingencies 1489338
Fund 137 Appropriation Totals 29,9699311
142 DEA Seized PropertyPr2perty Special Revenue Fund
Commonwealth's Attorney
Reserve for Contingencies
146 Police Airplane Special Revenue_ ,Fund
Police (Airplane Enterprise)
147 Federal Section 8 Program S ecial Revenue Fund
Housing and Neighborhood Preservation (Section 8 Housing)
Housing and Neighborhood Preservation (Section 8)
Reserve for Contingencies
148 Com rehensive Services Act Special Revenue Fund
Comprehensive Services Act
Transfer to Other Funds
149 Sheriff's Department Special Revenue Fund
Reserve for Contingencies
Sheriff and Corrections
150 Inmate Services Special Revenue Fund
Reserve for Contingencies
Sheriff and Corrections (Inmate Services)
Transfer to Other Funds
151 Parks and Recreation Special Revenue Fund
General Services
Parks and Recreation
Reserve for Contingencies
Transfer to Other Funds
152 Tourism Growth Investment Fund
Convention and Visitor Development (TGIF)
General Services (TGIF)
Museums
Planning and Community Development (TGIF)
Public Works (TGIF)
Reserve for Contingencies
Transfer to Other Funds
1559408
804
Fund 142 Appropriation Totals 156,212
2009000
Fund 146 Appropriation Totals 200,000
629,775
109704,290
18,020
Fund 147 Appropriation Totals 11,352,085
6,639,960
1,147, 852
Fund 148 Appropriation Totals 70787,812
156,780
22,2839503
Fund 149 Appropriation Totals 22,440,283
2,412
4029107
2599551
Fund 150 Appropriation Totals 664,070
2,2929110
20,4389065
453,387
8,754
Fund 151 Appropriation Totals 239192,316
1,119,000
3742206
50,500
301,962
248,674
5,628
1093869877
Fund 152 Appropriation Totals 1294869847
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2003-04 Budget Ordinance
Attachment A - Appropriations
FY 2003-04
Budget
156 Police Store S ecial Revenue Fund
Police 209000
Fund 156 Appropriation Totals 20,000
157 Sandbridqe Special Service District Special Revenue Fund
Reserve for Future Commitments 19787,401
Fund 157 Appropriation Totals 19787,401
158 EMS State Two -for -Life Special Revenue Fund
Emergency Medical Services 169,968
Fund 158 Appropriation Totals 169,968
159 ,Fire Programs Special Revenue Fund
Fire (Fire Programs)
Transfer to Other Funds
161 Aariculture Reserve Program Special Revenue Fund
Agriculture (Agricultural Reserve Program)
Reserve for Contingencies
Reserve for Future Commitments
Transfer to Other Funds
163 Tourism Advertising !!rocirarn Special Revenue Fund
Convention and Visitor Development (Tourism Advertising)
Reserve for Contingencies
165 L nnhaven Mall Tax Increment Financing Fund
Reserve for Contingencies
Tax Increment Financing
166 Sandbridqe Tax Increment Financing Fund
Reserve for Future Commitments
367,604
200,000
Fund 159 Appropriation Totals 5672604
1889589
804
1,301,'150
29518,572
Fund 161 Appropriation Totals 490099115
7,5269712
15,645
Fund 163 Appropriation Totals 7,5429357
150,000
1,80a,000
Fund 165 Appropriation Totals 119509000
%418,216
Fund 166 Appropriation Totals 32418,216
167 Arts and Humanities Commission Special Revenue Fund
Arts and Humanities Commission 4349250
Fund 167 Appropriation Totals 434,250
169 Central Business District - South TIF Town Center Fund
Transfer to Other Funds 194829525
Fund 169 Appropriation Totals 11482,525
170 Marine Science Museum Special Revenue Fund
Museums (Virginia Marine Science Museum)
Reserve for Contingencies
599099503
93.183
Fund 170 Appropriation Totals 610029686
171 Sorts lex Special Revenue Fund
Parks and Recreation 3809920
Reserve for Contingencies 804
Fund 171 Appropriation Totals 3819724
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2003-04 Budget Ordinance
Attachment A -Appropriations
172 Open Space Special Revenue Fund
Parks and Recreation (Open Space)
Public Works (Open Space)
Reserve for Contingencies
Reserve for Future Commitments
Transfer to Other Funds
173 Ma`or Pro'ects S ecial Revenue Fund
Public Works (Major Projects)
Reserve for Contingencies
Reserve for Future Commitments
Transfer to Other Funds
174 Town Center Special Tax District
Reserve for Contingencies
Town Center Special Tax District
180 Community Development Special Revenue Fund
Community Development Block Grants
Housing and Neighborhood Preservation
Reserve for Contingencies
181 CD Loan and Grant Fund
Community Development Block Loan and Grants
182 Federal Housing Assistance Grant Fund
Federal HOME Grants
183 Grants Consolidated Fund
Commonwealth's Attorney - Grants
Community Corrections
Court Grants
Housing and Neighborhood Grants
Police (Uniform Patrol Grant)
Reserve for Contingencies
Sheriff - Grants
Social Services Grants
185 Mental Health Grants Fund
FY 2003-04
Budget
55,756
52,000
402
1,333,445
114'159894
Fund 172 Appropriation Totals 21857,497
300,435
11608
%197,542
4,172, 886
Fund 173 Appropriation Totals 13,6729471
93,400
2319496
Fund 174 Appropriation Totals 324,896
196329579
1,221,042
56,285
Fund 180 Appropriation Totals 29909,906
631,400
Fund 181 Appropriation Totals 631 p400
1,458,000
Fund 182 Appropriation Totals 1,458,000
269,358
536,190
252,978
1,2579000
56,303
111,256
222,102
4989238
Fund 183 Appropriation Totals 39203,425
Mental Health Grants
51226
Mental Retardation Grants
3791,731
Substance Abuse Grants
19002,593
Fund 185 Appropriation Totals 19387,550
241 Water and Sewer Fund
Debt Service
119116,944
Public Utilities
62,2201453
Reserve for Contingencies
111449545
Transfer to Other Funds
99704,833
Fund 241 Appropriation Totals 84,186,775
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2003-04 Budget Ordinance
Attachment A - Appropriations
FY 2003-04
Budget
243 Golf Courses Enterprise Fund
Parks and Recreation (Golf Courses) 2,141,365
Reserve for Contingencies 158,218
Transfer to Other Funds 306,043
Fund 243 Appropriation Totals 2,6055626
253 Parking Enterprise Fund
Convention and Visitor Development (Parking)
Reserve for Contingencies
Transfer to Other Funds
255 Storm Water Utility Enterorise Fund
Debt Service
Public Works (Storm Water Operations)
Reserve for Contingencies
Transfer to Other Funds
302 General Debt Fund
290979029
36,742
4399774
Fund 253 Appropriation Totals 295739545
767,360
81811,003
3529049
7,605,343
Fund 255 Appropriation Totals 17,535,755
Debt Service 939340,365
Fund 302 Appropriation Totals 9393409365
460 School General Revenue Capital Proiects Fund
School Capital Projects 118959231
Fund 460 Appropriation Totals 198959231
491 Water and Sewer Cperatinq Revenue Capita! Proiects Fund
Water and Sewer Capital Projects 297509000
Fund 491 Appropriation Totals 21750,000
492 Engineering & Highways General Revenue Capital Projects
Coastal Capital Projects 391282806
Economic and Tourism Development Capital Projects 4,0031323
Roadways Capital Projects 99768,830
Fund 492 Appropriation Totals 16,9009959
496 Parks and Recreation General Revenue Capital, Projects Fund
Parks and Recreation Capital Projects 398479472
Fund 496 Appropriation Totals 378479472
497 Buildings General Revenue Capital Projects Fund
Building Capital Projects
498 Storm Water Capital Project Fund
Storm Water Capital Projects
904 Mental Health Center Gift Fund
Mental Health/Mental Retardation/Substance Abuse
1191867598
Fund 497 Appropriation Totals 1191869598
599889144
Fund 498 Appropriation Totals 5,988,144
21,161
Fund 904 Appropriation Totals 219161
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2003-04 Budget Ordinance
Attachment A -Appropriations
908 City Beautification Fund
General Services
911 Parks and Recreation Gift Fund
Parks and Recreation (Gift Fund)
Total Budget Appropriations
Less lnterfund Transfers
NET BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS
FY 2003-04
Budget
10,200
Fund 908 Appropriation Totals 109200
30,000
Fund 911 Appropriation Totals 309000
10779,8960129
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2003mO4 Budget Ordinance
Attachment 8 -Revenues
FY 2003-04
Budget
002 General Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
General Property Taxes
440,957,187
Other Local Taxes
202,9592239
Permits, Privilege Fees, and Regulatory Licenses
498412487
Fines and Forfeitures
41947,793
From the Use of Money and Property
4,989,738
Charges for Services
41874,409
Miscellaneous Revenue
1,260,247
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Other Sources from the Commonwealth
54135%926
Revenue from the Federal Government
18,280,355
Transfers from Other Funds
51376,111
Fund 002 Revenue Totals
742,846,492
108_School instructional Technology Fund
Specific Fund Reserves
21,760,000
Fund 108 Revenue Totals
29760,000
109 School Vending Operations Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
20,000
Miscellaneous Revenue
6009000
Specific Fund Reserves
8549000
Fund 109 Revenue Totals
19470,000
112 School Communication Tower Technology Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
200,000
Specific Fund Reserves
600 000
Fund 112 Revenue Totals
8009000
114 School Cafeteria Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
Charges for Services
Miscellaneous Revenue
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Other Sources from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Specific Fund Reserves
115 School Operatinq Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
Charges for Services
Miscellaneous Revenue
Revenue from the Commonwealth
State Shared Sales Tax
Other Sources from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Transfers from Other Funds
10,7969716
130,000
3409000
9,241,000
1,714,704
Fund 114 Revenue Totals 22.222.420
455,000
113363664
412,000
5396977320
2099317,316
14,371131
25457549290
Fund 115 Revenue Totals 534.343.721
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2003w04 Budget Ordinance
Attachment B - Revenues
FY 2003-04
Budget
116 School Grants Fund
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Other Sources from the Commonwealth 11,6879296
Revenue from the Federal Government 34,3205456
Fund 116 Revenue Totals 46.007.752
117 School Textbook Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
Charges for Services
Miscellaneous Revenue
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Other Sources from the Commonwealth
119 School Athletic Special Revenue Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
Charges for Services
Miscellaneous Revenue
Specific Fund Reserves
120 Federal Police Department Grant Fund
Revenue from the Federal Government
Transfers from Other Funds
130 Law Library Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
Charges for Services
Transfers from Other Funds
131 Pendleton Child Service Center Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
Miscellaneous Revenue
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Other Sources from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Transfers from Other Funds
134 E-911 Communications Soecial Revenue Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
Other Local Taxes
From the Use of Money and Property
Miscellaneous Revenue
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Other Sources from the Commonwealth
Transfers from Other Funds
Specific Fund Reserves
1009000
6,000
4,862,393
3,722,709
Fund 117 Revenue Totals 896919102
40,000
345,000
2,8429619
2359000
Fund 119 Revenue Totals 3.462.619
5099606
6879069
Fund 120 Revenue Totals 1.196.675
5,200
240,000
150,000
Fund 130 Revenue Totals 3952200
16,000
219,877
138,000
169000
993,223
Fund 131 Revenue Totals 1.383.100
6,271 ,039
44,775
10,655
9879753
19371,068
-qnn nnn
Fund 134 Revenue Totals 8,985.290
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2003=04 Budget Ordinance
Attachment B -Revenues
FY 2003-04
Budget
137 MH/MR/SA Special Revenue Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
74,298
Charges for Services
1,488,953
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Other Sources from the Commonwealth
1518119505
Revenue from the Federal Government
11917,100
Transfers from Other Funds
10,350,948
Specific Fund Reserves
3269507
Fund 137 Revenue Totals
29,969,311
142 DEA Seized Property Special Revenue Fund
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Other Sources from the Commonwealth
969212
Specific Fund Reserves
609000
Fund 142 Revenue Totals
156,212
146 Police Airplane Special Revenue Fund
'
Revenue from Local Sources
Charges for Services
109000
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Other Sources from the Commonwealth
190,000
Fund 146 Revenue Totals
200,000
147 Federal Section 8 Pro ram Special Revenue Fund
Revenue from the Federal Government
1193389085
Transfers from Other Funds
t
14,000
Fund 147 Revenue Totals
119352,085
148 Comprehensive Services Act .Special Revenue Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
Charges for Services
99000
Miscellaneous Revenue
593,525
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Other Sources from the Commonwealth
413429395
Transfers from Other Funds
218429892
Fund 148 Revenue Totals
7,7871812
149 Sheriff's Department Special Revenue Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
Charges for Services
194249348
Miscellaneous Revenue
74,460
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Other Sources from the Commonwealth
1297159052
Revenue from the Federal Government
3219200
Transfers from Other Funds
7,244,428
Specific Fund Reserves
6601,795
Fund 149 Revenue Totals 22,4409283
150 Inmate Services Special Revenue Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
15,000
Charges for Services
649,070
Fund 150 Revenue Totals 664.070
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2003=04 Budget Ordinance
Attachment B -Revenues
FY 2003.04
302 General Debt Fund
Transfers from Other Funds 86,8701624
Capital Project Reserves 61469,741
Fund 302 Revenue Totals 93.340.365
460 School General Revenue Capital Projects Fund
Transfers from Other Funds 19895,231
Fund 460 Revenue Totals 12895,231
491 Water and Sewer Operating Revenue Capital Projects Fund
Transfers from Other Funds 297509000
Fund 491 Revenue Totals 297502000
492 Enqineering & Highways General Revenue Capital Projects Fund `
Transfers from Other Funds 1699009959
Fund 492 Revenue Totals 16,9009959
496 Parks and Recreation General Revenue Capital Projects Fund
Transfers from Other Funds 3,8479472
Fund 496 Revenue Totals 31847,472
497 Buildings General Revenue -Capital Proiects Fund
Transfers from Other Funds
498 Storm Water Capital Project Fund
Transfers from Other Funds
904 Mental Health Center Gift Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
Miscellaneous Revenue
908 City Beautification Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
Miscellaneous Revenue
911 Parks and Recreation Gift Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
Miscellaneous Revenue
Total Budget Revenues
Less lnterfund Transfers
NET BUDGET REVENUES
Fund 497 Revenue Totals 11.186.598
5,9889144
Fund 498 Revenue Totals 5.988.144
21,161
Fund 904 Revenue Totals 21.161
Fund 908 Revenue Totals 10.200
30,000
Fund 911 Revenue Totals 30.000
I , / Its 9 twb, 71:f
ACQ A7A I ZA
1,.7 1 190gog:! ! J
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2003=04 Budget Ordinance
Attachment B - Revenues
181 CD Loan and Grant Fund
Revenue from the Federal Government
Non -Revenue Receipts
182 Federal Housingsi,stan a Grant Fund
Revenue from the Federal Government
Non -Revenue Receipts
183 Grants Consolidated Fund
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Other Sources from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Non -Revenue Receipts
Transfers from Other Funds
185 Mental Health Grants Fund
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Other Sources from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
241 Water and Sewer Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
Charges for Services
Miscellaneous Revenue
Non -Revenue Receipts
Specific Fund Reserves
243 Golf Courses Enterprise Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
Charges for Services
253 ParkinParkinq Enterprise Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
Permits, Privilege Fees, and Regulatory Licenses
Fines and Forfeitures
From the Use of Money and Property
Charges for Services
Transfers from Other Funds
255 Storm Water Utilit_ Enterprise Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
Charges for Services
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Other Sources from the Commonwealth
Transfers from Other Funds
FY 2003-04
Budget
381,400
250,000
Fund 181 Revenue Totals 631,400
1,433,000
25,000
Fund 182 Revenue Totals 11458,000
194529320
1,656,105
15,000
80,000
Fund 183 Revenue Totals 3,2031425
134,674
1,252,876
Fund 185 Revenue Totals 19387,550
296042038
76,974,876
1869918
493209943
100,000
Fund 241 Revenue Totals 84,1865775
235,480
29370,146
Fund 243 Revenue Totals 2.605.626
25,000
320,000
2a,854
1,948,888
258,803
Fund 253 Revenue Totals 2.573.545
178,750
12,681,410
4,613,844
61,751
Fund 255 Revenue Totals 17,535.755
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2003-04 Budget Ordinance
Attachment B - Revenues
FY 2003-04
Budget
165 Lynnhaven Mail Tax Increment Financing Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
General Property Taxes 19950,000
Fund 165 Revenue Totals 1.950.000
166 Sandbridae Tax Increment Financing Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
General Property Taxes 392099183
From the Use of Money and Property 209,033
Fund 166 Revenue Totals 394189216
167 Arts and Humanities Commission Special Revenue Fund
Transfers from Other Funds 4 4349250
Fund 167 Revenue Totals 434,250
169 Central Business District - South TIF Town Center Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
General Property Taxes 192119317
Specific Fund Reserves 271,208
Fund 169 Revenue Totals 1.482.525
170 Marine Science Museum Special Revenue Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property 25,000
Charges for Services 59490,520
Miscellaneous Revenue 1789847
Transfers from Other Funds 3089319
Fund 170 Revenue Totals 6.002.686
171 Sportsplex Special Revenue Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
70,000
Charges for Services
52000
Specific Fund Reserves
306,724
Fund 171 Revenue Totals
3819724
172 Open S ace S ecial Revenue Fund
Transfers from Other Funds
238579497
Fund 172 Revenue Totals
21857,497
173 Maior Pro'ects Special Revenue Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
363,257
Transfers from Other Funds
139309,214
Fund 173 Revenue Totals
132672,471
174 Town Center Special Tax District
Revenue from Local Sources
General Property Taxes
3249896
Fund 174 Revenue Totals
324,896
180 Community Development Special Revenue Fund
Revenue from the Federal Government
21713,600
Transfers from Other Funds
1969306
Fund 180 Revenue Totals
2.909.906
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2003mO4 Budget Ordinance
Attachment B - Revenues
151 Parks and Recreation Special Revenue Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
Charges for Services
Miscellaneous Revenue
Revenue from the Federal Government
Transfers from Other Funds
Specific Fund Reserves
152 Tourism Growth Investment Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
Permits, Privilege Fees, and Regulatory Licenses
From the Use of Money and Property
Transfers from Other Funds
156 Police Store -Special Revenue Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
157 Sandbridoe Special Service District Special Revenue Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
General Property Taxes
Other Local Taxes
From the Use of Money and Property
Transfers from Other Funds
158 EMS State Two -for -Life S ecial Revenue Fund
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Other Sources from the Commonwealth
159 Fire Programs Special Revenue Fund
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Other Sources from the Commonwealth
61_ Agriculture Reserve Program Special Revenue Fund
Transfers from Other Funds
163 Tourism Advertising_Program SpecialRevenue Fund
Revenue from Local Sources
From the Use of Money and Property
Charges for Services
Miscellaneous Revenue
Transfers from Other Funds
Specific Fund Reserves
FY 2003-04
Budget
6799642
91207,592
68,000
21500
13,079,582
155,000
Fund 151 Revenue Totals 23,192,316
68,000
2979382
129121,465
Fund 152 Revenue Totals 129486,847
20,000
Fund 156 Revenue Totals 20,000
Fund 157 Revenue Totals
562,988
340,184
1439483
7409746
1.787.401
169,968
Fund 158 Revenue Totals 169.968
5679604
Fund 159 Revenue Totals 567.604
4,009,115
Fund 161 Revenue Totals 490099115
61,612
700
40,000
71390,045
50,000
Fund 163 Revenue Totals 7.542.357
I AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO
2 SUBMIT AN ANNUAL FUNDING PLAN TO THE U.S.
3 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
4 WHEREAS, the United States Congress has established
5 legislation designated as the Housing and Community Development Act
6 of 1974 that sets forth the development of viable urban communities
7 as a national goal;
8 WHEREAS, there is federal assistance available for the support
9 of Community Development and Housing activities directed toward
10 specific objectives, such as eliminating deteriorated conditions in
11 low and moderate income neighborhoods that are detrimental to the
12 public health, safety, and welfare, as well as improving the City' s
13 housing stock and community services, along with other related
14 activities; and
15 WHEREAS, as a prerequisite to receiving the above -referenced
16 federal assistance, the City of Virginia Beach has developed an
17 Annual Funding Plan for submission to the Department of Housing and
18 Urban Development and has created the necessary mechanisms for its
19 implementation in compliance with federal and local directives.
20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
21 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
22 That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed, as
23 the executive and administrative head of the City, to submit the
24 City's FY 2004 Annual Funding Plan (the "Plan") and amendments
25 thereto, along with understandings and assurances contained therein
26 and such additional information as may be required, to the
27 Department of Housing and Urban Development to permit the review,
28 approval, and funding of the Plan.
29 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
30 Virginia, on this 13' day of May, 2003.
CA-8778
F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\fundplanord.wpd
R-1
March 10, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
r
r
Management Services
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
`i
Law Departm
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: The FY 2003-04 Capital Improvement Program and Related Ordinances
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2003
■ Background: On April 1, 2003 the City of Virginia Beach FY 2003-04 Proposed
Resource Management Plan, which includes both the Operating Budget and
Capital Improvement Program, was presented to City Council. City Council
Workshops were held on April 8, 15, 22, 24, 29, May 1, and 6th to provide
information to the City Council. On April 24 and May 1, public hearings were held
to provide the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed Resource
Management Plan. Ordinances were updated to reflect City Council's direction
at the May 6, 2003 Reconciliation Workshop.
■ Considerations: The following ordinances are provided for the Council's
consideration and approval to implement the FY 2003-04 Capital Improvement
Program, and unless otherwise noted, require an affirmative vote by the majority
of the members of City Council.
1. Ordinance to Adopt the FY 2004-09 Capital Improvement Program
2. An Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds in the
Maximum Amount of $61,900,000 for Various Public Facilities and
General Improvements
3. _ An Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of Storm Water Utility System
Revenue Bonds in the Maximum Amount of $580,000
■ Public information: Information will be disseminated to the public through the
normal Council agenda process involving the advertisement of City Council
agenda and public hearings, pursuant to local and state code requirements.
■ Alternatives: No alternatives are available to implement the FY 2003-04 Capital
Improvement Program.
■ Recommendations: It is recommended that the attached ordinances
implementing the FY 2003-04 Capital Improvement Program be approved.
■ Attachments:0 FY 2003-04 Capital Improvement Program Ordinances
Recommended Action: Approval of Ordinances
Submitting Department/Agen�.y
City Manage . �
1 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
2 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT
3 OF $611900,000 FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES
4 AND GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS
5 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the
6 "City"), desires to authorize the issuance of general obligation
7 public improvement bonds for various purposes in the maximum amount
8 of $ 61, 900, 000, as permitted by the City Charter, without
9 submitting the question of their issuance to the qualified voters.
10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
11 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
12 1. That it is hereby determined to be necessary and
13 expedient for the City to construct and improve various public
14 facilities and make general improvements, all of which will promote
15 the public welfare of the City and its inhabitants and will
16 facilitate the orderly growth, development, and general welfare of
17 the City, and to finance the costs thereof through the borrowing of
18 $61, 900, 000 and issuing the City' s general obligation bonds
19 therefor.
20 2. That, pursuant to the City Charter and the Public
21 Finance Act of 1991, there are hereby authorized to be issued
22 public improvement bonds of the City in the maximum amount of
23 $ 61, 900, 000, to provide funds, together with other funds that may
24 be available, for various public improvements, including Schools,
25 Roadways, Coastal projects, Economic and Tourism projects,
26 Buildings, and Parks and Recreation projects for project activities
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
that include, but not limited to, the following: preliminary
studies and surveys, permit compliance, environmental assessment,
planning, design, engineering, site acquisition, relocation of
residents, utility relocation, construction, renovation, expansion,
repair, demolition, site improvement, site work, legal services,
inspection and support services, furniture and equipment, and
contingencies.
3. That the bonds may be issued as a separate issue or
combined with bonds authorized for other purposes and sold as part
of one or more combined issues of public improvement bonds.
4. That the bonds shall bear such date or dates, mature
at such time or times not exceeding 40 years from their dates, bear
interest, be in such denominations and form, be executed in such
manner and be sold at such time or times and in such manner as the
Council may hereafter provide by appropriate resolution or
resolutions.
5. That the bonds shall be general obligations of the
City for the payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest on
which its full faith and credit shall be irrevocably pledged.
6. That the City Clerk is directed to make a copy of
this ordinance continuously available for inspection by the general
public during normal business hours at the City Clerk's office from
the date of adoption hereof through the date of the issuance of the
Bonds.
2
51 7. That the City Clerk, in collaboration with the City
52 Attorney, is authorized and directed to immediately file a
53 certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit
54 Court of the City of Virginia Beach.
55 8. That this ordinance shall be in full force and
56 effective from its passage.
57 Requires an affirmative vote by two --thirds of the members of
58 the City Council.
59 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
60 Virginia on this 13th day of May, 2003.
CA-8783
F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\`nTORK\budgetord\$59.3gobord.wpd
R-3
April 29, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Management Services
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
If
Law Departmen
3
I AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE
2 ISSUANCE OF STORM WATER UTILITY
3 SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS IN THE MAXIMtTM
4 AMOUNT OF $580,000
5
6
7 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the
8 "City"), desires to authorize the issuance of storm water
9 utility system revenue bonds in the maximum amount of $580,000
10 for financing improvements and expansions to the City's Storm
11 Water utility system (the "System"), as permitted by the City
12 Charter:
13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
14 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
15 1. That it is hereby determined to be necessary and
16 expedient for the City to continue its program of improving and
17 extending the System, which will promote the public welfare of
18 the City and its inhabitants and will facilitate the orderly
19 growth, development, and general welfare of the City, and to
20 finance the costs thereof through borrowing $580,000 and
21 issuing the City's revenue bonds therefor.
22 2. That, pursuant to the City Charter and the Public
23 Finance Act of 1991, there are hereby authorized to be issued
24 storm water utility system revenue bonds of the City in the
25 maximum amount of $580,000 to provide funds, together with
26 other available funds, for financing the costs of improvements
27 and expansions to the System.
28 3. That the bonds shall bear such date or dates, mature
29 at such time or times not exceeding 40 years from their dates,
30 bear interest, be in such denominations and form, be executed
31 in such manner and be sold at such time or tunes and in such
32 manner as the Council may hereafter provide by appropriate
33 resolution or resolutions.
34 4. That the System is an undertaking from which the City
35 may derive a revenue. The bonds shall be limited obligations
36 of the City, payable as to principal, premium, if any, and
37 interest solely from the revenues derived by the City from the
38 System, and shall not be included within the otherwise
39 authorized indebtedness of the City. The bonds shall not be
40 deemed to create or constitute an indebtedness of, or a pledge
41 of the faith and credit of, the Commonwealth of Virginia or of
42 any county, city, town, or other political subdivision of the
43 Commonwealth, including the City. The issuance of the bonds
44 and the undertaking of the covenants, conditions, and
45 agreements to be contained in resolutions to be adopted or
46 agreements to be entered into hereafter shall not directly,
47 indirectly, or contingently obligate the Commonwealth, the
48 City, or any other political subdivision of the Commonwealth to
49 levy and collect any taxes whatsoever or make any appropriation
50 therefor except from the revenues pledged to the payment of the
51 principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the bonds.
52 5. That such resolutions to be adopted and agreements to
53 be entered into hereafter authorizing the issuance of the bonds
54 and providing the details thereof shall contain appropriate
55 covenants requiring the City to fix, charge, and collect such
56 rates, fees, and other charges for the use of and the services
57 furnished by the System and to revise the same from time to
K
58 time and as often as shall be necessary so as to produce
59 sufficient net revenues to pay principal of and premium, if
60 any, and interest on the bonds as the same become due and to
61 provide a margin of safety therefor. Such resolutions and
62 agreements shall also include such additional covenants,
63 agreements, and other terms as are customary for the protection
64 of the holders of storm water revenue obligations.
65 6. That the City Clerk is directed to make a copy of this
66 ordinance continuously available for inspection by the general
67 public during normal business hours at the City Clerk's office
68 from the date of adoption hereof through the date of the
69 issuance of the bonds.
70 7. That the City Clerk, in collaboration with the City
71 Attorney, is authorized and directed to immediately file a
72 certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit
73 Court of the City of Virginia Beach.
74 8. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect
75 from its passage.
76 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
77 Virginia on this 13th day of May, 2003.
CA--8866
F:\Users\CBuringa\Wp\Work\Storm Water Utility Bonds.doc
R-1 - April 29, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
C O'�
l'
Management Services itvr Attorney
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE FY 2004/FY 2009
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TO APPROPRIATE
$181, 611,308 FOR THE FY 2004 CAPITAL BUDGET
SUBJECT TO FUNDS BEING PROVIDED FROM VARIOUS
SOURCES SET FORTH HEREIN
WHEREAS, the City Manager, on April 1, 2003 presented to City
Council the Capital Improvement Program for fiscal years 2004
through 2009;
WHEREAS, City Council held public hearings on the program to
provide for public comment;
WHEREAS, based on public comment, City Council has determined
the need for certain projects in the Capital Improvement Program;
and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to appropriate funds for, both
existing projects and projects beginning in the 2004 fiscal year,
as set forth in said Capital Improvement Program,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
Section 1. That the Capital Improvement Program, as modified,
for the construction of, or addition to, capital facilities
identified for fiscal years 2004 through 2009 is hereby adopted,
and the projects listed therein are hereby approved as capital
projects.
Section 2. That the projects shall be financed from funds to
be appropriated periodically by City Council, and until funds are
so provided, the projects are for planning purposes only and may be
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
deleted, altered, or rescheduled in any manner at any time by City
Council.
Section 3. That funds in the amounts aggregating $181, 611, 308
for capital projects in the Capital Budget for the 2004 fiscal
year, as set forth in said Capital Improvement Program, are hereby
appropriated, by project and subject to the conditions set forth
herein. The amount of funding for individual projects is set forth
in "Attachment A - Capital Budget Appropriations," a copy of which
is attached hereto.
Section 4. That in accordance with Section 2-196 of the City
Code, Financing Sources in support of the Capital Budget for the
2004 fiscal year as set forth in said Capital Improvement Program
are attached to this ordinance as "Attachment B - Financing
Sources."
Section 5. That capital project funds appropriated in prior
fiscal years are to be adjusted in accordance with said Capital
Improvement Program and reallocated as identified in "Attachment C
- Transfers," a copy of which is attached hereto.
Section 6. That additional appropriations and the addition of
capital projects shall not be initiated except with the consent and
approval of the City Council first being obtained, and an
appropriation for a project in the Capital Improvement Program
shall continue in force until the purpose for which it was made has
been accomplished or abandoned.
51 Section 7. That all contracts awarded for approved and
52 appropriated capital projects, exclusive of school projects, must
53 be certified as to the availability of funds by the Director of
54 Finance prior to the initiation of work on the contract.
55 Section 8. That subject to any applicable restriction of law
56 or of any bonds or bond issue, the City Manager or the Director of
57 Management Services is authorized to approve transfers of
58 appropriations in an amount up to $100, 000 between capital projects
59 within a project class as may best meet the needs of the City.' The
60 City Manager shall make a monthly report to the City Council of all
61 transfers between $25, 000 and $100, 000. The City Manager or the
62 Director of Management Services is hereby authorized to establish
63 and administer the budgeting of capital projects consistent with
64 best management practices, reporting requirements and the Capital
65 Improvement Program adopted by the City Council.
66 Section 9. That the City Manager or the Director of
67 Management Services is hereby authorized to change, subject to any
68 applicable restriction of law or of any bonds or bond issue, the
69 financing sources for the various capital projects included in this
70 ordinance to reflect effective utilization of the financing
71 sources. If the financing sources in support of capital projects
72 decline, the City Manager or the Director of Management Services is
73 authorized to reduce, subject to any applicable restriction of law
74 or of any bonds or bond issue, those appropriations to equal the
3
75 changed financing source. The City Manager must give prior notice
76 to the City Council of any reductions to total appropriations
77 exceeding $100, 000. The notice to City Council shall identify the
78
basis and amount of
the
appropriation reduction and the
capital
79
projects affected.
The
1
accounting records of the City
will be
80
maintained in
a manner where the
total of
financing sources is
81
equal to the
total appropriations
for each
of the City' s capital
82 projects funds.
83
84
85
86
Section 10. That the funding sources for certain capital
,improvement„ -protects should be amended.
a For the following ro ' ects and in the amounts set forth
below, the funding source for $1, 950, 000 in a]2T)roT)riations is
87
hereby changed from Droceeds of _1993 Water and Sewer
Revenue ' Bonds
88
to _retained earnings in the Water and Sewer Fund:
89
CIP 5--0010
"_Comprehensive Emergency Response
90
& Planning Phase 1"
1819101
91
CIP 5-002
"Nimmo Parkway --Water Im rovements"
$ 151,246
..
92
CIP #6--012-,_--
w
"Customer Information rSystem
�...._ww.....ww•. i r..._^�
93
Re lacement"
_ 427,305
94
CIP 6-018,
"Comprehensive Sewer Evaluation„f
95
Rehabilitation Program"
388 Ir678
96
CIP #6-030F
"Little Neck Point Sewer
97
Improvements -- 51 o Program"
$ 587 , 783
98
CIP #6-9311
"Sandbridae Sanitary Sewer"
$- 213,887
99
$1, 950, 000
4
100 _(b) That the fundinct ource for an appropriation�3,750.,000
of
— - nni■■�i�ii���r�rrrww.■rr^wi■w.�- — __ ^i ■ w. n.r.r.w w�w��
101 to CIP-#3-175,_ Fire A■pgaratus Replacement," is hereby- chanced
102 from proceeds of Lease -Purchase financing to fund balance in the
103 General Fund.
104 Section 11. That the Capital Improvement Program debt
105 management policies contained and included in the Resource
106 Management Plan - Executive Summary document shall be the policy
107 guidelines of the City, and the City Manager shall annually report
108 on the status of those guidelines and the projected impact of the
109 proposed Capital Improvement Program on those guidelines, such
110 information to be included in the Resource Management Plan
ill
submittal.
The City Manager may propose modifications
to those
112
policies and
guidelines through the Resource Management
Plan.
113
Section
12. That violation of this ordinance shall
result in
114 the City Manager taking disciplinary action against the person or
115 persons responsible for the capital project in which the violation
116 occurred.
117 Section 13. That if any portion of this ordinance is for any
118 reason declared to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision
119 shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
120 ordinance.
121 Section 14. That this ordinance shall be in effect from the
122 date of its adoption; however, appropriations for the FY 2004
123 Capital Budget shall be effective on July 1, 2003.
5
124
125 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
126 Virginia on this 13th day of May, 2003.
CA-8808 '
F:\Users\CBuringa\WP\WORK\budgetord\CIPord.wpd
R-- 5
May 7, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ea__
•
Management Services
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
aw Departm n '
G
Attachment A — Capital Budget Appropriations
Project Appropriation
Number Projects FY 2003-2004
Economic Vitalit
9.012
9.016
9.018
9.027
9.034
9.036
9.038
9.141
9.260
9.280
9 302
9.704
3.003
3.017
3.027
3.033
3 173
3.185
3 281
3 282
3 441
2007
2018
2021
2029
2.031
2.039
2.048
2.052
2.065
2.067
2072
2073
2075
241h Street Stage Renovations $
7201000
Town Center Infrastructure
19600,000
Convention Center Replacement
10,025,000
31 St Street Parking Garage
31911,800
Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Plan
100,000
19th Street Corridor Design and Improvements
745,515
Economic Development Infrastructure Projects
3721758
Economic Development Investment Program (On -Going)
214859050
Economic and Tourism Development Partnerships
1509000
Economic and Tourism Development Studies
150,000
Rudee Loop Development — Phase I (Partial)
21043,480
Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection
11600,000
Total Economic and Tourism Development Projects:
$23,9031603
Safe Community
Judicial Center Parking Expansion $
8009000
Fire and Rescue Station — First Landing
21932,000
Law Enforcement Training Academy
600,000
Fire Facility Rehabilitation and Renewal
1229000
Emergency Communications/Emergency Operations Centers
81,372,000
Fire Apparatus Replacement
108507000
CIT — Communication Infrastructure Replacement
700,000
Municipal Buildings Security Enhancements
250,000
Corrections Center Addition III/Bldg Maint & Landscape Reloc
11,750,000
Total Safe Community Projects:
$17,3769000
Quality Phvsical Environment
Shipp's Comer Road Bridge Replacement
Major Intersection Improvements
Rural Road Improvements
Harris Road
Street Reconstruction
Computerized Traffic Signal System Upgrade/Repl. (Partial)
Princess Anne Rd /Kempsville Rd Intersection lmpr (VDOT)
Traffic Signal Rehabilitation
Elbow Road Extended — Phase II•A
Sandbridge Road Safety Improvements
First Colonial Rd/Va. Beach Blvd Intersection Imp
Buckner Road Extended
Salem Road — Phase 11
Roadwav Projects
$426,000
500, 000
300,000
144,000
150,000
418,000
100,000
100,000
700,1000
$ 309,264
1,330,000
6649571
80,000
2076
2.083
2.107
2 115
2.121
2 149
2.151
2 152
2 156
2 157
2 158
2 165
2.167
2.176
2.179
2.195
2.257
2.263
2.268
2.284
2.285
2.305
2.833
5 001
5.007
5 013
5 017
5.083
5.118
5.129
5 131
5 140
5 161
5 162
5 163
5 164
5 708
Laskin Road Gateway
500,000
Diamond Springs Road Bridge Replacement
300,000
Seaboard Road
1,189,358
Shore Drive Intersections — Demonstration Project
1,0359000
Nimmo Parkway — Phase V-A (VDOT)
25,000
Birdneck Road — Phase 11 (VDOT)
375,000
Sandbridge Corridor Improvements (Partial)
200,000
Elbow Road Extended — Phase 11 (VDOT)
86,354
Laskin Road — Phase I (VDOT) ,
11119,739
Lynnhaven Parkway — Phase IX (VDOT)
285,000
Holland Road — Phase VI (VDOT)
383,600
Laskin Road — Phase 11 (VDOT)
11200,000
Lynnhaven Parkway — Phase XI (VDOT)
382,673
Transportation Network Analysis
500,000
Access Road for Elementary School 2005
785,1000
Princess Anne Road — Intersection Improvements
4509000
Lynnhaven ParkwayNolvo Parkway (VDOT)
632,000
Major Bridge Rehabilitation
640,000
Wetlands Mitigation Banking
50,000
Street Asphalt Resurfacing
61295,460
Traffic Safety Improvements — Phase 11
115639121
Princess Anne Road — Phase IV (Ferrell — Phase II) (VDOT)
155,000
First Colonial Rd — Ph III & Oceana Blvd. (VDOT)
3151,000
Total Roadway Projects:
$23,5899140
Comprehensive Emergency Response & Planning — Phase I
Customer Information System Replacement
Water SCADA System Upgrade
Public Utilities Public Access Renovations — Building #2
Stumpy Lake Water Reservoir and Pumping Facilities Improvement
Computerized Mapping and Infrastructure Management Systems
Potable Wells Evaluation Program
Tank Upgrade Program — Phase 11
Various Roadway/Stormwater Coordination — Phase IV
Infrastructure Asset Management Program
Backflow Prevention and Cross Connection Control Program
Various Water Infrastructure Maintenance Support Program
IVR/CTI, Bill Print, and Automated Payment Solution Design
Resort Area Neighborhood Revitalization
Total Water Utility Projects
Water_Utility
$300, 000
100,000
100, 000
300,000
200,000
100,000
50,000
300, 000
1009000
60,000
1009000
5702000
100,000
50,000
$2,430,000
Sewer Utility Protects
6 012 Customer Information System Replacement $100,000
6 018 Comprehensive Sewer Evaluation/Rehabilitation Program 8609209
6.028 Comprehensive Emergency Response & Planning — Phase 1 2009000
j 6 038
Sewer SCADA System Upgrade
50,000
6.046
Computerized Mapping and Infrastructure Management Systems
100,000
6.057
Holland Road — Phase VI Sewer Improvements (VDOT)
50,000
6.063
Central Business District System Upgrade
180,000
6 065
Infiltration, Inflow, and Rehabilitation — Phase 1V
21523,562
6 066
Pump Station Modifications — Phase IV (Partial)
50,000
6 071
Comprehensive Sewer Master Planning -- Phase III
100,000
6 086
Public Utilities Public Access Renovations -- Building #2
3009000
6.103
Lake Ridge Interceptor Force Main
700,000
6.138
Landstown Yard Improvements — Phase 111
245,000
6 167
Infrastructure Asset Management Program
60,000
6.168
Various Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Maintenance Support
4507000
6.169
IVR/CTI, Bill Print, and Automated Payment Solution Design
100,000
6.938
Princess Anne Plaza Rehabilitation
1509000
Total Sewer Utility Projects:
$6,218,771
Storm Water Projects
7.004
Storm Water Infrastructure Rehabilitation $
182,188
7.010
Elizabeth River Shores
44,700
7 016
South Lake Holly Watershed
720,529
7.063
Neighborhood Storm Water Infrastructure Improvements
906,427
7.067
Primary System Infrastructure Improvements
111649963
7.145
Arctic Avenue — Baltic Avenue
330,000
7.152
Dam and Spillway Structural Improvements
3509000
7 153
Lynnhaven Watershed Restoration
500,000
7.183
Storm- Water Quality Enhancements
19408,120
7 960
Oceana Gardens West Drainage
1,3119217
Total Storm Water Utility Projects:
$6,918,144
Coastal Protects
8 002
Beach Profile Monitoring Program $
751000
8.004
Various Minor Dredging Projects
150,000
8 006
Rudee Inlet Infrastructure Improvements
39250,000
8 007
Rudee Inlet Outer Channel Maintenance Dredging
100,000
8 008
Beach Replenishment
1,250,000
8.014
Lynnhaven Inlet Maintenance Dredging
1509000
8 830
Rudee Inlet Dredging
340,000
Total Coastal Projects
$59315,000
Total Quality Physical Environment- $
44,4719055
Cultural and Recreational OoDortunities
Building Projects
3 275 Virginia Marine Science Museum Renewal and Replacement $ 759000
3 283 Pavilion Theatre Replacement 30,000,000
Total Buildings. $ 30,075,000
4 004
4 006
4 009
4 010
4 019
4.027
4.031
4.032
4.033
4.034
4.035
4.040
4 936
4.949
4.950
4.954
4.955
4.959
4.964
4.970
4.971
1.001
1 018
1 074
1 083
1 084
1 090
1.201
1.224
1.225
1 226
1 227
1.228
1.229
1.232
1.234
Parks and Recreation Projects
Open Space Program Site Acquisition $
1,000,000
Atlantic Avenue Trail Extension
793,046
Community Recreation Centers Renewals & Replacements
600,000
Existing Trails Repairs
300,000
New Princess Anne Athletic Fields
41826,997
Lynnhaven Marina Dredging
225,000
Little Island Pier Access Improvements
2759000
Parking Lot Improvements
1009000
Municipal Skate Parks
100,000
Community Recreation Center Roof Replacements
117259000
Natural Area Preserves
50,000
Pendleton Parking Expansion/Public Restroom Facilities
250,000
Rec Office and Storage Facility at School Sites
100,000
District/Community Park Development & Renovations (On -Going)
258,277
Neighborhood Park Development (On -Going)
1001000
Tennis Court Renovations (On -Going)
2009000
Athletic Fields Upgrading and Lighting
50,000
Golf Course Infrastructure and Equipment (On -Going)
60,000
G ree nways and Scenic Waterways
50,000
Park Playgrounds Renovations
304,195
Mount Trashmore Park — Renovations
2009000
Total Parks and Recreation Projects.
