The URL can be used to link to this page

JUNE 10, 2003 AGENDACITY COUNCIL MA YOR MEYERA E OB~RNDORF At-Large VICE MA YOR LOUIS R dONES, Baystde -Dtstrtct 4 HARRY E DIEZ, EL, Kempsvtlle - Dtstrtt t 2 MARGARET L EURE, Centervdle -Dtstrtct I REBA S McCLANAN, Rose Hall -Dtstrtct 3 RICHARD A MADDOX, Beach -Dtstrtct 6 JIM REEVE. Prtncess Anne -Dtstrtct 7 PETER W SCHMIDT, At-Large RON A VILLANUEVA, At-Large ROSEMA R Y WILSON, A t-Large JAMES L WOOD Lynnhaven -Dtstrtct 5 JAMES K SPORE, Cay Manager LESLIE L LILLEY, Cay Attorney RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMC. Oty Clerk CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 10 June 2003 CITY HALL BUILDING I 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE (757) 427-4303 FAX (757) 426-5669 E MAIL Ctycncl~vbgov corn I CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS -Conference Room - 3:00 PM A Bo EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT FOR VENDING OF BEVERAGES for C~ty of V~rginia Beach Departments and Agencies Steven T Thompson, Chief Financial Officer HOMECOMING and WELCOMING CELEBRATION Robert R Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager II REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 4:30 PM mo B CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Frances Cooper Pastor Courthouse Umted Methodist 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 June 3, 2003 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. MAYOR'S PRESENTATION HERO'S WALK - MEMORIAL DAY 2003 Bobby Melatt~, Director, Beach Events Salem High School advanced Placement U.S History Students I. PUBLIC HEARING 1. REAL AND PERSONAL TAX EXEMPT Requests: ao Heart Havens, Inc. Cerebral Palsy of V~rg~ma, Inc. J CONSENT AGENDA II K ORDINANCES o . o , o EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) annual permit renewal: ao Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters Eastern Shore Ambulance Lifeline Ambulance Service, Inc Medical Transport Network Medical Systems, Inc. Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance Ordinance to AMEND FY 2003-2004 SCHOOLS' operating budget to revise categorical appropriations; and, APPROPRIATE $2,792,632 in State funds and $158,000 fund balance for site acquisition. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $137,540 in Federal funds from the State Department of Social Services to the FY 2003-2004 operating budget of Virginia Beach Social Services re the food stamp employment and training program. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE TAX EXEMPTIONS on local real and personal property for charitable purposes: ao HEART HAVEN INC. CEREBRAL PALSY of VIRGINIA, INC. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE a temporary encroachment into a portion of the right-of-way at Atlantic Ocean and 34th Street by OCEAN BEACH CLUB, LLC to maintain a waterfall, landscaping, covered walkways and porte cochere. Lo PLANNING Apphcation of DAYSPRING OUTREACH MINISTRY for a Condlt~onal Use Permit to expand an existing church in a shopping center at 3460, 3462 and 3464 Holland Road, contalmng 4,000 square feet ( DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL) Recommendation' APPROVAL . Application of REED ENTERPRISES, INC. for a Conditional Use Permit to ADD an automatic carwash to an automobile service station in conjunction with a convemence store at 985 Chimney H~ll Shopping Center, containing 21,755 square feet (DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of JOHN SWEENEY for a Conditional Use Permit re firewood processing and storage of wood at 2332 London Bridge Road. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Recommendation: DENIAL Apphcatlons re property on the east side of Little Neck Road, north of Poplar Bend (864 Little Neck Road), containing 5 319 acres (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) VOICESTREAM GSM II, L.L.C. for MODIFICATION to eliminate Proffers Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and, REVISE Proffer No. 3 re communication tower as a use on the Change of Zoning in the apphcatlon of Hubert L. and Mona H. Dad from R-3 Restdenttal Dtstr~ct to 0-1 Office Dtstrtct (approved by City Council on February 9, 1981) bo VOICE STREAM WIRELESS for a Conditional Use Permit re wtreless communtcatton facthty and