$11,5672515 ,
Total Cultural and Recreational Opportunities. $
41,642,515
Quality Education and LifelorLQ Learning
Renovations and Replacements -- Energy Management
Newtown Road Elementary School Modernization
Renovations and Replacements — Various
Renovations and Replacements — Reroofing
Renovations and Replacements -- HVAC Systems
Elementary School 2005
Renovations and Replacements -- Grounds
Trantwood Elementary School Modernization
Hermitage Elementary School Replacement
Arrowhead Elementary School Replacement
Windsor Woods Elementary School Modernization
Brookwood Elementary School Modernization
Pembroke Meadows Elementary School Modernization
Tennis Court Renovations
Virginia Beach Middle School Replacement
Total School Projects
School Protects
$ 736,965
625,000
294919000
965,000
21728,800
71814,668
7507000
3509000
1, 846, 442
917687061
1,501,267
500,000
500, 000
1003000
9,2499958
$ 39, 927,161
Buildin Pro ects
3.175 South Rosemont Area Library 331,452
3 262 Tidewater Community College Expansion $ 3,414,000
3 447 Library Renovations and Replacements 392,950
Total Building Projects. $ 41138,402
Total Quality Education and Lifelong Learning $ 44,065,563
Quality 4rcianization
3.038
Various Buildings Rehabilitation and Renewal $
21385,000
3 100
Various Buildings HVAC Rehabilitation and Renewal
296,211
3 198
CIT — Electronic Ballot System
19766,565
3200
CIT — Revenue Assessment and Collection System
627,000
3207
CIT — Phase 2 Permits and Inspections Interactive Internet
1 MOW
3208
CIT — Asset Module
403v320
3.212
CIT — IT Network Infrastructure Replacement
2509000
3 214
CIT — Code Enforcement Database
250,000
3 280
CIT — City Human Resources/Payroll System
31500,000
3.286
CIT — Address Location Layer
3679750
3.289
CRT — Police to Citizen Internet Software Module
2061726
Total Quality Organization: $
109152,572
Total Capital Budget:
$181,6119308
Attachment B — Financing Sources
Financing Sources
Charter Bonds
Federal Contribution
Fund Balance
General Appropriations
Lease -Purchase
Other Localities
Private Contribution
Sale of Property
State Contribution
Storm Water Utility Bonds
Storm Water Utility Fund
Water and Sewer Utility Fund
Capital Budget
FY 2003-2004
$ 52, 400, 000
21868,046
10,133,387
33, 8309260
32,992,365
700,000
15,0339250
U 18, 747
16,0171109
580,000
5,9889144
297509000
Total Financing Sources $181,611,308
Attachment C - Transfers
Appropriations
Prior to
Projects FY 2003-2004
Economic vitalit
Transfer To.
9.036 19th Street Corridor Design and Improvements $ 320,000
9 302 Rudee Loop Development --Revenue Reduction 69380,850
Total Transfer To- $61,700,850
Transfer From:
9 026
9 302
Transfer To.
3 024
Transfer From:
3.024
Roadway Pronctcts_
Transfer To
2.073
2.039
Atlantic Avenue Trolley Lanes
Rudee Loop Development
Total Transfer From-
Safe Communi#Y
Virginia Beach Juvenile Detention Center -- Revenue Reduction
Total Transfer To
Virginia Beach Juvenile Detention Center
Total Transfer From
Quality Physical Environment
$ 320,000
6,380j850
$ 61700,850
$ 29106,731
$ 2,1061731
$ 2,106,731
$ 2,106, 731
Buckner Road Extended $ 200,000
Computerized Traffic Signal System Upgrade/Replacement 346,833
Total Transfer To: $ 5469833
Transfer From
2 211
Traffic Calming
$ 200,000
2044
Intelligent Transportation Systems
346,833
Total Transfer From
$ 546,833
Water and Sewer Utility Projects
Transfer To
5 001
Comprehensive Emergency Response and Planning -- Phase 1
$ 385,000
5 002
Nimmo Pkwy Water Improvements
2009000
5.013
Water SCADA System Upgrade
6001,000
5 035
Nimmo Parkway Water Improvements --- Phase 1, 11, 111
501,000
5 083
Stumpy Lake Water Reservoir and Pumping Facilities Improvement
250,000
5 092
Landstown Yard Improvements
245,000
5 118
Computerized Mapping System
150,000
5.129
5.131
5 138
5.139
6.018
6.030
6.038
6.046
6 065
6.066
6 071
6.080
6.938
Transfer From.
5.006
5.008
5.016
5.024
5.062
5.067
5.090
5.105
5.130
5.141
5.143
5.149
5.207
5.944
5.015
5.068
5.081
04
5.082
5.095
5.108
5 127
5 142
5.200
5207
5 210
6 001
6.019
6.023
6 025
6 032
Potable Wells Evaluation Program
Tank Upgrade Program — Phase II
Comprehensive Water Master Planning — Phase IV
Small Line Improvements — Phase IV
Comprehensive Sewer Evaluation/Rehabilitation Program
Little Neck Point Sewer Improvements — 51 % Program
Sewer SCADA System Upgrade
Computerized Mapping System
Infiltration, Inflow, and Rehabilitation — Phase IV
Pump Station Modifications — Phase IV (Partial)
Comprehensive Sewer Master Planning — Phase III '
West Neck Pkwy FM -Lake Ridge IFM Interconnect
Princess Anne Plaza Rehabilitation
200,000
450,000
3002000
1009000
539, 791
21835,000
600,000
150,000
13876,438
600, 000
338,689
2259000
365,000
Total Transfer To. $10,4599918
Water Appurtenances Evaluation and Improvements
Birdneck Road Water Improvements — Phase li (VDOT)
System Expansion Cost Participation Agreements
Holland Road — Phase VI water Improvements (VDOT)
Nimmo Parkway Water Improvements -- Phase V (VDOT)
Courthouse and Sandbridge Tank Modifications
Lynnhaven Parkway — Phase XI Water Improvements (VDOT)
,Stumpy 'Lake Lane Water Improvements — 51 % Program
Lynnhaven Pkwy Extended Water Improvements (VDOT)
Water Request & Agreements Phase IV — 51 % Program
Fire Hydrant Program
Indian River Road Water Improvements — Phase VII (VDOT)
Laskin Road Water Improvements — Phase I (VDOT)
Princess Anne Road Water Improvements — Phase IV (VDOT)
Salem Road/Landstown Rd
Thunderbird Drive Water Improvements — 51 % Program
Sherry Park Water Improvements -- 51 % Program
West Neck Road Water Improvements
Various Roadway/Stormwater Coordination — Phase III
Stumpy Lake Water Improvements — 51 % Program
Landstown Yard Improvements — Phase 11
Chloramines Feed Facilities
Salem Road "C" (VDOT)
Laskin Road Water Improvements Phase I (VDOT)
Relocate Surveys/inspections Office -- Ops Building Renovations
Salem Road Sewer Improvements — Phase 11 (VDOT)
Resort Area Neighborhood Revitalization
Indian River Road South Sewer Improvements
Shell Road West
Salem Rd/Landstown Rd
1002000
1509000
599, 452
90,000
65,000
300, 000
305,000
230,000
2207000
300,000
2009000
250,000
100,000
50,000
61,982
2,651
99,605
374,167
50,000
34,960
352,950
201
50,000
1009000
16,812
100,000
350,000
62,667
167,290
23,224
6.033
6.035
6 036
6 050
6 052
6 055
6 067
6 068
6 069
6 078
6.081
6.082
6.102
6.931
6.939
6 962
6.972
Transfer To
4 028
4.033
Transfer From
4.012
Transfer To
3.262
Infiltration, Inflow, and Rehabilitation -- Phase Ili
301,296
Various Roadway/Stormwater Coordination — Phase 111
409000
Sewer Requests and Agreements -- Phase 111 (51% Program)
50,000
Salem Road #2549
779140
Stumpy Lake Lane Sewer Improvements — 51 % Program
190,000
Landstown Yard Improvements — Phase 11
757000
Various RoadwaylStormwater Coordination -- Phase IV
250,000
Sewer Requests and Agreements --- Phase IV (51% Program)
800,000
Birdneck Road Sewer Improvements — Phase II ,
110001000
Relocate Surveys/Inspections Office Ops Bldg
16,543
Laskin Road Phase II & Gateway Improvements
3109000
System Expansion cost Participation Agreement -- Phase 1
195009000
Princess Anne Commons Sewer Improvements
400,000
Sandbridge
3479576
Comprehensive Sewer Study — Phase II
38,689
Timberlake Force Main
200,000
Alanton
57,713
Total Transfer From:
$1014599918
Cultural and Recreational Opportunities
Multi -Use Recreational Fields
Municipal Skate Park
Total Transfer To
Princess Anne Park Relocation
$ 1989496
100, 000
$ 298,496
$ 2982496
Total Transfer From: $2989496
Quality Education and Lifelong Learning
w �`wwww.w♦ww_nww^�ww�� isrriww�w�
Tidewater Community College Expansion
$ 1,1659000
Total Transfer To: $ 11165,000
Transfer From:
2 147 Tidewater Community College Ring Road $ 1,6507000
Total Transfer From. $ 19650,000
At
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Additional Appropriations for the Sheriff's Office Operating and Capital
Expenditures.
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2003
■ Background: The Virginia Beach Sheriffs Office is responsible for the
booking, detention and care of inmates, provision of security for the Courts, the
Dare Program and other functions as requested by the City. These functions are
primarily funded through the Sheriffs Special Revenue Fund and the Inmate
Service Special Revenue Fund.
■ Considerations: The Sheriffs Office has identified the need for additional
appropriations to provide funding for costs to support the functions of the
Sheriffs Office as detailed below:
1. One -Time purchases in the amount of $270,983 as detailed on the attached
list needed for a variety of services and functions provided by the Sheriff's
Office.
2. Appropriation of $660,000 for costs of inmate medical expenses and related
housing costs to be funded by the Inmate Service Special Revenue Fund.
3. The addition of $595,000 for the Sheriffs Office Supplemental Retirement
Fund. This fund provides an incentive for Sheriffs Office employees to
continue their employment and correspondingly increases the capacity of
the Sheriff's Office to maintain levels of service. The last contribution to
the fund occurred in November of 2000. Fiscal constraints have prevented
a contribution to the fund since that date.
These appropriations will not be funded through additional City funds, but only
through resources available in the Sheriff's Office and Inmate Services' special
revenue funds.
■ Public information: Public Information will be handled through the normal
Council Agenda notification process.
■ Alternatives: There is no other source of funding available to meet this
request.
■ Recommendations: Approve the attached ordinance to appropriate
additional funds to the Sheriff's Special Revenue Fund and the Inmate Services
Special Revenue Fund.
■ Attachments: Appropriation Ordinance
List of One -Time items
Recommended Action: Approval of Attached ordinance
Submitting Department/Agency:
City Manager: 1PY47
l(, . v
�(�`3.
-
1 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE
2 $1,525,983 TO THE SHERIFF'S FY 2002-
3 03 OPERATING BUDGET TO SUPPORT THE
4 FUNCTIONS OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
5
6
7
8 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
9 VIRGINIA:
10
1.
That $1,525,983 is hereby appropriated to the Sheriff's
11
Office
FY 2002-03 Operating Budget from the following funding
12
sources
and for the following purposes:
13
(a) $865,983 is appropriated from Fund Balance in the
14
Sheriff's Department Special Revenue Fund, of which
15
$270,983 shall be for one-time purchases of equipment,
16
uniforms, and computer software, and $595,000 for a
17
contribution to a supplemental retirement account for
18
Sheri f f ' s Of f ice employees; and
19
(b) $660, 000 is appropriated from Fund Balance in the
20
Inmate Telephone Special Revenue Fund for inmate medical
21
expenses and related housing costs.
22
2.
That revenue in the FY 2 0 0 2- 0 3 Operating Budget from fund
23
balance
is hereby increased by $1,525,983.
24
Adopted the day of , 2003, by the Council of the City
25 of Virginia Beach, Virginia.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
CA-8870
Noncode\Sherif f ' s $1,525,983 Appropriation. ord. doc
May 2, 2003
R3
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
� � Q
Management Services
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
rica 4. - L
Department of
List of One -Time Purchase items
Sheriff's Office
Item Description
Corrections
Correctional Safety Equipment $111,035
Booking/Central Process
Upgrade Door Locks $100
Class ification/PretriaVWR & EHM
Computers & Related Equipment $4,578
Medical
Medical Equipment $1,000
DARE
Computer $1,000
PSO Tracking Program $3,000
Civil Process
Office Equipment $1,388
Training
Training & Tactical Equipment $40,586
Info Services
Replacement & Upgraded Computer Equipment $20,310
Personnel
Uniforms & Related Equipment $322623
Emergency Response Team $42127
Kitchen
Kitchen Equipment Replacement $51,236
TOTAL REQUEST $270.1983
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Appropriation of Additional Federal Funding to the MH/MR/SAS Department
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2003
■ Background:
The MH/MR/SA Department has received $50,000 in additional federal funds through the State
Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services for the provision
of services to developmentally delayed children. The program provides speech therapy, physical
therapy and infant stimulation services for children up to 3 years of age who are born with
disabilities.
■ Considerations:
These federal funds are not included in the Department's FY 2002-03 Operating Budget and thus
have not been*ppropdated. No additional City funds are required, and no FTE's are funded in the
grant. -(.
r Public Information:
Services funded with the additional revenue have been discussed at public meetings and approved
by the Community Services Board at its regular meeting on April 24, 2003. All other public
information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process.
■ Alternatives:
There are no alternative sources of funding to provide the increased services.
■ Recommendations:
It is recommended that City Council approve the ordinance appropriating $50,000 in additional
federal funding from the State Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation And Substance
Abuse Services to provide services to infants in their homes.
■ Attachments:
Ordinance
Approved Funding Documentation
Recommended Action: Approval of Ordinance
Submitting Department/Agency: MH/M/SA Department
City Manager: 3
".7( 6001 " ?Vol'
F:\Data\AtylOrdin\Noncodelfederalrevenuearf wpd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND
APPROPRIATE $50, 000 IN FEDERAL FUNDS
TO THE FY 2002-03 OPERATING BUDGET
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH,
MENTAL RETARDATION, AND SUBSTANCE
ABUSE SERVICES TO PROVIDE INCREASED
SERVICES TO CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That $50,000 in additional funding is hereby accepted
from the federal government and appropriated to the FY 2002--03
Operating Budget of the Department of Mental Health, Mental
Retardation, and Substance Abuse Services to provide increased
services to children with disabilities, with revenue from the
federal government increased accordingly.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on the day of , 2003.
CA-8 8 67
Ordin/Noncode/federalrevenueord.wpd
R-1
April 29, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Management Services
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
5�partme'nt
COMMONWEALTH of VInGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF
MENTAL HEALTH, MENTAL RETARDA TIONAND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES
Poe pHix Box 1797
JAMB S REIIHARD, MD Richmaod, vvpwa 23218-1797
COMMISSIONER
Memorandum
To: FISCAL AGENT
From: James. S. Reinhard, M.D.
Date: March 24, 2003
Telgb a (8W) 786 3921
VoicalMD (804) 371-8971
www &va.us
Re: Local Contract Amendment for the Return of Unused Part C Additional Funds
Based on information provided by your local council/agency, a portion of the additional funds
that were previously approved for the provision of direct services to Part C eligible children
through June 30, 2003 will not be needed.
In order to allow for these unused funds to be available for use by other localities, the
Department has issued a contract modification to the existing Local Contract for 2000-2001
Continuing Participation in Part C. Three copies of the contract amendment are enclosed for
your signature.
In order to ensure that the unused additional Part C funds are available for distribution to
other localities, please sign each of three (.3) copies of the contract and return as soon as
possible to:
Mary Ann Discenza
Acting Part C Coordinator
P.O. Box 1797
1220 Bank Street
Richmond, Virginia 23218-1797
FAX: (804).-3171-7959
A copy of the final contract modification with my signature will be forwarded. If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact Mary Ann Discenza at (804) 371-6592.
cc: Mary Ann Discenza
Shirley Ricks
Local Council Coordinators
Local Fiscal Agent
l
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF
MENTAL HEALTH, MENTAL RETARDA TION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SER VICES
Post Office Box 1797
JAMES S REWHARD, M D Richmond, Virginia 23218 -1797 Telephone (804) 786-3921
CON MiSSIONER Voicaer= (804) 371-89 i
www i 1-m rsasstate va.us
CONTRACT MODIFICATION AGREEMENT
Date: March 27, 2003
Contract/award No : Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse
Services, Early Intervention: ##00-01-39
Modification No 004
Issued By COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse
Services (DMHNARSAS)
Contractor Virginia Beach CSB
[Formerly referred to as Virginia Beach interagency Coordinating Council
on previous contract modification agreement(s)]
Commodity Local Contract for 2000-2001 Continuing Participation in Part C
This Supplemental Agreement is entered into pursuant to the basic contract.
Description of Modificationq
1 The Contracting Agency, in agreement with the Contractor, Virginia Beach CSB, shall
reduce the previously allocated additional funds from a total of $103,630 to $50,000.
The reduction is based on a request by the Virginia Beach CSB due to their revision of
the original request
2 Regarding the approved $50,000, the Contractor shall use these funds for the provision
of direct services to Part C eligible children through June 30, 2003 in accordance with all
requirements and provisions in the above referenced contract The Contractor shall
access and report expenditures for Federal Part C funds by completing and submitting
the FFY 02-03 Expenditure Report form in accordance with deliverable timelines
established in the contract.
Contract/award No 00-01-39 Page 1 of 2
Modification No 004
Date March 27, 2003
Except for changes provided herein, all other terms and conditions of this contract remain
unchanged and in full force and effect
CONTRALTO
By.
Terry- S. Jenkins, Ph.D.
Name and Title (Type or Print)
Director, MH/MR/SA
Date Signed �^i 1 7�2003
Contract/award No 00-01-39 Page 2 of 2
Modification No 004
Date March 27, 2003
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA:
m
James S Reinhard, M. D
Commissioner, DMHMRSAS
Date Signed
K. PLANNING
1. Ordinance to further EXTEND the date for satisfying conditions for the discontinuance
closure and abandonment of a portion of Morris Avenue and Katie Brown Drive in behalf of
UNITED JEWISH FEDERATION OF TIDEWATER (approved November 27, 2001)
2 Application of MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. re Change of ZoninR District Classification from
R-51) Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District to construct a
minx warehouse use on the west side of Centerville Turnpike north of Kempsville Road,
containing 6.724 acres. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE)
3. Application of Royal Court, Inc. re Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1,
AG-2 and R-20 to R-51) Residential Duplex District with a PD-H2 Planned Unit
Development District overlay on the north side of Princess Anne Road and Crossroads Trail,
containing 9 963 acres.
(DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE)
4. Application of TUEE' KNOW HIM FULL GOSPEL MINISTRIES re Conditional Use
Permit for a church at Newtown and Baker Roads (544 Newtown Road, Suite 146).
(DISTRICT 2 - KEMPS VILLE)
5. Application of Kemp Fussell, L.L.C. re Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1
and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-51) Residential Duplex District on the west
side of Holland Road and south of Monet Drive, containing 10.4 acres
(DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE)
6. Application of Wendell C. Franklin of CA Associates re temporm encroachments into a
portion of the right-of-way of First Colonial Road and Wildwood Drive to construct and
maintain a decorative aluminum fence adjacent to Colonial Arms circle.
(DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN)
7. Ordinances re City of Virginia Beach:
a. Old Princess Anne Road and Flanagan's Lane:
(DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE)
1. discontinuance, closure, abandonment
2. AUTHORIZE the City Manager to sell EXCESS property and dispose of
same by executing a Deed of Exchange.
Planning Recommendation: APPROVAL
b. AMEND the City Code
l . §901re City of Virginia Beach / Colleges, Universities and Business Schools
to include public or private colleges and universities as conditional uses.
2. § 901 re Colleges In Business Districts to include public or private colleges
and universities as permitted uses in the B-2, B-3, B-3A, and B-4 Business
Districts.
3. §801 re to make business and vocational schools conditional uses in the B-1A, B-2t,
B-3, B-3A, and B-4 Business Districts and make public or private schools, college%
and universities conditional uses in the 0-2 office District.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Ordinance for Further Extension of Date for Satisfying Conditions for the
Discontinuance, Closure and Abandonment of a Portion of Morris Avenue and a Portion
of Katie Brown Drive.
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2003
■ Background:
Application of United Jewish Federation of Tidewater for extension of the date for
satisfying conditions in the matter of the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a
portion of Morris Avenue and a portion of Katie Brown Drive. Said parcels contain
29,544 square feet and 36,341 square feet respectively. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE
The street closures for Morris Avenue and Katie Brown Drive were approved by City
Council on November 27, 2001 with nine (9) conditions. The adopted ordinance for
both Morris Avenue and Katie Brown Drive state that all conditions must be complied
with by November 26, 2002 or the closure of the right-of-way shall be considered null
and void. By action of the City Council the date by which the conditions needed to be
completed was extended to March 26, 2003, and was further extended to May 26,
2003.
■ Considerations:
On November 27, 2001, City Council approved street closures for a portion of Morris
Avenue and a portion of Katie Brown Drive for the applicant with the following nine (9)
conditions.
1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership
of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be
determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in
Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council Copies of the
policy are available in the Planning Department.
2. The applicant must secure title to all portions of Katie Brown Drive currently
owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia (as to a portion of the cul-de-sac) and
Eugene Taylor, Jr. and Anne Taylor, as well as the City of Virginia Beach,
3. The applicant must secure title to all portions of Morris Avenue currently owned
by the Commonwealth of Virginia (as to a portion of the cul-de-sac), Edwin B
Lindsley, William Albritton or his descendants (as to a portion of the cul-de-sac)
as well as the City of Virginia Beach.
4 Formal written consent must be provided by the adjacent property owner on
Katie Brown Drive, Mr. Edwin B. Lindsley, stating agreement to street closure
and alternative access to his property.
5 Formal written consent must be provided by the adjacent property owners on
Morris Avenue, Mr. W. Leigh Ansell and Mr. Edwin B. Lindsley, stating
agreement to street closure and alternative access to their properties.
6. The applicant is required to resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines
to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be
submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval.
7. Alternative access must be provided on the street closure plat for the properties
identified as GPIN #1467-82-7483 (Edwin B. Lindsley), GPIN #1467-92-1260,
1467-92-1213, 1467-92-8268 (Edwin B. Lindsley) and GPIN # 1467-92-1208
(Ansell W Leigh, et al).
8. The applicant is required to verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-
way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies
indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for
closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company,
must be provided.
9. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above
stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions
noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one
year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be
considered null and void.
The applicant has secured title from all parties noted in the conditions with the
exception of the Commonwealth of Virginia (VDOT). The applicant has reached an
agreement to acquire the VDOT interests by conveying to VDOT a contiguous strip of
land along Route 264 in exchange for the various sliver parcels it owns in the cul-de-
sacs of the streets to be closed. in order to consummate the exchange with VDOT, it is
necessary to record the subdivision plat which has been submitted to the city for
approval, the recordation of which will dedicate to VDOT the agreed upon strip of land.
The subdivision plat has been submitted to the City and they are awaiting comments.
The applicant is concerned that the recordation of the subdivision plat and the
finalization of condition #9 will not be finalized by the extended deadline date of May 26,
2003 and request that the time limit imposed in condition #9 be extended to November
26, 2003. The applicant feels that this will allow sufficient time for an agreement with
the plat to be finalized, recorded and the other aspects of Condition # 9 to be met.
■ Public Information:
NIA
■ Alternatives:
Council could reject the extension request or impose a different date than the applicant
has requested.
■ Recommendations:
The title issues associated with this particular application are much more complex than
most other street closure actions involve. The applicant has worked diligently to
complete the title work during the past year. Staff recommends approval of the request
for an extension of the time allowed to comply with conditions to November 26, 2003.
■ Attachments:
Ordinance
Recommended Action: Staff Recommends Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: City Attorney
City Manager. `L
ORDINANCE NO
1 AN ORDINANCE FURTHER EXTENDING THE
2 DATE FOR SATISFYING CONDITIONS IN THE
3 MATTER OF THE CLOSING, VACATING AND
4 DISCONTINUING OF A PORTION OF MORRIS
5 AVENUE AND A PORTION OF KATIE BROWN
6 DRIVE, UPON THE APPLICATION OF UNITED
7 JEWISH FEDERATION OF TIDEWATER
8 WHEREAS, on November 27, 2001, the Council of the City of Virginia Beach acted upon
9 the applications of United Jewish Federation of Tidewater Enterprises for the closure of portions of
10 two streets as follows:
11 1. A portion of Morris Avenue, and
12 2. A portion of Katie Brown Drive
13 WHEREAS, on November 27, 2001 the Council adopted two (2) Ordinances to close the
14 aforesaid streets, subject to certain conditions being met on or before November 26, 2002; and
15 WHEREAS, on November 11, 2002, the applicants requested an extension of time to satisfy
16 the conditions attached to the aforesaid street closures. Said request was granted by the Council as
17 ORD-2728E and the new deadline was established as March 26, 2003.
18 WHEREAS, on March 23, 2003, the applicants requested a further extension of time to
19 satisfy the conditions attached to the aforesaid street closures. Said request was granted by the
20 Council as ORD-2740J and the new deadline was established as May 26, 2003.
21 GPINS. 1467-81-6943,1467-82-803851467-82-914051467-92-01361,1467-92-1208,1467-92-1260,
22 1467-92-30775 1467-92-2092, 1467-91-2909, 1467-81-9941, 1467-81-88725 1467-81-7884, 1467-
23 81-68535,1467-82-3270,1467-82-539151467-82-731851467-82-7483,1467-82-933651467-82-9238,
24 1467-82-8213, 1467-82-6197, 1467-82-5141, and 1467-82-3096
25 WHEREAS, on May 13, 2003, the applicants requested a further extension of time to satisfy
26 the conditions attached to the aforesaid street closures
27 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
28 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
29 That the date for meeting conditions of closure as stated 1n the Ordinance adopted on
30 November 27, 2001, upon applications of United Jewish Federation of Tidewater, is extended to
31 November, 26, 2003.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of
52003.
CA-8839
O RD IN\N ONC OD EIUJF T 3.ORD
Date: 05/05/03
R1
APPROVED A S TO CONTENT
P1a4nnMJ0e%e9tment
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
eo
City Attomey's Office
March 25, 2003
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. There's a motion and a second to
approve the items on the Consent Agenda.
Are we ready for the question) I'm still holding mine.
CITY CLERK: It's not showing.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: It isn't?
CITY CLERK: No, ma'am.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yes, is my answer.
CITY CLERK: With a vote of 11 to 0 on all items, except
Number 1, under Ordinances, 10 to 1. You
have approved the Consent Agenda as read by the Vice Mayor.
3
March 25, 2003
INFORMAL SESSION
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Moving onto Michael Sifen. Oh, Mrs. Eure.
I have a feeling -- is this what we were
hearing from your neighbors that they want purchased? Is this the
one?
COUNCIL LADY EURE: This is a no-brainer. I have asked for a
30-day deferral and the attorney and his
client have agreed to a 30-day deferral.
And, yesterday the Open Space Committee was to review this and they
did not have enough for a quorum, but those that were there saw it.
They will meet again the day before this will come up again. So, the
intension is that we are looking at buying that piece of land for
open space. So, they have agreed to the deferral. And, I didn't
appreciate that.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: I didn't mean to. Mine was oh, because I
had gotten a letter from the people on that.
I didn't think it would go on Consent the way it was.
COUNCIL LADY EURE: Well, you have 30-day reprieve.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Got-cha.
FORMAL SESSION
VICE MAYOR JONES: Under Planning, Item 7, Consent the
Application of Michael D. Sifen,
Incorporated, for a 30-day deferral.
Those are all of the items on the Consent Agenda, Madam Mayor, I move
approval.
COUNCIL LADY EURE: Second.
N
Item Y-L.7.
PLANNING
- 58 -
ITEM # 50968
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Council Lady Eure, City Council DEFERRED to the City
Council Session of April 22, 2003, Ordinance upon application of Michael D. Sifen, Inc. for a
Conditional Change of Zoning District
ORDINANCE UPONAPPLICA TION OF MICHAEL D SIFEN, INC FOR
A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM R- 5D
RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX DISTRICT TO CONDITIONAL I-1 LIGHT
IND USTRL4 L DISTRICT
Ordinance upon Application of Michael D. Sifen, Inc for a Change o
ZoninDistrictCl�i ,,,,.,,cation from R-5D Residential Duplex District to
Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial District on the west side of Centerville
Turnpike approximately 1600 feet north of its intersection with Kempsville
Road (GP.FN1455737940). The proposed zoning to Conditional I-1 is for
light industrial land use The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this
parcel for business parks, off ices, industrial, and employment support land
use. Parcel contains 6 724 acres. DISTRICT 1— CENTER VILLE
Voting: I 1-0 (By Consent)
Council Members Voting Aye.
Harry E. Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S
McClanan, Richard A Maddox, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf, Jim Reeve,
Peter W Schmidt, Ron A Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L
Wood
Council Members Voting Nay.
None
Council Members Absent
None
March 25, 2003
Virginia Beach City Council
March 25, 2003
6:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL:
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor
Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones
Harry E. Diezel
Margaret L. Eure
Reba McClanan
Richard A. Maddox
Jim Reeve
Peter Schmidt
Ron A. Villanueva
Rosemary Wilson
James L. Wood
CITY MANAGER:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY CLERK:
STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER:
At -Large
Bayside - District 4
Kempsville - District 6
Centerville - District 1
Rose Hall - District 3
Beach - District 6
Princess Anne - District 7
At -Large
At -Large
At -Large
Lynnhaven - District 5
James K. Spore
Leslie L. Lilley
Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC
Dawne Franklin Meads
VERBATIM
Planning Application of Michael D . Sifen, Incorporated
PFJ5 1 4::6- 4
�K:1_02, V-1-1 A WONO-9-AISS,
ArIp
OMAPI our
Ob
Aw
�`� „!\� i.'a era r• r� ARN
NO
•l ►� 110 [":I"Kel :
1. Reconsideration
of
Conditions
—
Approved
9-26-95
Conditional
Use Permit
(Fill
Borrow
Pit) --
Approved
3-26-90
Conditional
Use Permit
(Borrow
Pit) — Approved
1-28-63
2. Reconsideration
of
Modified
Conditions
—
Withdrawn
1-14-97
Modification
of Conditions
—
Approved
11-12-96
Conditional
Use Permit
(Borrow
Pit) -- Approved
2-23-93
Rezoning
(R-8
Residential
to
B-2
Business)
—
Approved
3-18-85
3. Rezoning
(R5-D
Residential
to B-2
Business)
— Approved 2-12-00
4. Rezoning
(R5-D
Residential
to R5-D
Residential
with
a PD-H2
4verl2
Approved
1-12-99
Modification
of Conditions
—Approved
9-28-99
Conditional
Use Permit
(Two
Communication
Towers)
—
Approved
1-9,
Conditional
Use Permit
(Communication
Tower)
—
Approved
8-28-89
Rezoning
(R-8
Residential
to
B-2
Business)
—
Withdrawn
12-19-88
Conditional
Use Permit
(Borrow
Pit) — Approved
2-13-84
Conditional
Use Permit
(Communication
Tower)
—
Approved
5-18-81
Conditional
Use Permit
(Antenna)
—Approved
11-18-74
Conditional
Use Permit
(Communication
Tower)
—
Approved
1-16-73
5. Conditional
Use Permit
(Church
Expansion)
—
Approved
3-26-02
Conditional
Use Permit
(Church
Expansion)
--
Approved
9-28-99
Conditional
Use Permit
(Church)
— Annroved
1-11-88
v1/
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Michael D. Sifen, Inc. — Change of Zoning District Classification
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2003
■ Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Michael D. Sifen, Inc. for a,Chancie of Zoning
District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional 1-1
Light Industrial District on the west side of Centerville Turnpike approximately
1600 feet north of its intersection with Kempsville Road (GPIN 1455737940).
The proposed zoning to Conditional 1-1 is for light industrial land use. The
Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for business parks, offices,
industrial, and employment support land use. Parcel contains 6.724 acres.
DISTRICT 1—CENTERVILLE
The purpose of this request is to rezone the site from R&D Residential District to
Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial District and to construct a mini -warehouse facility.
This item was deferred by City Council on April 22, 2003.
■ Considerations:
The property is undeveloped and is zoned R5-D Residential District.
The site has an extensive zoning history with regard to the previous borrow pit
operation. Before 1973, the site was zoned R-D 1 Residence Duplex. A
Conditional Use Permit for a borrow pit was approved on the site in 1963. In
March of 1990, a Conditional Use Permit to fill the existing borrow pit was
approved. Several conditions of this Conditional Use Permit were modified on
September 26, 1995.
The applicant proposes to rezone the site from R5-D Residential to Conditional I-
1 Light Industrial and develop a mini -warehouse facility. The site development
plan depicts seven buildings containing a total of 136,450 square feet of mini -
warehouse area and 1,400 square feet of office and residence area proposed for
the site. There are seven parking spaces, including one handicap accessible
space, illustrated on the site. The entire frontage of the site along Centerville
Turnpike will be landscaped and bermed with the exception of the entrance to the
site and four parking spaces.
Mike Sifen
Page 2 of 2
The request to rezone the site from R5-D Residential District to Conditional 1-1
Light Industrial District and develop the site as a mini -warehouse facility is
acceptable. The request is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan Map
recommendations for the area, and is in keeping with the surrounding uses.
While the applicant has proffered several acceptable uses for the site, as
previously stated in the report the only use that will be permitted on the site at
this time is the mini -warehouse facility, office and residence as proffered in
Proffers 1 and 2. Should the applicant wish to add any of the other proffered uses
to the site, Proffers 1 and 2 will have to be modified. The proposed landscaping
along the frontage of Centerville Turnpike exceeds City ordinance requirements.
The proposed meandering and undulating berms planted with evergreen and
deciduous trees will add an attractive touch to the frontage. Foundation
screening will soften and add to the appearance of the buildings. The proposed
screening and buffering of the proposed use along the side and rear property
lines is adequate. The proposed elevations depict the use of a good mix of
building materials, including brick, and architectural details, such as tile, metal
caps, and exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) accents, that will provide visual
relief to the building.
Staff recommended approval. There was opposition to the proposal.
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 4-3 with 2
abstentions to approve this request.
■ Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department Y)20;p
4-'. N wl 00,90,
City Manager:
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8
February 12, 2003
General Information.
APPLICATION
NUMBER: B10-211-CRZ-2002
REQUEST: Change of Zoning District Classification from R5-D Residential Duplex to
Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial
ADDRESS: The West side of Centerville Turnpike, north of Kempsviile Road,
Gpin 1455 -73 7940
Planning Commission Agenda
February 12, 2003
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8
Page 1
GPIN: 14557379400000
ELECTION
DISTRICT: 1 — Centerville
SITE SIZE: 5.724 acres
STAFF
PLANNER: Faith Christie
PURPOSE: To rezone the site from R5-D Residential District to Conditional 1-
1 Light
Industrial District and to construct a mini -warehouse facility.
Y
Major Issues:
• Compatibility with surrounding uses
Land Use, Zoning, and Site
Characteristics:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
The property is undeveloped and is zoned
R5-D Residential District.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
North: . Undeveloped property / R5-D Residential
South: • Undeveloped property / B-2 Business
East: . Centerville Turnpike
• Across Centerville Turnpike is a Church and
school, a Post Office facility, and an Office -
Storage and Mini -warehouse Facility / B-2
Business and 1-1 Light Industrial
West: Undeveloped property / R5-D Residential
Planning Commission Agenda
s
February 12, 2003
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8 own *10181
Page 2
Zoning and Land Use Statistics
With Existing Any of the principal and conditional uses permitted in
Zoning: the R5-D Residential District such as single-family and
duplex dwellings, churches, borrow pits, golf courses,
recreational facilities and schools.
With The submitted proffer agreement specifies the following
Proposed uses to be allowed on the property:
Zoning:
a) Wholesaling, warehousing, storage or
distribution establishments;
b) Business, medical, financial, non-profit,
professional and similar office buildings;
c) Public Utility installations;
d) Commercial parking lot; and
e) Public Buildings and grounds.
While these uses are acceptable for the site, Staff
notes that Proffer 1 of the proffer agreement states that
the site shall be developed substantially as shown on
the exhibit entitled "PRELIMINARY LAYOUT FOR
PIKE SELF STORAGE ON CENTERVILLE
TURNPIKE", prepared by Site Improvement
Associates, Inc., dated 11-8-02, and that Proffer 2
states that the buildings shall contain the architectural
features and utilize the high quality building materials
depicted on the "Proposed Elevations for Pike Self
Storage, Virginia Beach, Virginia", prepared by
Covington, Hendrix Architects. Therefore the only use
permitted on the property will be the proposed mini -
warehouse facility. If the applicant or property owner
wishes to use the property for any of the proffered uses
then Proffers 1 and 2 must be modified.
Zoning History
The site has an extensive zoning history with regard to the previous borrow pit
operation. Before 1973, the site was zoned R-D 1 Residence Duplex. A Conditional Use
Permit for a borrow pit was approved on the site in 1963. In March of 1990, a
Planning Commission Agenda
February 12, 2003
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. /# 8
Page 3
Conditional Use Permit to fill the existing borrow pit was approved. The following
conditions applied:
1. The borrow pit filling operation will be operated in a dust free manner.
2. Operating hours shall be 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
No Sunday operation shall be permitted.
3. Un-drained pockets and stagnant pools resulting from surface drainage shall be
sprayed in accordance with requirements of the State Board of Health to
eliminate breeding places for mosquitoes and other insects.
4. In accordance with the City's current Master Street and Highway Plan, a right-
of-way dedication will be required along the entire Centerville Turnpike frontage
to provide for an ultimate six lane divided arterial with bikeway and scenic
easement. A variable width right-of-way dedication is required.
5. Right and left turn lanes are to be installed on Centerville Turnpike before the
beginning of the filling operation. Additional right-of-way dedications may be
required for the installation of these turn lanes.
6. The subdivision of the subject site into residential lots, as shown on the
conceptual, is not approved with this application.
7. Only inert, non -toxic material shall be deposited on the site.
8. The property adjacent to the antennae farm is to be conveyed back to that
owner.
9. During the hours of operation, the owner shall provide and maintain a full-time,
on -site inspector to inspect the trucks and maintain a daily log to verify only
inert, non -toxic materials have been deposited on the site.
10. These reports, when requested by the City, shall be submitted for review.
Several conditions of this Conditional Use Permit were modified on September 26,
1995. The following conditions were modified:
5. If the existing Centerville Turnpike entrance to this site is to be used by vehicles
depositing construction demolition and debris in the borrow pit reclamation site,
right and left turn lanes are to be installed on Centerville Turnpike before the
beginning of the filling operation. Additional right-of-way dedications may be
required for the installation of these turn lanes.
7. Only construction demolition and debris, non -toxic materials shall be deposited
on this site pursuant to a permit for the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality.
9. During the hours of operation, the owner shall provide and maintain a full-time
on -site inspector to inspect the trucks and maintain a daily log to verify only
construction demolition and debris; non -toxic materials have been deposited on
this site.
Planning Commission Agenda
February 12, 2003
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8
Page 4
11.Operational conditions contained hereinabove, in the event of a natural disaster
or similar situation may be waived in whole or in part by order of the City
Manager or the designated Emergency Operations Coordinator on a temporary
basis pursuant to an adopted Emergency Plan.
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
The site has been filled. It is grassed and there are no environmentally sensitive
features on the site. The site is in the Resource Management Area of the Chesapeake
Bay Preservation area.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
Water: There is a ten -inch water main in Centerville Turnpike. The site
must connect to City water.
Sewer: City sewer is not available to the site. Health Department approval
for a septic system is required if a septic system is utilized. The
applicant may connect to City sewer, but will bear the expense of
extending lines. The applicant may obtain sewer hookup from
several sources:
• There is a sewer line that stops at Jake Sears Road, north of
the site.
• A new pump station has been installed on the Tallwood
Elementary School property to the west of the site.
• If there is a Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) line
in Centerville Turnpike, the applicant may use a private
grinder pump and force main, subject to HRSD approval.
Planning Commission Agenda
February 12, 2003
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8
Page 5
Transportation
Master Transportation Plan (MTP) /Capital Improvement Program (CIP):
Centerville Turnpike in front of this site is considered a two lane undivided minor
suburban arterial. It is designated on the Mater Transportation Plan as a 120 foot
divided right of way with a multi -use trail. There are currently no Capital
Improvement Program projects listed to improve this right of way.
A right of way reservation for future improvements to Centerville Turnpike may be
required during detailed site plan review.
Traffic Calculations:
Street Name
Present
Present
Generated Traffic
Volume
Ca acit
17,000
13,600 ADT
Level of
Existing Land Use 2 - 626
Centerville Turnpike
p
ADT
"C"
Service
3
Proposed Land Use - 343
" Average Daily Trips
2 as defined by 58 single-family units
3 as defined by 137,850 square feet of self -storage space
Public Safe!y
Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the
Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime
prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as
they pertain to this site.
Fire and A fire hydrant must be located within 400 feet of commercial
Rescue: structures. Private fire hydrants must be maintained annually
as identified in N.F. P.A. 25.
The minimum fire lane width must not be less than 20 feet.
Under some conditions, greater width will be by the authority
having jurisdiction.
Gated sites must provide for Fire Department access using the
Planning Commission Agenda
February 12, 2003
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8
Page 6
Knox or Supra key system. Gates must have failsafe operation
in the event of a power failure.
The units must not be used for office purposes, band
rehearsals, residential dwellings, or any other purpose not
consistent with the storage of non -hazardous goods. Portable
or auxiliary power supplies will not be allowed for tenant use.
A certificate of occupancy must be obtained before occupancy
of the building.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as an area planned for a variety of
employment uses including business parks, offices, appropriately located industrial and
employment support uses.
Summary of Proposal
Proposal
• The applicant proposes to rezone the site from R5-D Residential to Conditional 1-1
Light Industrial and develop a mini -warehouse facility. The site development plan
depicts seven buildings containing a total of 136,450 square feet of mini -warehouse
area and 1,400 square feet of office and residence area proposed for the site. There
are seven parking spaces, including one handicap accessible space, illustrated on
the site. The entire frontage of the site along Centerville Turnpike will be landscaped
and bermed with the exception of the entrance to the site and four parking spaces.
• The site is on Centerville Turnpike near the Woods Corner section of the city. It was
previously a borrow pit that has been filled. Directly across Centerville Turnpike, to
the east, are Atlantic Shores Baptist Church and School, and a United States Postal
Service (LISPS) facility. Slightly northeast of the USPS facility is an existing office
park and mini -warehouse facility. Directly north of the site is the City's Landfill 2,
more commonly known as Mount Trashmore 11.
Site Design
• The site is rectangular in shape, with 1,486 feet of width along Centerville Tumpike,
and varying in depth from approximately 220 feet to 250 feet. The proposed mini -
Planning Commission Agenda
February 12, 20010
Q
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8
Page 7
warehouse development maximizes the area of the site.
• Seven buildings are proposed on the site. Four buildings are g proposed parallel to
Centerville Turnpike, 35 feet from the property yline. These build
ings range in length
from 150 feet to 400 feet, and are 56 feet wide. Three buildings are proposed along
the back of the site, ranging in length from 360 feet to 490 feet, are 50 feet wide.
These buildings are proposed to be positioned 32 feet from the rear property line.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Access
• A single entrance to the site, 40 feet in width, is proposed directly in '
. p P y line with the
existing entrance to the post office site across Centerville ro. Turnpike. The
p proposed
drive aisles on site are a minimum of 25 feet in width. It appears that '
pp at vehicular
maneuvering will be adequate on the site.
Architectural Desian
• The applicant proposes to develop the site with buildings that use a variety ariety of
building materials to provide visual appeal. The proposed buildings r
. p p g are one story
with the exception of the office and residence. The office will have storefro
nt type
windows and brick exterior walls. The second floor residence will have ex
terior
insulation finish system (EIFS) exterior walls tan in color with a cream
exterior
insulation finish system (EIFS) accent band. A hipped metal roof complements
pP p ents the
building.
Planning Commission Agenda
February 12, 2003
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8
Page 8
• The portions of the mini -warehouse buildings that are facing Centerville Tumpike are
to be constructed with a split face block water table, and brick and exterior insulation
finish system (EIFS) exterior walls. The long expanse of the walls is broken with
incremental projections to provide for architectural and visual relief. Three different
projections are proposed. The end of the building projections will have a band of
accent brick around the exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) wall, with a tale
accent. A hipped metal roof covers this projection. The middle of the building will
have the same design projection except an exterior insulation finish system (EIFS)
pediment will complement this roof area. The other projection is simple in that it does
not have any fagade or roof element. It is simply trimmed with a metal cap.