commumcatton tower Deferred: Recommendation: APRIL 22, 2003 APPROVAL Application of GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. on the north side of Edison Road, east of General Booth Boulevard, containing 10.6 acres: (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) ao Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Dtstrtcts to Condtttonal B-2 Communtty-Bustness Dtstrtct b. Conditional Use Permit for a mini-warehouse faclhty Recommendation APPROVAL o Application of the City of Virginia Beach to AMEND the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re building height regulations in the Agricultural and certain Residential zomng Districts. Recommendation: APPROVAL M. APPOINTMENTS ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION BEACHES AND WATERWAYS COMMISSION HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION (HRPDC) OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD SHORE DRIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TOWING ADVISORY BOARD YOUTH SERVICES COUNCIL N UNFINISHED BUSINESS O. NEW BUSINESS P ADJOURNMENT City Council, in trying to be more responsive to the needs of citizens ~vho attend the meetings, has adopted the following time limits for future Formal ;essions kpplicant or Applicant's Representative 10 Minute kttorney or Representative for Opposition 10 Minutes Other Speakers - each 3 Minutes Applicant's Rebuttal 3 Minutes THESE TIMES WILL BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO. If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303 Hearing impaired, call TDD only 427-4305 (TDD - Telephonic Device for the Deaf) Agenda 06/05/03 slb-gw www vbgov corn IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 4:30 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber- 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER- Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Frances Cooper Pastor Courthouse United Methodist 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 June 3, 2003 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the goveming body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virgima 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 &scussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, Co) only such pubhc business matters as were ~dentified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. H. MAYOR'S PRESENTATION HERO'S WALK- MEMORIAL DAY 2003 Bobby Melatti, Director, Beach Events Salem High School advanced Placement U.S. History Students I. PUBLIC HEARING 1. REAL AND PERSONAL TAX EXEMPT Requests: ao Heart Havens, Inc. Cerebral Palsy of Virginia, Inc. J. CONSENT AGENDA THE BEACON Thursday, June 5, 2003 K. ORDINANCES . . . . . EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) annual permit renewal: al Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters Eastern Shore Ambulance Lifeline Ambulance Service, Inc. Medical Transport Network Medical Systems, Inc. Ordinance to AMEND FY 2003-2004 SCHOOLS' operating budget to revise categorical appropriations; and, APPROPRIATE $2,792,632 in State funds and $158,000 fund balance for site acquisition. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $137,540 in Federal funds from the State Department of Social Services to the FY 2003-2004 operating budget of Virginia Beach Social Services re the food stamp employment and training program. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE TAX EXEMPTIONS on local real and personal property for charitable purposes: a, HEART HAVEN INC. CEREBRAL PALSY of VIRGINIA, INC. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE a temporary encroachment into a portion of the right-of-way at Atlantic Ocean and 34th Street by OCEAN BEACH CLUB, LLC to maintain a waterfall, landscaping, covered walkways and porte cochere. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Annual Permit Renewal for Area Pdvate, Municipal, and Non-Profit EMS Organizations MEETING DATE: June 10, 2003 Background: Section 10.5-2 of the City code requires renewal of all existing Emergency Medical Services agency permits which are issued throughout the year to the area private, and non-profit organizations operating emergency medical services agencies or vehicles within the city limits. Annual renewal begins July 1 of each year and expires June 30 of the following year. Six emergency medical services agencies are requesting renewal to continue their operations within the City of Virginia Beach providing those levels of care currently authorized. Considerations: The following applications have been received and processed by the Department of Emergency Medical Services for the operation of basic and advanced life support agencies: Eastern Shore Ambulance, Lifeline Ambulance, Children's Hospital of the Kings Daughters; Network Medical Systems, Inc.; Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance; and Medical Transport, Inc. During the previous twelve months, the pdvate ambulance agencies performed non-emergency interfacility transports which include both basic and advanced life support calls. Public Information: The public will be notified of the pending action via the Council Agenda as pdnted in the Beacon. Altematives: This is an annual administrative action. Failure to renew permits would halt all non-emergency medical transport services in the City. Dozens of patients daily would be without transportation. This is not a function provided by the City's volunteer rescue squads. Recommendations: The' Department of EMS recommends approval of all permit applications. Attachments: Permit Applications. Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager: (~~~~~ Department of Emergency Medical Services PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW SUMMARY Orgamzauon: Comments' Orgamzauon: Comments' Organization: Comments: Orgamzation: Comments: Organization Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters (Roger Vaughan, Manager) 601 Children's Lane Norfolk, VA 23507 Recommend Approval Recommend Demal Eastern Shore Ambulance (Dennis Taylor, President) 8426 Sugarhill Lane Sanford, VA 23426 Recommend Approval Recommend Demal Lifeline Ambulance Service, Inc. (James C. Jones, Jr., President) 310 Bell Road Christiansburg, VA 24073 Recommend Approval Recommend Demal Medical Transport (Donald Jellig, President) 5792 Arrowhead Drive, State 200 Virg~ma Beach, VA 23462 Recommend Approval Recommend Demal Network Medical Systems, Inc. (Norman Pool, President) 1533 Technology Drive Chesapeake, VA 23320 Recommend Approval Recommend Demal Comments. PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW SUMMARY Organization: Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance (David Bernd, President) 600 Gresham Drive Norfolk, VA 23507 Recommend Approval Recommend Demal Comments: EMS Regulation &,LL~nforcement Division Chief ~hs . r:-. Medical Dtrector Ch~ie~.of EMS _ _ 5'-2 2- FINAL DISPOSITION Approval Demal Comments: City Clerk CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMS AGENCY PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: 315 EXPIRES: VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: ALS Ground Transport (Inter-facihty Emergency and Non-emergency) ADDRESS: 601 Children's Lane Norfolk, VA 23507 PHONE: 668-7453 MANAGER: Roger Vaughan NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE: COMMENTS: Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Health Commonwealth of Virginia Governing Emergency Medical Services 1990 as amended? ~ES [] NO Nam~itle ,o Date CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMS AGENCY PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Eastern Shore Ambulance VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: EXPIRES: VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: ADDRESS: P.O. Box 6 8426 Sugarhill Lane Sanford, VA 23426 PHONE: 787-824-5858 PRESIDENT: Denms Taylor VICE PRESIDENT: Margaret A. Taylor ALS Ground Transport (Non-Emergency-Unrestricted and Emergency-Restricted) NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE: COMMENTS: Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Health Commonwealth of Virginia Governing Emergency Medical Services 1990 as amended? ~ES [] NO Name/Titler ' Date CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMS AGENCY PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Lifeline Ambulance Service, Inc. VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: EXPIRES: , ~lx~,~ BEACIt AGENCY CLASSRm-I. CATION: ALS Ground Tree, sport (Non-Emergency-Unrestricted and Emergency-Restricted) ADDRESS: PHONE: 310 Bell Road Christiansburg, VA 24073 540-382-10~.4 PRESIDENT: James C. Jones, Jr. VICE PP SmV. NT: Dc¢ _c C- NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE: COMMENTS: Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Health Commonwealth of Virginia Governing Emergency Medical Services 1990 as amended? ~ES [] NO Name/Title Date CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMS AGENCY PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Medical Transport VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: 308 EXPIRES: VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: ADDRESS: 5792 Arrowhead Drive, Suite 200 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 PHONE: 671-9302 ALS Ground Transport (Non-emergency-Unrestricted) and Emergency-Restricted) PRESIDENT: MANAGER: Donald Jelhg Russell Blow NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE: COMMENTS: /' Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Rules and~'~t~ ~z/~. Regulations of the Board of Health Commonwealth of Virginia Governing Emergency _~~ Medical Services 1990 as amended? YES [] NO Name/Title Date CITY OF VIRGENIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES PRIVATE AMBULANCE AGENCY PERMIT APPLICATION In accordance with he provision of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach Chapter 10, Section 10 5-2, application is hereby made to operate an emergency medical agency or vehicle in the City of Virginia Beach REQUEST: New Application Renewal Other (Revision of agency, location, change of officer, etc.) L / TYPE OF AGENCY: Sole Proprietor [~ Partnership [~ Municipal ~ Co~oration [~] Other- Speci~ MINIMUM REOUIREMENTS: -- Does your agency comply with minimum requirements as set forth in the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Health Commonwealth of Vir~nia Governing Emergency Medical Services 1990 as [~]No OFFICERS OF ORGANIZATION: (List all owners Use back if necessary) Owner(s)' 2~rrr/~ -~ ,~o¢~ ~-~c~ (_ Address City , ~ State d ~ Zip ~ ~~Phone President Address City' State'__ Zip' SSN' DOB ~[/g[5- Phone Vice-Presidenr Address' State ~fi~ Zip' SSN: DOB Secretary Address City State Zip SSN DOB Phone Treasurer~~_ ~ ~'/~, City t~) ~'/rr~ 2~'(~ State Zip Phone SSN DOB CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL: Emergency First Responder (Class A) Basic Life Support (Class B) Advanced Life Support (Class C) Neonatal Transport (Class D) Medical Wheelchair Transport (Class E) Rotary Wing (Class E) Other (New Application) (Class F) CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES PROVIDED: Emergency First Responder Basic Life Support [3 Neonatal Transport (A.L S) D Medical Wheelchair Transport ~ Advanced Life Support 121 Other- Specify Rotary Wing (ALS) CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONNEL: Number of currently certified personnel employed First Responder Emergency Medical Technician - Ambulance Emergency Medical Technician - Shock Trauma -2. Emergency Medical Technician - Cardiac /5) Emergency Medical Technician- Paramedtc Other- Specify ~-i~/ ~ AGENCY'S STATISTIC SHEET: Number of calls previous 12 momhs Date' TIDEWATER REGION iTEMS & PEMSI VIRGINIA BEACH Basic Life Support Basic Life Support Advanced Life Support Advanced Life Support Total Number of Calls INTERFACILITY TRANSPORTS: C ~o]-~pJ.t~ 3/e.~/%n J- Lt~, a'~fs ' '! Ad gl Originating from Semara Bayside Hospital Total Number of Calls Originating from Virginia Beach General Hospital Originating from outside the City of Virginia Beach Total Number of Calls I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of permit revocation, that all of the above statements are tree to the best of my knowledge, information and beliefs It is understood that my agency, upon approval of this permit, shall upon request, present and/or relinquish records, files, calls sheet(s) and/or dispatching data Furthermore, I agree to adhere to all policies promulgated by the city of Virginia Beach Departmem of Emergency Medical Services Signed by' Subscribed and sworn to before me this My Commission Expires / / Title CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMS AGENCY PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: 509 EXPIRES: VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: A~r Ambulance (Emergency-Restricted) ADDRESS: 600 Gresham