Landscape and Open Space
• The entire frontage of the site along Centerville Turnpike is depicted as landscaped
area with the exception of the entrance into the site and four parking spaces. The
landscape area will contain berms that are planted with both evergreen and
deciduous trees, as recommended by staff. Foundation screening of the fronts of the
buildings along Centerville Turnpike is also proposed on the submitted plans.
• The required Category VI screening is depicted along the sides and rear property
lines. A variance to the required 15-foot setback from the R5-13 Residential District is
required. The applicant will make application to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the
variance upon approval by the City Council of this Rezoning request.
Proffers
PROFFER # 1 When the property is developed, it shall be developed
substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled
"PRELIMINARY LAYOUT FOR PIKE SELF STORAGE ON
CENTERVILLE TURNPIKE", prepared by Site
Improvements Associates, Inc., dated 11-8-02, which has
been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on
file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning
(hereinafter "Site Plan).
Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable. It insures that the site will be
developed as depicted on the submitted preliminary layout
plan.
PROFFER # 2 When the Property is developed, the buildings depicted on
Planning Commission Agenda
February 12, 2003
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. I # S
Page 9
the Site Plan shall contain the architectural features and
utilize the high quality building materials depicted on the
"Proposed Elevations for Pike Self Storage, Virginia
Beach, Virginia", prepared by Covington, Hendrix
Architects, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach
City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach
Department of Planning (hereinafter "Elevations").
Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable. It insures that the proposed
buildings will be constructed in accordance with the
submitted elevations.
PROFFER # 3 The freestanding monument style sign designated on the
Site Plan shall be brick based monument style sign no
greater than eight feet (8') in height.
Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable.
PROFFER # 4 All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded
and focused to direct light down onto the premises and
away from adjoining property.
Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable. It insures that lighting on the site
will not interfere with adjacent uses.
PROFFER # a Only the following uses will be permitted on the Property:
a) Wholesaling, warehousing, storage or distribution
establishments;
b) Business, medical, financial, non-profit, professional
and similar office buildings;
c) Public Utility installations;
d) Commercial parking lot; and
e) Public Buildings and grounds.
Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable in that it limits the proposed uses
for the site. However as staff previously noted in this
report, Proffer 1 states that when the site is developed it
shall be developed substantially as shown on the
submitted preliminary site plan. Proffer 2 states that the
buildings will contain the architectural features and utilize
the high quality building materials depicted on the
elevations. Therefore, the only use permitted on the site
Planning Commission Agenda
February 12, 2003
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8
Page 10
will be the mini -warehouse facility, office for the facility and
caretaker residence. Should the developer or property
owner wish to introduce any of the uses listed in this
proffer on to the site, Proffers 1 and 2 will have to be
modified by the City Council.
PROFFER # 6 Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during
detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable
City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments
to meet all applicable City code requirements.
Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable.
City Attorneys The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer
Office: agreement dated November 10, 2002, and found it to be
legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form.
Evaluation of Request
The request to rezone the site from R5-D Residential District to Conditional 1-1 Light
Industrial District and develop the site as a mini -warehouse facility is acceptable. The
request is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan Map recommendations for the area,
and is in keeping with the surrounding uses. While the applicant has proffered several
acceptable uses for the site, as previously stated in the report the only use that will be
permitted on the site at this time is the mini -warehouse facility, office and residence as
proffered in Proffers 1 and 2. Should the applicant wish to add any of the other proffered
uses to the site, Proffers 1 and 2 will have to be modified. The proposed landscaping
along the frontage of Centerville Turnpike exceeds City ordinance requirements. The
proposed meandering and undulating berms planted with evergreen and deciduous
trees will add an attractive touch to the frontage. Foundation screening will soften and
add to the appearance of the buildings. The proposed screening and buffering of the
proposed use along the side and rear property lines is adequate. The proposed
elevations depict the use of a good mix of building materials, including brick, and
architectural details, such as tile, metal caps, and exterior insulation finish system
(ElFS) accents, that will provide visual relief to the building.
Staff, therefore, recommends approval of the request to rezone the site from R5-D
Residential District to Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial District to develop a mini -
warehouse facility.
Planning Commission Agenda
February 12, 2003
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC./ # 8
Page 11
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
licable Citv Codes.
Planning Commission Agenda
February 12, 2003
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8
Page 12
a1�'1NU►`"��h'
u S
a• oue pal ai,
At WMV W I► OAV1 Oily` PCC � %MOMU*L*,Ikt
Ec��•
Planning Commission Agenda, ,
February 12, 2003
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8 •••vs•N�"°``a
Page 13
0
Li,
7
r
D
M
�"
F
J 2 Y
r G W
u��Ua
n
Wa
a_IL
IL Z
W < M
! !
ca
,
i- i
�l4 w
0
It
W
4
4 0
o zW
W
z
o 0> °
W
d
jk�
W�wo
W <0
v
0W Z
IL
z Z
>�
ti r t- a
C x z W
o w o
� u
J } sc
W H b Q
I W W o tn t"m
J
W
Q
z
0
r-
}
W
J
w
W
v
ti
Q
W
r
0
_r.INU'_BFiln_
Planning Commission Agenda i z
February 12, 2003
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. I # 8 *'°• � °•°�°°
Page 14
0
A
O
CM M
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's Narne: &43.chael D Sifen�InC. L a iry nia ca as. a._,.,,..--.
List All Current
Property owners: Williams Holding Corp.,a oir rjn a corporation
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below:
(Attach list if necessary)
E. R. Bowler-, President Tr a�jrpr
Ed
F McKinley. Secretary
..M _. _,._.._ .__ _.r.__ ...�.�....r�. ........�
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)
0 ,Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other
unincorporated organization
ff the applicant is not the current owner of the property,, complete the Applicant Disclosure
section below:
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the property owner ,s a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below:
(Attach list if necessary)
Micha,l_P. Sifen. Pre sdenSecretar;^
if the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED
ORGANIZATION, fist all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list
if necessary)
C] Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other
unincorporated organization.
CERTIFICATION: l certify that the information contained herein is true
and accurate.
Michael D. Sifen, Inc. .
Signature v
Conditional Rezoning Application
Page 10 of 14
Michael D. Sifen, President
r� rr+r�rr �wr_wiwr�r
Print Name
Planning Commission Agenda
February 12, 2003
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8
Page 16
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's Name: _M* ael ..D,_3ifea.- ..a..Sixgam A CQrPQ at3n0_—__-
List All Current
Property owners- Williams Holding Corte . , a �,Lrginia corporation
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below. -
(Attach list if necessary)
E. R. Bawler, President/Treasurer
Ed McRinle ,_ Secreta, ry _
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)
Q .Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other
unincorporated organization.
!f the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure
section below:
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below:
(Attach list if necessary)
Michael D. SL ens_Presxdent Secretar
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.
CERTIFICATION: ! certify that the information contained herein is true
and accurate.
wi, F-M�
ing rp.
B _ i
Signature t0
Condibonal Rezoning Application
Page 1Dof14
E. R. Bowler, President
Print Name
Planning Commission Agenda
February 12, 2003
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8
Page 17
Item #8
Michael D. Sifen, Inc.
Change of Zoning District Classification
West side of Kempsville Road
District 1
Centerville
February 12, 2003
CONSENT
Charlie Salle': The next item on the Consent agenda is Michael D. Sifen. A Change of
Zoning Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-1 Light
Industrial District on the west side of Centerville Turnpike.
Ronald Ripley: Charlie, I hear we have opposition to this. So, we need to drop that
down and hear that.
Charlie Salle': Okay.
REGULAR AGENDA
Robert Miller: The next item is Item #8, Michael D. Sifen, Inc.
Ronald Ripley: On this particular application, I'm going to step away from the chair on
this because although I don't think I have any bias to this at all, but I do have an interest
to purchase apiece of land adjacent to this, and a company that will purchase a piece of
land adjacent to this. I think I will be abstaining and I think Mr. Miller has a need to
abstain because I believe he represents...
Robert Miller: The owner of the property.
Ronald Ripley: The owner of the property. So, I've asked again, Charlie Salle' to pinch-
hit for us, and Charlie would you please take the chair.
Charlie Salle'. Sure. I'll be glad to. Do we have anybody representing Michael D.
Sifen?
Robert Miller: We do right there. Who is that guy? He was up so late last night.
Eddie Bourdon: My apologies for the delay.
Charlie Salle': Before you get started, Joe might have a comment.
Joseph Strange: I'd just like to make a comment. I also own property across the street
this project. I don't think it's going to have any bearing on my consideration of this
project so I will participate.
Item #8
Michael D. Sifen, Inc.
Page 2
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon. I'm a Virginia
Beach attorney and it's my privilege to represent Mr. Michael D. Sifen on this
application. Many of you, not all of you know may know Mr. Sifen. He is a developer of
some, I believe, renown in the area. He does a wonderful job with his projects. He has
been in the self -storage and commercial development, office development business, for
over a quarter of a century. He's been doing storage facilities for 23 years in this area
and throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. It's also my privilege the landowner
EVW Group, EV Williams. And, the piece of property that we are here to talk about is a
long rectangular shaped piece of property that fronts on the west side of Centerville
Turnpike, north of Kempsville Road and south of Indian River Road, south of CBN. The
property is zoned R-5D. It is the ring road or outside of the borrow pit, now landfill.
There is still some excavation taking place, on a small part of it, but it's essentially a
landfill. The property while zoned R-SD is certainly not suitable for residential
development. Directly to the south of this property is a 14-acre parcel that is zoned B-2.
Across the street you got B-2 property. A storage facility and a post office is there, and a
church here owns some additional B-2 property in the area. The proposal is to put a very
attractive self- storage facility on the property. The staff, I think has done a very fine job
in terms of describing it, evaluating it. Do you all have the copies of the elevation? This
is the elevations that Crumb and Associates showing very attractive brick and split face
block buildings with extensive landscaping on Centerville as well as foundation
landscaping to create a very attractive appearance. One that certainly is significantly
nicer in quality than the older storage facility that exists across Centerville from the site
that's essentially split block type of a facility. The thing you may hear from the
opposition is there a demand in this area for storage. And, the answer is inequitable yes
from all of the folks that I've talked, to and I have been talking to a lot of them lately
with the application that I know you're all familiar with at Kempsville/Centerville
Associates that City Council approved last evening. Within a three-mile radius of the
intersection of Kempsville Road and Centerville Turnpike, the population is roughly
85,000 people. And, within that three-mile radius there is a significant quantity of both
multi -family development and small lot residential development. There is also a
significant student population associated with Regent University. All of those type of
housing create additional demand for these type of storage facility. Within that three-
mile radius today there are 137,000 square feet of storage facility by contrast within a
three-mile radius within a three mile radius at the intersection of Dam Neck Road and
Holland Road, which we chose that because you get the same central population 85,000
people, but within that three mile radius, little bit larger lot sizes, generally speaking, and
no college student population. There are today within the three mile radius of Holland
and Dam Neck 535,000 square feet of storage facility. So, and the people who are the
experts n the industry and Mr. Sifen, who is here, certainly qualifies as that because he's
got these facilities throughout the Commonwealth, will tell you that is not an adequate
amount of storage facility. With what the City Council approved for
Kemspville/Centerville Associates, and if this application is approved and is built, that
will increase the square foot of storage area in this locality within a three mule radius due
around 390,000 square feet, still 30 percent less than exists at the Dam Neck/Holland
Corridor three -mule radius. And, there's sufficient demand to support this type of use in
Item #8
Michael D. Sifen, Inc.
Page 3
this location. And, the facility across the street is as of this morning fully occupied. I
think they said one small area 10 x 10 that's available. Everything else is completely full.
Also, I want to let you that I was contacted about three weeks ago by another client
looking at another site in this area for a storage facility. I indicated to them that I thought
wasn't something they should look at, but they gave me the same information that there is
a lack of available space 1n this area to serve the needs of the people that are there and
additional development. Although, not significant in terms of the amount that's going to
take place in this area. So, the anti -competition argument that I think is the genesis of the
opposition here today. We think competition is good. We think that competition brings
out the best and frankly, the appearance of this facility is second to none. The other
thing, if you look at this piece of property and try to envision what would be a better use
for this piece of property, I'm hard pressed to think of a better use for this piece of
property. It is a low traffic generating use. If you try to do something commercial there
it couldn't lay out anyway other than a strip commercial, and even then it would just be
pretty difficult to envision something attractive or beneficial. And, there really isn't a
demand in this area for commercial development. And, the idea of putting a bunch of
single family homes adjacent to the borrow pit landfill right on Centerville Turnpike,
which is what the zoning R-51) would suggest, just doesn't make any sense from a land
use perspective. So, with that you recognize this was on the consent agenda. I'm going to
end the presentation and answer any questions, and I' d like to respond to the opposition.
Charlie Salle': Any questions for Mr. Bourdon?
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you.
Charlie Salle': Eddie, is that all the speakers in favor of the project?
Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Sifen is here but he did not sign up to speak.
Charlie Salle': Okay. Those in opposition?
Jim Arnold: Chairman Ripley. Members of Planning Commission, today is quite role
reversal for me. I'm Jim Arnold, life long citizen of Virginia Beach. I'm in the real estate
development construction business. I am one of the partners in America Classic Self
Storage directly across the street from this proposed rezoning. I apologize before I go
through this list that I did not give this information to everybody prior to today's meeting.
It was a difficult decision for me to come and speak against this rezoning and, my used to
be old friend Mr. Bourdon. Perhaps being viewed as anti competitive but even as a
competitor I hope you realize my concerns are not completely self-serving. My partners
and I have substantial investments in this area and want what's in the best interest of the
business and residential communities as a whole. The debate of too much of anything 1s
not anti competitive. It causes vacancies in properties because of cash flow, that may in
fact fall in disrepair and not be maintained to a high standard. The project across the
street that Mr. Bourdon was talking about, we own, received a design award from the
City of Virginia Beach a few years back. We're very proud of that property. A view of
Item #8
Michael D. Sifen, Inc.
Page 4
the City records and information I obtained from Brian Dunden, Commercial Appraiser,
shows this market has more than ample storage facilities in all sizes to accommodate the
community's needs. I believe Mr. Bourdon suggest that you should only look at the
facilities within a three-mile radius. I and Mr. Dunden, the appraiser, certainly suggest
that analogy is flawed. Depending upon where you shop, work, take your children to
school or other activities, you'll be introduced to available storage facilities within at
least a five mile radius. I, was told by Mr. Dunden that the appraisal industry would use
a five -mile radius to assess value competition. A five -rile radius would show there are
eleven competing facilities, two of which will be developed within the next few years.
One, 120,000 square foot facility was approved last night by City Council at the corner of
Kempsville Road and Centerville Turnpike, and 56,000 square foot expansion on
Providence Road that is coming up on Jack Rabbit facility. These facilities equate to
almost 740,000 square feet of storage space of which over 170,000 square feet will come
online that will have to absorbed over the next few years. Our facility is 94,000 square
feet across the street. It was developed in two phases. It took approximately five years to
get to an acceptable occupancy. It will take at a minimum that long to absorb the new
units that are already approved. I believe it will take a little bit longer and surely
occupancy of the existing property will be hurt. There are storage units available in all
sizes at every facility in its market. To suggest that the market is not to be
accommodated is just not true. We have built over the past five years 360 apartments in
this area, which have garages and storage facilities on site for our residents. And, with
those not completely filled by our own residents that live there. It's just this property
being rezoned from residential to industrial is adjacent to an existing church and the
entire Gomez borrow pit property, which is zoned residential. All of the recent rezoning
adjacent to the borrow pit property has been rezoned to multi" -family residential. Other
than the City of Virginia Beach City view recreation site. This property is adjacent to
existing residential zoned property and should remain residential not intrude it with
industrial. I recognize the Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial and or industrial on
the site. I expect that will be reviewed during the Comprehensive Plan update in light of
all the multi -family rezoning adjacent to the Gomez borrow pit. The Gomez borrow pit
property has been designed in the past, and far as I know still is, and will probably be
developed as residential by the owners. Even though you look at that big hole out there
today, it doesn't necessarily look like that what's going to happen. I know that pit is
supposed to all be filled and come back up. There should not be support for another
storage facility rezoning after the approval last night. How many could we possibly need
in one marketing area? Hopefully all Commission members will see the wisdom of not
adding more of this business type to the area. Over supply of any business type always
creates vacancies. The facts of this may have been an acceptable use under different
circumstances just as Orchard Park Shopping Center over the Chesapeake line is an
acceptable use for commercial when that was zoned. That now sits 50 percent vacant.
Because of an over built retail environment, which Mr. Bourdon agrees, and eluded to
last night on the other storage facility rezoning, I'm sure even he doesn't believe the only
viable business rezoning for this area is storage facilities. We just don't need another
facility at this time. I realize this item was on the consent agenda prior to my opposition.
I respectfully request all Commission members to think again your approval of this
Item #S
Michael D Sifen, Inc.
Page 5
project and recommend denial of this request, or at the veryleast send this •
additional is item back for
staff review in light of this new information and comments. Tha
nk you very
much.
Charlie Salle': Any questions for Mr. Arnold? Thank you. Are there an
Y y other speakers
in opposition?
Robert Miller: There's no one else listed.
Eddie Bourdon: Let me begin by insuring you that I'm not a former friend of Mr.
Arnold, and I certainly don't consider myself to be an "old" friend of Mr. Arnold, We
will be friends as we came into today as friends. Certainlywe can do a five -mile - '
e Hole radius
study of Holland and Dam Neck and again, the numbers are still going to be th . g g e same.
This area is underserved. I don't know, and I may have misunderstood Jim' Y s comments
in terms of their being units available in all sizes in his facility,a again, we checked
g this
morning and we were told it was full except there was one small unit. And that was
all
that was available. Everything was full. If he meant the entire five -mile radiu
s, that may
well be true. There may be units available in all sizes within a five -mile radius
. But the
fact remains that he indicated in his comments. People in the market lace . P p are trying to
expand, are expanding, and that is because there is demand out there significant g demand.
The folks who are operating the facility, American Classic are in fact buildingfacility a facility at
London Bridge and Potter's Road today. There is significant demand for this .. g s type of
facility. Now, London Bridge and Potters is probably not within a five -mile ' 1 � . Y radius of this
location. But, that doesn't change the fact that this is a type of use for which a lot o Yp f the
thin
gs that we're doing in zoning and eliminating accessorystructures on lots and
storage
spaces becoming a premium for homeowners as well as for in various businesses.
people
This is the best use for this piece of property. It is a veryattractive one and again, gain, my
intention was not to suggest that the American Classic facilityacross the street was
s
unattractive, and at the time it was built it won an award, but as you well know the
appearance of these facilities have been upgraded phenomenallyover the course last five e
years in terms of what they look like and what people are willingto do in terms of
making them
b em look very attractive. This not a shopping center. It is a use that has a lot
of
characteristics that are far different than a shopping center. An empty shopping
center
does create problems. A storage facility that is 50-60 percent occupied versus
P p 90 percent
occupied still looks the same in terms of what you see driving b that facility. And
. g Y Y ,
remember also that the people in the banking industry are going to be looking at the
numbers, study the numbers as to giving financing for the construction of these and
again, they're there. The numbers support it. That's why are expansion
ansion
p
opportunities that are taking place, and the people who are in the business are lookingfor
sites in this articular area. So w'
P with that, I would hope that the Commission would look
at it from a land use perspective and not from a protectionist or any competition
P
perspective. And, I don't mean to mischaracterize what Jim said but that is a art of
what's there. That may p
y not be the only part but that is a part of what's there. And, from
a land use perspective I don't think you can come u with a better land use for this s piece
of property. Thank you.
Item #8
Michael D. Sifen, Inc.
Page 5
Charlie Salle': Any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Will.
William Din: Eddie, do you have any idea, the borrow pit development that you talked
about here, when that will be going back up for some kind of development?
Eddie Bourdon: I honestly don't know that it will. I'm trying to remember there's a
contract. It's an excellent question. I don't know that it will ever be developed. Because
there is the landfill contract with S ani Fil, and there will be residential development there.
I don't think there will be any development there for 30 years, if there is any.
William Din: Okay. There is a piece of property there B-2 just down the road from you
there.
Eddie Bourdon: Right next to it.
William Din: Right next to it. And, I do find that this is maybe an attractive self -storage
unit, but I really believe that the development of this site as a self storage area might, you
know, if you looked at it comprehensively with the borrow pit and the B-2 and what they
have surrounding it, you know, it does lead me down the road as "what's going to be
around this" if we allow this self -storage to go in there. Will it be compatible with what
we will be putting in there? Right now it's zoned R-5D. Is that compatible with this self -
storage unit in front of it? Let's assume it developed an R-5D.
Eddie Bourdon: You talking about the borrow pit? The landfill?
William Din: Yeah.
Eddie Bourdon: Will, I don't know any other way to tell you that this landfill is not
going to be in any of our life times, including the youngest person here, going to be
developed with houses on them. This is just not going to happen. Now, the only thing
that you're going to see development on is this B--2 piece here, which is going to be
developed commercially, in my estimation, commercially or a multi -family development.
One or the other, which this would be completely compatible with either of those, but to
suggest that this former borrow pit, now sanitary landfill is going to be a residential
development at some point in the future, I hesitate to look at what technology may have
in store and how people may live, you know, generations to come but nothing that we're
dealing with in this lifetime that's going to be residential development.
William Din: I don't know if anyone on our staff knows when this landfill is projected to
be closed but that's just a projection. I think that is probably one of my major issues here
with this self -storage unit. In addition, is there too many? But, the compatibility of this
unit in this area may be there. Whether you're looking 30 years down the road or 50years
down the road or even 10 years down the road, I' m not sure that if you put a self -storage
unit right up in the front of the road here, what's going to be built between that and the
Item #S
Michael D. Sifen, Inc.
Page 7
City line at Mount Trashmore back there. It is zoned R-5D at this time. Compatibility is
part of what we should be looking at here, compatibility and proper land use.
Eddie Bourdon: Also in the Comprehensive Plan, Will, the Comprehensive Plan calls for
the area to be industrial and commercial not residential.
William Din: Okay. Thank you.
Charlie Salle': Any other questions?
Donald Horsley: I don't have a question. I'd just like to make a statement. This use
appears to me to be a good buffer along Centerville Turnpike for the borrow pit and
filling operations that's going over there. It's an attractive use and the competitive issue,
you know that is something we need to think about, but you know, I let business people
be business people when that comes about, but if it's a land use, I think pits, I think this
fits this area, so I'm. going to be in support of the application.
Charlie Salle': Joe?
Joseph Strange: Yeah. I didn't hear any opposition of this from anybody, so I kind of
thought that it was not a bad land use here, but one of the things that really bothers me
about this is that we're rushing in and putting all these storage units up there. I not a
developer, but I have had to rent a lot of spaces and own some spaces. It just kind of airs
my nerves up to see what we're doing in that little section of the City over there. I mean,
this looks like storage haven over there, and I don't understand how we're going to ever
reach the econonuc development in this City right here if we keep taking parts of our City
and sacrificing for other parts of the City. I just hate to say it. Again, I'm not a
developer. I can't sit here and say I know there is a better use for this land. But, I just
wonder why we just couldn't rush here and put all these storage units in here right on top
of another. So, in lieu of the fact that there are developers who are against this, I'll
probably be voting against this at this time.
Charlie Salle': Any other comments?
Kathy Katsias: I intend to agree with Joe. I think that it probably is a good use for this
piece of property. But, with the approval of the additional warehouse spaces last night, I
think this area is probably saturated at this time, or probably getting saturated, with too
many units. So, I'm not in favor of the application.
Charlie Salle": Any other comments? I think I'll be voting in favor of the application. I
am concerned with what Kathy and Joe had to say. Unfortunately, I think this application
is a good one, and probably the one approved last night was a bad one. And, I'm not sure
I want to choose to penalize trus landowner for the actions of others with respect to the
other property. And, in general I think that zoning is not a great tool in regulating
business as far as competitiveness. I think if the land use is applicable, and I think it is
Item #8
Michael D. Sifen, Inc.
Page 8
here, then that's where we should concentrate our efforts and probably let the private
markets cope with the idea of competition, saturation with respect to the number of
storage units in this area. So, with that, I'll be support the motion, and I guess, would
anybody like to make one?
Janice Anderson: I'll go ahead and make motion to approve the application of Michael
Sifen with the conditions.
Charlie Salle': Do we have a second?
Donald Horsley: Second.
Charlie Salle': Motion of Jan Anderson and seconded by Don Horsley to approve the
application.
AYE 4
NAY 3 ABS 2 ABSENT 2
ANDERSON
AYE
CRABTREE
AYE
DIN
NAY
HORSLEY
AYE
KATSIAS
NAY
KNIGHT
ABSENT
MILLER
ABS
RIPLEY
ABS
SALLE"
AYE
STRANGE
NAY
WOOD
ABSENT
Charlie Salle': By a vote of 4-3, with two abstentions, the application of Michael D.
Sifen has been approved for a Change of Zoning Classification from R-5D Residential
Duplex to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all.
FORM NO P S 1B
City of Virginia Seach
In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5671
TO:
FROM:
Leslie L. Lilley
B. Kay Wilso�
INTER -OFFICE CDRRESPOUDENCE
DATE: April 10, 2003
DEPT: City Attorney
DEPT: City Attorney
Conditional Zoning Application
Michael D. Sifen, Inc. and Williams Holding Corp.
The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the
City Council on April 22, 2003. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated
November 10, 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
PREPARED BY
ARM & LEVY. P C
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC., a Virginia corporation
WILLIAMS HOLDING CORP., a Virginia corporation
TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 10th day of November, 2002, by and between
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC., a Virginia corporation, Grantor, party of the first part;
WILLIAMS HOLDING CORP., a Virginia corporation, Grantor, party of the second
part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the third part.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a certain parcel of
property located in the Centerville District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing
approximately 6.724 acres as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the party of the first part, being the contract purchaser of the
Property 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 Classification of the Property from R-5D Residential District to I-1 Light
Industrial District; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development
of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation;
and
WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and some es
incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to
permit differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time
to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the Grantor's proposed
rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the
protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned
are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives
rise; and
GPIN: 1455-73-7940
1
PREPARED BY
SMS. ROLTWN.
ARM & LEVY. P C
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 with respect to the Property, the following reasonable
conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to
be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to
the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which
is generated by the rezoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, 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
any element of compulsion or quid fro guo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building
permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of conditions
and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation,
and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall
constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the
Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor,
its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in
interest or title:
1. When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as
shown on the exhibit entitled "PRELIMINARY LAYOUT FOR PIKE SELF STORAGE
ON CENTERVILLE TURNPIKE", prepared by Site Improvement Associates, Inc.,
dated 11--8-02, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is
on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan") .
2. When the Property is developed, the buildings depicted on the Site Plan
shall contain the architectural features and utilize the high quality building materials
depicted on the "Proposed Elevations For Pike Self Storage, Virgm a Beach, Virginia",
prepared by Covington, Hendrix Architects, which have been exhibited to the Virginia
Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning
(hereinafter "Elevations").
3. The freestanding monument style sign designated on the Site Plan shall
be brick based monument style sign no greater than eight feet (8) in height.
2
PREPARED BY
sus. OURDON.
AMN & I.M. P.0
4. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to
direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoinixig property.
5. Only the following uses will be permitted on the Property:
a) Wholesaling, warehousing, storage or distribution establishments;
b) Business, medical, financial, non-profit, professional and similar
office buildings;
c) Public Utilities Installations;
d) Commercial parking lot; and
e) Public Buildings and grounds.
6. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site
I Plan review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City
� agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements.
All references hereinabove to I- 1 District and to the requirements and
regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date
of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference
incorporated herein.
The above conditions, having been proffered by the 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,
however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and
executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such
instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing
as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the
governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was
advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said
C
PREPARED SY
SMS. BOURDON.
N & LLVY. P.C.
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 all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and
restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance
with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure
compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction.,
abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding;
(2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause
to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be
appropriate;
(3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made
pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the
review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and
(4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the
existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances
and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public
inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department,
and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantor and the Grantee.
4
PREPARED BY
SIUS. ROURMN.
AWN & LEVY. PC
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC.,
a Virginia corporation
!i 1 //
By: -t.. 't- ,�,r JSEAL)
J
Michael D. Sifen, Pres' ent
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 13th day of
November, 2002, by Michael D. Sifen, President of Michael D. Sifen, Inc., a Virginia
corporation.
My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006
JI
Notary Public
5
PREPARED BY
ON SMS. $OUMON.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
WILLIAMS HOLDING CORP.,,
a Virginia corporation
f
r�
E. R. Bowler, President
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
(SEAL)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 15th day of
November, 2002, by E. R. Bowler, President of Williams Holding Corp., a Virginia
corporation.
My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006
Notary Public
lei
EXHIBIT "A"
All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, situated in the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, being designated as "Parcel A" containing 6.724 acres as depicted on that
Plat subdividing property of Williams Holding Corp., prepared by Miller- Stephenson,
P.C., recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, in Map Book 282, at Page 82.
GPIN: 1455-73-7940
CONDREZONE/ SIFEN/CENTERVILLE/ PROFFER
PREPARED BY
SM. ROURWN.
AMN & LEVY. RC
7
March 25, 2003
COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I have no problems with it not being
single-family, because I think there's a
real need for this type of product. And the quality 1..s there, but
there's 3ust too many of them.
EDDIE BOURDON: We have had a very, very fantastic favorable
response from the people around us who have
parents who would want to live there.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Right. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
MAYOR OBFIMORF: Does anybody else want to be recognized
before we vote?
We're voting on the 30-day deferral. Are we ready for the question?
CITY CLERK: By a vote of 11 to 0 you have agreed to a
30-day deferral.
EDDIE BOURDON: Thank you.
OR
March 25, 2003
CITY ATTORNEY: Excuse me, Madam Mayor.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yes, Mr. Lilley.
CITY ATTORNEY: From a Parliamentary standpoint to withdraw
it would take a vote of the Council or
consensus of the Council.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: okay.
CITY ATTORNEY: You could have a substitute motion,
however.
VICE MAYOR JONES: Do you want me to do it, Jim?
COUNCILMAN REEVE: That would be fine, sir.
VICE MAYOR JONES: okay. Madam Mayor, I move that we make a
substitute motion that we defer this item
for 30 days.
COUNCI12W REEVE: I second it.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Are we ready for the question? oh,
Mrs. Wilson has to be recognized.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON: So, when you come back you're going to have
less units; is that correct? And try to
create some more open space?
EDDIE BOURDON: Well, we are going to explore doing that,
yes. Obviously, it would be helpful to get
feedback, but I think we also need to get a clearer picture or
hopefully a better understanding of our respected position. I think
that is the crucial issue. But the answer to your question, I would
expect so; but, you know, one of the things that we would want to
look at is what level you -all are comfortable with and I think your
comfort level is going to depend in part upon the traffic issue,
which I don't think they have their arms around.
29
March 25, 2003
don't think there's a whole lot of question there. But, we will takE�
a look at, talk to Staff again and try to get our hands around the
numbers. If it's going to be single-family, it will be single
family. I'm perfectly comfortable to tell you that it's an R--10
Development, which I don't think can be anything, but you're going to
have more traffic.
COUNCIL LADY SURE: And I don't debate that, Eddie. I'm
saying you're going from R-20 and AG is what
I said. I think R-10 is certainly reasonable.
EDDIE BOURDON: And that type of development in our Comp
Plan doesn't say anything about, it doesn't
deal with, you know, thinking outside of the box when you're dealing
with age --restricted, other than the general statements that are in
there about encouraging them and that it has less impact on traffic.
It says that right in our Comp Plan.
We will go back and talk to Staff and try to get on the same page
number -wise with them. I'm willing to do that, because I know the
Brown Family don't want this to --- you know this quality proDect to
be defeated because of a lack of clear information. We can work with
you -all to try to come up with a slightly less number of units, but
we have to look at people and look at buildings too.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Reeve.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: Thank you, Mayor. In listening to
the Applicant, I would like to withdraw my
motion and modify it to defer this for 30 days, if that is reasonablf-
with the Applicant, to give them more time to look at the numbers,
get with Staff and find ways to, you know, bring more of a comfort
level to this.
VICE MAYOR JONES: Second.
COUNCIL LADY EURE: Is that enough time, Eddie?
20
March 25, 2003
numbers are. I think Staff on one side has looked at age -restricted
versus age -targeted. I would kind of like to see it revisited as
well.
I think that I would really like to see the Applicant go back and try
to work with Staff to redesign this, minimize it or be a little bit
more creative in terms of the density and layout and see what we can
do. I think that that would probably be the best bet. That would be
where I would fall down on that.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Is that enough for you, Eddie?
You've been counting noses.
EDDIE BOURDON: Let me suggest that we will be amenable to
a deferral, but I do have to simply say
that, you know, I agree with what Jim Wood 3ust said. We have got to
get our arms around the traffic issue, because what's being said here
in terms of traffic is I believe based on the experts that we have
hired, you know, and are not consistent with what we as a City have
said in our Comp Plan -- and I quoted - - and what we have done
previously with these types of developments.
So, you know, I do think a deferral will help if nothing else to
clear up this traffic issue, because we don't think it's a close
call.
You know we didn't and don't want -- the Brown's are here. They've
obviously been waiting for a long time. You know, they are part of
this equation. We want to have an idea that there is a consensus on
where we're trying to go with this. You know some slight reduction
may be doable.
We're not talking about going -- single-family homes, Mrs. Eure, this
property is surrounded by R-10 Development. I don't think there's
any -- part of this property is Zoned Agriculture. You know that's
not what it's going to be.
So, the idea that it's going to be anything other than R-10, which is
what it is surrounded by, you know, from a legal zoning issue, I
27
March 25, 2003
there -- but when you have a Staff denial as powerful as this Staff
denial is, I really have to question this.
And, Mr. Moore, I really respect you; but, I would like to see him go
back and make this less dense. Even if it's Zoned R-20 or Ag and
you're going to go down to R-10, that's drastic enough. But, this is
just too dense.
When I ride into these pro3ects that I voted for and supported and
look at the density and see how close those people are. There's no
where to go. There's no where to play.
If you're going to build apartments, you know, build apartments, but
in this particular area I think this is a little overkill and it's a
little dense for me. And, I don't think I'm going to be able to
support this proDect, but I would certainly support Mr. Moore going
back, working with Staff and trying to get this to be less dense and
a more acceptable pro3ect to the community.
It is pretty radical to go from what it is zoned for to what's
proposed. So, as hard as it is for me, I think I'm going to have to
go with Mr. Scott's recommendation. And, I apologize for that, but
we're getting really too dense.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Wood.
COUNCILMAN WOOD: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I don't think
anybody here has said it's an issue of
quality. I haven't seen any of the e-mails, the 30 or 40 e-mails
that we've received, to say it's an issue of quality. Everything I
hear is density. Everything I hear is traffic.
I agree with Mr. Reeve that it's certainly the City's responsibility
to have an adequate infrastructure to do that, but I think it's also
incumbent on this Council not to unnecessarily aggravate the
situation by approving something that may be too dense.
I don't think we have our hands firmly wrapped around what the
2C
March 25, 2003
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Eure.
COUNCIL LADY EURE: I have known about Donald Moore for years
and I don't think there's any question at all about the quality of
his work or that he's an excellent builder in the City. It's not a
question of quality, but if I'm looking at this front page it's
currently Zoned R-20 and we're kicking around the idea of R-10.
I've voted for some real dense proaects in the not far distant past,
fairly recently and since they've been constructed. when you go in
there, they are so tight. I don't know hardly how a fire truck or if
more than one thing happened at a time. They are 3ust absolutely
stacked. They are sitting right on the road.
And I have revisited several of those pro3ects and I have to sit here
and tell you that I'm sorry that I voted for some of them. I
certainly symphathize with the community that they want to keep it
single-family and that is what I would like to see.
I would like to see Mr. Moore work with Staff and reduce the density
of this pro3ect. I don't see any open space to speak of. I don't
think this pro3ect is intended to be open space, unless you're going
to look up at the sky and count the trees as open space.
The thing about people being 55, you know most of them don't retire
until they are 65. If you look at the work force today, they are way
up in their 70's. So, I don't think the fact that they are 55 is
going to reduce traffic at all.
The other thing that I really am unhappy about is that this pro3ect
falls under the PD-H Overlay. When you go --- and I really truly
think that this Council ought to have Staff revisit this, because it
does away with setbacks. And, Stephen, you can correct me if I am
wrong. I don't want to put you on the spot. But you can do pretty
much anything in a PD--H Overlay. It really eliminates all of those
conditions that are set up to have a less -dense development and
I --- this is a hard decision for me. When I look at a 5 to 3 vote,
and I know that there was one abstention and two people were not
25
March 25, 2003
the quality issue, look at the long-term benefits of this, the fact
that these houses will not generate school kids, which in this area
is probably the biggest concern.
Second is the traffic issue. I believe that the people that will
live in this area a good portion will be retired, will be able to
travel at their leisure. There was actually some discussion in the
Planning Commission where the gentleman that talked about it said
that he does travel off hours. He does not go at rush hour. He has
the ability to go out when he needs to go out and plans his schedule
accordingly.
With that I would make a motion that we do approve it and that we
move forward.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: There's a motion. Is there a second?
COUNCILMAN SCEMIDT: I'll second it.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Discussion?
COUNCILMAN VI Mayor.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Villanueva.
COUNCILMAN VI I would have to agree with Rosemary. You
know it seems on the face value that this
project is excellent in merit; but, you know, looking at the picture
it does seem kind of dense.
I was wondering if the Applicant would consider meeting back with thE�
Staff and considering less density in the units.
EDD IE BOURDON :
answer?
Well, you put me in a tough spot. I haven't
heard from all of you yet. Can I defer an
COUNCILMMX VIL A: Sure.
24
March 25, 2003
Yes, there are more units on this pro3ect than I think Staff would
like to see, but we have had several in the past. In the Princess
Anne District, we have discussed, you know, quality versus quantity
and I think from the other subdivision and other pro3ects that
Mr. Moore has done I think the quality is evident.
Mrs. Graham spoke tonight of her living in the other one down the
road, which is much higher density. It is a high -quality
development. It is high density, but it's of high -quality nature.
We have been promoting in this City maybe unofficially, but we've
been promoting senior --style housing. That's where we've seen the
market go. We even talked about that tonight earlier on another
pro3ect on Shore Drive and that seems to be where the market
is going.
I believe the price point to these will reflect kindly on the
surrounding neighborhoods. I have talked with the Brown Family who
live 3ust south of it on a little cut-out piece. I believe they
still live there. They are going to backup to this. They are not
selling or moving away. They are staying right there and they
support this. Other people have supported this. Unfortunately some
of the information that got out was less than accurate and when it
was revealed what the truth was and what these were actually going to
look like --- it's even in the Planning Commission write-up that
people that were opposed became supportive of it.
I do not think the level of construction of this and the quality
issue should be a concern. I am concerned about traffic count. I'm
concerned about traffic count, because the City has not done there
job to ensure that we get the roadways in place that need to be there
and that being Nimmo Parkway and I will push that that maintain the
2005-2006 time schedule.
The question is what to do tonight. Do we re3ect this because we
have not met our obligations or do we approve this to the concern of
residents who live in that area? Because, once again, we have not
done our Sob. It's a tough question, but I believe we should look at
23
March 25, 2003
would be subdivided into lots and, again,
I'm going to make another assumption. You may or may not agree with
this, but I'm going to assume the size of the lots you're talking
about would be 10,000 square -foot lots. You might not agree on that.
But if you looked at that -- you know a 10,000 square-f oot-lot has a
certain amount of openness to it; whereas, these units are kind of
closer together. The units in a subdivision would be much farther a
part.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: Uh--huh.
ROBERT SCOTT: Also, you do have your Subdivision
Ordinance. This is a ten -acre piece of
property that we would be, through the Subdivision Ordinance,
acquiring probably not enough open space to 3ustify the Parks and
Recreation Department taking it over as a park site or a recreation
site. It would probably be too small. We would seek to do it by
other means, possibly increase setbacks from Princess Anne Road or,
you know, some other method like that.
But, I think that with a series of 10,000 square -foot -lots you are
probably going to achieve the greater feeling of openness than you
would with a condominium development like this. But, that's 3ust my
opinion.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: But it wouldn't be what we've been calling
open space for the issue of the Transition
Area Guidelines. Open space has been common space that everyone can
en3oy and in the sense use, correct?
ROBERT SCOTT: A ten -acre subdivision is not going to give
you very much of that.
COUNCILMAN REEVE : Okay. Traf f a.c is a concern, but I think
that burden should not fully be born on thiC,
Applicant. We've caused the problem. We have caused the problem by
not putting in Nimmo V back when it should have been done.
22
March 25, 2003
ROBERT SCOTT: Well, again, that's all -- I tell you what,
I drive this road very frequently and I
drive Shore Drive very frequently and Shore Drive is a pleasure to
drive compared to this road.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: During certain times of the day i will agree
with that.
ROBERT SCOTT: That's my opinion.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: How do we determine service levels, then if
it's not based on backup time or --
ROBERT SCOTT: Well, it is based on all of those things.
And there is -- it's based on a combination
of all of those factors: Vehicle trips -per -day, delay points at
certain intersections and those sort of things.
The letters help to describe the circumstance somewhat. But there
are also a series of pictures that can be explained to people to say
here's a road that has Level of Service D or E or F or whatever it is
and it's sometimes easier to grasp the situation if you see those
pictures.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: The discussion between duplex -style
buildings and single-family and open space,
if this went to a single-family would they have the same requirements
for what we are looking to achieve on open space?
I mean, this is north of the Green Line. This is not in the
Transition Area. How could they develop this as single-family?
Looking at a similar quality issue that we have here, I think most
people will look at this and think it is of a high --quality nature.
Even though it's duplex by design, it's of high quality. Would there
be any guarantees of that nature with single-family?
ROBERT SCOTT: Well, typically with the single-family it
21
March 25, 2003
But, the other issue is the numerous access points on and off the
road, which is increasing with time as development occurs along
there. Put all of that together and you have what everyone would
conclude is a bad situation.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: And that's really been the reason for
getting Nimmo V put in place, correct?
ROBERT SCOTT: Absolutely.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: Is there any way to model what Princess Anne
traffic volume will be once Nimmo is
completed? Is there any way to determine how much stress -- I mean
from my understanding, it's going to take off a considerable amount
of stress. Is there any way to model that?
ROBERT SCOTT: Well, you can model it, but it's all based
upon assumptions. We have done this in the
past. I can go back almost 30 years and Providence Road bypassed Old
Providence Road. First Colonial bypassed Mall Dam Road. Kempsville
Road bypassed Old Kempsville Road.
I mean, we do have some history to look at and it does decrease the
traffic a good bit. How much, we don't know. I mean, it could vary
considerably from case to case. I would hope that it -- I really do
hope that it takes 15,000 cars a day off of that road.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: Uh-huh.
ROBERT SCOTT: We hope that it does. Whether it will or
not, I don't know. We are Dust going to
have to see.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: We're talking about Level of Service E.
Weren't we just talking earlier about Shore
Drive is actually at Level Service F?
20
March 25, 2003
ROBERT SCOTT: Well, compared to zero.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: Right. Compared to zero, it would get
worse. And you're still not sure how much the difference would be
with age -restricted or single --family houses?
ROBERT SCOTT: Well, I think it's in general terms. I
mean, don't get too exact about this, but I
think that it's somewhere around 300 trips per day by one method and
somewhere between 450 to 500 trips per day by the other method.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt as far as age -restricted
goes. I don't thank it will be as high as 520 or whatever that
number was.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: Okay.
ROBERT SCOTT: I think that will be reduced a little bit.
But there's going to be more traffic I
think.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: I think the biggest thing with traffic
is -- I mean, Highgate Greens as the cause
of it. Three Oaks is the cause of it. Everyone who lives in the
corridor has caused some of at, but I think most of it has been
generated by outside the area thorough traffic. Would you agree with
that, Mr. Scott, that most of it is coming as thoroughfare traffic
probably between Virginia Beach and Chesapeake?
ROBERT SCOTT: I don't know that the most of it is, but I
think that a lot of it is. This road now
serves two purposes. It used to 3ust serve one purpose. It used to
be a road to get from west of here to east of here.
Now, it serves in addition to that role as an access to numerous
subdivisions along there. You put those two together, it's not 3ust
the volume of traffic. There are some curves in that road and a lot
of them have been straightened out in the last two years and that's
19
March 25, 2003
appears your Staff write-up seemed to be
focused on the age -targeted, not the age -restricted.
There's been some a -mails that we got and mainly the one from Mr.
Kernodle again stating -- and I will read verbatim what he said.
That does not negate the fact that the Condo Association could
possibly amend the "Age 55 Rule" when resale time rolls around.
Could you comment on what it would take down the road for this
development to go from age -restricted to open for anyone?
ROBERT SCOTT: Yeah, two things. We have a number of
these in the City and generally they are not
problematic. In fact, I don't know of any problems we have had
enforcing this so far.
But, two things: Number 1, there's an internal restriction
covenanted, if you will, that's usually applied by the Association,
upon all of the people who buy or move in there. If it's a proffer,
then it becomes tantamount to a zoning restriction as well and Karen
Lasley is the Zoning Administrator and has the ability to do that.
Now, I think you can understand we don't want to go knocking on doors
asking residents how old they are, but we will be responding probably
in cases like that to some problems that are brought to us. But, we
have not generally had that happen in these neighborhoods.
COUNCILMM REEVE: If they're marketed as an age -restricted
community and people abide by that.
ROBERT SCOTT: Whatever problems they may present we do not
think they present an enforcement problem
for us.
COUNCIIIN REEVE: Okay. Traffic is probably the biggest issuca
out there. I drive that area everyday and
it is overloaded, but to do single-family houses you would contend
that the traffic would get worse as well, correct?
18
March 25, 2003
EDDIE BOURDON: Mrs. Wilson, what that says is that the
Central Park represents 60. Again, it is
misleading.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Okay. Well, how much open space is it?
EDDIE BOURDON: Depending on how you define it, if you
simply put 10,000 square -foot lots on it,
it's three -and -a --half acres of open space or 35 0 . If you look at
what's actually open, because there are no lot lines and no fences
other than the small fences that are referenced. It's close to 700
that is open.
So, it far exceeds 60. That write-up was simply saying that the
Central Park area represents, they say six to 8%. I can't recall.
But, again, there's no issue. It's a whole lot more than 6%. There
may be issues about the way it's laid out.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
EDDIE BOURDON:
COUNCIL LADY WILSaN :
EDDIE BOURDON:
buildings themselves.
I still have to agree with Mr. Scott that
it's pretty busy and pretty crowded --
It's crowded with a whole lot of
landscaping.
-- with all the units.
You know, that's what that shows. What you
see is a lot of landscaping as well as the
COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I do agree with Mr. Scott that it's pretty
busy. I would really like to see the
Applicant go back and decrease a few of the units and create some
more open space for this, because I think there's a real need for it
and I think he does a superb Sob in his product. Thank you.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. Mr. Reeve.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: Thank you, Ma'am. Mr. Scott, about that, it
17
March 25, 2003
terms of whether we could recommend approval.
I would like to see a nice condominium proDect of this nature. We
certainly have supported them in the past. We certainly have
supported the age -restricted developments like this in the past, bit
this density at this location is problematic for us.
COUNCIL LADY EURE: And one of your comments in this was that
you had talked to the Applicant about
additional pedestrian access be provided to the public neighborhood
park that ad3oins the northeast corner of the property. However, the
Applicant has not shown this access on the land use plan. Is that
still the same?
ROBERT SCOTT: Stephen says, yes.
COUNCIL LADY EURE: I guess I will wait and make my comments
later, Madam Mayor.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you.
COUNCIL LADY ELTRE: Thank you, Mr. Scott.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Wilson.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Thank you, Madam Mayor. First of all, I
want to say that Donald Moore builds an
excellent product. I have personally sold some of his units and
shown over in the Crescent and they are very, very nice.
He builds a unit that there's a real need for. Us baby -boomers that
are getting older and having those first -floor bedrooms, I think they
are really nice. What I would really like to see -- and I'm sorry
that it's at this point in time -- is for the Applicant to go back
and work with the Staff and to create -- 6% of open space for this,
especially when -- I'm sorry, Eddie. This is what it says, 60.
Is it not 6%?
1 ()
March 25, 2003
unit to the fence. Eighteen feet.
COUNCIL LADY EURE: And how wide?
EDDIE BOURDON: Well, it depends on the width of the back of
the unit. It's roughly 30 to 34 feet across
the back.
COUNCIL LADY EURE: All right. Thank you.
Okay. I have a couple of questions for
Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott, the Staff has recommended denial of this and
the vote was 5 to 3 on the Planning Commission. Do you still feel
that your statement for denial is good?
ROBERT SCOTT: Yes.
COUNCIL LADY EURE: Could you elaborate on it.
ROBERT SCOTT: There are three things that can be said
about this Application from our vantage
point. One would have to do with the units. I think that we don't
have a problem with units. They are good-looking units, so we would
not ob3ect based on the appearance of the units. However, I think
that some others may have had some problems with that.
The second is open space. He indicated to you that units aside -- to
our eye at least that is a fairly busy site plan. There isn't a lot
of open space in it. You can count the berm if you want. You can
count some other things if you want, but I Dust think that taken as a
whole MUD Plan it ought to have more open space than that.
Number 3 -- and this really is the big one for us -- is the issue of
traffic. Of all the roads in the City you could take chances with,
this would be the last one I would suggest you try it on. This road
is very, very overloaded. I do think -- once again I have said it,
but I do think that this is going to result in more traffic on it
than a standard subdivision. How much more, you know, we could
debate; but, I do think that the net is going to be plus in terms of
traffic and that's really the thing that pushed us over the limit in
15
March 25, 2003
COUNCILMAN WOOD: So, I guess my question is, the proposed
generated traffic, is that based on
age -restricted or age -targeted? It would seem to me if it was
age -restricted it would be less traffic than age -targeted.
EDDIE BOURDON: Yeah.
COUNCILMAN WOOD: I don't know if that's a question for
Mr. Scott or who, but if we know that the
school data is inaccurate based on a change in the Application, then
I'm wondering is this traffic data also somewhat flawed.
ROBERT SCOTT: My statement on that is that I think it
might be less, but not substantially less.
COUNCILMAN WOOD: Okay.
ROBERT SCOTT: You know the indicated number here is 523.
I think it might be somewhat less than 523,
but not that much less as compared to if you have --- this is a
10-acre site, with 10,000 square -foot lots on it, as you have around
it. You're going to get about 30 lots times ten trips a day. There
is 300 trips. So, compare that to the numbers.
I think there's going to be an increase in traffic, whether it's
age --targeted or age -restricted. I think that the number of units
there are going to generate an increase in traffic.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Eure.
COUNCIL LADY EURE: I have one question for Eddie and then I
need to ask Mr. Scott a couple.
Eddie, what is the size of the little backyards?
EDDIE BOURDON: They are -- I believe it is 12 feet.
Eighteen? Eighteen from the back of the
14
March 25, 2003
How do you arrive at that number if the proffers indicate that there
will be no school -age children?
ROBERT SCOTT: Well, that's what we got f rom the schoo.1
Staff that looked at it. I think that you
could -- if the proffers indicate that there are no school -age
children, then I think you can safely say that the school, in fact,
is going to be zero. I don't have any problem telling you that.
EDDIE BOURDON: Okay. That I believe stayed in. This was
not originally age -restricted. It was
age -targeted; and, you know, in defense that was in the -- this went
to the Planning Commission twice before we went to age -restricted.
So. I think it ]ust didn't come out until after we went
age -restricted with that. That's why it's in there.
COUNCILMAN WOOD: Well, then that kind of goes back to
Mr. Schmidt's question then. If it's
age -targeted versus age -restricted, how does that impact the traffic
number here? I don't know who to ask that question to.
EDDIE BOURDON: Well, if it was age -targeted which was the
way we initially were going, then it's less
definitive in terms of you could have with an age --targeted community,
which this is now not, you could have people living there who were
school -age. You could have and would have some families that were
larger. That was one of the purposes for going age -restricted, which
does put you into a scenario where you're not going to have
school -age children living there to be educated and you're going to
have fewer people living in these homes and that can be shown through
statistics throughout the country ---
COUNCILbIAN SCHMIDT : Right.
EDDIE BOURDON: -- in an age -restricted community. And
that's what this is. I think that, you
know, the defense of the Staff -- that was in their write-up all
along. It 3ust didn't come out when we went to age -restricted.
13
March 25, 2003
That's, you know, less than 30% more units. where if you only have
half the reduction you're still less than what you're dealing with
with an R-10, 35-development.
When you look at the number of people demographically that live in
these units, you can't help but conclude, as our Traffic Engineer
did, that you're going to have less traffic because of the fewer
number of people and the fewer children. Then, when you combine that
with the schools that are all to the west of here -- you know, the
lack of children, 40 children in a 35-unit, R-10 development that
would be educated in Princess Anne Middle, Princess Anne Elementary
and Kellam High School all of which have to go west, the section of
two-lane road that's least able to handle it.
We don't have that with these type of a communities. We don't think
you can conclude reasonably anything to the contrary that this will
not add traffic to the roadway above what a R-10 development would
entail, even an R-15 development would entail. Because of the fact
that there are fewer people.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. I have a number of people in line
waiting. Mr. Wood, Mrs. Eure then
Mrs. Wilson.
COUNCILMAN WOOD: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Bourdon, if
I could ask you a question and then
follow-up with one for Mr. Scott. You indicated in the proffers that
it is age -restricted, no school -age children.
EDDIE BOURDON: Yes, sir.
COUNCIlaw WOOD: Okay. Mr. Scott, I have a question then
based on that same page that Mr. Schmidt wa:.
looking at. Page 5 under Schools, it indicates a generation
of -- what's that 26 students and then a change of 14 students? It
indicates here generation represents the number of students the
development will add to the school.
"k
March 25, 2003
that I think the traffic engineers who did that calculation assume,
as the note indicates, a four -unit duplex unit.
So, the age -restricted nature -- I don't think they included that
into their process. We kind of did look at it though. I think you
can tell we're not really buying that calculation is that much off.
I think there will be some reduction, not by virtue of the fact that
the people living in there are 55, because I think that when you
cross the threshold it's not that big of a change; but, the absence
of children to some degree may have a slight reducing factor on the
numbers. I still think that there is going to be an increase in the
traffic as a result of.
COUNCILMAN SCHMIDT: And as a follow-up, Mr. Bourdon, I guess
using your numbers in your narrative before
the Planning Commission, I think by my calculation came up with
about -- well, I mean, that's about the number of folks that were in
the various units. But, what was your traffic study count, if you
have that information, compared to the existing land use to 224?
EDDIE BOURDON: Well, the weekday total or existing is
agriculture and R-20, not R-3.5.
COUNCILMAN SCEEKIDT : Okay.
EDDIE BOURDON: Our total weekday trips per day is 394 with
the age -restricted community. We looked at
it as your Comp Plan says as we have all noted clearly in the
Transition Area and with the Villages of West Neck and what TATAC
recommended. If you have age -restricted, you know, there's clearly a
significant reduction in traffic. In fact, 50% reduction is what's
been recognized previously.
Mr. Scott has indicated that since there aren't commercial and other
uses on this site that there is not that same degree of reduction.
We think there is a significant reduction, but we don't even have to
disagree with that to be able to still show that, because we are only
talking about 13 more units versus a R-10, 35-unit development.
li
March 25, 2003
at the emergence of Virginia Beach as an inner generational City,
putting in place those conditions that invite people to choose to
live here for their lifetime and to encourage other generations and
their families to do the same.
We have gotten that kind of reaction from a number of people in this
community and I passed out a portion of the Comp Plan Building Plot
Number 2, which says when speaking about a maturing population,
quote, there are some that consider themselves retired, but not
elderly. There are others that consider themselves elderly, but not
retired. What can be said about this group as a whole is that they
generally place much less burden upon the roadway system and the
schools systems than do the members of the population in general.
Because of this diversity, we must be sure to provide a variety of
solutions to their housing needs. That is in our Comp Plan. This
pro3ect does 3ust that and there are other citations to the Comp Plan
that I could make, but I am out of time.
I appreciate your favorable action as the Planning Commission
recommended favorable on this Application in that it will generate
less traffic in a typical subdivision and is less dense than a
typical subdivision.
MAYOR OBERMORF : Mr. Schmidt.
COUNCILMAN SCM41DT: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would like to ask
Mr. Scott a question. If we go to the
traffic calculations on Page 5 of the Presentation, it talks about
present volume up at the top in the chart. Princess Anne Road
present volume 24,836 average daily trips. The volume of capacity i{1,
13,100. So, obviously it's an issue.
My question is, proposed land use is 523 generated traffic. That
does not reflect this Application that's age -restricted. Does that
go back to the original one?
ROBERT SCOTT: I am not sure, but I would tell you
1 ()
March 25, 2003
EDDIE BOURDON: No. Madam Mayor, we've spent since July of
last year meeting with the
Courthouse--Sandbridge Coalition of the Civic Organizations and the
community. We have gotten extensive positive feedback with this type
of development. It is completely different and foreign from the
condominium pr03ect that Mr. Kernodle refers to which is at the
corner.
It has 9.3 units per acre, which is not age -restricted and is a
town -home condominium project. That would not fit on this piece of -
property.
Since Mr. Kernodle sent out inaccurate facts in a flyer before the
Planning Commission and people came to the Planning Commission,
we have talked to a number of them. After they saw the pro3ect like
a lot of other people said, it makes a lot of sense and they changed
their position and told the Planning Commission that.
We e-mailed Mr. Kernodle and the other people since the Planning
Commission and we got positive responses from a number of those
people. We offered to meet with Mr. Kernodle and his group. In
fact, the President of the Three Oaks Civic League was at the
Courthouse-Sandbridge Coalition Meeting back last summer, you know,
and indicated they thought it was a good proDect.
We did not hear from Mr. Kernodle. He did not respond and did not
accept our offer to meet and discuss this. And, again at the
eleventh hour, sent out a flyer that doesn't even mention the fact
that this is an age -restricted community in any way and does attempt
to compare it to the condo complex at the corner, about 1,300 feet
away, which it doesn't compare to. These are very beautiful twin
homes that fit into the community. It's a secure community for
seniors. We think it's a great place for it.
Staff, in their evaluation, cite some general provisions in the
Comprehensive Plan; but, one thing that they don't cite is that the
current plan itself says if there is one condition that this plan,
our Comp Plan, should strive to achieve above all others, it would be
9
March 25, 2003
Princess Anne 3ust cannot handle anymore traffic, and Staff also
reported that this does not meet the Comprehensive Plan. The
development way exceeds the unit per developable acre.
If you look where I have B marked on this map, it is Highgate
Crossing. There are only 25 homes built on that property and it's a
much larger piece of property than the Applicant's property.
We're not against development of this property. We 3ust would like
it to be single-family homes, not these cluster --duplex homes to take
away from the surrounding neighborhoods. Every neighborhood
surrounding this is single-family homes --- and the 138 units right
down below it I think is way too much. I understand it's right on
the corner of General Booth and Nimmo and the traffic is horrible
there.
I represent the Three oaks Homeowners Association also tonight. I'm
on the Board of Directors and we voted unanimously to please have
this denied. It's a matter of density. We're in Southern Virginia
Beach and we don't mind development, but we 3ust don't want over
development of a piece of property; and, you know, there are too manor
homes on here and they're clustered. These streets are going to be
narrow from my understanding and that no cars can even park on these
streets.
If you look at the setbacks for the pagoda [sic] or whatever they have,
it's only five feet from the street. This developer is clustering
these in here. Thank you for your time.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you.
CITY CLERK: That's all the speakers, Your Honor.
EDDIE BOURDON: Ruth, how long do I get?
CITY CLERK: Three minutes.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: There are no other speakers?
9
March 25, 2003
for this time. Do you have any questions?
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
You did a very fine Sob. Thank you.
MMINE GRAHAM:
Thank you.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
While Mr. Kernodle is coming up,
Mr. Bourdon.
EDDIE BOURDON:
Yes, ma'am.
MAYOR OBFIMORF:
Did everyone get mailed this little booklet?
EDDIE BOURDON:
Yes, ma'am.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Because I haven't seen this before.
EDDIE BOURDON:
I apologize. We did mail you and all the
other Council Members that about three weeks
ago with a four -page
cover letter from yours truly and we d1d send
one to your office.
I apologize if you did not get it.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
No. I didn't. But, thank you.
EDDIE BOURDON:
I'm very sorry.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Good evening.
LARRY HERNODLE:
Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. My
name is Larry Kernodle. I live at 2225
Shingle Wood Way in the Three oak Subdivision.
We are very disappointed that the Planning Commission approved this,
because Staff recommended non -approval. What I passed around I would
like for you to take
a look at and follow with me please. On the reap
Royal Court has another pro3ect where I have marked A on this map and
it's 138 units of condominiums right at the corner of Princess Anne
and General Booth.
7
March 25, 2003
CITY CLERK: Mrs. Graham, you have three minutes.
MAXIM : Good evening. I'm Maxine Graham and I am a
retired Realtor, who lives at 2202 Crescent
Condos across the street from Nimmo Church and within walking
distance to the sub3ect property.
I am delighted with my new home, which was built by the Applicant.
I have spoken with many of my neighbors and have gotten to know quitE:
a few of them in the year that I have been there. There was not a
one of them that was opposed to anything here. Mr. Moore is a
well-known, qualified builder.
I think he's putting something before you that should be highly
acceptable for a number of reasons. For one thing it's location,
location and location, which would provide affordable housing for
such people as the new Sentara and the LifeNet -- and, thank
you -all for supporting that. I am very excited about it.
The older people are still in the working class. They don't need biq
yards. I think this proposal will offer some diversion from all of
these big homes under the new Transition Area that you -all have 3ust
adopted. It appears we are going to be looking at monestrous homes
that you pay from $400,000. I really have done my homework on this.
I have a habit that I can't break.
But, I do ask that you support this. I know that the traffic
situation is one of your ma3or concerns, but who in this City doesn''_
have that same concern? I think this would minimize it because of
the age factor and when you think of the size -- Mr. Reasor's
property, Red Mill Commons Shopping Center and Lake Gem that's right
behind this Application with the apartments, then you have the Red
Mill Commons Condominiums. Something is going to have to be done.
I believe it's still slated for the Year of 2005 for Nimmo Parkway
and when you build that that's going to eliminate a lot of this
traffic that we have.
I think that pretty well covers all of my comments. And, I thank you
March 25, 2003
Traffic, we have provided a traffic study. It clearly shows that we
will have less traffic with this development. You know we will have
fewer people, because it's an age -restricted community and has an
average of two people or less living in each unit versus an R-10
typical subdivision home in this area, which has more than
three and -a -half people living in each unit.
The density is the other -- well, traffic is the Number 1 issue we
think we positively addressed clearly. The other issue is density.
People actually living there is density. We have fewer in the
physical appearance of the community. Clearly this has a lot less
dense appearance because of the fact that we have fewer units, no
pools, no accessory structures and no fences.
CITY CLERK: Mr. Bourdon.
EDDIE BOURDON: Yes, ma'am. That's a quick ten minutes.
I do have some other things that I would
like to say. I will hopefully get a chance after, if there are
speakers in opposition here to speak to those issues; but, I will sit
down until that time. Thank you.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: You are still entitled to your closing
argument.
EDDIE BOURDON: Thank you.
CITY CLERK: John Gibson. Excuse me. That's on another
one. I'm sorry.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Is there a Larry Kernodle?
CITY CLERK: Yes, I have it. Larry Kernodle. Well,
let's get Maxine Graham first because she is
in favor.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Ch , okay.
5
March 25, 2003
around us have, we would be seeing fence against fence along the bacl
property line with all the backyards fenced in, not open space.
Furthermore, if we were to layout 24, 10,000 square foot lots, duplex
lots, on this property rather than doing the condominium proDect
where we don't have lot lines, those 24, 10,000 square -foot duplex
lots would occupy five and -a -half acres.
The roadway occupies less than one acre of land, thus there are three
and -a -half acres of open space outside of a 10,000 square -foot lot
for each unit and roadway, which is 35% of this property being open
space even under your classic 10,000 square -foot duplex lot scenario.
That 35%, three and -a -half acres, if you use that type of a
development regimen. It is more than double the 150 open space under
PD-H2 Guidelines. So, it would far exceed the open space
requirements under the PD-H2 Guidelines; and, you know, the only
thing that we might be able to do to enhance the open space would be
to put more trails within the buffer berm and highway landscaped
area.
The elevations, I think you will agree as Staff has, are high quality
one -and -a -half story units, downstairs master suites, second -floor
windows and very few. They are not big units, you know, that look
over into other people's backyards. Each has a two -car garage. The
selling price of the units will be a quarter of a million dollars,
which results in each of the 24-twin homes having a market value of
half a million dollars.
As I stated this Chelsea Place Application is age -restricted by
proffer and by Condominium Declaration. Each unit must be occupied
by a resident 55 or older and no one under the age of 20 may reside
in a unit for more than 90 days in a calendar year.
It's positive economic growth with no impact upon schools and that 1F
if you contrast it with the typical R-10 community of 35 homes.
Condominium owners pay for their maintenance, pay for things that
simple people do not pay for.
March 25, 2003
There's one circular street that enters the property off of Princess
Anne Road and the homes front on that circular street. We have a
Central Park feature that includes trails, pergola benches. We also
have a BMP as an amenity out on the frontage of Princess Anne Road.
We have an extensive landscaped, 40--foot berm between us, Highgate
and Southgate. We also have a 20--foot area here of open space. It's
a Central Park feature with trails. We have not put trails through
here, but we certainly can do that if that seems to be an added
amenity that someone would like to have. We also have the homes set
back further from Princess Anne Road than is required.
We have provided a proffer fencing plan, a very detailed attractive
plan. Again, the Staff has indicated their agreement with that. We
have put screening, either shrubbery or fencing, around the driveway
areas where cars will be parked on these twin -home sites. These
homes, as you can see from the elevations, are designed to look like
a single --family home and I would suggest they clearly do.
There are small courtyards at the rear of the homes that will be
fenced and that's shown on the plan. The type of fencing has been
again proffered. The area of the site that is developed with homes,
the small courtyard fencing and the roadway, is 3 ust 30 0 of the site.
The rest of the site is open area that is not occupied by buildings
or a fenced -in courtyard or road.
In the Staff's review comments on the Application, they were somewhat
dismissive of our open space and did not give us credit for the
4 0 -foot wide, 48,000 square feet of berm, beautifully landscaped
buffer, at the rear of these units between us and the ad3acent
communities. They state that the remainder of the open space is
within building setbacks or along the perimeter of site behind the
units, which is in a conventional subdivision.
This is a quote in the Staff write-up. It would remain open, but
would be private yards instead of community open space. Well, I'm
sorry to have to say this; but, we all must clearly recognize that
were this property developed as a conventional subdivision, as those
3
March 25, 2003
I also want to mention that in addition to Mr. Moore, who is here
this evening, are members of the Brown Family, the owners of the
property. The long-time owners of the property are also here. The
aerial photograph, which I have put up here and I'm sure the Staff
has one on the pinpoints that shows that this is the last infill
parcel in the immediate area that's ad3acent to it -- you can see up
there and you can see it here -- are homes that are R-10 Zoning,
three--and-a-half units per acre, Southgate and Highgate
Crossing.
The property is on Princess Anne Road and you will note that to our
east Princess Anne Road is four -lane divided as it heads to the
intersection here at the 7-Eleven and the Nimmo Church area and
remains a two-lane undivided as it heads on up to Nimmo Parkway.
Then as it goes this way towards Sandbridge and towards Pungo, it's
two lanes.
To our west the road, as it narrows here, goes down to two lanes and
extends westward as a two-lane highway to Seaboard Road, Holland Road
and to here, where we are tonight, at the Municipal Center Complex.
Nimmo Parkway, as you -all are well aware will be extended and it's
shown better on what I have here than what's up there. You can see
where Nimmo will go all the way across, come in and tie into
Seaboard, Holland and Princess Anne north of the Municipal Center.
In the area that we are located, you will see how close -- this is
the Princess Anne Recreation Center right here. There is signif icani
commercial development in the area: Shopping, entertainment, movie
theaters, skating rink, restaurants and a number of golf courses all
in the immediate area where this property is located.
The development is a proposed New England estate -style development of
beautiful twin homes, only 24 of them. We have proffered a beautiful
brick -entry feature which includes stack -stone accents and extensive
landscaping along the frontage on Princess Anne Road which you -all
have seen. Staff has indicated that they think that that's very
attractive.
March 25, 2003
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Now, moving onto the Application of Royal
Court, Incorporated.
CITY CLERK: Yes, Your Honor. We have Eddie Bourdon
representing this Application as well.
EDDIE BOURDON: I have a number of handouts, which I'm going
to provide to Mrs. Smith to pass around.
Madam Mayor, for the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon; and, again,
I'm a Virginia Beach Attorney representing this Applicant, Royal
Court, Incorporated.
What is being passed around to you are copies of the elevations of
the -- and they are not all of them, but there are more than one.
They are all similar in nature to the elevations of the homes that
are proposed with this development.
Also, I have passed around letters of support and provided you
with -- unfortunately, I just received it tonight -- a letter of
support from the adjacent Presbyterian Church, from the Minister of
the Church. I have also provided you with a flyer that was sent and
e-mailed out on Saturday of which I will speak to briefly as part of
my presentation.
What I have here is a poster that shows the pro3ect, but you have
that on pinpoint. So. I'm not going to put that up. I also have a
poster with the elevations, which I am actually giving to each of
you. So. I won't put that up. I will just suffice to have the
aerial photo up.
This is a proffered Conditional Rezoning Application for a
age -restricted active -adult condominium community to be known as
Chelsea Place, a community of 24-twin homes on 10 acres of land, on
the north side of Princess Anne Road adjacent to Grace Covenant
Presbyterian Church on Princess Anne, to the Southgate and Highgate
Crossing Neighborhoods and to the area of the Brown Family home
sites.
1
- 60 -
Item V-I.8.
PLANAWVG ITEM # 50969 (Continued)
Voting 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye
Harry E Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Lours R. Jones, Reba S
McClanan, Richard A Maddox, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf, Jim Reeve,
Peter W Schmidt, Ron A Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L
Wood
Council .Members Voting Nay
None
Council Members Absent
None
- 59 -
Item V-L.8.
PLAAWDVG ITEM # 50969
The following registered in SUPPORT:
Attorney Edward Bourdon, Pembroke One 5' Floor, Phone 499-8971, represented the applicant Mr.
Bourdon distributed copies of the elevations of the homes proposed for the development, letters of supporo
and a}lyer The application is for an age restrictive, active adult condominium community known as
Chelsea Place (24-twin homes on ten (10) acres of land)
Maxine C Graham, 2202 Venice Court, Phone - 430-9933
The following registered in OPPOSITION:
LarryKernodle, representedtheThreeOaks HomeownersAssociatzon,who voted unanimouslyforDEAT L,
2225 Shinglewood Way, Phone 423-1147 Mr Kernodle distributed copies of the application Royal Court
has another project of 138 units at the corner of Princess Anne and General Booth
A M07TONwas made by Councilman Reeve, seconded by Councilman Schmidt to ADOPT an Ordinance
upon application of Royal Courts Inc. for a Chart e o Zonin
Upon SUBSTITUTE M07TON by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Reeve, City Council
DEFERRED until the City Council Session ofApriI22, 2003, Ordinance upon application ofRoyal Court,
Inc. for a Change of Zoning
ORDINANCE UPON APPLTCA77ON OF ROYAL COURT, INC, A
YIRGIMA CORPORATION, FORA CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT
CZASSIFICATION FROM AG -I, AG-2 AND R-20 TO R-5D
RESIDENTIAL D UPLEX DISTRICT WITH A PD-H2
Ordinance upon Application ofRoyal Court, Inc, a Virginia Corporation,
for a Change of Zonzng Dzstrict Classification from AG -I Agricultural
District, AG-2 Agricultural District and R-20 Residential District to R-5D
Residential Duplex District with a PD H2 Planned Unit Development
District Overlay on the north side of Princess Anne Road, 344 feet west of
Crossroads Trail (GPIN 2404-75-8161) The proposed zoning to
Conditional R-5D with PD-H2 u for residential land use at a density not
to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre The Comprehensive Plan recommends
use of this parcel far residential land use at or below 3 5 dwelling units per
acre. Sazd parcel contains 9 963 acres DISTRICT 7- PRINCESSANNE
Virginia Beach City Council
March 25, 2003
6:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL:
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor
Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones
Harry E. Diezel
Margaret L. Eure
Reba McClanan
Richard A. Maddox
Jim Reeve
Peter Schmidt
Ron A. Villanueva
Rosemary Wilson
James L. Wood
CITY MANAGER:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY CLERK:
STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER:
At -Large
Bayside - District 4
Kempsville - District 6
Centerville District 1
Rose Hall - District 3
Beach - District 6
Princess Anne -- District 7
At -Large
At -Large
At -Large
Lynnhaven -- District 5
James K. Spore
Leslie L. Lilley
Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC
Dawne Franklin Meads
VERBATIM
Planning Application of Royal Court, Incorporated
T1 7 Are"1 !
ScaleNot -to
lei
-f
OF
WAR laws
- NO
�� �,�. ,t�. Jar ,. � •• / ` �� ��
,►
-. Me
ice+'"�s ♦ L • / • � / �' � �
Gpin 2404--75-8161
ZONING HISTORY
1. AG-1/AG-2 Agricultural and R-20/R-10 Residential to Conditional R-10
Residential — Granted 4/8/97
2. AG-1 Agricultural to R-5 Residential -- Granted 3/19/84
3. CUP for church — Granted 10/23/87 and 7/9/96
4. R-3 Residential to R-5 Residential — Granted 2/15/84
5. CUP for church and school — Granted 4/25/88 and 8/13/96 and 8/11 /98
6. R-20 Residential to B-1 A Neighborhood Business — Granted 3/26/90
Modification of Conditions — Granted 11 /24/98
7. R-3 Residential to R-5 Residential -- Denied 7/5/83
Downzone to AG- 1/AG-2 Agriculture — Denied 8/27/86
• " ter' j
Z'�
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Royal Court, Inc., a Virginia Corporation - Change of Zoning District
Classification
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2003
■ Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Royal Court, Inc., a Virginia Corporation, for a
Change, of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 Agricultural District, AG-2
Agricultural District and R-20 Residential District to R-5D Residential Duplex
District with a PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay on the north
side of Princess Anne Road, 344 feet west of Crossroads Trail (GPIN 2404-75-
8161). The proposed zoning to Conditional R-5D with PD-1-112 is for residential
land use at a density not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre. The
Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for residential land use at or
below 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Said parcel contains 9.963 acres. DISTRICT
7 •- PRINCESS ANNE
The purpose of this request is to rezone the property to allow 44 twin houses
(duplex units) to be constructed as a condominium.
This item was deferred by City Council on March 25, 2003 to allow the applicant
additional time to address issues raised at the March 25 hearing. The City
Council deferred the item again on April 22, 2003 at the request of the applicant.
■ Considerations:
The property is vacant and is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts and R-
20 Residential District.
The properties surrounding the subject site have all been rezoned and/or
developed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for density
at 3.5 dwelling units acre or less. The neighborhoods to the north and east of the
site were rezoned to R-10 Residential District in 1984. The neighborhood south
of the site, across Princess Anne Road, was developed with an underlying
zoning of R-20 Residential District in the late 1980's after a downzoning to AG-1
and AG-2 was denied. Most recently, property to the west of the subject site was
rezoned from AG-1 and AG-2 and R-20 and R-10 to Conditional R-10 in 1997.
There is a church immediately adjacent to the east of the subject site, which was
granted a conditional use permit in 1989 and again in 1996.
Royal Court
Page 2 of 4
The number of units and density requested, 44 units and 4.4 '
units/acre, is not in
keeping with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for
this area. Although
the actual number of buildings shown on the proposed plan w
. p p p would be
substantially the same as the number of buildings allowed with
.. 9 a conventional
subdivision, the number of households will double. The traffic
created by the
additional households, even households led b individuals age ge 55 and over as
the applicant has proffered, will negative! impact Princess A '
Y P Anne Road in this
location. This is a limiting factor that cannot be ignored, as this his roadway is
severely over capacity and no relief is anticipated until the second half of this
decade.
Staff reviewed a traffic assessment submitted by pp the applicant,
ant, but does not
agree with the conclusion reached by that assessment. The applicant's
assessment notes that this project qualifies for traffic purposes as an `elder!
'develo meat. Staff' y
housing' p s interpretation of elderly housing as provided for in
the Trip Generation Manual is a development for senior citizens
s that contains
self-contained services, such as medical, dining, and limited retail ' '
g ail facilities,e.g.
Westminster Canterbury. Restricting the proposed development by requiring
"every occupied residential unit be occupied, on a full time basis
, by at least one
(1) adult resident over fifty-five 8e
(55) years of age" 9 (Proffer ), does not qualify this
development as an elderly housing development. Further, the '
P applicant's
assessment notes that the trips per unit multiplier for this development should d be
five
(5), noting that the determination of that number is an assumption and not
based on any studies.
Staff's research indicates that insufficient data exists within th ' e Transportation
9 9
Planning and Engineering field regardin age -restricted develo
pments to
determine with any certainty what the traffic generation of such
g a development
might be. They vary too greatly from project to project. Some in th . p j e profession
claim that six trips is the correct number while others claim the num
ber is eight.
Staff, therefore, suggests that due to the lack of clarity,using g the middle of that
range, or seven (7) trips per unit is probably most appropriate. Another issue is
determining what the number of trips would be if the site was to d ' develop with
single-family homes consistent with the zoningin the surrounding '
g area, which is
predominantly R-10. The applicant has provided staff with a conceptual
p ual plan
showing the site platted with 28 lots. The concept, however, does p , not show
required park area (which Parks and Recreation has noted that it would require
per the Subdivision Ordinance for this site adjacent to the adjoining
.tJ j g park) nor
does it take into account any other amenities that might be included ed with a
rezoning of the property. Staff, therefore, suggests that due to the lack of clarity
regarding the number of homes that using the middle of that range, or twenty-six g wenty six
(26) is probably most appropriate. The number of trips generated . p g d for a single-
family development with 26 homes would be 260. Using the trip '
. g p generation
multiplier of 7 for the applicant's project, the number of units for the '
applicant s
project that would generate approximately the same number of trips a p s a single-
family development is 37.
Royal Court
Page 3 of 4
More importantly, staff concludes that the submitted PD-1-12 plan does not
provide substantial public benefits over what could be gained through
development under the existing zoning. In short, the site plan is still too crowded.
Although there are some aspects of the concept plan that are noteworthy, the
plan as a whole does not distinguish this community as substantially higher in
quality of life than a conventional subdivision. The interior landscaping along the
roadway and the stormwater management area are equivalent to what would be
found in a conventional subdivision. Open space requirements within a
conventional subdivision are between 6% to 8% of the site versus 15% of the site
under the PDH-2 overlay guidelines. One of the intents of the PDH-2 guidelines
is to create a community recognized by its open space amenities. The proposed
plan does not meet this intent. The central open space shown on the proposed
plan is approximately 47,000 square feet or approximately 10% of the site,
slightly higher than the percentage of open space required in a conventional
subdivision, but still below that required with a PD-1-12 development. The
remainder of the open space on the plan is within building setbacks or along the
perimeter of the site, behind the units. In a conventional subdivision, these areas
would also remain open but would be considered private yards instead of
community open space. In addition, there is no connection to the adjacent public
park to the north. The number of units is almost double the number that could be
developed under a conventional subdivision rezoning the site to R-10 consistent
with the zoning of the surrounding area. The additional amenities that are unique
to this project and that would not likely be included in a conventional subdivision
are the increased landscaping along Princess Anne Road and perimeter buffer
areas. These additional amenities do not offer enough community benefits to
offset the increase in density requested
The Comprehensive Plan policies do not support the additional density requested
in this location. Staff concludes that this request should be denied or substantially
modified to more closely match the specific land use recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan. Princess Anne Road is in such dire traffic condition today
that risk of increasing traffic burden on it should not be taken.
Staff recommended denial to the Planning Commission. There was opposition to
the request.
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 5-3 with 1
abstention to approve this request.
■ Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Royal Court
Page 4 of 4
Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. The Planning Commission recommends
approval.
1
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen�"�
City Manager:
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
ORIGINAL: February 12, 2003
REVISED ON MAY 59 2003 TO REFLECT NEW PLAN
SUBMITTED FOR CITY COUNCIL
NEW TEXT, REFLECTING REVISED PLAN, IS SHOWN BY
UNDERLINE. DELETED TEXT IS SHOWN
BY %CTOwl In so ETowe RGO 1% M l�'
General Information:
APPLICATION
NUMBER: K12-210-PDH-2002
REQUEST: Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 Agricultural District,
AG-2 Agricultural District and R-20 Residential District to R-5D
Residential Duplex District with a PD-H2 Planned Unit Development
District Overlay.
ADDRESS:
x+ Nj se,n
Roval Court, Inc.
r
„+rTy1y
L� " ► �W3 1� ` j � � r
�! r
00
/ r " w
or, *J001�"' f!! �y►6
l aV�
Gptys 2404•. i'� -8161
North side of Princess Anne Road, 344 feet west of Crossroads Trail
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Page 1
GPIN: 24047581610000
ELECTION
DISTRICT: 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
SITE SIZE: 9.963 acres
STAFF
PLANNER: Barbara Duke
PURPOSE: To rezone the property to allow 48 44 twin houses (duplex units) to be
constructed as a condominium.
APPLICATION The applicant requested a deferral of this item at the January 8, 2003
HISTORY: hearing.
Major Issues:
• Degree to which the proposal is in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan
• Degree to which the proposal is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods
Degree to which the proposal is beneficial and meets the intent of the PD-H2
Planned Development District
when compared to the
development potential under the
existing zoning
Land Use, Zoning, and
Site Characteristics:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
The property is vacant and is zoned AG-
1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts and R-
20 Residential District.
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. I # 27
Page 2
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
North: • Single-family homes / Conditional R-10
Residential District
South: • Single-family homes / R-20 Residential District
East: • Church / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts
and R-20 Residential District
Vilest: . Single-family homes / Conditional R-10
Residential District
Zoning and Land Use Statistics
With Existing The property is split into three zoning categories.
Zoning: Approximately 6.7 acres is zoned R-20 Residential
District and approximately 3.2 acres is zoned AG-1 and
AG-2 Agricultural Districts.
On 6.7 acres zoned R-20 — 6.7 acres x 2.5 units/acre
= Sixteen (16) single family dwellings.
On 3.2 acres zoned AG-1/AG-2 —
One single-family home and/or permitted agricultural
related uses.
See discussion below under Traffic section.
With On 9.96 acres zoned R-5D with PDH2 Overlay —
Proposed 9.96 x 4.94 units/acre = 48 44 twin houses (duplex
Zoning: units) developed in accordance with the proffered land
use plan.
Zoning History
The properties surrounding the subject site have all been rezoned and/or developed
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for density at 3.5 dwelling
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Page 3
units acre or less. The neighborhoods to the north and east of the site were rezoned to
R-10 Residential District in 1984. The neighborhood south of the site, across Princess
Anne Road, was developed with an underlying zoning of R-20 Residential District in the
late 1980's after a downzoning to AG-1 and AG-2 was denied. Most recently, property
to the west of the subject site was rezoned from AG-1 and AG-2 and R-20 and R-10 to
Conditional R-10 in 1997. There is a church immediately adjacent to the east of the
subject site, which was granted a conditional use permit in 1989 and again in 1996.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUQ
The site is in an AICUZ of 65-70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana.
Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics
The site is a grassy field with no significant physical characteristics other than a 36 inch
Cedar tree shading a small cemetery mound in the northwest corner of the site. The
proposed site plan shows this area to be preserved. The only other large tree is in the
center of the site and cannot be preserved because it is located in the area of the future
roadway.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
Water: There is a 16 inch water main in Princess Anne Road fronting this
property.
Sewer: There is a 6 inch sanitary sewer force main in Princess Anne road
south of the median fronting this property.
There is an 8 inch sanitary sewer force main in Volunteer Trail that
extends through utility easement and abuts the northwest corner of
this property.
This development must connect to City water and sewer. Sewer
analysis and pump station calculations are required.
Transportation
Master Transportation Plan (MTP) /Capital Improvement Program (CIP):
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Page 4
Princess Anne Road in the vicinity of this application is currently a two lane
undivided minor arterial roadway. The facility is not identified for upgrade on the
Master Transportation Plan and there is no CIP project listed to improve this facility.
Traffic on this section of Princess Anne Road is consistently well over capacity and
the roadway operates at a level of service E.
Traffic Calculations:
Street Name
Present
Volume
Present
Capacity
Generated Traffic
Existing Land Use — 224
Princess Anne Road
24,836 ADT
(2002 counts)
13,100 ADT
If Zoningwas R-10 3 -- 260
Proposed Land Use 4— 308
'Average Daily Trips
2 as defined by 16 single family homes and 3.2 acres agriculture
3 with 26 single-family homes (see discussion below}
4 as defined by 4 "age -restricted" condominium units at 7 trips per unit.,(See
discussion below
Staff reviewed a traffic assessment submitted by the applicant, but does not agree with
the conclusion reached by that assessment. The,agglicant's assessment notes that this
project qualifies for traffic purposes as an `elders housing' development. Staff's
interpretation ofelderl I,I housing as provided for in the Trip Generation Manual is a
development for senior citizens that contains self-contained services, such as medical,
dining and limited retail facilities. Restricting the.12r000sed development by re Wring
"every occupied residential unit be -occupied, =n a full time basis, by at least one (11
adult resident over fift .-five (55) -years of age"_ (Proffer 81, does not qual fy this
development as an eldlleriy housing development. Further, the applicant's assessment
notes that the multiplier for this development _should be five (5), noting that the
�II.IIII.I..III.�.._r•/ .1 rr■� . ..III - I.I
determination of that number is an assumption and not based on anv studies.
Staff's research indicates that insufficient data exists within the Transportation Plannin
and Enaineering field regarding age -restricted developments to determine with any
--
.w
certainty -what the trafficcieneration of such a development might be. The re too
greatly from prolect to proiect. Some in the profession claim that six trips is the correct
number while others claim the number is eight. Staff, therefore, suggests that due to the
lack of clarity, using the middle of that range, or seven (7) trips per unit is probably most
approp Liate. Another issue is determininq what the number of trips would be if the site
was to develop -with single-family homes consistent with the zoning in the surrounding
area, which is. predominl_antlyll,B-1 0. The -applicant has provided staff with a conceptual
plan showing the site platted with 28 lots. The concept, however, does not show
..rllll.._II .. .
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. I # 27
Page 5
required park area (which Parks and Recreation has noted that it would require for this
site per the Subdivision Ordinance located ad'acent to the ad'oinin ark nor does it
take into account any other amenities that might be included with a rezoning_ of the
property. Staff, therefore suggests that due to the lack of clarity reclarding the number
of homes that using the middle of that range, or twenty-six 26 is probabiv most
appropriate. The number of trips generated for a single-family development with 26
homes would be 260. Using the trip generation multiplier of 7 for the applicant's project,
the number of units for the applicant's project that would generate nproximately the
same number of trips as a single-family development is 37.
Schools
The following calculations are for the proposed site zoning as R-5D (duplex . The
development as pr�. red, should have a negligible affect on the number of students due
to the nature of the community as being pry: ly for those over 55,years of,age.
School
Current
Capacity
Generation �
Change 2
Enrollment
Princess Anne
947
928
12
+ 7
Elementa!y
Princess Anne
1511
1615
6
+ 3
Middle
Kellam Senior Hi h
2276
1995
8
+ 4
' "generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school
2 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and
under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer
students)
Public Safety
Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the
Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime
prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as
they pertain to this site.
Fire and Fire safety items will be addressed during detailed site plan
Rescue: review.