Drive Norfolk, VA 23507 PHONE: 668-2500 PRESIDENT: David Bemd MANAGER: Kathy Colantuono NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE: COMMENTS: Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Health Commonwealth of Virginia Governing Emergency Medical Services 1990 as amended? YES [] NO Date CITY OF VIRGINIA SEACn AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Request to Amend the FY 2003-04 Ordinance for Virginia Beach City Public Schools MEETING DATE: June 10, 2003 Background: On May 20, 2003, the School Board reviewed the categorical appropriation made by Council on May 13, 2003. There were no changes to Operating Budget Revenue appropriations, however there was a re-alignment of the expenditure appropriation as part of the reconciliation of the School Board budget adopted March 4, 2003 and the Council appropriation on May 13, 2003. Considerations: The School Board has studied the recommended School Operating Budget in view of State and Federal requirements, additional demand for space and operations, the strategic plan, priorities, expectations and the best educational interests of its students and requests City Council approval of the following changes: Approp~ Category Administration, Attendance And Health Instruction Operations and Maintenance Pupil Transportation Total Appropriation Category School Grants Fund All Other SR Funds 18,899,361 423~825~993 68~095~411 23~522~956 534,343,721 $~ R~ .v~n~e Fsmds 46~007~752 39,406,141 Total 85,413,893 May20,-20~' ' - 19,165,766 422~554~544 69~238~040 23~385~371 534~343~721 48~800,384 39,564~141 88,364,525 ~1': 13,'2003 May 20, 2003 266,405 (1~271,449) 1~142~629 ,(137~85) 0 ' .]~f~r. eaee-Apgr~ved ! -Reco~~¥1a]~ ~0~ 20.03 2~792~632 158,000 2~9507632 Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. Alternatives: None Recommendations: That the City Council amend the Fiscal Year 2003-04 Operating Budget Ordinance to reflect the requested modifications to the School Board0s Fiscal Year 2003-04 Operating Budget. Attachments: School Board Resolution dated May 20, 2003 for the Fiscal Year 2003-04. Submitting Department/A_gency: Virgiqia~ Beac~h, City ]~ttblic Sck6~ls, Sul~fintendent C~tyManager~ ~t ~ ~ 'u AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY'S FY 2003-04 OPERATING BUDGET TO REVISE CATEGORICAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE SCHOOL OPERATING FUND AND TO APPROPRIATE $2,792 , 632 IN STATE FUNDS AND $158 , 000 FROM FI/ND BALANCE OF THE SCHOOL SITE ACQUISITION FUND FOR EXPENDITURE BY THE SCHOOL BOARD 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 WHEREAS, the School Board has requested that the City's Operating Budget, approved on May 13, 2003 by City Council, be amended to revise appropriations in the categories established in the School Operating Fund, and it has further requested the appropriation of $2,792,632 in state funds and $158,000 of fund balance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That appropriations to the School Operating Fund in the following categories are hereby revised in the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget as follows: (a) appropriations to the Instruction category are decreased by $1,271,449; (b) appropriations to the Administration, Attendance and Health category are increased by $266,405; (c) appropriations to the Pupil Transportation category are decreased by $137,585; and (d) appropriations to the Operations and Maintenance category are increased by $1,142,629. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 2. $2,792,632 in additional revenue is hereby appropriated to the School Grants Fund in the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget. 3. $158,000 of fund balance from the School Site Acquisition Special Revenue Fund is hereby appropriated to the School Site Acquisition Special Revenue Fund in the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget. 4. That, in the FY 2003-04 Operating budget, estimated revenue from the state government is hereby increased by $2,792,632 and estimated revenue from the fund balance of the School Site Acquisition Special Revenue Fund is hereby increased by $158,000. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of City Council. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of 2003. CA-8898 Ordin/Noncode/Schools FY 2004.ord.wpd R3 June 3, 2003 Approved as to Content: Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: City Attor~'s ffi~fice IRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS , AHEAD OF THE CURVE SCHOOL BOARD Damel D. Edward~ I~slnct 1 - Ceflk~ie 1513 ~ Dnve VA Beach. VA 23464 49,5-3551 (h). 717-0259 (ceil) I~1L Rele AI-Laqle 1337 Hams Road VA Beach, VA 23452 463-3823 th) · 497-6633 (~) Dstnct 6- Bea:h VA Beach, VA 23454 425-1597 Emma L 'F.m" Dav~ DmnaS-L~ VA Beach, VA 23452 340-8911 (h) A. aame~ 'J~m" DeBeli~ VA 8aac~ VA 23462 4b'7-2~'7 (h) Daa R. Lewe D~nct4.~m ,~17 Red Coat Road VABea~,VA ~ 490-3681 (h) 705 R~x~ Cmek Cou~ VA I~, VA 23462 490-8167 (h) 105 Bmnt~l<,3d C~ VA Beach, ¥^ 23452 4.9S-4303 {h) · 44,5.4637 (w) VA Beach, VA 23455 C~ VA Bea~, V~ -Z34~ 464.6~74 Lob $. ~. Pk.D. VA Beach. W. 234SS SUPERINTEndENT 2512 Geerge Maso~ Dram VA Beac~ YA 23455 427-4326 BUDGET RESOLUTION WItEREAS, the mission of the Vir~nia Beach City Public Schools, in partnership with our entire community, is to ensure that each student is empowered with the knowledge and skills necessary to meet the challenges of the furore; and WltEREAS, the School Board has adopted a comprehensive strategic plan and school improvement priorities to guide budgetary decisions; and WHEREAS, mandates of federal and state governments have created additional demands; and WHEREAS, the School Board has studied the recommended School Operating Budget in view of state and federal requirements, additional demands for space and operations, the strategic plan, priorities, expectations, competitive compensation for employees and the best educational interests of its students; and WHEREAS, the School Board Proposed Operating Budget has been reconciled to meet the Revenue Sharing Formula as adopted by City Council on May 13, 2003. Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: That the Vkginia Beach City School Board, on the 20th day of May 2003, requests a categorical appropriation of $ 534,343,721 from the City Council of Virginia Beach for the 2003-2004 School Operating Budget, as outlined by category: Instruction Administration, Attendance and Health Pupil Transportation Operations and Maintenance and be it further $422,554,544 $19,165,766 $23,385,371 $69,238,040 RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City School Board requests an appropriation of $88,364,525 for special grants, and other special revenue funds, for the 2003-2004 fiscal year; and be it further RESOLVED: That a copy of this resolution be spread across the official minutes of this Board, and the Clerk of the Board is directed to deliver a copy of this resolution to the Mayor, each member of City Council, the City Manager, and the City Adopted by the School Board this 20th day of May SEAL Attest: Dianne P. Alexander, C~ea'k of the Board Daniel D. Edwards, School Admsmstrat.:~ Building · 2512 George Mason Drive · R O. Box 6038 · Vir~ma Beach, VA 23456-0038 FY 2003/04 School Board Operating Budget Expenditure Summary May 20, 2003 Percent Unit FY 1999-00 FY 2000=01 FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 of Code DESCRI~ON Actual Actual Acma! Budget Budget Total 50100 Elementary Classv0om $102,828,925 $101,891,04 g $100,122,856 $104.553,378 $106,884,789 20 01.3 50200 S~uor High Classroom 58,041,657 58,014,53 2 60,639,795 61,341,392 67,780,952 12 68% 50300 Tcchmcal and Careea'Ed Classroom 14,131,257 14,385,734 14.715,896 15,651,938 16,939,941 3 17% 50400 Gdted Education & M~gnet Schools 8,830,150 8,974,82 9 8,678,404 9,627,828 9,931,484 ! 86% 50500 Specml Education 47,763,865 49,728,452 51,566,323 53,995,612 57,671,097 10 50600 Smnmer School !,415,669 2;362,586 2,597,780 3,524,676 3,293,099 0 62*A 50700 Gtw, eral Adult F_duc.~on 1,512,063 !,550,408 !,612,385 1,917,770 1,848,585 0 35*/0 50800 Open Campus 646,388 896,708 1,109,787 1,686,064 1,779,64'/ 0 33% 50900 Student Ac'av~aes 2,513,686 2,772,96~ 3.329,159 4,797,603 5,170,298 0 97% 51000 Pnncq~ai - Elementa~ School 13,944,057 15,598,26,4 15,918,243 16,212,970 17,011,516 3 18% 51100 Principal - Semor I-hgh School 6,921,480 7,646,619 7,944,750 8,208,231[ 8,614,879 1 61%, 51200 Pnncq~al - Techmcal & Career Educaaon 523,147 518,029 402,294 400,09~ 427,513 0 51300 Cnadance Ser~ncus 12,071,194 12,477,823 12.532,728 13,059,88~ 13,726,609 2 57%I 51400 Soczai Work Serwces !,546,115 1,606,07'9 1,733,937 1,801,57~ 1,905,920 0 36'A 51500 Mecha & Communicaaous 949,613 979,870 999,036 1,104,954 1,288,765 0 24~ 51600 ~ Technology 5,777,744 6,284,367 7,045,080 7,467,34(~ 7,763,377 1 51700 ~ Suppo~ 6,537,270 7,606,025 7,982,393 10,405,485 10,597,071 ! 