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Page 6
Comprehensive Plan
On the Comprehensive Plan Map, the subject site is located in an area recommended
for a residential density of 3.5 units/acre or less. The subject site is located in the
Courthouse/Sandbridge Study Area. The Comprehensive Plan text for the
Courthouse/Sandbridge Study Area further states "endorse no development proposal
that contributes to strip residential or commercial development, sprawl, or a disorderly
arrangement of uses" (p.76). Developing at residential densities that are above the
density an area is planned for can result in urban sprawl.
The Comprehensive Plan is the City's official policy guiding its physical growth and
development. It serves as a guide to the public and private sector by providing a
relatively predictable picture of how land will develop, how public facilities and services
will be provided, how our environment will be protected, how jobs will be attracted, how
open space will be secured, how roads will be improved, how housing will be made
available, and generally what constant guiding principles will be employed to balance
competing interests (pg ii). The Comprehensive Plan does not address these issues
individually, but presents a coordinated strategy that integrates the approaches into a
single philosophy of improvement for the city. The uniqueness and health of the various
places of the city cannot be effectively addressed by looking at them only one property
at a time. To focus solely on the snapshot of one project and to `pick and choose' from
among the Plan's various policies to support that project, as can be done with this and
other similarly situated projects, is a reactionary approach to development. The
Comprehensive Plan discourages this approach because it erodes the effectiveness of
the Plan to manage resources over the long term.
Summary of Proposal
Site Design
• The proposed site plan depicts a central entrance roadway with duplex units on
both sides. The roadway continues into the property and forms a circle with units
lined along both the outside and inside of the circle. There are 24 22 buildings
shown on the site plan, each will contain two units.
• The roadway is 26 feet in width. Guest parking is provided in several spots along
the roadway.
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Page 7
• A stormwater management pond is shown in the southeastern corner of the site,
adjacent to the church property.
• The setbacks for the units shown on the plan are listed in the PD-H2 Land Use
Plan as follows:
o Minimum Building Setback from Princess Anne Road = 38 feet
o Minimum Building Setback from western and northern property lines = 60
feet
o Minimum Building Setback from southern and eastern property lines = 20
feet
o Minimum Front Yard Setback from internal roadway = 24 feet
o Minimum Side Yard Setback from internal roadway = 12 feet
o Minimum Setback between Buildings = 20 feet
o Minimum Setback for arbor or pergola from internal roadway = 5 feet
• Each unit will have a small fenced area in the rear of the property. The fences
surrounding these individual yard areas are proposed at heights varying from 4 to
6 feet.
• The only property boundary that will have a continuous fence will be the eastern
property line, adjacent to the church. The fence along this property line will be
four feet in height. +>�e
Vehicular and Pedestrian Access
The applicant is proposing a single access point from Princess Anne Road.
• Gravel paths are provided from the internal roadway to the proposed common
area within common green spaces between buildings.
• Along the frontage of Princess Anne Road, additional pavement widening as well
as turn lanes will likely be requirements during detailed site plan review due to
the increase in traffic generated by the proposed development.
• Staff has recommended to the applicant that additional pedestrian access be
provided to the public neighborhood park that adjoins the northeast corner of this
property; however, the applicant has not shown this access on the Land Use
Plan.
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Page 8
t1y1A B
pig �,Fl�iLp/
Ui, f�.,�
Oe OY. r.1 O
Architectural Desicin
• The applicant has provided several different elevations for the buildings. Buyers
will choose the design of the individual buildings from these. All of the buildings
are two story structures containing two units. Each building will have one front -
loading garage unit and one side loading garage unit. Each unit will have a two -
car garage. Each unit will contain approximately 1,800 square feet.
• Covered porches at the entryways, varied roof lines and fireplaces are some of
the architectural features shown on the elevations.
• The front -loading garages are recessed and do not extend past the front of the
building.
• The building materials that are listed as part of the Land Use Plan are as follows:
o Premium vinyl simulated cedar shake siding
o Brick
o Premium vinyl siding
o Trim will be aluminum clad
0 30 year dimensional shingles will be used
• The Land Use Plan also states that ten (10) of the paired homes (buildings) will
be predominately brick.
Landscqpe and Open Space
• The applicant has provided a #e#�}-{4�} thirtyfoot buffer along the northern
and western property lines. The buffer is proposed with a mixture of evergreen
and deciduous trees and shrubs.
• Additional plantings will also be provided within the 20 foot setback areas along
the eastern and southern property lines and along the western property line
behind Buildings 1 and 2.
• A low white painted brick wall with decorative columns is proposed along the
frontage of Princess Anne Road. In front of the wall, there will be a small berm
that will be planted with a mixture of evergreen trees. There will also be a small
median with landscape plantings at the entrance.
• The applicant has shown that the existing small cemetery and the existing Cedar
tree in the northwest corner of the site will remain. The cemetery is located
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. I # 27
Page 9
between Buildings 12 and 13 144.
• A common area has been provided in the center of the development. Trees will
be planted in this area and along the walkways leading to it.
Proffers
PROFFER # 1 In order to better foster a sense of community and achieve
a coordinated design and development of the site in terms
of vehicular circulation, parking, landscape buffering, tree
planting, berming, building orientation, stormwater
management facilities and open space amenities, the
"COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF CHELSEA
PLACE for ROYAL COURT, INC.", dated September 12,
2002 prepared by John C. Sirine and Associates, Ltd.,
which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City
Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department
of Planning ("Concept Plan") shall be substantially adhered
to.
Staff Evaluation: This proffer is not acceptable. Although there are some
aspects of the concept plan that are noteworthy, the plan
as a whole does not distinguish this community as
substantially higher in quality of life than a conventional
subdivision. The interior landscaping along the roadway
and the stormwater management area are equivalent to
what would be found in a conventional subdivision. open
space requirements within a conventional subdivision are
between 5% to 8% of the site versus 15 % of the site under
the PDH-2 overlay guidelines. One of the intents of the
PDH 2 guidelines is to create a community recognized by
its open space amenities. The proposed plan does not
meet this intent. The central open space shown on the
proposed plan is approximately 47� 000 square feet
or-- approximately 0% of the site, sli htl hi her than the
same -percentage of open space required in a conventional
subdivision, but still below that re uired with a PD-H2
devel meet. The remainder of the open space on the
plan is within building setbacks or along the perimeter of
the site, behind the units. In a conventional subdivision
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Page 10
these areas would also remain open but would be
considered private yards instead of community open
space. In addition, there is no connection to the adjacent
public park. The number of units is almost double the
number that could be developed under a conventional
subdivision rezoning the site to R-10 consistent with the
zoning of the surround►ng area. L �,� tha AImAn a
ex of Q-23 excistina an thin sife
. The additional
amenities that are unique to this project and that would not
likely be ►ncluded in a conventional subdivision are the
increased landscaping along Princess Anne Road and
perimeter buffer areas. These additional amenities do not
offer enough community benefits to offset the increase in
density requested.
PROFFER # 2 When the Property is developed, vehicular Ingress and
Egress shall be limited to one (1) entrance from Princess
Anne Road
Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable.
PROFFER # 3 When the Property is developed, all landscaping and
berming shall substantially adhere to the detailed
landscape plan prepared by Siska Aurand and depicted
on the "OVERALL SITE MASTER PLAN — CHELSEA
PLACE" dated 9/12/02, which has been exhibited to the
Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia
Beach Department of Planning.
Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable.
PROFFER # 4 There will be no more than twenty -#ems (24 22) residential
buildings, each one being two (2) stories in height, and
containing two (2) dwelling units per buildings. The total
number of dwelling units permitted to be constructed on
the Property shall not exceed forty-eigqt, (48 44) and no
dwelling units shall contain more than three (3) bedrooms.
Staff Evaluation: This proffer is not acceptable. The density requested by
the applicant equates to 4.84 units/acre and is not in
keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, which recommends
a maximum of 3.5 units/acre in this section of the
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Page 11
Courthouse/Sandbridge Study Area. All of the surrounding
neighborhoods have consistently developed at a density of
less than 3.5 units/acre. Princess Anne Road in this
location is already operating at a level of service E and is
severely over capacity. No widening or other major
improvements to this road are planned, and N►mmo
Parkway, the roadway designed to provide relief to this
section of Princess Anne Road, is currently not slated for
construction until between 2005 and 2007.
PROFFER # 5 The architectural design of the residential buildings will be
substantially as depicted on the exhibits entitled "Chelsea
Place Elevation A", "Chelsea Place Elevation B", Chelsea
Place Elevation D", Chelsea Place Elevation E", dated
September 12, 2002, which have been exhibited to the
Virginia Beach City Council and area on file with the
Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevations"). The
primary exterior building material shall be brick and
synthetic cedar shake siding, and the colors used may
vary from those on the exhibits but all will be earth tones.
Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. The building materials listed
are of high quality. The elevations depict dwellings that
are architecturally compatible with the surrounding single-
family homes in this area. It should be noted that the
paired hordes would have a larger building footprint than
most of the single family homes in the surrounding area.
PROFFER # S When the Property is developed, a landscaped entrance
feature shall be constructed with a brick wail, signage
externally illuminated from ground level, decorative
columns and estate style fencing as depicted and
described on the "ENTRY CONCEPT FOR: CHELSEA
PLACE ROYAL COURT, INC.", PAGES ONE AND TWO,
DATED September 12, 2002, prepared by Siska Aurand
Landscape Architects, inc., and shall have an appearance
substantially similar to that depicted on the perspective
entitled "ENTRY WALL FOR CHELSEA PLACE", dated
September 12, 2002, prepared by Siska Aurand
Landscape Architects, Inc., which have been exhibited to
the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the
Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Entrance Plans").
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Page 12
Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. The entrance planned for this
community is aesthetically pleasing
PROFFER # 7 When the Property is developed, the fencing throughout
the community shall be installed in a coordinated manner
by the Developer and governed by the Condominium
Association so that the types of fencing and location of
fences shall be as depicted on the FENCE AND
PLANTING CONCEPT FOR: CHELSEA PLACE ROYAL
COURT, INC.", and five (5) exhibits entitled "30 IN. HT.
DECORATIVE FENCES FOR CHELSEA PLACE"; "4 FT.
HT. PROPERTY FENCE FOR CHELSEA PLACE","6 FT,
HT. PROPERTY FENCE FOR CHELSEA PLACE17,"4 FT.
HT. PRIVACY FENCE FOR CHELSEA PLACE", "6 FT.
HT. PRIVACY FENCE FOR CHELSEA PLACE", dated
September 12, 2002, prepared by Siska Aurand
Landscape Architects Inc., which have been exhibited to
the Virginia beach city Council and are on file with the
Virginia Beach Department of Planning.
Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable.
PROFFER # 8 The Grantor shall record a Declaration of Restrictions
("Deed Restriction") as a condition of Site Plan Approval,
which shall be applicable to the Property. The Deed
Restriction shall be enforced by a Condominium
Association, which will be responsible for maintaining the
Property and enforcing the provisions of a Condominium
Declaration governing the Property. The Deed Restriction
shall require that every occupied residential unit be
Occupied, on a full time basis, by at least one (1) adult
resident over fifty-five (55) years of age. The Deed
Restriction shall also prohibit persons under twenty (20)
years of age from residing in any residential unit or units
for more than ninety (90) days in any calendar year.
Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable; however, the age restriction
does not mitigate the density issue on this site. All of the
surrounding neighborhoods have consistently developed
at a density of less than 3.5 units/acre. Princess Anne
Road in this location is already operating at a level of
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC./ # 27
Page 13
service E and is severely over capacity. No widening or
other major improvements to this road are planned, and
Nimmo Parkway, the roadway designed to provide relief to
this section of Princess Anne Road, is currently not slated
for construction until between 2005 and 2007. In a true
planned community, where recreational and commercial
needs are provided in addition to residential units, age
restricted units may result in a decrease of vehicle trips on
surrounding main roadways because of the opportunities
to walk or drive to activities and services provided within
the development. This project, however, is exclusively
residential, thus, no decrease in traffic due to the age
restriction proffered is anticipated.
City Attorney's The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer
Office: agreement dated September 12, 2002, and found it to be
legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form.
Evaluation of Request
The request for a rezoning from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District and R-20
Residential District to R-5D Residential Duplex with PD-1-12 Planned Development
Overlay is not acceptable. The number of units and density requested, 48 units and 4.8
units/acre, is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this
area. Although the actual number of buildings shown on the proposed plan would be
substantially the same as the number of buildings allowed with a conventional
subdivision, the number of households will double. The traffic created by the additional
households, even households led by individuals age 55 and over, will negatively impact
Princess Anne Road in this location. This is a limiting factor that cannot be ignored, as
this roadway is severely over capacity and no relief is anticipated until the second half of
this decade.
The Comprehensive Plan is the City's official policy guiding its physical growth and
development. It serves as a guide to the public and private sector by providing a
relatively predictable picture of how land will develop, how public facilities and services
will be provided, how our environment will be protected, how jobs will be attracted, how
open space will be secured, how roads will be improved, how housing will be made
available, and generally what constant guiding principles will be employed to balance
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 59 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Page 14
competing interests (pg ii). The Comprehensive Plan does not address these issues
individually, but presents a coordinated strategy that integrates the approaches into a
single philosophy of improvement for the city. The Comprehensive Plan text for the
Courthouse/Sandbridge Study Area further states "endorse no development proposal
that contributes to strip residential or commercial development, sprawl, or a disorderly
arrangement of uses" (p.76). Developing at residential densities that are above the
density an area is planned for can result in urban sprawl.
The submitted PD-H2 plan does not provide substantial public benefits over what could
be gained through development under the existing zoning. Staff feels that a rezoning
for a planned community could be supported on this property, but not in excess of the
density recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan policies
do not support the additional density requested in this location. Staff concludes that this
request should be denied or substantially modified to more closely match the specific
land use recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
(VOTE: 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 Citv Codes.
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC./ # 27
Page 15
..yr# • APW%M 4 M f
Iylk�Nowb000mo
7 NvT�T?r • �1 �� %�C�Vk
1
BOYId M HO w
R
4 �. iG+ ���*N'���� ,r r /\ik•ti1 ,1�4 i,�, M. '� fl k
• w
�fnf
�R
- ----------- -
y `f
�'
M • � 4 r � i
� � w
IL
R;
i r�
'� �� • �'
49
�' �v�
a
# X i A
4.1
�
x s r y
� � � � � Y >A � � i
W i rr k Z*
� iR ) • �i dam' � � � � 1 � t
� 12 %
wv. H.
w � » �� b i � ��f } ��+A �i if'o r fir• � � J410
'* ..,, .. �
i• ` w +F. • F $ r & a. �' V • "' `
r
�� .� �Y ��w �r l; ip' ,'.� � �� .� •, Cx .f i�♦ �la. � 1.A rI # � {, n..
if
T► �Z2 h f t
e
Pv
----4 19 �i
lip
df
All
WN
1.4
^e It .1►"" rw..� ,...:'� h x w""k,,..u.,r a !
f f
4 i
w t
� s a 4 � T .. y � # .s_ sk ��+�►,.�� r
f
i
r 'l'�, { � mow. r+ �♦�� Y � +I �y � �'� �� J
r w i
t �� 3 '�� �„,.,. ��` � i Derr►• �r �'� � 1 ,
Y�
r
;.f k
s `Jt f w
i1...r.w. ...r...r...M..�+ .�.-..- 40t
ri w
�
21-6410.
44
�
24,
a*�
v
e c
L
Agenda
Planning Commission
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURTS INC. / ## 27
�� OVf •a� C
Page 16
o�
jai
0441
ft '.. i I
46
44
..
4 a#?
Ila
PO
= t
t
� t t
r
� T f
we
` �0-
k
E
al
Oft 4w Gomm*
f
,f 3� Art
00
"Im - ---------
St
.0
i E ._ t'
Y � 3 y 'V k'•[ 4
know SWAM J*
�
k WkM Jig mow; l
few* w"ww All
7�7
PH
1p
rya
.e / y`
C�.
i
Planning Commission Agenda /!`
REVISED: May 5, 2003` _ -
N
ROYAL COURT, INC. 1 # 27 ``"
! y
Page 17
*V* *
A� A.
F 7
j)jqK*-4.P'�
W6 k
�!*Wunzw
401*,K,v
jw�tl
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 59 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Pane 1 p
4 fi j y h
� � a
ti
k
i <
� r
Y k a!r
�r y .�Y r ie J'..ti� .n'vy .. M'iki.•. W <+
r f
It
It
y � 3
"'� • �.o- � lei,., rg
'4 x
.., fY. � y, M {,. r � "r Y tit ?•
4.
A� {
fMls OYiVr r!
3
t
w k
r
PROPOSED ENTRY PLAN
PROPOSED ENTRY PLAN
Z
d.
z
W
Ck
W
in
0
IL
0
ix
06
W
IL
T \
• s' 4
r
�e
f
r
At
Y
.vw�wrwl+IwM}
WiaKY��A�.
� �
i
41
S ,.e
M�
r
v°�
�►:
ir
1 kJv
0
4%
A* {
•H.n
.wM
•A,
4
r�
a
E
f
y
T
w
«
4
� Y
F
4r
Planning Commission Agenda%+
REVISED; May 5, 2003
~ `
ROYAL COURT, INC. I # 27•Y
•°
Page 19
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. l # 27
Page 20
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. I # 27
Page 21
N
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Page 22
+N �
J
V
t�
rr
y�
141
•r+�wr_��v�w�
�Zwm
rw
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Page 23
t
:::IV
� :.; z i
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC./ # 27
Page 24
r
F
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Page 25
Q
c
0
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. l # 27
Page 26
I
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED; May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Page 27
L
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED: May 5
2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. I # 27 *�''
°' ou■ y.I ar
Page 28
now'
y
1j G
1 i
E
74. z
y/�.pcaur 1
w,.
3
{ iibl.Ilvr.�',
1 gg•I41
j 1 I
'
..µ.i..- -- ,
4 t
E
t
h
rw
Ll ,
HE
Nos,
'
low
k
'��
1�MurulPtny[�w►slf��
i'
of
a�
i
r
IF , i
�r �rre
ww� •�ww.,s; .l. s�Wll
ZT
an0
woo vow
low
mg
�viannmg uommission Agenaa
REVISED: May 59 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Pane 29
P%r
d
fkxl�;}C'
x ti5.o- Kta io-? db Ott
w e -s Y
,5drr .
- w .. � �. ay" ?8f� •:u rR
Y°.'
�° '9r. 1F .i. � ,''0s- � a ,�s � .i? g�_,y _•�F.. is aa[� '" � -
".:;�* 4e`§(lk : ::�.<rS,. a' •n' _..�_,,,,� } �+.y `'.it
f .: 40,x-
.,t'. .Si�„ � sty _ v,.+., t• � " i
a °
}V' 'F :$�c. q.,y. F+ _.4` Qf: •r ti
21
It
F'
� �A � /.,i� p�W �,i f. }� ..�,•v�'S' ,,lye
_ / d a. ,., . yL, �.. ,. � -� � `,nR }c y Tio 'a�}"` .�y�5•i,�;°,i �� j,'j�. � v.7! � � &
Y
°.'$ j
`. .}y".,.7J• R .aP�.. :v. .>1`i.:r1o^ .s ,. +� -,..ff ,y.y 3,a 'p
lw
A.
r� y±
4f
Ap.
-
y A►'
At
a s 11i x a y
ilk
Fk
6 A.
w'.
uj
i
"� �" � .. � � vs� .y, r `� ,fir •, � � .�. x ��.
4 'G i' � .. '�� N'.v"'w+�.-.. oti.' �� 'f. I b. ' • �" � °�t' f q .n
,s„ c
fit. , � lmy1 ,t � ':' �.� �S* ,4 ` 's y�J ,J•'X '.8
f
r .r' a }
Manning Commission Agenda t
REVISED: May 5, 2003 =�
ROYAL COURT INC. / # 27 *`
..o
Pace 30
APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 4
CONDITIONAL REZONING
CITE` OF VIRGINIA 13EACH
DISCLOSURE, STATEMENT
.applicant's Name: Ro•.al Court, Inc., a bx y giniz corporation
List All Current
r Property Owners. -
Jennifer Broke Estes
Linda Nei -lie Shel,.1 � $. �.�wr��►� , '� ►she----
.,
l vv,kne ?fora Wh Ltwnrt:�
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Artach list ;f necessary)
e
fIi
f
If the property owner is a PARTNERS, FIRS, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list
adl members or partners in the organization below: (Attach tur if necessary)
I
,
# Chock here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other umncorporated
organization
If the applicant rs not die current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Diselosure seetzon below:
APPAL cAtV'I` DISCLOSE"RE
If the applicant is a CORPORAITON, list all officers of the Corpomtion below (Arrach list if necessar),)
Donald L. Moore President/Secretary
4
i{
i
t
If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FMM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGAN'iZATION, : st a]1
members or partners in the orgaruzation below. (Attach liar if necessary)
,
f
I
a
0 Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, part rsh►p, firm, or other unincorporated organization
_CERTMCATION I certify that the infnrxnation contained herein is true and accurate.
�Y
t33• . � ;
Signature
Donald L. 1vore, President
Print Nx=
Planning Commission Agenda
REVISED; May 5, 2003
ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27
Page 31
Royal Court, Inc.
Change of Zoning District Classification
District 7
Princess Anne
February 12, 2003
REGULAR
Robert Miller: The next item is Item #27, Royal Court, Inc.
Donald Horsley: Ron?
Kathy Katsias: Mr. Chairman, I have to abstain from this due to the business dealings
with the applicant.
Ronald Ripley: Okay.
Eddie Bourdon: I don't know what happened to our easels.
Robert Miller: I don't know.
Eddie Bourdon: I may take that down because I don't want to obstruct anyone's view of
the PowerPoint. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon. I'm a Virginia Beach
attorney and I'm here before you representing Royal Court, Inc., Mr. Don Moore who is
here with us this afternoon As is Jennifer Brown Estes, on behalf of the Brown Family
who owns this piece of property located on the north side of Pnncess Anne Road just to
the west of the Nimmo church area. First thing I want to touch on before I get into the
view of the presentation, this application has been pending for quite a number of months.
We have spent a considerable amount of time over that period meeting with the
Courthouse/Sa.ndbridge Co-op civic leagues, meeting with residents of Southgate and
Highgate Crossings and Sandbridge/Courthouse and they sent representatives from their
civic leagues going over this proposal, explaining the proposal. This application has been
on your agenda twice previously. You're aware that you deferred the last time for the
purpose of changing this to an age restricted community. Apparently, over the course of
the last three days, some information was distributed in a couple of the neighborhoods by
flyer that contained inaccurate information, which precipitated a number of emalls that
have come out of the blue that we've not deemed previously when this application was
on the agenda and when people have been notified. We have today have had the
opportunity to talk to a number of people who came down. Let's see, we talked to
everyone and have gone over the proposal and many left very pleased. But, I wanted to
put that out there because you all were given packages of emails this morning that and
quite a vast majority of them talked about six unit per acre townhouses, which this is not
and has not been an application for that type of a use. I wanted to get that out there We
welcome the opportunity today and this is televised and it will be replayed to continue the
educational process and we welcome the opportunity as we told the folks who were here
and left that we would be happy to meet with anybody, anytime to review this proposal,
Item #27
Royal Court, Inc.
Page 2
which we are quite proud of. The application involves an age -restricted community to be
known as Chelsea Place. It is proposed on 10-acre parcel of property that is surrounded
by church on our east side and R-10 residential development, single family homes,
10,000 square foot lots on north and west side. To our north is the Southgate Community
to the west is the Highgate Crossings Community. Across Princess Anne Road in the
transition area is the Three Oaks Subdivision, which is an R-20 residential subdivision.
The project, Chelsea Place is one that has been designed using a New England rural
architectural theme. We have a total of 24 structures, buildings on the 10-acre site. Each
of those 24 buildings contains two residential units. Those units, again will total 48 units
on the property. The units have and you got elevations, you got packages, I think you all
have that we provided to everyone through the Planning Department, the architectural
appearance of the elevations is very attractive. They're two story units. They contain
between 2,000-2,300 square feet of living space. Each unit has downstairs master suite
and a two -car garage. It's design so the buildings appear to be single-fanuly homes.
There is only one garage per building that face the internal roads within this
condominium and that's important. This is a condominium property as well. The other
two garage space face internally so you don't see them from the road. There's a road
coming in off of Princess Anne Road is a loop road through the project. And, we have
where the side loading driveways are we have a very detailed plan that includes
hedgerows or fences. In some places hedges and in some places fences and there's a
very, very detailed plan which you all have and the staff have which screen the parking
area in front of the garage doors on the side loading garage doors. That's an excellent
part of this plan. It's just a detail and Don as most of you know is an award -winning
builder in this community. He's done some projects that have gotten awards from this
Planning Department as well as from the Tidewater Builder's Association. The frontage
along Princess Anne Road is exceptional. One that he's designed along that frontage and
I think your staff has noted that and noted that's something would clearly not be
replicated in a single-family residential development on this piece of property. You got a
painted brick wall along the frontage with extensive landscaping on the roadside of that
wall and then there are dry stack stone accents that would be reminiscent of a stone farm
field wall in New England as well as there are gold leaf accents on the side itself and
there is a gate feature The gate does not close but to give the appearance that it would be
a gated community but the gates are permanently locked open, nothing that would able to
be closed. The project involves extensive green area along the eastern side of the
property where you got the BMP and landscaping buffer adjacent to the church parking
lot and the area closest to Princess Anne Road. We got a 40-foot landscaped and bermed
buffer along both the north and west property lines adjacent to South Gate and adjacent to
Highgate Crossing. Behind each unit there is a small fenced in courtyard area and again,
all the fencing types, all very detailed plans. I know that staff would tell that is the best
part of the plan that they think is certainly attractive and no objection to the architecture
and the way its been laid out in terms of the fencing and what have you. That area of
buffer is well over an acre of land and that is one of the things that is not really pointed
out in one point of the staff s write up where they talked about open space. You got a
center green here with walkway, trellis area and benches and paths going across here.
We've also left an open area here where there's one of the two trees with the property
Item #27
Royal Court, Inc.
Page 3
will remain and there are some grave sites there that will remain and will provide ide parking
there. Some of the guest parking is in front of the area of the property as well.
haveQ P P Y And, we
provided guest parking throughout the community. Alongthe churches parking
wed P g lot
o have fencing in that area right in here. Overall, the 52 percent of the site is
P open
space and that is area outside the footprints of the home and the road that circles aroun
d
through the project. The price points of these units are $250,000 per unit. You're
e
looking at basically 24 half million dollar to maybe as $600,000 buildings. A
b grin, age
restricted. You must have someone 55 years or older in the unit and no one under
the age
of 20 can reside in the unit for more than 90 days during a calendar year. It's t . g y he same
restriction that exists on the residential developments at the Villages at West Neck and
the Signature golf course that Mr. Foster has done and w' enjoyed fantastic success with.
This precludes there being children living in this communitywho will be educated
din the
schools in the area. Now, again on a temporary basis there might be for a matter o
g f
weeks a planned child or something like that living there but anyone buying here will y Y g w1 not
be
someone who has children living in the home. And that s a very, very important ortant part
of this application. The sense of community that we think this creates is fantastic
and we
know there is a demand for it in the area. The area is very developed all around a
p s you
see on the aerial photographs. This is the last infill piece that remains in the area. It's
also interesting to note that this property is right at the point where Princess Anne Road
has four lanes from here heading east and north. This is where the road comes down to
only being a two-lane road. And, it is undeniable that the area from here headingv over to
where we are today at the Courthouse, there is a traffic issue that exists today. That's
y t s not
to say that there's not traffic concerns here but they are far less than the are in this area.
.
We all know that Nimmo Parkway when it is built and this is not the part that's
controversial. This part is not going to Sandbridge. The traffic problem principally is
pass through traffic. And, it certainly does exist in this area where Princess Anne Road
comes down to two -lanes. When this is built and is in the CIP, the significant amount
ffi g of
traffi
c that passes through here today will clearly use this Nimmo Parkwayopposed as pp to
Princess Anne Road. But because this is right at the beginning of the farthest that'
. g s four
lanes that is important. And, the reason I think it is important is we provide each o • p one of
you with a traffic report. And, I think this morning in your informal I think you heard
pretty clearly that there is an issue involving this application is one of traffic. And we
believe and we're quite certain of this that if you develop this property at 3.5 units
acre - P P y per
R 10 as it is around this developed you will create far greater traffic. Our traffic
report that was done by Intermode Transportation has estimated the traffic generated b
� Y
this proposed development with the age restriction in place would be 240 vehicle trip
s per
day. On the other hand, if you developed the property at your typical family residential,
Yp y teal,
three to four bedroom home, your traffic generation per dayis 394 trips per day. Now,
p p y o,
why is that? There are a couple of reasons. The primary reason is that you have in these
e
units your average number of people living in each unit is slightly less than two. Where
as, in a typical single family residential and we're talking about average, the e i g, average s
between three and half and four persons living in each dwelling. We're proposing 48
dw g P P g
elling s versus 35 dwellings under an R-10 zoning. That's 13 more units but the tota
l
number of people likely to be living in the 13 more units, a total of 48 units is far less.,35
percent less than if you had your typical single family residential ,
development And it is
p
Item #27
Royal Court, Inc.
Page 4
the children, and a significant part of it is in fact the children living there create more of a
need for trips during peak hours. The school age children generated by this development
and were done in a R-10 development around 40. With this is zero. And, it's very
important when you look at where those children would go to school. Those children
would go to school at Princess Anne Elementary, Princess Anne Middle, and Kellam
High School. All of those schools are located to the west of this property down the
portion of Princess Anne Road that is most severely impacted. And, something that is
essential to be recognized that if you develop this property as a single family residential
property R-10 zoning, you're going to create more traffic and you're going to create more
traffic in the direction that the road can least bare it. And, this is all temporary. We all
recognize that is a temporary situation, not a permanent situation. Staff has indicated to
you this morning that unlike the Villages of West Neck, where it was recognized that
traffic generation by age restriction communities is significant or less then will be the
case in a typical residential community of single family homes because there's no
commercial component in this project where someone would be able to walk to and not
go out to meet their needs that eliminates that savings. Well, I would beg to differ. I
wouldn't disagree entirely. I think there may be some lessening of the benefit as opposed
to the Villages of West Neck whether there's a commercial component included within
that, but not an elimination of it. And, because remember single family folks get all the
same thing and have to take their children to ball practices, to all school activities, etc.,
which you do not have with this type of project. So, I really don't believe its even
arguable that this type of a development with these restrictions in place would produce
more traffic than a single family residential R-10 zoning on this piece of property. I just
don't believe that's the case. Even if you do say that the figures our traffic engineer have
come up with, which I think are very much defendable and justifiable because those
aren't 50 percent either because she's already taken that into account. I don't think you
can come up to conclusion that we have a situation here that produces more traffic. I
don't believe it to be the case. The fact that these units will be age restricted, we already
see in our City, there was a study done a few years ago and I can't remember the name
off the top of my head about the economic benefits of development for seniors and this
clearly meets that criteria as a condominium project, high value homes. It's an economic
positive. You have all this area that's maintained versus single-family homes where it's
fence to fence on either side of the project. Everyone has their yards fenced in and you
don't have any where near the beauty that's being created by this along Princess Anne
Road and throughout the community that we propose on this piece of property. The
benefits of the project we think are readily apparent. We would take issue with the
notion that we haven't provided open space amenities sufficient to warrant a PD-H plan
approval. Again, we got park, land and buffer area on this property and the area where
the cemetery is that is in excess of two acres on this 10-acre parcel and the rest of the area
and that, close to four including the area along the church parking lot along Princess
Anne Road. And, all the rest of the areas are open and landscaped with the exception of
this small fenced in courtyard behind the houses. The houses themselves are 60 feet from
the property line along Highgate Crossing and along the boundary with Southgate. And,
they are two story attractive, not tall buildings where you're looking at someone's fence
with the setback and the landscaping there won't be any impact on any of the adjoining
Item #27
Royal Court, Inc.
Page 5
property owners. There is a question and there is a statement in there about the fact that
we did not provide a path going to an existing City park up in the corner of the property
on the Southgate side. That certainly can be done. But, we don't feel that either the
residents of Southgate or the residents of this community that will necessarily be a
beneficial thing. We certainly are not completely foreclosing that as an option or an
opportunity but it wasn't thought on what we're trying to create here and its distinction
from what's here in Southgate that necessarily was going to be a positive. If down the
road if the folks at Southgate or our residents or we believe in our marketing that's a
good thing, we can do that but we don't believe that's necessarily going to be a benefit
for either of the two communities not that we necessanly think they need to be segregated
from each other. With that, again, traffic is the issue. We think we've addressed that, not
completely but I would point out that we got a senior housing facility. A different type of
facility that the Catholic Diocese has less than a half a mile up Princess Anne where it
turns into General Booth at London Bridge and General Booth in this same area which is
much higher density. As an intergenerational community and what we're trying to
achieve under our Comprehensive Plan I think that this fits very well in this area. It's
something that is needed and would be a benefit to the community. I'll be happy to
answer any questions that you all have.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you Eddie. We have a question from Don.
Donald Horsley: Go over the open space. Where did you say the community open space
is?
Eddie Bourdon: We got 30,000 square feet of open space in this area through here. All
of it is open except these little areas that are fenced in behind here. This area is open and
along here. This 40-foot bermed landscaped buffer all the way around is all open and then
the area in here where there is a large tree and a couple of grave sites that remains open.
And, along here you got a fence. This is not open this one section that's adjacent to the
parking lot behind those units. The amount, I would call continuous open space and you
got a lot of it out here on the road frontage. You add all of it together you got about four
acres of continuous and then you got the smaller areas that get it to over 52 percent and
that's in the package. Fifty-two percent of the site 3s not incorporated within the building
envelopes and the roadways, parking and fenced in areas. And, you got the information
that we provided in the package I think. I'll point you to the page.
William Din: Eddie?
Eddie Bourdon: Yes sir.
William Din: I don't think we got that package.
Robert Miller: We got it last month.
William Din: Okay.
Item #27
Royal Court, Inc
Page 6
Donald Horsley: okay.
Ronald Ripley: You got a traffic study in there?
Eddie Bourdon: I passed out the traffic study today. When you came back from lunch
you should have had the traffic study in front of you. I' m sorry. I thought you all had
these packages from last month.
Robert Miller: We didn't get the traffic study.
Eddie Bourdon: You didn't get the traffic study?
Ronald Ripley: No. I didn't see it.
William Din: There was a traffic study in our report.
Robert Miller: We didn't get yours.
Eddie Bourdon: I put those in front of everyone's seat at about quarter to twelve.
Robert Miller: Somebody picked them up and decided they were very valuable. We'll
use them on another application. I put my stuff in here first and there was nothing in
here.
Eddie Bourdon: That's amazing. I put one in front of everyone's seat.
Robert Miller: You violated some kind of security issue.
Eddie Bourdon: I must have done something that violated some kind of security issue.
Robert Miller: Security. It's all about security.
Ronald Ripley: Okay.
Eddie Bourdon: Alright. I apologize. I thought you have gotten them when you came
in
Ronald Ripley: Okay. We have some other speakers.
Robert Miller: We have some other speakers. Leslie Pomeroy was here and was going
to be in opposition but evidently you spoke with her and decided she was in support.
She's from Highgate Crossing Homeowners Association, which is the adjacent
residential neighborhood John Gilroy was here and was opposed and is now in support
and also with Highgate Homeowners Association. Maxine Graham.
Item #27
Royal Court, Inc.
Page 7
Maxine Graham: Good afternoon.
Ronald Ripley: Good afternoon.
Maxine Graham: I think a lot of you recognize me. I'm from Sandbridge.
Ronald Ripley: I recall you were here for that church up there.
Maxine Graham: Thank you for this opportunity. I'll try to be as brief as possible. You
had a long day. I'm here to speak on behalf of this application. I think it's beautiful. I
think its location. It's a very appropriate use for this piece of property and that it lends
itself to the people that will be coming in and many are already there on Princess Anne
Road with the Sentara new medical facility which is not that far away. Meanwhile, you
got all of this educational over there. I was really a little upset and I've even talked to
Mr. Moore about this 55-age limit. I think it's maybe a little discriminatory to shut out
people who would be professional and career people and I am a nurse of 56 years as well
as realtor for two states for 37. And, I think this would be a wonderful location for
people who would be in college, teachers, schools, nurses, what have you. And, when
you get into $200,000 plus quality homes and that doesn't really doesn't include much
land. You're talking about quality. I'm very proud to say two things. First of all, Mr.
Moore didn't know I was going to be here. And, I wasn't asked to be here. I'm here on
my own. Primarily due to the fact that I live in one of Mr. Moore's Crescent Condos
across from Nimm.o's church. And, I never meet a stranger and there's about a 100 sold
and about 25 left to go and I thank it may shock you all to know that when I bought mine
in October 2, 1991, I paid $40,419 in that same unit model now, today selling for a
$164,900. And, being still my license is inactive, I'm still out there doing what I've been
doing for 37 years. I just took my license from referral to GSH but if you're concerned
primarily between the impact on the traffic flow, I stay on top of all this just like I still am
earning a living. And, I called Engineering, 2005 is suppose to be online. The City
Council just Tuesday agreed to vote on the Transition Area the 28th of this month and the
City Council will be voting on Ferrell Parkway in March and you're looking at one of the
primary people that got sand, sewer, water and fighting like it was my life on the line to
get Ferrell Parkway. These are roads that will alleviate and give some relief to any
impact of traffic. Furthermore, these homes are beautiful. They don't even look like what
they are labeled. And, you all know better than I do even though I have been doing this
for 37 years, you're going to have NIMBYS everywhere you go. I think I've said just
about enough. And, I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have of me.
One last thing here and you talked about open space. Don't overlook the fact that your
open space which is created by the parking lot for the church is not going to have cars
there seven days a week or 24 hours a day. I lived out here in Sandbridge for 37 years. I
remember when it was a strawberry farm. They sold fresh eggs down here on London
Bridge Road and Strawbridge was Strawbridge Field so I know the history of this area
maybe a lot better than some of you on this Commission. But, with the most humble and
deepest respect I would ask for you to approve this and do not impose that 55
Item ##27
Royal Court, Inc.
Page 8
requirement. I've already talked to some people and incidentally, I was ready to speak in
January and I've had this book and I've been passing it around in the Crescent Condos
and there hasn't been one out of 12-15 people that hasn't been in support of it.
Ronald Ripley: Okay.
Maxine Graham: Mr. Moore is a fine builder and I can tell you one thing. I wouldn't
take a million dollars for my place. I think I died and went to heaven.
Ronald Ripley: That's good appreciation there. Thank you Ms. Graham
Maxine Graham: Thank you.
Robert Miller: Who knows how many more units Mr. Moore just sold. William Ahearn
was here to speak in opposition. His concern was traffic. He had to leave. Bernard
Byrne.
Bernard Byrne: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission.
My name is Bernard Byrne. I live at 2728 Esplanade Court, which is the Foxfire
neighborhood. I am reluctantly opposing this development proposal.. I think that the
desire to provide upscale senior housing is good. The only problem is that there are two
many units. The plan calls for 48 townhouses, 4.8 per acre, which greatly exceeds the
Comprehensive Plan limit of 3.5 per acre. Now pointed out in the staff report, Pnncess
Anne Road is a two lane road that is currently well over capacity. It operates at a level of
service E and it's getting worse each day as more homes are developed along that stretch
of road. And, there's no relief in sight. The stretch of Nimmo Parkway, Phase V, I think
it's called between Holland Road and General Booth is now projected to be maybe 2005-
2007. I've been here since 1994 and all the years that I've been here it's been on the map
and it was going to happen about three or four years from now, each year the same kind
of story. Now, I'm not trying to blame that on anyone including this developer but that is
something to keep in mind. If that stretch of road was in, that Nimmo Parkway stretch of
Road was in, Princess Anne Road would not be at Service Level E right now and this
proposal might make more sense. What I'd like to point out is just because this
development is limited to seniors does not mean the traffic impact will be minimal.
You're talking about $250,000 units. I think that most seniors buying these homes will
be healthy and active. They have two car garages and if there are two people living there
most of them will have two cars. On my street where I live we have three retired couples
including myself. We all have two cars. I'm here today and my wife is somewhere else.
And, it happens all the time. I don't think you can compare apples and oranges because
there is senior housing and there is senior housing. The Sullivan House is full of low-
income people. There are very few cars there because the residents don't have enough
money to afford a car. These people are going to be able to buy a car and my experience
with seniors my age and condition are that we have cars so we can get to where we want
to get do what we want to do. It's unfortunate that the traffic situation is the real problem
with this development but that is a reality. And, I think as long as we have a
Item #2 7
Royal Court, Inc.
Page 9
Comprehensive Plan in place, it's very important to support it You're now working on a
new plan. When that plan gets put into effect and Nimmo Parkway, Phase V or whatever
it is in place, perhaps it will different development rules. But until we have something in
hand, I don't see why we can justify taking a bad traffic situation and deliberately making
it worse. So, I don't think we should.
Ronald Ripley: Okay. Any questions? Could I ask you a question?
Bernard Byrne: Yes.
Ronald Ripley: And, I haven't had a chance to study this traffic report that was handed to
me but there's a statement in here and we're talking about seniors and driving and I think
your point is well made. You need a car to get around. But, it's noted in here that an
elderly restricted development such as Chelsea Place that many of the residents will be
retired and plan their trips outside normal morning and afternoon peak hours. Do you
find that to be generally true or not?
Bernard Byrne: I think that's partially true. I don't deliberately go out with the morning
rush or totally plan my day to come back with the evening rush but I do get caught in it
sometimes and the other thing that I've heard that many of my senior neighbors complain
about is during the middle of the day they say where is all this traffic corning from, well
besides us seniors there are other people out on the road, delivery trucks and you name it.
And, so I think part of the problem is that I believe, and I'm sure, Mr. Bourdon's
consultants acted in good faith and gave you numbers but I don't know how they drew a
model. You know, you can possibly select a 100 different communities and come up
with and maybe not 100 different answers but probably four or five different answers and
I just don't want to count on all these people staying home a lot when the property
develops so we don't get the traffic problems on Princess Anne Road.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much.
Bernard Byrne: You're welcome.
Robert Miller: Next speaker is Larry Kernodle.
Larry Kernodle: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Larry
Kernodle. I live at 2225 Shingle Wood Way and the Three Oaks Subdivision. I'm also
here representing on the Board of Directors for the Three Oaks Subdivision and I'm here
representing the Homeowners Association. I also have another board member here with
me. There is great opposition to this project in Three Oaks. I know the traffic issue is
what you hear the most of but it's the high density. I've been a homeowner in Virginia
Beach since 1979 and I moved to Southern Virginia Beach to get away from the
townhouses, the cluster houses and the apartment complexes. I hope you would take into
consideration that this many homes clustered together on this tight lot that's across from
our neighborhood that it's just a bad situation. There are four neighborhoods surrounding
Item #27
Royal Court, Inc.
Page 10
this piece of property. It's Three Oaks, Highgate Greens, Highgate Crossing and
Southgate. I have talked to homeowners in Southgate, Highgate Green and Highgate
Crossing and of course our own neighborhood. And there is great opposition for putting
clustered homes in an area where it's only single-family homes on all four sides. And, if
you approve this then you're going to have this cluster in the middle of all these nice
single-family homes. And, I'm not sure if the people of our neighborhood did the email
correctly are putting their names on there correctly. Maybe we noticed the sign late but
I'm not sure how long this projects been going on but I've notice the sign only 30 days
ago and we tried to have a meeting and get the ball rolling on opposition. I'm not sure I
understand the 55 age limit because I'm a new father and I calculate that I'm going to
have my little daughter in Virginia Beach Public Schools until I'm of age 65, so I don't
know if you're saying these homeowners can't have any children who are living there. Is
that constitutional? I don't know.
Ronald Ripley: It is.
Larry Kernodle: And, so the big thing we would rather look at an empty lot over there
then cluster housing when you have nice homes on all four sides of this. I don't know
what more I can say. The traffic we all know is an issue. And, it is very hard getting in
and out of the neighborhoods that are there now. But, the big issue is lets not ruin
Southern Virginia Beach and put cluster homes in with nice single family homes on all
four sides when it doesn't conform. And, like I said we have a great opposition mounting
over there. Half the people don't notice these signs. They don't call and then they get
mad later and once we start telling our neighborhood what that conditional zoning sign
meant they throw their hands up in the air and say, "wow, what is the Planning
Commission, what's the City doing to Southern Virginia Beach." Please don't allow this
to happen. And, I don't know if you have any questions but we're really against it.
Ronald Ripley: We do have a question.
Robert Miller: Would you be opposed to R-10 rezoning on that same piece of land,
which would be the 10,000 square foot lots which are down at Highgate Crossing's next
door.
Larry Kernodle: What's that equal per acre?
Robert Miller: Well, I guess the 3.5 units per acre or something like that.
Larry Kernodle: The board at Three Oaks were all in agreement that we would accept the
3.5 homes per acre but single family homes not a cluster home or what have you, but
please keep it single family because you can call it duplex homes, town homes but you
know it's a cluster home and it's going to ruin our neighborhood out there. This is a nice
part of Virginia Beach and I just hate to see it start ruining it.
Ronald Ripley: Any other questions? Thank you for coming down.
Item #27
Royal Court, Inc.
Page 11
Larry Kernodle: Thank you.
Ronald Ripley: Any other speakers? Mr. Bourdon?
Eddie Bourdon: I wish I had kept the flyer that one of the gentleman showed me and I
guess we now know where that flyer generated. We would be very happy to meet with
the folks at Three Oaks. The representative of the community was at a couple of the
meetings we had with the coalition and the idea that this has turned into something we're
talking about "clustered homes" and townhouses and things like that, six units per acre
and impact on schools and roads which was in this flyer. It's sad. Reasonable people can
disagree but hopefully disagree based on the facts and not on sending out information that
was totally erroneous. Those things happen and we want to move on. We want the
community to understand because we're proud of what is being proposed here. We're
not doubling density here. We're not doing like the Village of West Neck. That was a
situation two -units versus one unit per acre because the traffic was determined to be
roughly half. We're talking about a difference in unit counts of 13 units, 27 percent
above and not of doubling by any stretch. And, with the age restrictions and with the
lack of school children, with the clear economic benefits of these half million dollar
buildings to $600,000 buildings that have the appearance of one house. The units are one
and half stories as the appearance together of a two story with only one bedroom upstairs
in each of these beautiful homes. We think it's clearly a situation which would be a
better scenario both for the City from an economic standpoint with a condo and no
services and that has to be provided as far as maintaining the roads, etc, then would be R-
10 single family homes where you would have children to educate with over 40 would be
the number. All of those children would go to Princess Anne Elementary, Princess
Middle or Kellam High School. All of those would have to go west of this site on the
two-lane section of Princess Anne Road until another three or four years go by and
Nimmo Parkway would be open and we won't have the traffic issue. It's interesting too
that on the same agenda today, a very beautiful apartment complex was recommended for
approval. That is also in this area less than a mile away on a piece of property zoned B-2.
There are differences. If the gentleman said we don't want apartments. We don't want
this but all we want are single --family homes in this area. I think our Comprehensive Plan
looks to try to create some diversity in housing and no way does this impact negatively
upon the property values of those people who live around this proposal. I have also for
you as a further showing of the quality that Mr. Moore does, this is just four of his
projects that in showing when they were built, the original sales prices versus current
market value prices and these are not the same type of buildings that we're talking about
here but there's tremendous growth in the value which shows what is being built into the
projects that Don has done. I will pass these around to everybody. I appreciate all the
other speakers. I am very, very happy to and would be glad to meet with the people at
Three Oaks who have expressed concerns for no other reason but to make sure that they
clearly understand, as we know the representative who came to earlier meetings
understood what was being proposed. It is not townhouses. It's not six units per acre.
And, it's clearly an age- restricted community. I'll be happy to answer any questions that
any of you may have.
Item #27
Royal Court, Inc.
Page 12
Ronald Ripley: Any questions? Charlie.
Charlie Salle': Eddie, you probably said it and I probably mussed it reading something.
The coalition of civic leagues that pretty well polices a lot of development in this area,
what was their stand? Did they take a stand?
Eddie Bourdon: They generally try not to take a stand. They leave it to the communities
that adjoin it, unless they have a strong feeling. In fact, I did talk to Glen Painter again
last week and Glen stated to me that the meetings were very pleased. Everyone at the
meeting was pleased. He had absolutely nothing from anybody indicating any heartburn
about it. And, they knew and we told them well before last month we told them that we
were going to age restricted. Since we done that he heard nothing negative whatsoever
from anybody. This popped at the I I th hour but again, I've always had some concerns
with the fact how information was passed by the representatives who come to these
meetings to the people in the neighborhoods. And, we generally aren't invited, not
disinvited but there aren't meetings set up for us to go individual civic leagues. Don, did
go to Southgate and met with the people and sent out flyers and had them come to
meetings with those that were adjoining this property and the same with Highgate
Crossings. We will be glad to attend. I would welcome the opportunity to attend. I know
that not necessarily everyone would agree with the proposition but be happy to attend a
meeting of Three oaks or any of the other communities out there. So, we can make sure
that we are all going from the same base of information. Again, some people may
disagree. Mr. Kernodle may certainly disagree but I think it's important to the process
that everybody understand what is being proposed and that we not get into hysterics
which some of those ema.ils I think represent because a flyer was sent out that says, you
know, oppose a rezoning for townhouses, six units per acre, which is not what this
application is.
Ronald Ripley: I think Mr. Miller has a question.
Robert Miller: Mr. Bourdon. With your proposal to meet with the community would
you entertain a deferral?
Eddie Bourdon: Well, we've been through this for months.
Robert Miller: I'm just trying to understand your statement or do you just prefer to do
that between now and Council.
Eddie Bourdon: I would prefer to do that since we've gone to great lengths to meet with
all the communities for months. I don't think that a deferral and the families here have
been waiting patiently. I would propose to do it between now and City Council. I would
also say however, that because of travel plans that my family has, this will not go to
Council before the fourth Tuesday in March. So, there is plenty of time for that to take
Item #2 7
Royal Court, Inc.
Page 13
place because I can't attend the second Tuesday in March. There is plenty of time for
that to happen.
Ronald Ripley: I think Will has a question.
William Din: I appreciate your information on the history of the values of the
communities that have been built here but I'm not sure that I'm totally convinced our
staff yet that the quality is there. And, the service of the Princess Anne Road is still
service E. I kind of agree with the statements that age 55 people are driving. I'm 55 and
I still drive a lot. There will be a lot of driving and whether there are kids in these units
or not, there will still be a lot of traffic going both directions there.
Eddie Bourdon: Will, if I could. We are not suggesting that there will not be traffic.
And, we have not suggested that there would be minimal traffic. What we have clearly
suggested and I think it's clearly been recognized both by the staff on previous
applications and with the information that we provided, is that the traffic impact is if you
compare this development to a R-10 development will not result in any increase in traffic
over the R-10 development in our opinion will be a decrease in traffic. We also don't
believe anywhere in the write up or any point that staff has indicated that there's a lack of
quality in what is being proposed here from the development standpoint. The issue and I
don't want to speak for staff but I don't the report can be read any other way is that it's a
question of the number of units and the number of units in their mind creates more traffic.
I don't thin there's been a statement from the staff that they don't think this is a quality
proposal in terms of the development aspects of it
William Din: Well, the staff evaluation on the proffer one it says, "it does not distinguish
this community as substantially higher in quality of life than the conventional
subdivision", what I'm referring to here. Okay. So, the statement is there. As with the
previous application that you referenced over on the apartments, I think we appreciate the
diverse housing units. I think we approved that because it was diverse. I think I
mentioned that. I think this diversity in this area would be good too. I don't totally agree
that all single units in this area either. And, I think you're correct. Every area needs a
diverse type of housing. And, housing for 55 and older is nice. But, I tend to agree with
the staff has written in here that to increase the density that you're asking for I think there
has to be substantial higher quality then what we're seeing here. And, I don't know if
you showed that to the staff by the statement. Have you gone into the type of materials
that you're using?
Eddie Bourdon: The type of materials has been provided to staff and we're talking brick
and vinyl shake siding on the buildings. We got all the fences have been depicted in
terms of their materials and their style. It's an exceptionally detailed plan that has been
provided and again, I think that staff s issue boils down to the number of units and their
desire to be fewer units on the property. Again, I don't believe in all the meetings that
we've had there has never been any comment to us that these units aren't high enough
quality. That has never been part of the dialogue. It's the number and the impact that
Item #27
Royal Court, Inc.
Page 14
creates on traffic from the way they have perceived it. And, those discussions regarding
the quality predated our determination to go age restricted. And, it is the age restricted
into the equation that we think turns the application a different direction then it was
before it was age restricted. So, again, I'm repeating myself but the age restricted aspect
and the small number of the additional units on a percentage basis, we just don't believe
there's any strong argument to be made that we're going to have more traffic generated
on this development as would be the case with a single family residential development.
Ronald Ripley: Bob Miller then Charlie Salle'.
Robert Miller: My feeling is that we're talking about the traffic issue and nobody is
going to change Princess Anne Road in that area as everyone has understood and stated
from both sides and from every side that we could think of. I don't think that situation
changes. The single-family houses and the facts are they will be on public streets. They
will have school children and I'm certainly not against school children but they will
school children. There will be school buses coming and going through that community in
order to service that. There would be trash pick up coming and going through that
community, which would not be in a private community. And, I think the issue in
regards to traffic. I'm still just somewhat struck. The consultant comes back with the
statements that it's about 50 percent traffic for seniors based on national information and
we stand here and there are certainly questions about which seniors did they talk to and I
don't know which ones they talked to. URI and other people put together information
that's based on hopefully a very broad concept of making sure that we understand when
we look at numbers that they are representative of the group they have identified and
we're talking about. Even if its' not quite 50 percent, if it's 70 percent or somewhere in
that range, it's still is substantially less than what the single family would generate from
our own knowledge of that. And, I'm stuck right there. I think the product is a good
quality product. I don't have any doubt about it. I think the use of this product in this
location at this time is something that is appealing to me. And, it is appealing and not
because of anything that it does to traffic but it has with the age restriction. I think it has
the right note. And, Mr. Bourdon referred to the villages of West Neck and the success
of that project. There's something to be said to the fact that this what many our citizens
want communities that are set up that are somewhat set up and restricted so they can have
in their perception that quality of life which has something to do with again, with what
they are looking for in a community and in a house. I think they look like single-family
homes. I don't think if you drive through there you're going to feel like you're driving
through anything else. That word cluster just doesn't come to mind, so I'm in support
and I feel like the open space concept again, all of the things that I heard that were
emphasized appeal to me and particularly the fact that I do not believe this in any way,
shape or form presents the same issues traffic wise that we would see with R-10 zoning. I
think R-10 zoning would create even more issues then what we would have in this
community.
Ronald Ripley: Charlie.
Item #27
Royal Court, Inc.
Page 15
Charlie Salle': I'm going to support the application and I think what turns me in that
direction is the age restrictive aspect of the application. Because I look at this in the
Comprehensive Plan calls for 3.5 units per acre and then in order to deviate from that I
think we have to find something compelling about the application that would justify
going to the increased density. And, in my case I find that the addition of the age
restrictive aspect of the development adds that dimension to it, which I think allows me to
go against the strict 3.5 units per acre that's set out in the Comprehensive Plan. We all
recognize the Comprehensive Plan is a plan but it is a tool that we don't deviate from
lightly and but I believe in this case that the application has really turned around into
something new with the age restriction that didn't exist when it was originally put forth
and so I can find myself supporting it now and I would not have before. So, that's my
feeling in terms.
Ronald Ripley: Don.
Donald Horsley: I kind of echo with what Charlie said. You know, the age restriction,
the lack of strain on City services with schools, with trash pickup and these things. I
think it's a good amenity and even if it is encircled by single-family homes, I think that
makes it stands out that much more. It is a traffic issue but I still believe that we're better
off here then we would be with the 3.5, so I'm prepared to support the application.
Ronald Ripley: I also support the application. I think for the reasons that have been
stated here but also my experiences we manage for 55 plus older apartment communities.
And, what I've found is that you really don't find 55. You find people older than 55
because of that restriction. I wouldn't quality. I'm 53 and I have a child that would be
trip me out of this particular market because I wouldn't be permitted to be there for that
reason. So, I think for the bulk of the market but the bulk of the market is going to push
you a little higher age in your thinking here but there's a market for it. Apparently, we're
seeing in the Village of West Neck we're seeing a big demand for this and in fact, down
in the Village of west Neck in that particular application if I recall, it was approved on
traffic counts significantly lower than what is in the report here. And, also was approved
on no impact on schools and this report is suggesting they are impact on schools. I would
differ on that I think. But what turned me also, I was struggling with the density. The
number of structures maybe the lot coverage is greater but the number of structures is
probably less, I think than if it were approved under a R-10. And, so what we're looking
at is a bonus density of about 13 units if my math is correct. And, I think the intent of the
55 older provision of the zoning ordinance was to provide those type of densities as
Charlie said, if it was a compelling reason for it. And, I think the quality and the way this
is designed, I think it's there. So, prior to that 55 regulation going into this particular
application, I would have maybe not have support it. Yes.
Eugene Crabtree: Ron. I think I fall probably in the category that just about fits the
whole shebang. I'm well over 55. In my dealings with the retired community which I
deal with day by day, we see a need for more of this type thing and this is what we've
been striving for our senior citizens for the quality of life for our senior citizens within
the City. A development like this I feel and I'm going to support it because I feel like it
Item #27
Royal Court, Inc.
Page 16
is going to improve the quality of life for our senior citizens that will move into this area.
And, the amenities that are available to them in proximately with this community would
fit the style that if I was going to look for a retirement community for someone that was
going to live in an area other than assisted living, this is what I would envision. The
traffic I don't think is no big problem. The traffic for older citizens depends on their style
of life and their health at the time. My wife and I are both 69 and we come and go all day
long and we don't consider ourselves old. So, be as it may, I think this is a quality
project that will enhance the quality of life for our seniors so I'm going to support it.
Ronald Ripley: Jan has a question or I think a comment and I think Joe will be next.
Janice Anderson: I think it's a beautiful plan. I think the idea of a senior facility is a
wonderful idea. I just don't think it fits here. I think the traffic issue could be written
each way. If it's developed as is or R-10 you're going to have traffic. If you're going to
have seniors there you're going to have traffic to, so I don't think and my big defining
thing is does it come with the surrounding areas. And, they are single-family homes all
surrounding. You heard from the gentleman there. I think the emails spoke also that they
don't want the change in the community. Yes, some emails are shoed. They say six and
they say town homes but a lot of them do say duplexes. And, I think what they're really
talking about is it's a change in that community. And, it is southern as you heard the
gentleman says, "you are changing this." Now, I think this is a great idea. It's a beautiful
plan and nicely done but I don't think it sits here. It is completely surrounded by single-
family homes. And, also, you are increasing the density in this area and open spaces are
not as clear so just because of that. And, the other big reason is the plan. Our
Comprehensive Plan does not go forward. And, like Charles said you should find one
thing that brings you out of that plan but I think this property can be developed as it is, a
R-20, R-10. There's no reason to bring it out to be built differently because it can be in
the Comprehensive Plan. So, for mainly, I don't think it mixes with the surrounding or
with Comprehensive Plan, I'm going to vote against it.
Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you.
Joseph Strange: You know, I agree with almost everything said from both sides. I don't
necessarily think that this could not be worked out with single-family dwellings back
there. I don't think because they're cluster homes or somewhat or another are going to be
less quality or less quality of life. I think the thing that concerns me is that since it does
not fit into the Comprehensive Plan, since it does not meet the PD-H Guidelines that by
not deferring this I think we're taking away from the Planning Commission the ability to
modify this a little bat and to go in and do a little bit of bargaining. They didn't
recommend that necessarily that we turn it down. They recommended that either we
reject it or give them the ability to modify. So, personally I think a deferral is in order
but having said that there looks like there's enough support for it to go forward.
Ronald Ripley: Any other comments? So do we want to make a motion?
Item #2 7
Royal Court, Inc.
Page 17
Charlie Salle': I'll make a motion that we approve the application.
Ronald Ripley: A motion to approve by Charlie Salle'.
Donald Horsley: Second.
Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Don Horsley. We're ready to vote.
AYE 5 NAY 3 ABS 1 ABSENT 2
ANDERSON
NAY
CRABTREE
AYE
DIN
NAY
HORLSEY
AYE
KATSIAS
KNIGHT
MILLER
AYE
RIPLEY
AYE
SALLE"
AYE
STRANGE
NAY
WOOD
ABS
ABSENT
ABSENT
Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 5-3, with one abstention, the motion carves.
Eddie Bourdon: Have a Happy Valentines Day.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you. And, Mr. Scott, thank you again for a good agenda and I
don't know how you stayed awake. Meeting adjourned.
FORM NO P S 18
City of ir-liek Beech
INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5645
TO: Leslie L. Lilley
FROM: B. Kay Wilsoi
RE: Conditional Zoning Application
Royal Court, Inc., et als
DATE: May 6, 2003
DEPT: City Attorney
DEPT: City Attorney
The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the
City Council on May 13, 2003. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated
September 12, 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
PREPARED BY
• SMS. 90M ON.
N & LM, P.C.
ROYAL COURT, INC., a Virginia corporation I
JENNIFER BROWN ESTES, LINDA BROWN SHELL formerly known as LINDA
NELLIE SHELL and YVONNE BROWN WHITWORTH formerly known as YVONNE
NORA WHITWORTH
TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of
Virginia
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 12th day of September, 2002, by and between
ROYAL COURT, INC., a Virginia corporation, Grantor, party of the first part;
JENNIFER BROWN ESTES, LINDA BROWN SHELL f/k/ a LINDA NELLIE SHELL and
YVONNE BROWN WHITWORTH f/k/ a YVONNE NORA WHITWORTH, parties of the
second part, Grantor; 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 a certain parcel of
property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach,
containing approximately 9.963 acres which is more particularly described in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel is herein
referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of the parcel
described in Exhibit "A" and has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning E
l
Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so
as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from R-20 Residential District,
AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to R-5D Residential District with a PD-H2
Overlay; and f
WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development
of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation;
and
GPIN: 2404-75-8161
1
PREPARED BY
SYKES. $OURD[ON,
AH£RN & LEVY, P.C.
WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes
incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the
area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the
need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the
Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land
similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantors' rezoning
application gives rise; and,
WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of
and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed
amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the R-5D,
with PD-H2 Overlay, Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the
following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and
use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map
relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the
rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, for themselves, their successors, personal
representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily
and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body
and without any element of compulsion or quid -pro, guo for zoning, rezoning, site
plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration
i
of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical
development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that
this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be
binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or
through the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee,
and other successors in interest or title:
1. In order to better foster a sense of community and achieve a
coordinated design and development of the site in terms of vehicular circulation,
parking, landscape buffering, tree planting, berming, building orientation,
stormwater management facilities and open space amenities, the "COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF CHELSEA PLACE for ROYAL COURT, INC.", dated
September 12, 2002, prepared by John C. Shine and Associates, Ltd., which has
2
PREPARED BY
SMS. ROURDON.
AHM & LEVY. P.0
been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia
Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan") shall be substantially adhered to.
2. When the Property is developed, vehicular Ingress and Egress shall be
limited to one (1) entrance from Princess Anne Road.
3. when the Property is developed, all landscaping and berrning shall
substantially adhere to the detailed landscape plan prepared by Siska Aurand and
depicted on the "OVERALL SITE MASTER PLAN - CHELSEA PLACE" dated
September 12, 2002, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council
and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Landscaping Plan") .
4. There will be no more than twenty-two (22) residential buildings, each
one being two (2) stories in height, and containing two (2) dwelling units per building.
The total number of dwelling units permitted to be constructed on the Property shall
not exceed forty-four (44) and no dwelling units shall contain more than three (3)
bedrooms.
5. The architectural designof the residential buildings will be
g
substantially as depicted on the exhibits entitled "Chelsea Place Elevation A",
"Chelsea Place Elevation 3", "Chelsea Place Elevation Dn, "Chelsea Place Elevation E",
dated September 12, 2002 , which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City
Council and are on file with the Vir ' 'a Beach Department of Planning
� p g
("Elevations"). The primary exterior building material shall be brick and synthetic
cedar shake siding, and the colors used may vary from those on the exhibits but all
will be earth tones.
6. When the Property is developed, a landscaped entrance feature shall be
constructed with a brick wall, signage externally illuminated from ground level,
decorative columns and estate style fencing as depicted and described on the
"ENTRY CONCEPT FOR: CHELSEA PLACE ROYAL COURT, INC.", pages one and
two, dated September 13, 2002, prepared by Siska Aurand Landscape Architects,
Inc. and shall haven an appearance substantially similar to that depicted on the
perspective entitled "ENTRY WALL FOR CHELSEA PLACE", dated September 12,
2002, prepared by Siska Aurand Landscape Architects, Inc., which have been
exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach
Department of Pl ' g ("Entrance Plans") .
3
PREPARED BY
S"IUS. ROURDON.
ARN & L[%T PC
7. When the Property is developed, the fencing throughout the community I
shall be installed in a coordinated manner by the Developer and governed by the
Condominium Association so that the types of fencing and location of fences shall be
as depicted on the "FENCE AND PLANTING CONCEPT FOR: CHELSEA PLACE
ROYAL COURT, INC." and five (5) exhibits entitled "30 IN. HT. DECORATIVE
FENCES FOR CHELSEA PLACE"; "4 FT. HT. PROPERTY FENCE FOR CHELSEA
PLACE"; "6 FT. HT. PROPERTY FENCE FOR CHELSEA PLACE"; "4 FT. HT.
PRIVACY FENCE FOR CHELSEA PLACE"; "6 FT. HT. PRIVACY FENCE FOR
CHELSEA PLACE", dated September 12, 2002, prepared by Siska Aurand Landscape
Architects, Inc., which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and
are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning.
8. The Grantor shall record a Declaration of Restrictions ("Deed I
Restriction") as a condition of Site Plan Approval, which shall be applicable to the
Property. The Deed Restriction shall be enforced by a Condominium Association
which will be responsible for maintaining the Property and enforcing the provisions
of a Condominium Declaration governing the Property. The Deed Restriction shall
require that every occupied residential unit be occupied, on a full time basis, by at
least one (1) adult resident over fifty-five (55) years of age. The Deed Restriction shall
also prohibit persons under twenty (20) years of age from residing in any residential
unit or units for more than ninety (90) days in any calendar year.
9. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site
Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City
agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements.
The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantors and allowed and
accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall
continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning
of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall
p � p Y P
continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the
subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or
substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions,
however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and
2
PREPARED BY
SMS. ROURDON,
AHM & Lam, PC
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 ordnance or a resolution adopted by the
governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was
advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said
instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said
instrument shall be void.
The Grantors covenant and agree that:
(1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall
be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and
restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, In writing, that any noncompliance
with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure
compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction,
abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding;
(2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause
to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be
appropriate;
(3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made
pursuant to these provisions, the Grantors shall petition the governing body for the
review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and
(4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the
existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances
and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public
inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department,
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 name of the Grantors and the Grantee.
5
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
Royal Court, Inc.,
a Virginia corporation
B r'�� . SEAL
)
y
LW
Donald L. Moore, President
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
A
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thus day of
September, 2002, by Donald L. Moore, President of Royal Court, Inc., a Virginia
corporation.
My Commission Expires: I
PREPARED BY
SYM. BOURDON,
AMN & LEVY, PC
Notary Pubhc
0
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
(SEAL)
'je-nniter Brown Estes
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
September, 2002, by Jennifer Brown Estes.
My Commission Expires:
00"01 S) 1�3
9D)
PREPARED BY
• SYKES. ROURWN,
MPRN & LEVY, P.C.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
;10000�
'e4g" - (SEAL)
Linda Nellie Shell
1./KOA T3KaW(J SHELL -
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �`�� day of
September, 2002, by Linda Brown Shell f/k/a Linda Nellie Shell.
qTT9 @Fq
6_m
NotaryPublic
My Commission Expire Z,
PREPARED BY
SY s. $auRDON,
AMv & LEVY. PG
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
(SEAL)
Yvonne Whitworth
yvame' BROww wh*t+bxr`�
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
`
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
September, 2002, by Yvonne Brown Whitworth f /kla Yvonne Nora Whitworth,
wik�_Mm�m ON
My Commission Expires ::!'\� �OL75
PREPARED BY
SYKES. BOURDON.
ARM & LEVY, P.C.
EXHIBIT "A"
ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land situate and being in the City of Virginia
Beach, Virginia, and known, numbered and described as "Parcel D (9.963 acres)", as
shown on that certain plat entitled "Subdivision of John L. Brown Estate (W.B. 15,
Pg. 2), Princess Anne Borough, Virginia Beach, VA", dated December 7, 1983, made
by Miller -Fox -Stephenson, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors, which plat is duly of
record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia,
in Map Book 176, at Page 2, reference to which plat is hereby made for a more
particular description thereof.
GPIN: 2404-75-8161
CONDREZN/ ROYAWOURT/PROFFER
PREPARED BY
SYUS. $OURDON.
AMN & LEVY. P.0
10
Vrin l rt48-ou-. mfu
ZONING HISTORY
1. 4-14-92 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT recreation(indoor )APPROVED
4-9-73 - CHANGE OF ZONING (RS-4 Residential to CG-3 Commercial mmerc�al
General) APPROVED
1-28-92 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (bingo hall)APPROVED
2. 7-11-88 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT repair) re
(auto p ) APPROVED
3. 6-27-83 - CHANGE OF ZONING (B-2 Business to A-2 Apartments)
APPROVED
cl-
�* 0.9
4�
# M 41.• RAN
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Tuee' Know Him Full Gospel Ministries — Conditional Use Permit
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2003
■ Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Tuee Know Him Full Gospel Ministries for a
Conditional Use Permit for a church at 544 Newtown Road, Suite 145 (GPIN
1468303340). DISTRICT 2 -- KEMPSVILLE
The purpose of this request is to operate a church in two suites of an existing
shopping center.
■ Considerations:
The subject property is developed with a commercial shopping center
(Newpointe Shopping Center) and is zoned B-2 Community Business District.
The building in which the church is proposed is L-shaped and approximately
92,350 square feet. The church's portion, two suites at the center of the building,
is approximately 3,000 square feet. There are a total of 457 parking spaces,
which are located in front of and behind the building. Parking behind the building
is useable by customers and church attendees because of an exterior pedestrian
access through the middle of the building, immediately adjacent to the proposed
space for the church.
The proposed church is compatible with the other uses in the shopping center
and will not negatively impact neighboring properties. There is ample parking to
accommodate the proposed church and all other tenants of this shopping center.
Further, most church activities will occur during off- or low -customer hours for the
other businesses, thereby freeing the parking lot for the church. Therefore,
parking conflicts are not anticipated on this site.
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the
proposed use is compatible with the other occupants of the shopping center.
Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request.
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to
approve this request subject to the following condition:
Tuee Know Him
Page 2 of 2
The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits, inspections, and
approvals from the Fire Department and the Permits and Inspections
Division of the Planning Department before occupancy of the building. A
Certificate of Occupancy for the use shall be obtained from the Permits
and Inspections Division of the Planning Department.
■ Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department V&7t.
City Manager:
TUEE KNOW HIM FULL GOSPEL
MINISTRIES / # 4
April 9, 2003
General Information:
APPLICATION
NUMBER: C06 - 214 -CUP - 2003
REQUEST:
ADDRESS:
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
Conditional Use Permit for a church
644 Newtown Road, Suites 144 and 146
c.- .0 �� e Twee' stow Him Fu gemoel Ministries
yc
fI
� ¢ t� f
\ (J
- 2
wr e
f ,f Ilk
8:-2
Giro 14"--.30- 3340
14683033400000
2 - KEMPSVILLE
�C
.5.
Planning Commission Agenda�
April 9, 2003 ,~e 1
TUEE KNOW HIM FULL GOSPEL MINISTRIES /# 4 DUN
W4.1
Page 1
SITE SIZE: 8.9 acres (total shopping center area)
3000 square feet (proposed church area)
STAFF
PLANNER: Ashby Moss
PURPOSE: To operate a church in two suites of an existing shopping sho in center.
Major Issues:
• Compatibility with other uses in the commercial center, articular) in terms of
available parking.
particularly
Land Use, Zoning, and
Site Characteristics:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
The subject property is developed with
a commercial shopping center
(Newpointe Shopping Center) and is
zoned B-2 Community Business
District.
Surrounding Land Use and
Zoning
North: . Across Baker Road, window business / 1-1 Light
Industrial District
South: . Bus charter business / I-2 Heavy Industrial District
East: • Condominium complex / A-18 Apartment District
West: • Outparcels on Newtown Road include fast food
restaurants, a bank, and a vacant parcel / B-2
Community Business District
• Across Newtown Road, gas station and retail
Planning Commission Agenda �C?R ; O; z
April 9, 2003 _
TUEE KNOW HIM FULL GOSPEL MINISTRIES / # 4 ~ *
r
O
O 04■ ■.1
Page 2
shops / B-2 Community Business District
Zoning History
The shopping center was rezoned from suburban residential to general commercial
zoning in 1973. The condominium community behind the shopping center was rezoned
from commercial to multi -family zoning in 1983. Conditional Use Permits for a bingo
hall and for an indoor recreation center were approved for suites within the shopping
center in 1992. A Conditional Use Permit for an auto repair facility was approved in
1988 for the outparcel at the southwest corner of the shopping center.
4-14-92 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (indoor recreation) APPROVED
4-9-73 - CHANGE OF ZONING (RS-4 Residential to CG-3 Commercial General)
APPROVED
1-28-92 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (bingo hall) APPROVED
7-11-88 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (auto repair) APPROVED
6-27-83 - CHANGE OF ZONING (B-2 Business to A-2 Apartments) APPROVED
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
The property is already connected to City water and sewer.
Transportation
Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP):
Newtown Road in the vicinity of this application is a four lane divided minor suburban
arterial. The MTP designates this roadway as a divided facility with a multi -purpose
trail within a 120-foot right-of-way. There are no projects in the current adopted CIP
to upgrade this roadway.
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
TUEE KNOW HIM FULL GOSPEL MINISTRIES / # 4
Page 3
Traffic Calculations:
Street Name
Present
Present
Generated Traffic
Volume
Capacity
14,800 ADT '
Existing Land Use2— 129 AD
Newtown Road
22'4°4
Level of
Proposed Land Use 3
ADT
Service C
weekdays — 27 ADT
I
-
Sunda -- 110 ADT
'Average Daily Trips
2 as defined by 3000 square foot retail
3 as defined by 3000 square foot church
Public Safely
Police: No comments.
Fire and No Fire Department concerns with this application.
Rescue:
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area for retail, service, office, and other
uses compatible with commercial centers serving surrounding neighborhoods and
communities. The land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan also recognize the
need for legitimate support uses that fulfill the needs and services of the adjacent
community.
Summary of Proposal
Proposal
• The applicant proposes to hold church services and other church -related
activities in two suites at the center of the building.
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
TUEE KNOW HIM FULL GOSPEL MINISTRIES I # 4
Page 4
Site Desian
• The building in which the church is proposed is L-shaped and approximately
92,350 square feet. The church's portion is approximately 3,000 square feet.
• There are a total of 457 parking spaces, which are located in front of and
behind the building. Parking behind the building is useable by customers and
church attendees because of an exterior pedestrian access through the
middle of the building, immediately adjacent to the proposed space for the
church.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Access
The shopping center currently has two vehicular access points on Newtown
Road and one on Baker Road.
• Sidewalks already exist along Baker Road and Newtown Road.
Landscape and open Space Design
• A small amount of interior parking lot landscaping is present on the site, and
some street frontage landscaping exists on Baker Road. However, overall,
landscaping within the site does not meet requirements since it was
developed prior to the adoption of these requirements.
Evaluation of Request
The application for a Conditional Use Permit for a church is acceptable. The proposed
church is compatible with the other uses in the shopping center and will not negatively
impact neighboring properties. There is ample parking to accommodate the proposed
church and all other tenants of this shopping center. Further, most church activities will
occur during off- or low -customer hours for the other businesses, thereby freeing the
parking lot for the church. Therefore, parking conflicts are not anticipated on this site.
Staff recommends that this proposal be approved subject to the condition below.
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
TUEE KNOW HIM FULL GOSPEL MINISTRIES I# 4
Page 5
Condition
1. The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits, inspections, and approvals
from the Fire Department and the Permits and Inspections Division of the
Planning Department before occupancy of the building. A Certificate of
Occupancy for the use shall be obtained from the Permits and Inspections
Division of the Planning Department.
NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the
administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan
submitted with this conditional use permit may require
revision during detailed site plan review to meet all
applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be
activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See
Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further
information.
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
TUEE KNOW HIM FULL GOSPEL MINISTRIES / # 4
Page 6
f
yr. �
cum •.710
r! # .� F 4l` hA w i w S" �I i y �e r f �,v„ „ t V
`► r +'e «' '�;'� : JI! " .f +IY �► ,.t # swr w t k
, ! i * i a! r' °( E 0 d r►: a * t *t * ! } � - I 3 aL k : li d► r t a° r le 1� ae y a • .� sr M S .1b # ` f r rw / not t►*ffi i ti 6t � � 1� w tit A* W t
ek
d y w i i : rt i p dip k �: tIF.. rF . V.1
' f,� K F }� ti took
a*►.�4#�yt 3r
raw V r Mc I r .t3 fr �i'�� � �• ..,«�+ S � p $
» w i rt i • r ,.,W " �% +y
w M
qP
lot
IP
Iwo-
t! ! M *: r w �, ,. +�"F,� rww , r • wi° 1 ari
ii O w _w Al. i t i �' iA � � � � w it r op tlr r. ra t It ' rM- i Jm ai s' •
"r r9 t 1 Mx rr t Ili
W �►
s 49 r dry # �� r tAX
Ak
+� V �" W60 w � w,.0,
i Att fIP p M +` � t f !M f xP � f►r' � '►° � � !� � �' ,+ Y. � * e
�
i•��,.�.i1.4'tilt# p f y, V+
ri;M•M•wty�r � ��s �
uM � a • •� • �,ti, ,� t .w A�� � +�! i � +' � r � '* far r• � � + * � W
M� � �.� �'M k � �"+IYrWM'r • �. Y .+ � �m iY. i4-r. �i. .i� .w.. �A
14M IL
-=t rgo
It
• EjR 3 �IrF
'} x � R a,►r w e.... �` s •. �4.a � # � � i �� # �i1t + � � � � �1) j * ram' ���iE *M e k ,,a�r.�w
$ �f � w � ��,...�r „`.'•" �w ... rw•+ d► i � aR R i �% r � h "'�" ,`»1F i• � � Mai 3i � � � 4 � M �ak•V! Y � t .r. � �i °j #~■
r � l
;t let
�es 1[ ,.+ _ $ � # i r iY it era` A! 1 4W � r
Ap- ♦1 �` w wk r IE 1►
r lse
AL
r
t{ ,.t w
$ is ` T 1 + y : $ k �1 4 1 il�{� 'iA arM
6,y� {M� a► Yat
olk
a,A
ft 0
tea �
OL
■Ad
ub
a wig a�rj di► +�,..f1t IN
". or p; + �
r
wow WP.W
r
c kflZi
or
i,
.«a»..aR� ?~ } § �+.,t� 9_ : * ! �!��91RkiF pt�►t* cL
Y ,, R y YlF3i w A; i
y AV
lapi $ Q- at a
P.
•jy� r`■ +� '^M�fet+Wp` v r
1 { e M icy �T• !? of { { fi ,R TR• ) \
■l * ST Il+ ' �R
ro w�}
r �' � #t t � M fr. :;t.� � w '.i► � � � t � � w I
+ +' tic a fw •s yea �k s *� '
E ; +4
+�° 1 ir.f }s Y i # i �p E bra"' R x 3
Q _ ,,JJ
AN stlb
Y } ♦ �+� • +• . ►o jN d» }F ` s
waa r
41
4ar � � ' �fl � � � *'• as f � , � f � � tf � Y s � � R �'yri} t f ,. }, ��y,
*y rr,. • •o Pit �` , w r,
wr fo
a i i` NS Y ! F 9 f i • t K
gat
AtF ;
r.s �" w r � k ' � " � ' apY ee s > $i Ft � �" JM � " � s ; � � r #l►
'Ji a1Yt ARryiMk 't Io-
Vb
«R, k"■ 1 ! * " +B Wills 7rMk .-.. # Mr O t i :�i ' ► R • _ FIt A Ku
awl 40
will
iy►If +M e� #✓ 4 > + 1! ' i311k �F `� �� e t •R ! •
AZI,milkw * -0F i y fi[ .A,riflP It 410
r,rit �fL e t "ilwl► � r � i
t, n 4 i �r7tla,1 *'4rYR�llit• ay
..t «
4j. "".-,..... ,. � ��� ,,/ �,\�"" �'+'�1d•ra,e»,«�"�.� wa"a,�'.... `� '�" t � '� � a aM# • +tt
{, .. .. .. Y"� .•..,... .n .. � �r. '�..+fwx ,Y F 4r� � � n o 0. � ,.ao- ... yA1s P +� �x I[
Y • s atilt! ,�$, i� �,lailyl� ,�I►x �»'"'.",'.,r! 'L� • # i y�° �1E ,, �r �r« n :� i
J • � � ww "J, ';•w.,a.r'�.�r ,.. r
r x as w § JSi -d r + $rYFy ^^ta
� t Y L at 3a`r !.
• v s W �.. w A i i «} fl • 3 x +w.,.^� w 7 ,� * t µ !fy
! i • _ `• 7YC jxt 44,• t! �. w y Flo- ^ .. • + v az ,MII� . '{*�
* �4 y •�' +i h >w. + r M f.e i iiiF 'RF
S `'� • O W.
*i .+ S � � t .F � ,x r i � � � �f � � M w rF r "'°y, rf it • � � r � � 0
! y r r
►~- r w 34 4 «ark p +i .i I� Y� 4C ri n p b k +
�;Flzt its
ttylA BF�
�QS��ti►ryL
Planning Commission Agenda%
April 9, 2003
--
TUEE KNOW HIM FULL GOSPEL MINISTRIES / # 4
° °«••°~'
Page 7
�.�.•••� � w•�'wIiFM ; ris .' : L� �' a �. ,. « g,.o- tt .� -,y a '%""` ..�_, � a+�� _ £' b. �,�' �.
411
WA "�j I
Alf
Air
* y s a. -.�•. G, vy�.t y a' t&w • 7 ; }+•
t
4c�
4 l
�. O� � t° r r � -. y "4.
a
414
41P,
4S,
19.
3 'A'
fir' �- aV � +R:. � -`�' .;'k � -�• -
- � -a � fin, : � � Os. -: -
" d ri' � � �.;
lop
lk
•»sf .F .fit t if ,~ 'n r" r" �•o- w''?�; .1
W
�' yT � any,_ ..i� 'A :i..• ~ � �' - .'n •y. ry_`'
,�
• Y M` � Y � v 40
zp
Ir Cl
L;dak
���:`'' < �`"",� :ram ' •'�. �. ' , '-
O
vvVt�
� >. y
f.. •' Nt
4w.
Ir
Vit
TC '.
'Ri.� ^ a'3! ::'x:SMe� jr• '1s. �:.
Plannina Commission Anandr
Dinri! 9_ 21JC
•l'tTA:IIivi0=I10WC100NU=MiviIIhlIk.`11:41Z.`�1E.M"
Janis
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
coo
a
w
WQ
0
0
COMO")
Applicant's Name:
List All Current
Property Owners: N eA&A-o%jo^ S . t A►*r.# ack% L. y..,.w...,..t�..»..�..... ......
If
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a CORPORATION, It'st all Officers of the Corporation below:
(Attach list if necessary)
If the applicaant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED
ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organizabon below.- (Attach its#
if necessary
�....................w.,.- - - _,_._�M..wi...r......MM.,MI,MM....MW._..._Y,M..,....N._ ._._�MM
Check here rl• the applicant is NOT a %orporation, partnership, firm, or Lather
unincorporated organization.5o�-a, #��'
ff th* appftant is not dw cuffent owner of the paper , complete the Property owe
Disolosum swdon bed:
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
If the property miner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below:
(Attach list if necessary)
If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED
ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below (Attach list
if necessary)
pmal 1;i< k ........ Ll�
d Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or ether
unincorporated Organization.
C RT FI CATION : f Certffy that the info nation contained .herein Is true
and accurate.
•- ("'y C(
Signature Print. Name
CondRional Use Permit Appiciation
Page 8 of 12
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
TUEE KNOW HIM FULL GOSPEL MINISTRIES I# 4
Page 9
Item #4
Tuee' Know Him Full Gospel Ministries
Conditional Use Permit
544 Newtown Road
District 2
Kempsville
April 9, 2003
CONSENT
Ronald Ripley: The next order of business is the Consent agenda. And, Dot Wood would
you please conduct this portion of the business.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ron. This afternoon, we have nine items on our consent
agenda. As I call the item would you please step to the podium, state your name, if you
have read the conditions and if you agree with them. If there is any opposition to an item
it will be brought down to the regular agenda. The first item is Item #4. It is Tuee'
Know Him Full Gospel Ministries. An Ordinance upon Application of Tuee' Know Him
Full Gospel Ministries for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on Newtown Road in
the Kempsville District. There is one condition. Is there anyone here from Tuee' Know
Him Church? Is there any opposition to Tuee' Know Him Church? Since it does have a
condition?
Kay Wilson: You can go ahead and vote on it. You can leave it on Consent.
Dorothy Wood. Gene, would you please comment on this before we go to the next item?
Gene Crabtree: I'll be more than happy too. The Planning Commission's feelings on the
Tuee' Know Him Full Gospel Ministries is we felt like it was compatible with the other
uses in the shopping center and it will not negatively impact on the neighboring
properties. There's ample parking to accommodate the proposed church. And, most
church activities will be done during off hours of the other business within the shopping
center. And, thereby we think that it will not interfere with any other things within that
neighborhood. It will be a good addition to the neighborhood.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Gene. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this item on the
consent agenda. Number 4, the Tuee' Know Him Full Gospel Ministry with one
condition. I'd like to move to approve that item.
Ronald Ripley: We have a motion made to approve the item read. Do I have a second?
Seconded by Don Horsley. Any discussion? Ready to vote.
AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1
ANDERSON AYE
CRABTREE AYE
Item #4
Tuee' Know Him Full Gospel Ministries
Page 2
DIN
AYE
HORSLEY
AYE
KATSIAS
AYE
KNIGHT
AYE
MILLER
AYE
RIPLEY
AYE
SALLE'
STRANGE
AYE
WOOD
AYE
Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes.
ABSENT
A JQ , M
46,
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Kemp Fussell, L.L.C. — Change of Zoning District Classification
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2003
■ Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Kemp Fussell, L.L.C. fora Change of Zoning
District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-
5D Residential Duplex District on the west side of Holland Road, approximately
500 feet south of Monet Drive (GPIN 1495317600; 1495410257; 1495317397;
1495328040). DISTRICT 7— PRINCESS ANNE
The purpose of this request is to create a 44-lot residential subdivision.
■ Considerations:
The applicant proposes to create a 44 lot residential subdivision on the 10.4-acre
property. This results in a density of 4.2 units per acre with an average lot size of
6,316 square feet.
The surrounding zoning in this area is consistent with that proposed. Although
the density is slightly higher than that recommended in the Comprehensive Plan,
the proffers ensure a high quality subdivision that is well buffered from Holland
Road. Dual sidewalks, colonial lighting, pedestrian paths, and architectural
proffers all contribute to an overall quality design. The subdivision's appearance
from Holland Road will be greatly enhanced by the tri-rail fence and landscape
treatment proposed in addition to landscaping planned for the Holland Road
widening project. Traffic concerns are alleviated by the planned upgrade of
Holland Road from a two-lane undivided to a four -lane divided facility.
Construction for the project is anticipated to be complete by October 2007.
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because of
the quality of design and it felt that the combination of parcels would create a
more orderly development. Staff recommended approval. There was no
opposition to the request.
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to
approve this request.