98*3 51710 ~ Orgamzatmnal Development 0 472,790 554302 2,078,717 !,853,008 0 35% 51800 Special Educa~on Support 1,237,049 !,296,233 1,328,260 1,386,484 i,444,212 0 27% 51900 Cnfled Educaaon & Magnet Schools Suppm~ 535,436 670,058 91 !,.354 !,273,196 1310,341 0 26% 52000 Medza Sennce Supp~xt 10,573,581 10,191,093 10,001,109 10,420,011 10,972,713 2 05*3 52100 Accoumab&ty 1,098,557 1,083,804 !,336,427 1,708,948 2,001,840 0 37*3 52200 M~ddle School Clas~oom 47,411,082 47,066,084 48,704,806 48,712,540 52,215,988 9 77% 52300 Remedzai ~ !,743,079 !,688,899 2,975,091 3,802,910 3,986,351 0 75% 52400 Pnncapal - lVl~ldle School 6,848,064 7,326,392 7,084,729 7,058,404 7,5 ! 7,686 1.4 ! .52500 Homebom~ Setnnc~ 601,984 613,356 633,716 867,287 858,332 0 16% 52600 Teclamcal and Career ~ Support 662,884 677,828 667,864 718,261 737,117 0 14% 52700 Student I___~__ p 632,940 672,919 693,781 702,595 729,521 0 14% :52800 Psychological Sonnces 2,102,672 2,252,719 2,543,886 2,475,197 2,633,991 0 49./~ 1529o0 Au&olog~al Services 181,827 194,153 206,753 210,373 224,125 0 04% 53100 School Aam,,,,~-at~on 782,894 914,040 958,144 1,045,026 1,096,854 0 21% 153200 A~ernatr~F. ducatz~ 1,9707329 2~216~883 1,940,289 23OO#54 2~36,92~ 0 42% INSTRUCTION 362,336~654 370~631r~4 379~4717758 400~417~706. 422,554~ 79.09% .54100 Board, Legal aad Governmental Serwces 577,561 784,053 663,244 1,101,330 1,065,661 0 2(PA 54200 Supennteudent 398,703 464,110 522,485 634,446 720,097 0 13% 54300 Budget and Finance 1,813,047 2,125,971 2,130,251 2,524,391 2,717,588 0 51% 54400 Hmnaa Resources 2,431,268 2;314,155 2,698,697 3,284,846 3,457,037 0 65% ~54500 lntemal Anda! 229,144 243,841 256,585 263,360 274,857 0 05% 54600 Purchusmg Serv~es 620.586 698,769 691,048 725,995 774,798 0 14% ~54700 Organtzatmn~ Development 934,155 1,436,918 1,485,659 2,060,667 2,293,257 0 43% 54900 Technology 3,654,695 1,027,782 922,602 1,282,997 i,148,199 0 21% !55000 Benefits 1,260,193 1,325,029 1,639,904 1,628,921 1,826,080 0 34% 55200 Health Services 3r492r388 4~029r376 . 4~257r878' 4~505,464. 4,888,192i 0 91% ADMINISTRATION, ATTEND & HEALTH 15~411~740 14,450~004 15~.68~M 18~012~417 19~165~766 3.57% 56100 Management 904,312 1,051,703 1,155,619 1,448,131 1,524,5581 0 29*/, '56200 Velucle ~ 15,145,136 14.897,335 15,820,077 17,213,790 17,538,020: 3 28% 56300 Velucle Maintenance 1,867,461 1,938,835 2,021,945 2,074,540 2,153,16~ 0 56400 Momtonng Ser~ce~ 1~743,638 I~928,579 I t854,682. 2,043~027 2~169~633' 0 41%. PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 19,660,547 19,816~452 20,852r324 22~.779,488 23,385r.3711 4.38°A 57100 Facflmes Planning and C. onstruc~m 588,078 527,844 537,906 547,797 597,149i 0 1 !% 57200 School Plant 26,124,407 27,755,051 29,122,412 30,917,730 32,201,351' 6 04%' 57300 Supply Serwces 778,207 879,226 868,022 !,020,737 1,076,547 0 57400 Grounds Servtces 2,445,941 3,035,636 3,063,532 2,971,625 2,971,625~ 0 56%~ 57500 Custochai Set, rices 16,088,372 16,700,035 18,030,013 18,872,564 19,474,407 3 64% 57600 Enwronmental Scr,nces 291,634 287,601 373,886 - 0 00%! 58100 Security Set,rices !,378,491 2,836,063 3,619,022 3,569,995 4,087,396 0 76% 58200 Velucle Services 1,389,678 876,306 440,903 835331 581,371 0 11% ~58300 Telecommumcat~ous 669,314 1,152,234 !,071,948 1,614,784 !,353,768 0 25% 58400 Technology Mamtenanc~ 0 3r707~437 4,871,779 6~043~i35 6t894~426 1 29% OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 49,754,122 57,757~463 61,999,423 66,393,798 69,238,040 12.96% TOTAL EXPENDITURF_,S $447,163,063 $462,655,503 $477,591,8S8 $507,603,409 $534,343,721 100 00% FY 2003/04 School Board Operating Budget Revenue Summary May 20, 2003 Percent FY 1999-00 FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 of REVENUE ACCOUNTS Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Total ii il i Adult Basic Education $201,306 $252,33 i 308,298 $134,408 $134,408 0.03°A Public Law 874 (Operation) 10,728,187 9,746,799 12,789,700 12,461,723 12,461,723 2.33~ Department of Defense (P.L. 486) 2,325,430 1,859,245 1,500,000 1,500,000 0 28% Rebates and Refunds (IqJROTC) I 19,708 129,663 ! 