Kemp Fussell
Page 2 of 2
0 Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency:
City Manager:
Qc�,� L
Planning Department ��
KEMP FUSSELL/ # 16
April 9, 2003
General Information:
APPLICATION
NUMBER: H 1 0-212-CRZ-2002
REQUEST: Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2
Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-5D Residential Duplex District.
ADDRESS: West side of Holland Road, approximately 500 feet south of Monet
Drive
Map 1
Map Kot to Scale Kemp ' RMA
-� I `�I---- �w ♦ � r ♦�+i tea` �ei'•r..
rip
or
OM
\� � ��� : �� �� ;� � �♦ � � • �.� , a :;cif♦, ; .� `!'i��•�f
w s �
ONE L.
NIS
giva
�► tom, .,,...i"' _� �*'-a �/�` -� � ,
Bak
!► R 1' , }
000
IL
Wiz.. '�' t r r. �• � � `,�lp
Gpin — See Application
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
4
KEMP FUSSELL 1 # 16 •�, °��••�°~'���
Page 1
GPIN: 14953176000000; 14953173970000; 14953280400000
ELECTION
DISTRICT: 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
SITE SIZE: 10.34 acres
STAFF
PLANNER: Ashby Moss
APPLICATION This application was deferred at the March 12, 2003 Planning
HISTORY: Commission hearing so that the applicant could address comments by
staff.
PURPOSE: To create a 44-lot residential subdivision.
Major Issues:
• Compatibility of proposed land use with neighboring properties.
• Quality of proposed development.
• Traffic congestion on Holland
Road.
Land Use, Zoning, and Site
Characteristics:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
The property is heavily wooded and is
zoned AG-1 and 2 Agricultural Districts.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
North: . Heavily wooded parcel fronting Holland Road /
AG-2 Agricultural District
Northeast: . Across Holland Road, townhouse development 1
� . 1A_ BE4„
4 s4
Planning Commission Agenda ?f1'�' �
4 L+
April 9, 2003
7 • r W
KEMP FUSSELL I # 16
OY■ aY 10
Page 2
R-5D Residential District with PD-H2 Planned Unit
Development Overlay District
South: . Single family residential development / R-5D
Residential District with PD-H2 Planned Unit
Development Overlay District
Southeast: . Large lot single family home / AG-2 Agricultural
District
East: . Across Holland Road, single family dwellings /
conditional R-10 Residential District
West: . Single family residential development / R-5D
Residential District
Zoning and Land Use Statistics
With Existing Agricultural land uses with one dwelling on each of the
Zoning: three existing lots.
With Forty-four single family dwellings developed in
Proposed accordance with the proffered site plan and other
Zoning: proffered conditions described below.
Zoning History
Several zoning actions have occurred on property across Holland Road, east of the
subject property. Single family residential developments south of Saville Garden Way
were changed from agricultural zoning to conditional R-10 Residential District in 1998
and 2001. On the north side of Saville Garden Way, the townhouse development was
rezoned from agricultural to PD-H2 Planned Unit Development Overlay District in 1984.
North of the townhouse development, a single family development was rezoned from
agricultural to conditional R-5S Residential District.
Air Installation CompatibleUse Zone (AICUZ�
The site is in an AICUZ of 70 to 75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The Department
of the Navy has written a letter to staff pointing out "the Navy's Air Installations
Compatible Use Zones program strongly discourages residential use in the 70-75 dB
Ldn zone, but does recognize that local conditions may require the need." The letter
also recognizes "appropriate interior sound level reduction and noise zone disclosure to
prospective residents are ensured" under Virginia Beach's Airport Noise Attenuation
and Safety Ordinance. In summary, the Navy is not opposed to the application, but
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
KEMP FUSSELL / # 18
Page 3
does want to voice concern with adding residential homes in the 70-75 dB Ldn noise
zone.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
The subdivision must connect to City water and sewer. Facilities for water and sewer
are available in Holland Road fronting the property.
Transportation
Master Transportation Plan (MTP) /Capital Improvement Program (CIP):
Holland Road in the vicinity of this application is a two-lane undivided minor
suburban arterial. The MTP identifies this section as a divided facility with a bikeway
on a 100-foot right-of-way. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is
currently planning to improve the section of Holland Road from Dam Neck Road to
the proposed Nimmo Parkway Phase V intersection to a four lane divided facility.
Under the approved budget, construction is currently scheduled to begin October
2005, ending October 2007. This project is listed in the current adopted CIP as
project #2.158.000 (see CIP project sheet on next page).
Traffic Calculations:
Street Name
Present
Present
Generated Traffic
Volume
Capacity
1 U33
16,200 ADT
Existing Land Use — 30 ADT
Holland Road
ADT 2
Level of
Service F
I Proposed Land Use 4 — 487 ADT
Based on February 2002 count of 16,440 plus three percent increase to account for another year
2Average Daily Trips
3 as defined by three single family detached homes
4as defined by 44 single family detached homes
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
KEMP FUSSELL/# 16
Page 4
CIty of • Bieach, Virg,
YearsRsQil through2007-08 Capit3i ImprovementProgram
Project# and Tale. 2.169 Holland Road - Phase Vl (Partial) ( 01)
Responsible t Public WoMs Business Area COuaiit` Ph ical Environment
Total
Total Budget Una wricarioted Subsequent Years
Future
Programmed
Appropriations Year 1 Year 2 Ye+ar 3 Year 4 Yeaq Year 6
Funding
Funds
To Date FY 2002-03 FY 2M3-04 FY 2DUd-03 FY 20G5-06 F Y 20FY 2007-08
Re ulrement
42 0a0
3 a0Q '�! QQ4 ?Q,QO 3Q�,�000 63�fA
0
a
Description Scope
VDOT # Ua00-134-145 This project is for aanstruction of a fouPsne divided highway from Landetwn Road/Dam Neck Road to
Nimmo Parklwa Phase ' , a distanced appiroximatelx 2 6 miles Same VDdT projects n-ey be suh�ect to ctis
adoption of the r - 2002-03 Virginia Transportation Development Plan which is antiapeted do odour in June 2D0
pending
�
it • »
This protect is included in the City Most er T ran sportabcn Plan and the Regonel Transportation Plan Corstrucbon of hs
prqect will gready enhance traffic flowand improve acoess lo Darn Neck Fbad and Nimrno ParicAray Phase V for the surmunding
communities In 1999, this roadway had a traffic volume of 13 300 vehicles per day with a protected volume cf 36.000 vehicles
per day in 2018
This project first appeared in the-FY 1991-02 CIP ltwasrequeeWd as a VDOT project i n FY 1996-96. and deferred i n ft FY
1996-97 CIP tt rues ne-established in the FY 1997-99 OI P Schedules s nd oasts are updated annually based on the Virg na
Transportation Development Plan
Aga M
Basis for Eshmarte FY 2002-03 FY 21)03-44 FY 2004-D5 FY 2005-b6 FY 2006
FY 2007-08
Matritenanoe based an coiit per lane mile as 4 0 0 a 72,E4
reported to VDOT
SchedUIC- of Activities
Activity From -To
Amount
Trek
Design 1OM64 05
1,350,0QD
W
Srda Acquisition 1 DJ02-10114
915,DD0
-
Private Llblity Adjustments 1 O 04-1 GfO5
1.120,900
Conatruchen 1OK&IO T
10,088100
�A
Sre+et Lights 08,07-Mg
560,000
r
Landscaping 08A7-=8
250,040
� -
Contirgencies 10M&Oms
404 0Da
y _
Total Budgetary Ccat Estimate
14.684,00
` r M
Total hlan-Programmed Costs
13,752,000
- -�
Total Programmed Casts
932,000
.... ..r, ..,.,r r }` wad ..� eR•a
Lhf
SQUWC Lao
1�t7�tlfl t
2001 Charter Bonds
50,000
-�
Clnarter Bonds
70,000
-�
20M 0-arter Bonds
250,0DD
2004 Garter Bonds
200,00D
-
4 F
2005 Charter Bonds
63.900
Pay-A&-Ycu-Go
298,500
Total Programmed Finsna ng
,
^
Future Fu rtidi ng Requirements
4
^
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
KEMP FUSSELL / # 16
Page 5
.tbrrMlMM��"
t
e
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL AIR S7ATION OCEANA
Low)
16i)
a F r s A- 0 0,77
re,bru ry 24, '2001
h
T' 4 *ram
r
ye
e s 4
V o"L w •
1 '1'L .` �T 3 T y r! C 5. mm► s s r i Aa e i i .�1 a s s J4 ++
► +[
1y � La. tw Y ♦►rr4 i N '� �d '4 i � k � r: *.. ,f drr n vKy
i� r J'� a ���' 'h' � �y � ''�(r .i 'i` S +*� p�'t '► .�.i i x�'1 y 'hi � fF'� te►ri x 'L"
,w 47 G. r i w It 3sr i r .a... � ♦.+ .r. �w„�'oa i wl a � � � Y� r Y �,( � wA � �.. r_F S -.� i.w a �,r x i \,.1 5.,� � C,�. ,r, f.+c +� � �..., i! �. .x. � �r t Y a. 1 t A. V
r r 'L.�`. � ,--Y .. ' f'^' r'�C ► r r � +�°"►'"' �' ++W M'+ M.. rlrti + �. t"F` * h f ► � "ti
i 1 l `r .h y ` c �e i ,� Y E o . ��w" �^, E. .. d� .w ► 4 M ..► 5 */ 1r4 1 : r
F t• `� . t 7 ,i. .s. . l 1 d w � w.� \� r L_ �~ YET Y� � �) w �t M � � 7f [� i #� � ELF W � 7r +iu Wi � a y, �.� � tub .,1� 4 rv♦ ✓ 4,r� �.. � n
f 'y a d a,.L � «. . �• � ass r
!_ 4 i'i£ y. Y �. ,i. a i w i %w ,a %+ +M� .✓ wr ww. ♦w+� \v. wr ti.w „ w fY f � w� '} ♦ #. � �y *s v e r� a
-r �' ` �^Y :� 1^' ► r r ♦ i F +. ry i w 77 r_ + yi r y i. » F ✓+ ; s ( aT i� ° ' '� w� „� ' �Y h f {
ci l F a � o as al - w. ~ i `.x h. \� i�.rv�,a.,j. �
? Ar M }tom a-` *ts La U Y Y 3 +.�r�a t 3 %��♦ t«
Y ,w, w. w. • 4 ti. tie .L Yr .w. ,. .w. w ,,.4 ,.a. 4,4
t�' ♦ 1 I'. u k f ,e. a e ,� ,� ..� ..
., r /- � F .� ►_ � +'"' � v" �,y ►'^ "'+ a" ^'t ± ♦ f
e r k �^` v x ,Y,. n , 4 1r . ; a
1 s Y
_ yl _ / • w •. o y1 �' Comp U - ` ' r e Y r i� F Yr )( r+
"ry • T..� L i w .. Tai 1n +v w. V +ti YJ .! . 7 y f W. Irw A l y f ,,. � K 1 M
EM''MY • �.. .' s- S l d e� a s a'a f
�.A w w.r '..• I F � �
r
(rye i+. fi • t� rr.� !! ('7 +r� s f£'i .e ~ *' r, # e q a ,k,. +w A s k y a
x ^ • jw �.# w.+ � � w_ � «. 4 " 3 ► J 4 7w � � ,,.h +. ,a �.R Y �� CIF +✓ � x i � � �w. ,i. �.,J ? ♦ � k • ra� � 'c � sr 4ii NY. ,a. .r r ,F
.y .w Y - + f w aw M y, yy do- o �ry ,�,.+ w �" * ` y^� x'M r
a. LST !w.al � +w / V wy f A � „►. � l� � ` .. � � �l � # � 3 � t,.. L+f � 3 1 E,� W �.r >, ► � � wE..f i Sit•► � .0
r L ► + tL.'� xw *rY i 's v �. a r�+..�i x w � +�i :} r a � fe a S a ,.. e L � w� i � a. r. � r-- r Z� �
_ t
a : \ 0 >rc. r e, I S ` ice.. ... r� r• b o F.a L 5, A r cr ,A d, ` or; L ► an c: n 9
Ll r7 {,.,• rr r " + t�" e b y .. o p Ywn ,v t vl .r e al. e s w c e n ' s a e P rr wn ri r °^ .+1 .
r r�r F+� tom¢ #:7 >` t % 4 o.;
!w a .a.i 4 ' r7f a Y ♦,e+ .Y +, i �... ..a.
r r "� y. * " . n.. ..t ;a. "'° ► ;" (� r x A 4 *' f zh .wd
w a Y
y� q � r e � x f ♦ "3 y 1' t t-0e ++mot Y wr p.. M W 1"♦ *.\
S.i �, i.�i ti.. .a.. 1 !`F ,a. wr „ R v d"Y #.J �rr e x t I f c t t. « ,� � r
V'� r 1 ! s� '� 1 T f 1^^q Y F`y s 'r' T ��
r i a e 6 E F„w Y' Ste.. I .A 1 3 ++1 j s ,�L V { „F e., Cep. i-y ♦,. �r rt • . -,rt -r .., b
} .r .L. r .. r �., r ~ O Tn
". r 8 ti -1, f. T" jr V « } a ' 1 7
� � N
n: e. i` f ,, t
A 'LEAVE?
f Ndv
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
KEMP FUSSELL / # 16
Page 6
Schools
School
Current
Capacity
Generation �
Change 2
Enrollment
Christopher Farms
794
870
14
14
Elementary
Landstown Middle
1617
2143
8
8
Landstown Senior
1910
1931
10
10
High
"generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school
2 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and
under the proposed zoning The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer
students).
Public Safet
Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the
Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime
prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (OPTED) concepts and strategies as
they pertain to this site.
Fire and No Fire Department concerns with this conditional rezoning
Rescue: application.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan Map recommends low density residential land uses below 3.5
dwelling units per acre for the subject property. The proposed density of the subdivision
is 4.24 lots per acre. However, the density of the residential developments surrounding
the subject site ranges from 3.0 to 6.6 units per acre. Therefore, the proposed density
is in keeping with the average density found in areas around the site.
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
KEMP FUSSELL / # 16
Page 7
Summary of Proposal
Proposal
• The applicant proposes to create a 44 lot residential subdivision on the 10.4-acre
property. This results in a density of 4.2 units per acre.
Site Design
• The 44 lots are served by a single main road connecting to Holland Road with two
small cul-de-sacs serving lots off of the main road.
• A 0.8-acre stormwater
management facility is shown
along the frontage of Holland Road
south of the entrance.
• Lot sizes average at 6,316 square
feet.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Access
• The sole access point is on Holland
Road, directly across from Saville
Garden Way.
• A potential future connection is
shown at either end of the main
road where it leads to smaller
parcels of undeveloped property.
This will potentially allow for fewer
access points on Holland Road
when and if these properties are
developed in the future.
M,WwCI
j w �,..Y�.,.
�r zC.
�f
`■air {i
W �
� 4 y S►`
S� � FiiIR � f IIeN r
•� ,r r � µ • �� i r
f
r� rl• ■■iMiY• �w n � � ti 3 � { w+1R ky* � w� 4
�' 10 fl % f•
'� il, # k#i
l ZI f °
y l 'w.4 *`� �. * e t4
4
16
,Z�t
i'1 /* �j i f h i► M
as A � '4 .?f '1..�M• r�^4� 'nr
..,
6 �4ly
y
")IMpeA u•p
Ns h +.tiw
w.M RY ate•(}
.E
w�
At
• There is potential for a traffic signal
to be installed at the subdivision's proposed entrance on Holland Road. Even before
this application was submitted, Public Works had determined a potential future need
for a traffic signal at the Saville Garden Way/Holland Road intersection and had
requested VDOT to include conduits around the intersection for future si9 nalization
use when Holland Road is upgraded.
IAti►�C
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003 i
KEMP FUSSELL / # 16 ZrBumk WhOO
Page 8
{ q
• A 20 to 30 foot dedication is shown along the property's frontage for the widening of
Holland Road.
• The Holland Road improvements will include a multi -purpose trail along the frontage
of Holland Road.
• Within the development, the applicant has proffered to construct sidewalks on both
sides of the interior roads. Standard requirements only call for sidewalks on one side
of the road.
• The applicant has also proffered a hard -surface walking path around the stormwater
management facility connecting to the interior sidewalk system. A gated path will
also connect this walking path to the multi -purpose trail on Holland Road.
Architectural Design.
0
The applicant has proffered sample pictures of four different homes that have been
constructed elsewhere in the City. The homes are all two-story with attached
garages and include a number of
gables, providing variation in the
roofline. Two of the homes include a
two-story covered arched entrance
feature.
• Although exterior building materials will
vary, the applicant has proffered that 23
of the 44 homes will have brick exterior
front surfaces.
• The size of the homes has also been
proffered to contain at least 2,100
square feet of living area and an
attached garage.
• The applicant has proffered colonial
style street lighting within the
development and a four -foot tri-rail white
vinyl fence along the entire frontage of
Holland Road. The proffered entrance
sign also incorporates the tri-rail fence
between two brick columns.
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
KEMP FUSSELL 1 # 16
Page 9
Landscape and Open Space
• The site plan shows 0.58 acres of open space in the development. The open space
is concentrated along the frontage of Holland Road at the subdivision's entrance and
surrounding the stormwater management facility. This open space placement
serves to buffer the backs of the homes from Holland Road.
• A five-foot landscape easement is included along the frontage of Holland Road in
which evergreen trees and shrubs are to be planted behind a three -rail vinyl fence.
Medium evergreen trees are to be planted a minimum of 45 feet on center, and
evergreen shrubs are to be planted to create a continuous hedge.
• The applicant has also proffered a sum of $31,000 to be used towards the
renovation of the existing Landstown Meadows Neighborhood Park, located
approximately 900 feet south on Holland Road. This cash proffer is intended to
satisfy the open space requirement called for in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Proffers
PROFFER # 1 When the Property is developed, it shall be as a single
family residential community of no more than forty-four
(44) building lots substantially in conformance with the
Exhibit entitled "PRELIMINARY EXHIBIT OF BERNARD
FARMS FOR KEMP-FUSSELL, L.L.C.," dated 10/08/02,
prepared by Kellam-Gerwitz Engineering, Inc,, which has
been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on
file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning
("Concept Plan") -
Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. The plan is described in detail
above.
PROFFER # 2 When the Property is developed and prior to receiving
subdivision approval, the party of the fifth part shall
dedicate or cause to be dedicated to the Grantee that area
depicted on the Concept Plan, for widening of Holland
Road. In addition, the party of the fifth part shall create the
landscaped buffer with fencing and entrance feature along
Holland Road substantially in accordance with the Concept
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
KEMP FUSSELL / # 16
Page 10
la,BFAcfs
4aa L�
O 'GS
�� OY• Uhl
Plan.
Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. A dedicat►on along the frontage
of the property ranging from approximately 20 to 30 feet
will allow for an ultimate right-of-way of 115 to 130 feet for
Holland Road. The Department of Public Works has
commented that this appears to be sufficient for VDOT's
planned improvements for Holland Road.
PROFFER # 3 When the Property is subdivided, it shall be subject to a
recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a
Homeowners Association. The five-foot (5) landscape
easement depicted on the Concept Plan adjacent to
Holland Road and along the rear property lines of those
lots adjacent to Holland Road, as well as the open space
area containing the Lake/BMP and trail shall be dedicated
to and maintained by the Homeowners Association.
Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. The Homeowners' Association
will be responsible for maintaining the fence and the
landscaping behind the fence along Holland Road. This
body will also be responsible for the hard -surface walking
path surrounding the stormwater management facility.
Membership in the Homeowners' Association should be
mandatory.
PROFFER # 4 When the Property is developed, the party of the fourth
part shall install sidewalks within the public right-of-way on
both sides of all roads as depicted on the Concept Plan
and create fencing and landscaping as depicted on the
exhibit entitled, "PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
BE RNARD FARMS," prepared by Kellam-Gerwitz
Engineering, Inc., dated 10/08/02, which has been
exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in
the Department of Planning.
Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. However, it should be made
clear that the exhibit shows features to be included in
different areas. The fencing and landscaping are to be
included only along the Holland Road street frontage and
at the entrance. The colonial lighting shown on the exhibit
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
KEMP FUSSELL / # 16
Page 11
is to be included on the interior streets of the development.
Street trees will also be provided within the development
as required by the Subdiv►sion ordinance. All of the
features listed in this proffer will contribute to a h►gher
quality development.
PROFFER # 5 All homes constructed on the lots depicted on the Concept
Plan shall have exterior architectural features, design,
colors and building materials substantially similar to homes
depicted on the photographs labeled "sample Homes —
Bernard Farms" which have been exhibited to the Virginia
Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach
Department of Planning. A minimum of twenty-three (23)
homes shall have "all brick" exterior front surfaces and all
front yards and side yards adjacent to a public street shall
be sodded.
Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. The houses depicted in the
photograph are attractively designed. While the proffer
specifies that fifty percent of the homes will have brick
fronts, the ►materials for the remaining exteriors are not
specified. Regardless, this amount of brick will add to the
overall quality of the development.
PROFFER # 6 When the Property is developed, the party of the fourth
part shall develop a lake approximately 0.787 acres in size
and a multi -purpose trail as depicted on the Concept Plan,
as a stormwater management facility. The lake shall
incorporate the design features recommended in Section
8(n) of the Southern Watersheds Management Ordinance,
including an emergent wetlands bench, winding
shorelines, forebay areas and dedicated access.
Staff Evaluation: Th►s proffer is acceptable. The features listed contribute to
both the function and appearance of the stormwater
management pond. The placement of the lake between
the homes and Holland Road also provides a good buffer.
Lastly, incorporating the walking trails around the lake w►ll
help make th►s engineering feature more of an aesthetic
and recreational amenity for the community.
PROFFER # 7 All homes constructed on the lots shall contain no less
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
KEMP FUSSELL / # 16
Page 12
than 2100 square feet of enclosed living area excluding
garage area and an attached garage containing no less
than 315 square feet.
Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. Proffering the size of the
homes and the garages ensures a level of value for the
property, which reassures surrounding homeowners that
their property values will not be diminished.
PROFFER # 8 When the Property is developed, the party of the fourth
part shall pay to the party of the fifth part's Parks and
Recreation Capital Improvement Program Account 4.970
(Park Playground Renovations) the sum of $31 000-00 to
be used in renovating the existing 4.89 acre Landstown
Meadows Neighborhood Park. Payment shall be made to
the Parks and Recreation Department prior to Subdivision
approval and recordation. This payment shall satisfy the
park area/open space requirement contained in the
Subdivision Ordinance.
Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. The sum was derived from the
required amount of open space multiplied by the assessed
value of property in the R-5D Residential Zoning District.
By transferring the value in this way, both the residents of
the existing area and the new community will get to enjoy
the renovated Neighborhood Park and the City will avoid
the long term expense of a new Neighborhood Park.
Landstown Meadows Neighborhood Park is just a short
distance from the proposed development, and pedestrian
access will be provided with the scheduled Holland Road
improvements. Further, although the cash proffer was
based on the full 0.62 acres required for open space, the
site design still includes 0.58 acres of open space for the
development.
PROFFER # 9 Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during
detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and
administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant
City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City
code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-
5D Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations
applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
KEMP FUSSELL 1 # 16
Page 13
G
i
G* cum r.Sfb.ti
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.
Staff Evaluation: This proffer reinforces the concept that a rezoning
approval does not supersede compliance with ordinance
and code requirements. Changes to the plan may be
required during the detailed plan review process.
City Attorney's The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer
office: agreement dated October 10, 2002, and found it to be
legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form.
Evaluation of Request
The applicant's request for a rezoning from AG-1 and 2 Agricultural Districts to
Conditional R-5D Residential District is acceptable. The surrounding zoning in this area
is consistent with that proposed. Although the density is slightly higher than that
recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, the proffers ensure a high quality
subdivision that is well buffered from Holland Road. Dual sidewalks, colonial lighting,
pedestrian paths, and architectural proffers all contribute to an overall quality design.
The subdivision's appearance from Holland Road will be greatly enhanced by the tri-rail
fence and landscape treatment proposed in addition to landscaping planned for the
Holland Road widening project. Traffic concerns are alleviated by the planned upgrade
of Holland Road from a two-lane undivided to a four -lane divided facility. Construction
for the project is anticipated to be complete by October 2007. Therefore, this
application is recommended for approval.
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
April 9, 2003
KEMP FUSSELL / # 16
Page 14
2 awn * ♦Ylrwsnk i, JW &IW► OAFiiP k
Oft
eb* Aft& P JWj rft ! si i VU
I+� �►► raw•. is
R resat ~ dogwoww c w■4% wva'� L�M�[ ,�` ' tril# w +�'" � MOW"
-k' , .i w ` ` ►iikl'
► Air w xwft jw AW t Aww W
fts #
oft y k�
'a AMES* �$NOW Al mkftnwR Jam►M&I W Wnc
Y AM* Ow ifs 00ft Am OLLNIM ~ " *-% 1 i ` ►
Mt AM I loft) Am fv� r 41 f
ii"k-Y1�►�
i r nir4a. am a011w 1M "MiMw a0+f �• sow
_ +r r 7< !
APR "NOW&P
T (Ai 7t w mciOW JIRs c� '" w '�'� 'w+� ;fit T I • r``
. Sol
",r r
i�
a wwaw Ow A 41wob !�� iIk a # �J� �r �w saw./
aw OEM" am Ow
"oo COMM
S MOW WW mow► &Mgt J= ~NON► i.A
is
fbA
'a' �'� �'�`►� 'pry /' �,,,, �'� �' �' �,.,�,,,,a� � .� , �
t.rF�w
AM* J M. • 7"j
lwHrMMR /w s Jr„� �0 A<+a t to ;.rMiWi�M P AC>>k tart
w�w•.rrali� w111MG+ irate �t '� {
40W VW
r 4
Al
t 0410Na
LW%O%c. +r Y
31
^�
ef
/tom ��`YI► � ��i Y 4 1� �. � y � y � ...8.�s��y � �
M►dsiAa�3 JIMM`
.wr' r • `R 4 � �t � � +4 �r ,� ..� +rR i
R W*lr Q W a 4 4
1
! PM i CFI
lip
tr �! lop.dr i ti'T s +iR a ,�. 0'^' "".a+'rl..r"r t {!�"'MI('.1?►Y
Ar
y� 1
r � ++M
1. D am
,r IN;7s
4
F F A r E
rio.rrR 7,144
�Ilw� k
00
VOW
t
400
w E Oft U4
WWOW tO tlAW%AQ.& i► t
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
KEMP FUSSELL 1 # 16
Page 15
Planning
Commission Agendas
April 9, 2003
O
KEMP FUSSELL / # 16 eve Y41
Page 16
I dY
x
49
+
�
w
Y
AIL
4
r
}
it
a
f
R
'
� S
k
aim
+�+
w
,,.,gy�pp
A
•R'
N
Planning Commission Agenda,1 I� {
April 92003
KEMP FUSSELL / # 16
O. Y■ rl O
Page 17
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
KEMP FUSSELL I # 16
Page 18
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
KEMP FUSSELL 1 # 16
Page 19
Lk
Planning Commission Agendag'�'!�
April 9, 2003
KEMP FUSSELL I # 16 +*�"
�' OY■ rrt 4*
Page 20
. 00-
t.{.
46
f `4 * a �t;,r.: .., rt• '�"Y�: '�i3' ��'o-. { rS"�@� 's�` - 'ci` ,''i'Y �.. t��
a'
y
> � rpr
Nk
.. l �� � °p1••. its: ?P:
r: ..94 :�
N
�_,�c• y
V � } � .. .V;-� 'Eft �d �i � f � - �x3 r`.T �• ':�� a`�'�`Y- �. �Y�
,x 'A} + 4 ..,, - ,.�;• i yew„ s . +�R
ve
IL
v Nam°
<LV
lift
Aw
x yt
n
.. a
>+l�
�{ c
I IU it
rVV
Y
t, r47
' A
ri
404,
Nanning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003 e
KEMP FUSSELL 1 # 16 Du-1
Padp 21
APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 4
CONDITIONAL REZONING
Crry OF VIRGINIA BEACH
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
4
APPficant's Name: NA'T." Fu- %,*t'* I i - I C. a V1 rx 1.1
labl'AJtV
... . . ..... .
Ust All current
Property Owners:
--------------
... ........
PROPERTY OWNER DISC1,0SURE
If the property owner is a CORTORA130N, list all officers of the Corporation below (Attach jj�t:f"e(,e4sar_v)
If the propcny owner t% a PARTNERSHIP. FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGA.NIZATION, list
all members or partmm in the orpniman below- (Aaach list ifnecessary)
Check here if the propeny owner is NOT a corporman.. pan nership. firm. or other unincorporated
orsanizaLon.
f If the WbCant is not the current owner of the PrOPOrtY, COMPte the Applicant Disclosure seetwa below -
A"Llcxw DISCLOSURE
If the awheant is a CORPORATION, list v1I officers of the Co"rution below (Attachlivi;ftecessaty)
If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM. 0.- other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION listall
membcrsorpartner,sinthe organ=tionbelo,%v
. ......... -
LO Check here if the Applicant is NOT a corporation, partnershlp, firm. or other unincom, onattd organizamoll
CERTIFICATION I cerfifY th4t the infOrmadon contamed herein 1$ true and accurate.
I.
�+ri.,.y_ &-aw-
X, Signawre
P
Pvnt Nxne,
1A 8&q
cf
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
KEMP FUSSELL / # 16
Page 22
Item #16
Kemp Fussell, L.L.C.
Change of Zoning District Classification
West side of Holland Road, approximately 500 feet
South of Monet Drive
District 7
Princess Anne
April 9, 2003
CONSENT
Dorothy Wood: The last item on consent is Item #16. It is Kemp Fussell, L.L.C, an
Ordinance upon application of Kemp Fussell, for a Change of Zoning from AG-1 and
AG-2 Agriculture Districts to Conditional R-5D Residential Duplex District on the west
side of Holland Road. This is in the Princess Anne District. And there are nine proffers.
Mr. Bourdon.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Madam secretary, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach
attorney representing the applicant and obviously we have re -proffered this rezoning. I
did want to take a second and I know you all will make a comment as well. I was just
handed a letter from a gentleman who is not here named Walter Milligan who sent this in
to the staff indicating an objection to this for the sole reason that he believed the duplex
structures were being proposed and this is not the case I'll make if he happens to be
watching. These will be single family homes as proffered that will have values on
average over $220 thousand dollars per home. They will be single-family homes and if
he happens to be watching I wanted to make sure that he was aware.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: Is there any opposition to this item, Item # 16? Hearing none, Will,
could please comment on this item?
William Din: Yes. Thank you Ms. Wood. On Item #16, which is the Kemp Fussell
item. Again, this is a development of three parcels actually and as a comprehensively we
felt that the three parcels together was better to be developed as a whole unit rather than
individually, which is a more harmoniously development and provides a more
consistency of development. We felt that it would provide an improvement here and as
Mr. Bourdon indicated there was a letter that came in just as we sat down objecting to
this but it objected to the duplexes. And, as Mr. Bourdon indicated that these are single-
family homes that are being put in there and of good quality. It will provide dual
sidewalks. It will provide overall quality designs. And the traffic concerns will be
alleviated during the Holland Road improvements that will go in there. We also
considered the Department of Navy's letter that was submitted on the AICUZ zoning
that's in that area and even though they didn't have any direct objection, they did want to
discourage that type of development but they were encouraged by the sound proofing that
does go into residential areas that are developed in these areas. As a result, we placed
this on consent.
Item ## 16
Kemp Fussell, L.L.C.
Page 2
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Din. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this item on
the consent agenda, number 16, which is Kemp Fussell and that has nine proffers. I'd
like to move to approve this item.
Ronald Ripley: We have a motion made to approve the item read. Do I have a second?
Seconded by Don Horsley. Any discussion? Ready to vote.
AYE 10 NAY 0
ANDERSON
AYE
CRABTREE
AYE
DIN
AYE
HORSLEY
AYE
KATSIAS
AYE
KNIGHT
AYE
MILLER
AYE
RIPLEY
AYE
SALLE'
STRANGE
AYE
WOOD
AYE
ABS 0 ABSENT 1
Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes.
ABSENT
FORM NO P S 19
City of Virgirzi� Beach
INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5692
TO: Leslie L. Lilley
4,
FROM: B. Kay Wilson
RE: Conditional Zoning Application
Kemp Fussell, L.L.C., et als
DATE: May 1, 2003
DEPT: City Attorney
DEPT: City Attorney
The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the
City Council on May 13, 2003. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated
October 10, 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
PREPARED BY
• SYKES. ROURDON.
AHERN & LEVY. P C
WILLIAM WHITEHURST
TIMOTHY C. WHITEHURST, SR., EVA WHITEHURST and WILLIAM WHITEHURST
ROBERTA TURNER
KEMP FUSSELL, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company
TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of
Virginia
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 10th day of October, 2002, by and between
WILLIAM WHITEHURST, Grantor, party of the first part; TIMOTHY C.
WHITEHURST, SR., EVA WHITEHURST and WILLIAM WHITEHURST, Grantors,
parties of the second part; ROBERTA TURNER, Grantor, party of the third part;
KEMP FUSSELL, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the
fourth part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the fifth part.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the owner of one (1) parcel of property
located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing
approximately 3.62 acres as more particularly described as Parcel 1 in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcel, along with
the other parcels referenced herein and described in Exhibit "A" are herein referred
to as the "Property"; and
i GPIN: 1495-31-7600
1495-32-8040
1495-31-7397
l
PREPARED BY
SYUS. $OURDON.
AHERN & LEVY. PC
WHEREAS, the parties of the second part are the owners of one (1) parcel of I
� property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, �
containing approximately 3.16 acres as more particularly described as Parcel 2 in �
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcel,
along with the other parcels referenced herein and described in Exhibit "A" are
herein referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the party of the third part is the owner of one (1) parcel of property I
located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing
approximately 3 , 56 acres as more particularly described as Parcel 3 in Exhibit "A" �
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcel, along with
the other parcels referenced herein and described in Exhibit "A" are herein referred
to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the party of the fourth part is the contract purchaser of the I
Property and has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of I
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 I
Conditional R-5D Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development I
of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; j
and
WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes
incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to I
I permit differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time
Ito recognize the effects of change that will be created by the Grantor's proposed �
PREPARED BY
SYKES. $OURDON.
AHEtN & LAY, P C
rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the
protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned
are needed to resolve the situation to which the 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 the R-SD
Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable
conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to
be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to
the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which
is generated by the rezoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, the 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 any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning,
rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the
following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern
the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant
and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property,
which shall be binding upon u the Pro a and upon all parties and persons claiming
P �-Y P
udder 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:
3
PREPARED BY
AHIRN & LEVY, P C
1. When the Property is developed, it shall be as a single family residential
community of no more than forty-four (44) building lots substantially in conformance
with the Exhibit entitled "PRELIMINARY EXHIBIT OF BERNARD FARMS FOR KEMP-
FUSSELL, L.L.C.", dated 10 / 08 / 02, prepared by Kellam-Gerwitz Engineering, Inc.,
which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the
Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan").
2. When the Property is developed and prior to receiving subdivision
approval, the party of the fourth part shall dedicate or cause to be dedicated to the
Grantee that area depicted on the Concept Plan, for widening of Holland Road. In
addition, the party of the fourth part shall create the landscaped buffer with fencing
and entrance feature along Holland Road substantially in accordance with the
Concept Plan.
3. When the Property is subdivided, it shall be subject to a recorded
Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed
Restrictions administered by a Homeowners Association. The five foot (51
landscape easement depicted on the Concept Plan adjacent to Holland Road and
along the rear property lines of those lots adjacent to Holland Road, as well as the
open space area containing the Lake/ BMP and trail shall be dedicated to and
maintained by the Homeowners Association.
4. When the Property is developed, the party of the fourth part shall install
sidewalks within the public right-of-way on both sides of all roads as depicted on the
Concept Plan and create fencing and landscaping as depicted on the exhibit entitled
"PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN BERNARD FARMS", prepared by Kellam-Gerwitz
4
PREPARED BY
SMs. BOURDON.
ARM & LEVY. K
Engineering, Inc., dated 10 / 08 / 02, which has been exhibited to the VirgLma Beach
City Council and is on file in the Department of Planning.
5. All homes constructed on the lots depicted on the Concept Plan shall
have exterior architectural features, design, colors and building materials
substantially similar to homes depicted on the photographs labeled "sample Homes --
Bernard Farms" which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and
are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. A minimum of twenty-
three (23) homes shall have "all brick" exterior front surfaces and all front yards and
side yards adjacent to a public street shall be sodded.
6. when the Property is developed, the party of the fourth part shall
develop a lake approximately 0.787 acres in size and a multi -purpose trail as
depicted on the Concept Plan, as a stormwater management facility. The lake shall
incorporate the design features recommended in Section 8 (n) of the Southern
Watersheds Management Ordinance, including an emergent wetlands bench,
winding shorelines, forebay areas and dedicated access.
7. All homes constructed on the lots shall contain no less than 2100
square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and an attached garage
containing no less than 315 square feet.
8. When the Property is developed, the party of the fourth part shall pay to
the party of the fifth part's Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program
Account 4.970 (Park Playground Renovations) the sum of $31,000.00 to be used in
renovating the existing 4.89 acre Landstown Meadows Neighborhood Park. Payment
shall be made to the Parks and Recreation Department prior to Subdivision approval
5
and recordation. This payment shall satisfy the park area/ open space requirement
contained in the Subdivision Ordinance.
9. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site
Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all
cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code
requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-5D Zoning District and to the
requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date
of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference
incorporated herein.
The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and
accepted by the Grantee as part of the amenent to the Zoning Ordinance, shall
continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning
of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall
continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the
subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or
substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions,
however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and
I
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
PREPARED BY
SMS. $OURDON. governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was
MN & LEVY. PC
advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia,
6
PREPARED BY
SYM.190M ON.
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
I be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of
I Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and
I restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance
1with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure
compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction,
I abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding;
(2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause
I to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be
I appropriate;
(3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made
I pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the
I review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and
(4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the
I existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances
land the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public
I inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department,
I 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 name of the Grantor and the Grantee.
7
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
(SEAL)
William Whitehurst
tow yw SL
STATE OF ��4
CITY/COUNTY OF CIA rf'A'l , to -wit:
The foregoing instrument w 1 g g instrum e as acknowledged before me this t(p day of
October, 2002, by William Whitehurst.
W'=:pAII= cd'.�?'
I i11��AfA i IIi IY�IY �iii
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: %.T.,AA 3 I Zoo
PREPARED BY
SYI . BOU DON.
AWEtN & LEVY. PC
WIU.tAM C. RHODES
No rpusuc.s%"crterTocZ
N0.*62705
0(MLM N M�SSW �f1Y
idY COM�AtS90t� OQ7�5�MY�lSt.Z .�
8
PREPARED BY
M-N-91 SYKES, O $ URDON.
AHIIRN & LEW. P.C.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
2t;4y
.4 IV Lddw&�: XV%ow %F11JISO/ (SEAL)
Timothy C. Whitehurst, Sr.
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
October, 2002, by Timothy C. Whitehurst, Sr..
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: 93 ' 0 L
9
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
STATE OF
CITY/COUNTY OF
GRANTOR:
(SEAL)
Eva whitehurst
to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
October, 2002, by Eva Whitehurst.
My Commission Expires:
PREPARED BY
MOM SYKES. BOURDON.
A14E2N & LEVY. PC
i 4� s y
Notary Public
10
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of Califomia
°f ss
County of I L�f• U
On 0 ,41
before me, r c.� ,
Date Name and Title of Officer (e g , "Jane Doe, Notbry Public")
personally appeared &C-0 6uh f � Au rsP Y PP,
Name(s) of Signer(s)
ALvnvv a aeivA
NorAarweuc • cMErwa
siwoaMn
EARN 1111 ------------------
MIR! 19 2004
Place Notary Seal Above
personally known to nee
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
to be the person(g whose name(} islaPe
subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/the executed
the same in kus/her/theif authorized
capacity(ws), and that by his/her/tbe►c
signature( on the instrument the person(, or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
W T rill
S my a d nofficial seal.
Signature of Notary Public
OPTIONAL
Though the inforrnation below Is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document
Description of Attached Docu ent
Title or Type of Document �' e�'
Document Date /01L6.7(0a Number of Pages
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above
XA
/s-
Capaclty(ies) Claimed by Signer
ner's Name ao to it� L i ,t c r-5 �� -THUMBPRINT
S:
Individual OF SIGNER
Top of thumb here
C Corporate Officer — Title(s)
El Partner ---- `l Limited 0 General
D Attorney in Fact
J Trustee
Ci Guardian or Conservator
F1 Other
Signer Is Representing r
01999 Nate nI Notary Assoc3at+on - 9350 De Soto Ave P 0 Box 2402 • Chatsworth CA 91313.2402 - www navonalno ary org Prod No 5907 Reorder Call Toll -Free 1-800-876-6827
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
(SEAL)
William Whitehurst
STATE OF ALIC
CITY/COUNTY OF A IV-hV, TO
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �� ` day of
g g g Y
October, 2002, by William Whitehurst.
My Commission Expires: TW 3 1, 2006
PREPARED BY
SYKES. $OURDON.
FERN & LEVY. M
Notary Public
*" YWLl.il4M Co RHODES
Sic buffmsX. SUM M MW IMIM
40. 4?75
GULM 0 WSW CMAM�,�
W h MVIES .-M r
11
PREPARED BY
="11 SYUS. BOURDON.
UMN & UVY. K
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
.� (SEAL)
Roberta Turner
STATE OF /V&?%O%.r m 5--
CITY/COUNTY OF , to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 4tl day of
October, 2002, by Roberta Turner.
otary Pub c
-� rDWARD CABALLERO
My Commission Expires: � 3% �3 Notary F:-b.ic, state of New YQ*
f No. 24 0529460
Qusltfacd in 5sff olk Cow
I FsP• 57t
16
12
PREPARED BY
SYM. ROLMWN.
FERN & LEVY, PC
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
KEMP FUSSELL, L.L.C.,
a Virginia limited liability company
By: � (SEAL)
orge K mp, Member
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 14th day of
October, 2002, by George Kemp, Member of Kemp Fussell, L.L.C. , a Virginia limited
liability company.
My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006
13
PREPARED BY
SMS. $OURDON,
AMN & 1M. PC
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCELI:
ALL THAT certain tract, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements
thereon and the appurtenances thereunto, situate, lying and being in the Kempsville
Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being more particularly
designated as tract "'B' 3.62 Ac." on that certain plat entitled, "Subdivision of
Property of Julia Whitehurst Est., D.B. 317, P. 437, Kempsville Borough, Virginia
Beach, Virginia", which said plat is duly recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in
Map Book 81, at Page 2; reference to which plat is hereby made for a more
particular description of the tract.
GPIN: 1495-31-7600
PARCEL 2:
ALL of that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and
improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto appertaining, situate, lying
and being in the Kempsville Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and
being more particularly designated as tract "C' 3.16 AC." on that certain plat
entitled, "SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF JULIA WHITEHURST EST., D.B. 317, P.
437, KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA.", which plat is duly recorded
in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in
Map Book 81, at Page 2; reference to said plat being made for a more particular
description and location of the aforementioned property.
GPIN: 1495-32-8040
PARCEL 3:
ALL THAT certain tract, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements
thereon and the appurtenances thereunto appertaining, situate, lying and being in
the Kempsville Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being more
particularly designated as tract "'A' 3.56 AC.", on that certain plat entitled,
SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY OF JULIA WHITEHURST EST., D.B. 3171, P. 437,
KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA.", which plat is dated June 11,
1969, was made by W. B. Gallup, Surveyor, is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 81, at Page 2;
reference to said plat is hereby made for a more particular description of the
aforementioned property.
GPIN: 1495-31-7397
CONDREzoNE / KEMPFUssELL/ PROFFERS
REV 12/ 16/02
14
�1�
000
,
,
,1
,
LOCATION MAP::,
SHOWING ;
` ENCROACHMENT REQUESTED BY
C A ASSOCIATES, L.P:=,
INTO CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY
� FIRST COLONIAL Roan
AND1
WILDWOOD DRIVE
� 1
� 1
SCALE: 1 " = 1 oo' `
'3' PREPARED BY P/W ENG. CADD DEPT. APRIL 17, 2003
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Encroachment Request - Construct and Maintain Fencing for C A Associates
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2003
■ Background:
Mr. Wendell C. Franklin, General Partner of C A Associates has requested to
construct and maintain a decorative aluminum fence adjacent to Colonial Arms
Circle. The fencing will replace metal pole fencing in the right-of-way at First
Colonial Road and Wildwood Drive.
■ Considerations:
City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended
approval of same, subjected to certain conditions outlined in the agreement.
This fence was originally placed in the right-of-way for pedestrian safety due to an
approximate 3' drop off on the other side of the railing. The current fence is
beginning to rust and has been hit on several occasions. The proposed black
aluminum fence will be made of a maintenance free material. The proposed fencing
will be identical to the fence that will be installed around the perimeter of Colonial
Arms Apartments.
■ Public Information:
Advertisement of City Council Agenda.
E 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 Picture
Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance"
Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works /Real Estate
City Manage .
—l�
1 Requested by Department of Public Works
2 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY
3 ENCROACHMENTS INTO A PORTION OF THE
4 RIGHT-OF-WAY OF FIRST COLONIAL ROAD
5 BY C A ASSOICATES, ASSIGNS AND
6 SUCCESSORS IN TITLE
7 WHEREAS, C A Associates, desire to construct and maintain
8 a fence into
the
City's rights -of -way located at First Colonial
9 Road adjacent
to
1801 Colonial Arms Circle.
10 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-
11 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to
12 authorize a temporary encroachments upon the City's right-of-way
13 sub3ect to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe.
14 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
15 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
16 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof
17
contained
in §§ 15.2-2009
and 15.2-2107,
Code of Virginia, 1950, as
18
amended C
A Associates,
assigns and
successors in title are
19 authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for
20
fencing
in the City's
right-of-way as shown on
the map entitled:
21
"EXHIBIT
COLONIAL ARMS
APARTMENTS ENCROACHMENT
FOR FENCE", a copy
22
of which
is on file in
the Department of Public
Works and to which
23 reference is made for a more particular description; and
24 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment
25 is expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria
26 contained in the Agreement between the City Of Virginia Beach and
27 C A Associates, (the "Agreement") which is attached hereto and
28
incorporated
by
reference; and
29
BE
IT
FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Manager or his
30 authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement.
31 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be
32 in effect until such time as C A Associates and the City Manager or
33 his authorized designee execute the Agreement.
34 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
35 Virginia, on the day of , 2003.
36
CA- #
37
gsalmons/caassociates/ord.
38
R-1
39
PREPARED: 04.21.03
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS
40
C",
41
42
SIGNATURE
&kt
4 3
DE PARMCNT
44
APPROVED AS TO LE GAL
45
SUP71 C IENCY
46
��aaL� �?
CITY TTO
2
PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH
CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES
UNDER SECTIONS 58 1-811(a)(3)
AND 58.1-811(c)(4) REEABURSEMENT
AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of.1h r, /-, 20039 by and between
the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and C A
ASSOCIATES, a Virginia limited partnership, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE,
"Grantee", even though more than one.
W I T N E S SETH:
That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land
designated and described as "EDWARD P. BROGAN AND MARIO MONTAGINO", as shown
on "PLAT OF PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED FOR FIRST COLONIAL ROAD VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA FROM EDWARD P. BROGAN AND MARIO MONTAGINO SCALE
1 "' 100' APRIL 19, 1973 ", as recorded in M. B.100 , at page 10 in the Clerks Office of the Circuit
Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and being further designated and described as 1801
Colonial Arms Circle, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454;
WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a fence,
"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 known as First
Colonial Road, "The Temporary Encroachment Area"; and
GPIN: 2408-52-8755
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: "EXHIBIT
COLONIAL ARMS APARTMENTS
ENCROACHMENT FOR FENCE", 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 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
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/Planna Department prior to commencing any
construction within The Encroachment Area.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a right of way
permit, the Grantee must post sureties, in accordance with their engineer's cost estimate, to the
Office of Development Services Center/Pling Department.
It is further expressly 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
3
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 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, the said C A Associates, L.P. has caused this agreement
to be executed on its behalf by Wendell C. Franklin, General Partner of C A Associates, L.P., a
Virginia limited partnership, with due authority to bind said limited partnership. 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 affixed and attested by its City Clerk.
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
City Clerk
4
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
City Manager/Authorized
Designee of the City Manager
C A ASSOCIATES, L.P.
B
Y
Wendell C. Frbkdn,, General Partner
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
20035 by , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED
DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of I
, 20035 by RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMC, City Clerk for the CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH.
My Commission Expires:
5
Notary Public
Rev M
F
STATE OF
CITY/ F to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this }h day of
�piuu 2003, by Wendell C. Franklin, General Partner, on behalf of C A Associates,
L.P.
My Commission Expires:q�lOS
'4 02
APPROVED AS TO
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
CITY ATTORNEY
a
Notary Public
APPROVED AS To CONTENT
tfTY REAL ESTATE AGENT
CL
CL
CD
Exhibit "A"
12' r»stdo
�
1
Y
4
I
r r Vuls,;,t"
pi
� I
I r
tob lotIlk
� o► � �
� , � ?
I ;, , � _
X ► �
hot .1
�
f
#
I 1
ti
1
_ 4401 v 4 + I
I
a
NA) S
r,
ba +
fV
4
1! 5 V, 1
p rod
32 2
100 4 prn
1s
1'�l mwoo
1 z 1
rn r
nl to �rAi � v
m � k
~s � � t
A-- 3-2 0'
32.2' o
k
r \x.
i � i �► � p w �
lj w
42. 6' , tom'" ,�it
to An lb
LA
I� b �_.._._- �_ - y w- _- -_ _ _ __T__-.�•_bra "_ ..- _ - ..__ ��"�k r�
1 -3
r ' �
ASPHALT i ,rU EMENT
BPI - X7,
�1 �S W14
-
^,r% - - _- r M ■ Ate. r �r ��+++� w_ w.r ram. _� �. �� w _ - -_
H EXHIBIT
COLONIAL ARMS APARTMENTS
First Colonial Roa'd"
- ENCROACHMENT FOR FENCE
ZONING HISTORY
1. Street Closure -- Granted 6/13/95
2. Conditional Use Permit for a single family home — Granted 7/3/89
3. Area -wide Rezoning to AG-1/AG-2 on 8/27/86
4. Area -wide Rezoning to AG-1/AG-2 on 8/27/86
5. Conditional Use Permit (Borrow Pit) — Granted 4/20/81
sue'
� S5�
`- z
Our w.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — Street Closure
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2003
■ Background:
Application of the City of Virginia Beach for the discontinuance, closure and
abandonment of a portion of Old Princess Anne Road located on the west side of
Princess Anne Road (Relocated), 700 feet more or less north of Flanagans Lane.
Said parcel contains 22,590 square feet. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE.
This item was indefinitely deferred by City Council on September 10, 2002.
■ Considerations:
The applicant is requesting to close a portion of Old Princess Anne Road as part
of a settlement agreement for three related condemnation actions in which
portions of several parcels were acquired for the relocation of Princess Anne
Road, a project that was completed in 1992. The closed portion of the road will
be incorporated into the two small parcels east of the roadway to create a larger
lot more suitable for development.
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the
Viewers recommended approval, the closure will bring closure to a long-standing
condemnation suit, and there was no opposition to the request,
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of
10-0 to approve this request.
■ Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Ordinance
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
City of Virginia Beach —Street Closure
Page 2 of 2
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department U
City Manager: � ,
1
ORDINANCE NO.
2 IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND
3 DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN
4 STREET KNOWN AS A PORTION OF PRINCESS ANNE
5 ROAD (RELOCATED) 700 FEET MORE OR LESS
6 NORTH OF FLANAGANS LANE SAID PARCEL
7 CONTAINS 22,590 SQUARE FEET.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2003, the City of Virginia Beach applied to the Council of
the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described street discontinued, closed,
and vacated; and
WHEREAS, it is the judgment ofthe Council that said street be discontinued, closed,
and vacated, subs ect to certain conditions having been met on or before one year from City Council's
adoption of this ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE,
SECTION I
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, that the
hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, subject to certain conditions being
met on or before one year from City Council's adoption of this ordinance:
All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and described as
"RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA TO BE CLOSED AND VACATED
221Y590 SQ. FT = 0.51859 ACRE," shown as the shaded area on that
certain plat entitled: "PLAT SHOWING STREET CLOSURE AND
VACATION OF FORMER PRINCESS ANNE ROAD, VIRGINI.A
BEACH, VIRGINIA," Scale • 1 "=100' , dated March 8, 2002,
prepared by Survey Bureau, Engineering Division, Department of
Public Works, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
29 GPIN: 2413-06-23545 2403-96-9922 and 2403-95-8658
30
SECTION II
31 The following conditions must be met on or before one year from the City Councils s
32 adoption of this ordinance:
33 1. The property shall be resubdivided to vacate internal lot lines and incorporate the
34 closed nght-of-way area into the adjoining properties as shown on the subdivision plat entitled
35 "SUBDIVISION PLAT OF PROPERTY OF ROBERT W. WHITE, JR., EXECUTOR OF THE
36 ESTATE OF ROBERT W. WHITE", prepared by City of Virginia Beach Engineering Division,
37 Survey Bureau, Department of Public Works and dated March 28, 2002. The subdivision plat has
38 been exhibited to City Council and is on file in the Planning Department.
39 2. A Quitclaim Deed from Robert W. White, Jr. and Kathryn Martin, Substitute Co-
4 0 Trustees, to Robert W White, Jr., Executor of the Estate of Robert W. White, Sr., for the Trust's
41 interest in the underlying fee of the road shall be recorded. There shall be no encumbrances on the
42 road Releases from any lien holders shall be provided.
43 3. A Quitclaim Deed from the City of Virginia Beach to Robert W. White, Jr.,
44 Executor of the Estate of Robert W. White, Sr. for the property formerly owned by Ida Malbon
45 (GPIN 2413-06-2354) shall be recorded. This deed shall reserve a drainage easement as shown on
46 the subdivision plat referenced above.
47 4. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way
48 proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are »o
49 private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements
so satisfactory to the utility company shall be provided.
0,
51 5. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon settlement of the three
52 condemnation actions styled: C,i of Virginia Beach v. Robert W White Sr and Bonnie E. White
53 (At Law No.: CL 92-1161); City of Vir inia Beach v. Robert W White Trustee of Trust "A" Under
54 the ,Will of Willard L. White, Deceased); (At Law No.: CL92-1200); and City of Virginia Beach v
55 Robert W. White and Bonnie E. White, etc (At Law No: CL92-1163) including (a) approval of
56 settlement by City Council; (b) Final Orders Vesting Title entered by the Court; (c) all necessary
57 settlement documents fully executed and delivered to City.
58 6. Beyond the above conditions, no further consideration shall be required from
59 abutting landowners. Resolution of the three condemnation suits is the consideration for the road
60 closure.
61 7. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above
62 stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If all conditions noted above are not
63 accomplished and the final subdivision plat is not approved and recorded within one year of the City
64 Council vote to close the roadway, this approval will be considered null and void.
65
SECTION III
66 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before May
67 121) 2004, this Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City Council.
68 2. If all conditions are met on or before May 12, 2004, the date of final closure
69 is the date this ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney.
3
72 SECTION IV
73 3. A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed in the Clerk's Office of the
74 Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY OF
75 VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor."
76 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day
77 of 12003.
78
79 CA-8367
80 April 16, 2003
81 C \Documents and Settings%bduke\Local Settings\Temp\CA83670 WPD
82
83 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
84 P; t&.014 --193
85 Plann epartment
86 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
87 c
88 City Attorney
4
3N r � w� W►1� lY �
NY SS37�,�-
��1�6 M
L~ al
`
r LLrL �v
flVf. oil i
r
get go
all
L
L Yh f � ■
L L L ti
LyL r
f� 4 wL
L fL1�
Y !
!
1
L�1 AY�Sy fr
l.yyyyyyrLLyyyyLLL `
f
L r
r rt
, L
J
r
O�y r S•
r
ti+iLLr
r vL$Lti
1
f Y ! 1 f ~
f �L
L ry
Ja tir L L
let
h y,h
r �
Iggggs
ti r
R ! L
r d f f
L
id!.
LL L
%%
!
Rr
f
7 L
r
r
w � �
P
Two A
bb
+ �r k. ti
w w w
r � �:
�mv
u u u a u vol* u% u u u
s'lq
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH/ # 91
August 14, 2002
General Information:
REQUEST:
ADDRESS:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
Street Closure
Portion of Cold Princess Anne Road, beginning at a point 700
feet north of Flanagan's Lane
7-PRINCESS ANNE
22,590 square feet
Planning Commission Agenda
August 14, 2002
CITY of VIRGINIA BEACH/ # 9
Page 1
PURPOSE: To close a portion of Old Princess Anne Road as part of a
settlement agreement for three related condemnation actions
in which portions of several parcels were acquired for the
relocation of Princess Anne Road, a project that was
completed in 1992. The closed portion of the road will be
incorporated into the two small parcels east of the roadway to
create a larger lot more suitable for development.
There are two small parcels of property sandwiched between
this portion of Old Princess Anne Road and the newer,
relocated Princess Anne Road that were created as residual
parcels with the road project. These two residual parcels do
not meet the minimum lot size of one acre for the AG-1 and
AG-2 Agricultural Zoning Districts. The larger of these two
parcels is 23,371 square feet and is owned by the City of
Virginia Beach. This parcel was purchased from one
landowner (Ida Malbon) at the time of the road project. The
smaller of these two parcels, owned by Robert White, is 17,251
K
AM 10 K a me -
M
W-
a s me M m
s rrrs
EL& zM PC IM
rkaMMai
xs. M PM as
GM Mr M air
G p(
m
�
>�a
S
1 {
square feet.
el J
1*
SON
pow Q�upoemr i
NW
a ■ 347 w M4
:M 24M A SM
A04 • 27AM M
KM �
Y
wow a t�ry
rn1r C� t�iN f�lO�
xa s FM s
aw Mu os 2=4
Mh. �/����p
eA3M 7�i
_
*'10
''�� GRAMIC
s SCALE I' =
i.� M/
The settlement agreement proposes to combine the area of the
street and the City -owned property (Ida Malbon piece) with the
Robert White parcel to create a more useable piece of property
that will be owned by Robert White. The combined property
will be approximately 1.5 acres and will meet the minimum lot
size for the AG-1 /AG-2 Agricultural District.
Planning Commission Agenda
August 14, 2002
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH/ # 9
Page 2
U a
r
7 �I r� •
f ~
s +
*JP
1 �
.� OYh. Y•t�� �
STAFF
PLANNER: Barbara Duke
APPLICATION This request was deferred by the Planning Commission at the
HISTORY: July 10, 2002 public hearing to allow staff time to pursue
providing with the subdivision adequate area for the widening
of Princess Anne Road consistent with the Master
Transportation Plan.
Land Use, Zoning, and
Site Characteristics:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
The portion of Old Princess Anne
Road requested for closure is currently
a dirt road accessed from the paved
portion of Old Princess Anne Road.
The subject road portion requested for
closure terminates and does not
connect to Princess Anne Road at its
southern terminus.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
North: . Single -Family Homes and farmland / AG-1 and
AG-2 Agricultural Districts
South: • Farmland / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts
East: • Farmland / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts
West: . Farmland / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts
Zoning History
The property in this area was part of a comprehensive rezoning to AG-1 and AG-2
Agricultural Districts in 1986. There has been very little zoning action in this area since
then. A similar street closure, closing a portion of Old Princess Anne Road to the south,
on the eastern side of relocated Princess Anne Road, was approved by City Council on
June 13, 1995.
Planning Commission Agenda
August 14, 2002
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH/ # 9
Page 3
Public Facilities and Services
There are no public water or sewer facilities in the area proposed for closure. There is a
drainage ditch on the southern edge of the right-of-way proposed for closure, adjacent
to relocated Princess Anne Road. A public drainage easement as shown on the
proposed subdivision plat must be dedicated to the City.
Private Utilities
Preliminary comments from Virginia Natural Gas and Hampton Roads Sanitation District
indicate there are no facilities belonging to them within the area proposed for closure.
At the time of this report, Virginia Power had not responded.
Master Transportation Plan
The Master Transportation Plan shows Princess Anne Road in the vicinity of this site as
a right-of-way of 100 feet in width. The existing right-of-way of Princess Anne Road in
the vicinity of this site is 80 feet in width. There are no improvements for this portion of
Princess Anne Road scheduled in the Capital Improvement Program.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan describes this area as the "Transition Area" where open
space and recreation uses are primary and residential development is present only to
the extent it supports the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational
uses. New development within the transition area should be managed so that the
existing rural roadway infrastructure will suffice.
Evaluation of Request
The Viewers Committee has determined that there will be no public inconvenience as a
result of the subject request and recommends approval of this street closure. The street
closure is part of a settlement agreement in three related condemnation cases
concerning properties that were acquired for the relocation of Princess Anne Road. The
area of closure will be combined with two small parcels that are now sandwiched
between Old Princess Anne Road and the newer, relocated Princess Anne Road to
create a combined 1.5-acre parcel that will meet the minimum lot size requirement of
one acre for the AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Zoning Districts and will be more suitable
Planning Commission Agenda
August 14, 2002
CITY of VIRGINIA BEACH/ # 9
Page 4
for development. The street closure is recommended for approval with the following
conditions.
Conditions
1. The property shall be resubdivided to vacate internal lot lines and incorporate the
closed right-of-way area into the adjoining properties as shown on the
subdivision plat entitled "Subdivision Plat of Property of Robert W. White, Jr.,
Executor of the Estate of Robert W. White" prepared by City of Virginia Beach
Department of Public Works and dated March 28, 2002. The subdivision plat is
on file has been exhibited to City Council and is on file in the Planning
Department.
2. A Quitclaim Deed from Co -Trustee to Robert W. White, Jr., Executor of the
Estate of Robert W. White, Sr. for the trust's interest in one-half of the road shall
be recorded. There shall be no encumbrances on the road. Releases from any
lien holders shall be provided.
3. A Quitclaim Deed from the City of Virginia Beach to Robert W. White, Jr.,
Executor of the Estate of Robert W. White, Sr. for the "Ida Malbon" parcel (GPIN
2413-06-2354) shall be recorded This deed shall reserve a drainage easement
as shown on the subdivision plat entitled "Subdivision Plat of Property of Robert
W. White, Jr., Executor of the Estate of Robert W. White" prepared by City of
Virginia Beach Department of Public Works and dated March 28, 2002. The
subdivision plat has been exhibited to City Council and is on file in the Planning
Department.
4. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way
proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate
that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If
private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, shall be
provided.
5. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon settlement of all three
condemnation actions, including (a) approval by City Council; (b) 3 Final Orders
vesting Title confirming settlement; (c) all settlement paperwork.
6. Beyond the above conditions, no further consideration shall be required from
abutting landowners. Resolution of condemnation suits is the consideration.
Planning Commission Agenda
August 14, 2002
CITY of VIRGINIA BEACH/ # 9
Page 5
r �
7. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above
stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions
noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not recorded within one
year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be
considered null and void.
NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the
administration of applicable City Ordinances.
Planning Commission Agenda
August 14, 2002
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH/ # 9
Page 6
8
Planning Commission Agenda
August 14, 2002
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH/# 9
Page 7
LU
cab
yy S
A
ir
jet
,,CIA $�_
Planning Commission Agenda
August 14, 2002
=~-
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH/ # 9
Page 8
Planning Commission Agenda
August 14, 2002 �..
e
CITY 4F VIRGINIA BEACH/ # 9
Palle 9
M —
PAGE / OF
/
Jai f1�'' Ct f5'� luOTT
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's Name: City of Virginia Beach
_IIIII
List All Current
City of Virginia Beach
Property Owners:
Robert W. White, Jr. and Kathryn L. Martin, successor trustees of
Trust A under the will of Willard L. White, decease
Robert W. White, Jr., executor of estate of Robert W. White, deceased
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below. (r.ttach 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 Its! ;f 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.
"7 X-JL�
Signatur
Print Name
Item #9
City of Virginia Beach
Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a
portion of old Princess Anne Road
Nest side of Princess Anne Road
District 7
Princess Anne
August 14, 2002
CONSENT
Robert Miller: Item #9 is the City of Virginia Beach. Discontinuance, closure and
abandonment of a portion of Old Princess Anne Road located on the west side of Princess
Anne Road, 700 feet more or less of Flanagan's Lane. Mr. Scott, I guess.
Robert Scott: This, as you know by now, is the settlement on a long standing
condemnation suit and we think it's in a conditional form here that merits approval and
our recommendation is for approval.
Robert Miller: There are seven conditions? And I'm sure the City is in agreement with
them.
Robert Scott: We wrote them so we've...
John Baum: You better look them over.
Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much. And I would like a motion to approve
Item #9. Could I have a motion Betsy?
Betsy Atkinson: So moved.
Ronald Ripley: Motion by Betsy Atkinson, seconded by Don Horsley. We're ready to
vote.
AYE 10 NAY 0
ATKINSON
AYE
BAUM
AYE
CRABTREE
AYE
DIN
AYE
HORSLEY
AYE
MILLER
AYE
RIPLEY
AYE
SALLE'
AYE
STRANGE
AYE
VAKOS
AYE
ABSENT 1 ABS 0
Item #9
City of Virginia Beach
Page 2
WOOD ABSENT
Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, that item passed. Thank you all very much.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Sale of Excess Property/Rural Road Improvements Princess Anne Road
at Flanagan's Lane (CIP 2-134)
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2003
■ Background: This excess property item comes on the agenda in connection with
a separate item on today's agenda for the closure of a portion of Old Princess Anne
Road. The road closure and this sale of excess property are part of a proposed
settlement of three pending condemnation cases. The road closure item and this
excess property item should be considered together.
The three condemnation cases to be resolved with this sale of property arose out
of the widening and re -alignment of Princess Anne Road near Flanagan's Lane
(Rural Road Improvement CIP 2-134). Property needed for the re -alignment was
condemned from three parcels owned by Robert White, Sr., as shown on the
attached "Map Showing Land Exchange Between Robert White and City of Virginia
Beach."
The condemnation left Mr. White with a small residual parcel sandwiched between
Old Princess Anne Road and the re -aligned Princess Anne Road. The settlement
proposes to increase the size of Mr. White's residual parcel by (1) closing a Too -foot
segment of the old road and (2) conveying an adjacent City -owned parcel (the
"Excess Property") to Mr. White's estate. Mr. White's residual parcel, the portion of
Old Princess Anne Road to be closed and the Excess Property are all shown on the
attached "Location Map." The Excess Property, the closed road and the White
residual land will all be combined into one larger lot more suitable for development.
Neither the Excess Property nor Mr. White's residual parcel meet the minimum one -
acre lot size for their AC-1 and AG-2 zoning. The combined property would be
approximately 1.5 acres. The Planning Commission held a hearing on August 14,
2002, and recommended closure of the right--of-way. The Staff now brings the
request for the sale of the Excess Property, together with the road closure item, for
Council consideration.
The City acquired the Excess Property when it condemned land from another owner
(Ida Malbon) for the same road project. The Excess Property is a 23,371 square -
foot wedge of land described as "Excess Property" on the Location Map submitted
with this agenda item.
■ Considerations: This will resolve three long-standing condemnation cases and will
allow two non -conforming lots to be assembled into a larger, conforming parcel.
■ Public Information: Advertisement for Public Hearing for Excess City Property,
Advertisement of Council Agenda, Planning Commission Hearing held on August
14, 2002. City Council meeting of September 24, 2002.
■ Alternatives: Do not close street or declare city property excess and allow
condemnation to be heard through courts.
■ Recommendations: Staff recommends vacating the right-of-way and conveying
excess city property as part of settlement of the condemnation.
■ Attachments: Ordinance, Map Showing Land Exchange Between Robert White
and City of Virginia Beach, Location Map, Summary of Terms
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works,
City Manager. 1' ��
Imo•
ORDINANCE NO.
1 AN ORDINANCE TO DECLARE CERTAIN
2 CITY PROPERTY EXCESS AND AUTHORIZE
3 THE CITY MANAGER TO DISPOSE OF SAME
4 BY EXECUTING A DEED OF EXCHANGE
5 WITH ESTATE OF ROBERT W. WHITE, SR.
6 AND ROBERT W. WHITE, JR., AND
7 KATHRYN L. MARTIN, SUCCESSOR CO-
8 TRUSTEES
9 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach authorized and funded
10 CIP 2-134, Rural Road Improvements - Princess Anne Road at Flanagan's Lane for right of way
11 purposes, which included relocating Princess Anne Road near Flanagan's Lane in the City of
12 Virginia Beach;
13 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach acquired property at the above -referenced
14 location from Ida Mae Malbon by Order recorded in Deed Book 3494, at page 11, which property
15 is described as "TAKING AREA" on the acquisition plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the City
16 of Virginia Beach in Map Book 211, at page 29;
17 WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that approximately 23,371 Sq. Ft.
18 (.5365 Acres) of the property acquired is in excess of the needs of the City of Virginia Beach
19 ("Excess Property"), designated as "PROPERTY TO BE CONVEYED BY THE CITY OF
20 VIRGINIA BEACH TO ROBERT WHITE AREA = 23,571 SQ. FT. = .5 3 652" and also described
21 as "CITY OF VIRG RQA BEACH M.B . 211 PG. 29 GPIN 2413 06 23 54" on that certain plat entitled
22 "PLAT SHOWING PROPERTY TO BE CONVEYED BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH TO
23 ROBERT W. WHITE, JR., EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT W. WHITE," dated
24 March 28, 2002, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.;
2 5 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach recorded Certificate of Take No. 1237
26 against Robert and Bonnie White; Certificate of Take No. 1238 against Robert W. White, Trustee;
27 and Certificate of Take No. 1239 against Robert and Bonnie White, totaling approximately 5.04
28 acres together with various easements (the "White Property');
29 WHEREAS, in connection with the Certificates of Take 1237, 1238 and 1239, the
30 City of Virginia Beach paid into court funds in the amount of $46,400.00, $13,000.00 and
31 $1,800.00, respectively.
32 WHEREAS, Mr. White is now deceased, and Robert W. White, Jr., Executor of the
33 Estate of Robert W. White, is representing White's rights (the "Estate"); and Robert W. White, Jr.,
34 and Kathryn L. Martin, Successor Co -trustees, are representing the rights of the trust for which
35 Robert White, Sr. was trustee before his death (the "Trust");
36 WHEREAS, a global settlement of the above -referenced condemnation matters has
37 been reached between the City of Virginia Beach, the Estate and the Trust. Under the proposed
38 settlement agreement, the City would convey title to the Excess Property, close a portion of Old
39 Princess Anne Road and pay additional funds in the total amount of $32,515.20, in exchange for the
40 property described in Certificate Nos. 1237, 1238, 1239, which are recorded in the Clerk's Office.
41 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
42 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGR% IA:
43 1. That the Excess Property described above and also shown on the plat marked
44 as Exhibit A is hereby declared to be in excess of the needs of the City, and that the City Manager
45 is hereby authorized to execute an agreement to exchange said City Property for the property
46 described in Certificates Nos. 1237, 1238, 1239, in settlement of the condemnation actions.
2
47 2. That the City Manager is authorized to execute a Deed of Exchange with the
48 Estate in accordance with the attached Summary of Terms marked as Exhibit B and such other terms,
49 conditions or modifications as may be satisfactory to the City Attorney.
50 This ordinance shall be effective from the date of its adoption.
51 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of
52 92003.
F 1Data\ATY\Forms\Deeds\ExCESSlca8368 ord wpd
March 24, 2003
Approved as to Content Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency
ed*o')
C'LIDL.
epartment of public Works Uq/1 V-Ie/2
Cify Xitorney
Office of Real Estate
3
r
a
3N�Y 5 S 3 0�
1`66
9S W
d
i
* 81% 0
+ A A
ad,d as
� p
rr
t
? e 9
*rs�a �
b
I
Iggggs
�,did
dd 31
d
\Z
N
a
x
W
C r
4
° ROBERT W. WHITE, TRUSTEE
PARCEL
NOT TO SCALE // a
009
�0 4
0
—C�
j9C:7\
cn�-'(
°o
� rr ti fj fJ
ti rti Y y �
LAND ACQUIRED FROM
ROBERT W. WHITE
BY CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH
1 EXCESS PROPERTY -
/ TO BE CONVEYED
TO ROBERT WHITE
I4p
1
I
-
�I 4
1 b
a �
R W.
WHI TRUSTEE
Ppc EL
00
ROBERT W. WHITE, TRUSTEE
PARCEL
1 003
J�
1 C'
-ARD
'VJ
H�
MAP SHOWING LAND
EXCHANGE BETWEEN
ROBERT WHITE AND
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
O
\\vr
MmPARFT) BY 9W MkiC CAM DFPT APRJL 28 21
f
.01, • ••
R()131 H i WI ii ri 'S 43-K-1534
l5q ;o
1ti-tii1)t�111 PAR(
N�
.ti
ti�ti �ti� •
•
M�
t
ti
ti
ti } •- �
EXCESS PROPERTY
i () i3i= CONVEYED TO
itOB ER'l WHITE f
0
• -Q
LOCATION MAP
SHOWING EXCESS PROPERTY TO BE
CONVEYED TO ROBERT WHITE
GPIN 3413-06-2354
SCALE: 1'� -= 200'
r
r �
Fm
PA.DGN M.J.S. PREPARED BY RM ENG• CADD DEPT. APRIL 25, 2003
EXHIBIT B
SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS
AGREEMENT FOR ROAD CLOSURE AND EXCHANGE OF EXCESS CITY
PROPERTY LOCATED ON OLD PRINCESS ANNE ROAD NEAR FLANAGAN'S
LANE OWNED BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH FOR THREE PARCELS
DESCRIBED IN CERTIFICATE NOS, 12379 1238 AND 1239
ROBERT W. WHITE, SR (Parcel 005) Certificate No.1237 —funds paid into court: $46,400.
Settlement: Pay no additional money, but close and
quitclaim 0.5185 acre portion of Old Princess Anne
Road (the "Road Closure").
ROBERT W. WHITE, SR (Parcel 009) Certificate No. 1239 —funds paid into court: $1,800.
Settlement: Pay additional $515.20 (no interest).
[This figure is arrived at from a total settlement figure
of $3,600.00, subtracting the $1,800.00 that has
already been paid. From the remaining $1, 800.00,
subtract $12284.80 (the value of the right -of --way to be
closed in connection with 005) leaving an additional
$515.20 to be paid by City.]
ROBERT WHITE, Trustee (Parcel 003) Certificate No. 1238 -- funds paid into court: $13,000.
Settlement: (1) Pay additional $32,000 (no interest);
(2) the Road Closure referred to in Parcel 005
settlement; and (3) convey .5354-acre parcel excess
property (former Ida Mae Malbon site) ("Excess
Property").
CLOSING DATE: The anticipated closing will take place after the City
Council has approved the Road Closure and the
Excess Property sale. All conditions of Road Closure
must be satisfied within one year.
SPECIAL TERMS
AND CONDITIONS:
Road Closure and sale of Excess Property to be approved by Council, Deed of
Exchange to be recorded, Motion to Reinstate to be entered on all three parcels,
Motion, Order and Agreement after Certificate to be presented to the Court and
appropriate documents recorded in the Clerk's Office.
All parties must agree to these terms.
The subdivision plat and the Road Closure plat will be recorded simultaneously at
closing.
F 1DatalATY\Forms\CONDIWORKING\PA1ca8368 sum wpd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
AN ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AS PERMITTED
PRINCIPAL USES IN THE B-2 , B-- 3 , B- 3A AND B- 4
BUSINESS DISTRICTS
Section Amended: City Zoning Ordinance
Section 901
ARTICLE 9, BUSINESS DISTRICTS
Sec. 901. Use regulations.
(a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart
lists those uses permitted within the B-1 through B-4 Business
Districts. Those uses and structures in the respective business
districts shall be permitted as either principal uses indicated by
a "P" or as conditional uses indicated by a "C." Uses and
structures indicated by an "X" shall be prohibited in the
respective districts. No uses or structures other than as
specified shall be permitted.
Use
. . . .
Colle„es and uni-
versities, public
or private
B--1 B- lA B-2 B- 3 B- 3A B- 4
X X P P P P
COMMENT
The amendment allows public or private colleges and universities as permitted principal uses
in the B-2, B-3, B-3A and B4 Business Districts.
28 Approved as to Content:
V-
Plannin Department
Approved as to Legal
Suf f iciency :
r
City Attorneys Of ice
CA-8727
wmm\ordres\collegesordin.wpd
February 3, 2003
R-2
Item #13
City of Virginia Beach/Colleges in Business Districts
Amendment to Section 901 of the City Zoning Ordinance to include
public or private colleges and universities as permitted uses in the B-2
B-31) B-3A, and B-4 Business Districts
April 9, 2003
REGULAR
Ronald Ripley: Do we have a motion for Item #13? Barry?
Barry Knight: I'd make a motion to deny Item # 13.
Ronald Ripley: A motion to deny #13 by Barry Knight. Do I have a second?
Dorothy Wood: Second.
Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Dot Wood. Is there any discussion? Let's call for the
question.
AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 1
ANDERSON
AYE
CRABTREE
AYE
DIN
AYE
HORSLEY
AYE
KATSIAS
AYE
KNIGHT
AYE
MILLER
ABS
RIPLEY
AYE
SALLE"
ABSENT
STRANGE
AYE
WOOD
AYE
Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-0 with one abstention, this motion carries also.
s �
0'�a C•�
.{
�4�lt`
+` ''tt!!M'�' ate
L OI M K�nlw
L
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: City of Virginia Beach, City Zoning ordinance Amendment
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2003
■ Background:
Amendment to Section 901 of the City Zoning Ordinance to include public or
private colleges and universities as permitted uses in the B-2, B-3, B-3A, and B-4
Business Districts.
IN Considerations:
The City Council by resolution referred to the Planning Commission these
proposed amendments to Section 901 of the CZO, which would allow public or
private colleges and universities as permitted principal (i.e., of -right) uses in the
B-2, B-3, B-3A and B-4 Business Districts.
The Planning Commission, in considering the amendment referred by the City
Council, developed an alternative amendment to the one referred by the City
Council. The amendment referred by the City Council allows colleges and
universities as permitted uses in the business districts. Staff and the Planning
Commission, however, believe that colleges and universities should be
conditional uses, since such uses can be of such magnitude and of such a nature
that significant impacts to surrounding properties could result. The proposed
amendment, offered in substitution to the amendment referred by the City
Council, accomplishes the following:
1. allows colleges and universities in business districts with a conditional use
permit;
2. makes business and vocational schools, which are currently permitted
uses in the business districts, conditional uses; and
3. makes public and private schools, colleges and universities conditional
uses in the 0-1 and 0-2 Office District (these are currently conditional
uses in the 0-1 District and permitted uses in the 0-2 District).
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the
commission determined that this option provided the best degree of compatibility
of future colleges and similar schools to adjoining uses, staff recommended
approval, and there was no opposition to the request.
City of Virginia Beach - Colleges
Page 2 of 2
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0-1 to
approve this request.
Attachments:
Staff Review
Ordinance
Planning Commission Minutes
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
City Manager.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH -COLLEGES
/# 121
April 9, 2003
Background:
Colleges and universities are not presently allowed uses in any Business District within
the City. The City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) currently allows as a permitted use
`business and vocational schools' within all of the Business Districts except B-1.
Colleges and universities are not allowed. The City Zoning Ordinance does, however,
allow colleges and universities as a conditional use in the 0-1 Office District and as a
permitted use in the 0-2 Office District.
Proposed Amendments:
Amendment to Section 901 of the City Zoning Ordinance to include public or private
colleges and universities as conditional uses and to make business and vocational
schools conditional uses in the B-1 A, B-2, B-3, B-3A, and B-4 Business Districts and to
amend Section 801 of the City Zoning Ordinance to make public or private schools,
colleges and universities conditional uses in the 0-2 Office District.
The City Council by resolution referred to the Planning Commission a proposed
amendment to Section 901 of the CZO, which would allow public or private colleges and
universities as permitted principal (i.e., of -right) uses in the B-2, B-3, B-3A and B-4
Business Districts. There is a demand for `branch' college instruction within the
Business Districts. While the argument can be made that such instruction could fall
under the `business and vocational school' category, an amendment to the CZO would
clarify for all interested parties that college -level instruction is allowed within the
specified Business Districts.
The amendment referred by the City Council, however, allows colleges and universities
as permitted uses in the business districts. Staff, however, believes that colleges and
universities should be conditional uses, since such uses can be of such magnitude and
of such a nature that significant impacts to surrounding properties could result. The
proposed amendment, offered in substitution to the amendment referred by the City
Council, accomplishes the following:
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
CITY of VIRGINIA BEACH — COLLEGES 1 # 12
Page 1
1. allows colleges and universities in business districts with a conditional use
permit;
2. makes business and vocational schools, which are currently permitted uses in
the business districts, conditional uses; and
3. makes public and private schools, colleges and universities conditional uses in
the 0-1 and 0-2 Office District (these are currently conditional uses in the 0-1
District and permitted uses in the 0-2 District).
Evaluation:
Staff recommends approval of this proposed amendment.
Planning Commission Agenda
April 9, 2003
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH -- COLLEGES /# 12
Page 2
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY ZONING
2 ORDINANCE TO ALLOW PUBLIC OR PRIVATE COLLEGES
3 AND UNIVERSITIES AS CONDITIONAL USES AND TO
4 CHANGE BUSINESS AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS FROM
5 PERMITTED TO CONDITIONAL USES IN THE IN THE B-
6 1A, B-2, B-3, B-3A AND B-4 BUSINESS DISTRICTS
7 AND TO CHANGE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE COLLEGES AND
8 UNIVERSITIES FROM PERMITTED USES TO
9 CONDITIONAL USES IN THE 0-2 OFFICE DISTRICT
10
11 Sections Amended: CZO §§ 801 and 901
12 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare
13 and good zoning practice so require;
14
15 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
16 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
17 That Sections 801 and 901 of the City Zoning Ordinance are
18 hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows:
19 ARTICLE 8. OFFICE DISTRICTS
20 . . . .
21 Sec. 801. Use regulations.
22 ( a ) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart lists
23 those uses permitted within the 0-1 and 0-2 Office Districts. Those
24 uses and structures in the respective Office Districts shall be
25 permitted as either principal uses indicated by a "P" or as
26 conditional uses indicated by a "C. " Uses and structures indicated
27 by an "X" shall be prohibited in the respective districts. No uses
28 or structures other than as specified shall be permitted.
29 Use 01 02
30 . . .
31 Public Schools, colleges and universities, and
32 private schools, colleges and universities
33 having similar academic curriculums C -P C
34
35
36
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
COMMENT:
The amendment changes public or private colleges and universities from permitted uses to
conditional uses in the 0-2 Office District,
ARTICLE 9. BUSINESS DISTRICTS
Sec. 901. Use regulations.
(a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart
lists those uses permitted within the B-1 through B-4 Business
Districts. Those uses and structures in the respective business
districts shall be permitted as either principal uses indicated by
a "P" or as conditional uses indicated by a "C." Uses and
structures indicated by an "X" shall be prohibited in the
respective districts. No uses or structures other than as
specified shall be permitted.
Use B-1 B-lA B-2 B-3 B-3A B-4
. . .
Business an voca-
tional schools
which do not
involve the
operation of
woodwork shops,
machine shops or
other similar
facilities X
. . . .
Colleges and uni-
versities, public
or private X
_P C _P C -P C _P C i' C
C
C
C
C C
2
64
65
66
67
COMMENT
The amendment allows public or private colleges and universities and business as conditional
uses in the B-1A, B-2, B-3, B-3A and B-4 Business Districts, and changes business and vocational
schools from permitted uses to conditional uses in the same districts.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
on this day of , 2003.
CA-8812
ORDIN\PROPOSED\czo801 & 901ord.wpd
R-1
March 26, 2003
Approved as to Content:
r
Plann'n epartment
Approved as to Legal �
Sufficiency:
City Attorney' s Office
3
Item #12
City of Virginia Beach/Colleges, Universities and Business Schools
Amendment to Section 901 of the City Zoning Ordinance to include public
or private colleges and universities as conditional uses and to make business
and vocational schools conditional uses in the B-1 A, B-2, B-3, B-3A, and
B-4 Business Districts and to amend Section 801 of the City Zoning Ordinance to
make public or private schools, colleges and universities conditional uses in the
0-2 Office District
April 9, 2003
REGULAR
Robert Miller: The next item is Item # 12, the City of Virginia Beach/Colleges,
universities and Business Schools.
Ronald Ripley: Mr. Scott, I think wants to address this.
Robert Scott: I can give you an explanation of what we have here. Actually, we have
two applications. Number 12 & number 13. But, I really need to talk about together.
We're suggesting that you, first of all not do number 13, essentially reject it. That has
been sent to you by the City Council. In fact, this whole matter has been sent to you by
the City Council. And, the reason why we think you need to reject it is because number
12 represents a better idea that I think responds better to the concerns of the City Council
and it's address. Our contention here is to do two things. Number one to clarify, since
we think clarification is evidently necessary that colleges and universities are an
appropriate use in this identified districts, B-1 A, B-2, B-3, B-3A and B-4. But, that they
be conditional uses and not principle uses. And, item # 12 will accomplish that as well as
make the public and private school, colleges and universities conditional uses in the 0-2
district. It occurs to us that it is very difficult to take all the educational initiatives,
programs, institutions, and so forth that may exist out there and neatly cubbyhole into
labeled boxes. And, it also occurs to us that some of them have different type of sizes or
intensities of use or characteristics of use that would make them a little more of a concern
then would otherwise be the case. In other words, there's a wide variation within these
categories no matter how you label them, it's characteristics of impact. So we think that
a careful, a more careful look by the City Council and Planning Commission on a case -
by -case basis would be in order. The bottom line is that were recommending approval of
Item # 12 which would make all of these uses conditional uses in the various identified
categories which would provided for a case by case review by the Planning Commission
and City Council.
Ronald Ripley: Any questions of Mr. Scott?
William Din: I think you met Item #13?
Stephen White: Mr. Scott's correct. It's Item 12 & 13. We want to approve Item # 12.
hate to say it but the reports are reversed in the staff s report portion of your agenda but
you want to approve Item # 12 and Item # 13 is the one that was referred to you by City
Council that we're saying you should not approve.
Robert Scott: We'll have to correct...
Item # 12
City of Virginia Beach/Colleges, Universities and Business Schools
Page 2
Stephen White: We'll absolutely correct that.
Ronald Ripley: Okay. Mr. Miller?
Robert Miller: I'm not sure. I think this came out of the Town Center project as a matter
of course Bob?
Robert Scott: It had a lot to do with the Town Center project.
Robert Miller: Okay. And, I'm going to abstain from 12 & 13 because we're working on
the Town Center project even though this applies to a broader group.
Ronald Ripley: Okay. Is there anybody here in opposition to either Item 12 or # 13 ?
Hearing none, is there any discussion from the Planning Commissioners? Do we have a
motion from anybody from the Planning Commission?
William Din: I have a question.
Ronald Ripley: Yes, Mr. Din.
William Din: We're approving # 12 and we're denying # 13 ? Is that what were doing?
Ronald Ripley: Yes. We'll need a motion for each one I think. So, could I have a
motion for either approval or disapproval of Item # 12. That's the item that permits the
Conditional Use Permit.
Dorothy Wood: I'd make a motion that we approve Item # 12.
Ronald Ripley: A motion by Dot Wood to approve. Second? Kathy Katsias has
seconded the motion. Is there any further discussion? We're ready to vote.
AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 1
ANDERSON
AYE
CRABTREE
AYE
DIN
AYE
HORSLEY
AYE
KATSIAS
AYE
KNIGHT
AYE
MILLER
ABS
RIPLEY
AYE
SALLE'
ABSENT
STRANGE
AYE
WOOD
AYE
Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-0 and one abstention, the motion carries.
L. APPOINTMENTS
EASTERN VIRGINIA MEDICAL SCHOOL
FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
YOUTH SERVICES COUNCIL
M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
N. NEW BUSINESS
O. ADJOURNMENT