43,679 100,000 100,000 0.02o,~ Other Federal Funds 326,419 330,454 315,870 175,000 ! 75,000 0.03% FEDERAL REVENUE 13,701,050 10,459,247 15,416,792 14,371,131 14,371,131 2.69% Basic School Aid 134,778,814 144,954,006 143,582,574 158,046,389 163,267,032 30.55% State Sales Tax 49,490,165 51,889,329 52,074,158 54,039,394 53,697,320 10.05% ~mary supplement 8,353,259 2,393,903 3,979,916 - 1,975,960 0.00 Foster Home Children 242,709 144,530 207,738 145,345 145,345 0.03% General Adult Education 59,211 62,447 62,249 122,846 122,846 0.02% Gifted and Talented (SOQ) 1,690,541 1,758,786 ! ,747,280 1,750,555 1,763,857 0.33% Special Education (SOQ) 10,383,840 12,563,162 12,521,730 13,583,249 13,726,728 2.57% Special Education (Homebound) 168,860 133,840 123,452 139,790 148,770 0.03% Special Education (Regional Tuitionl 3,785,016 4,283,942 4,868,286 4,430,167 4,782,741 0.90% Remedial Summer School 940,844 962,109 1,206,981 1,228,823 1,244,177 0.23% Remedial Education (SOQ) 2,006,539 2,336,168 2,201,085 2,549,923 2,567,589 Vocational Education (SOQ) 1,504,904 1,724,356 i,711,955 1,814,369 1,826,938 0.34% Vocational Education-Categorical 236,952 303,866 144,026 335,757 190,988 0.04% Social Security 7,954,787 8,502,703 8,449,011 8,206,135 8,281,014 1.55% Virgama Retirement Syst~n 9,387,618 8,396,405 4,169,611 4,684,789 4,802,007 0.90% State Employee Insurance - 355,161 275,339 - Other State Funds 2,388,164 2,926,613 2,971,886 1,047,247 113,082 0.02% English as a Second Language 203,439 199,396 - 233,4 ! 4 249,947 0 05% At-RJsk Initiative 1,265,248 1,393,656 1,377,599 1,087,468 1,299,234 0.24% Class Size Initiative 3,925,426 3,115,873 2,932,845 2,783,558 2,809,061 0.53% Maintenance Reserves 745,827 732,828 728,033 - - SOL Teaching Materials 994,436 488,552 485,356 - - STATE REVENUE 240,506,599 249,621,631 245,821,110 256,229,218 263,014,636 49.23% Local Contributions 191,157,513 208,189,338 206,096,679 234,769,396 254,754,290 47.68% Rental of Facilities 593,645 458,189 476,631 480,000 450,000 0 08% Summer School Tuition 551,573 624,034 596,994 637,689 637,689 0.12% General Adult Ed. Tuition 201,577 155,140 204,542 142,839 142,839 0.03% Vocational Adult Ed. Tuition 125,877 267,947 i 34,085 169,750 169,750 0.03% Non-Resident Tuition 88,681 64,237 72, i 52 100,000 100,000 0 02% Driver Education Tmtion 245,966 230,750 173,750 240,000 240,000 0.04% LPN Tuition 27,617 24,990 17,320 25,575 25,575 0 00% Open Campus Tuition 21,860 17,694 23,866 20,811 20,811 0.00% Sale of School Vehicles 51,222 35,665 12,647 5,000 5,000 0.00% Sale of Salvage Equipment 13,051 12,570 8,181 2,000 2,000 0 00% Insurance Adjustments 63,118 37,787 104,476 - - - Other Funds 112,838 11,459 i I 1,070 95,000 95,000 0.02% Flexible Benefits Forfeitures 36,671 - 15,000 15,000 0.00% Indirect Costs of Grants 220,274 329,665 411,934 300,000 300,000 0 06°/6 LOCAL REVENUE 193,511,483 210,459,465 208,444,327 237,003,060 256,957,954 48.08% TOTAL REVENUE $447,719,132 $470,540,343 469,682,229 $507,603,409 $534,343,721 100.00% CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Food Stamp Employment and Training (FSET) MEETING DATE: June 10, 2003 Background: The Food Stamp Employment and Training Program (FSET) has historically been managed and operated by the Virginia Beach Department of Social Services (VBDSS). The Virginia Department of Social Services made a decision to shift the program to the Workforce Investment Board's One Stop Center located at the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) as one of their fiscal year 2004 budget adjustments. For this reason, three positions (FTE) were eliminated from the Social Services fiscal year 2004 budget. In early May, this decision was reversed by the State, shifting FSET back to Social Services for continued operation (See attachment). This information was not received in time to include in the budget reconciliation process. Federal funds have been made available to continue the program. Considerations: The federal government mandates a program of employment and training for food stamp recipients. Virginia Beach is one of 24 local agencies that has been selected by the State to administer the FSET program. The program is totally funded by federal funds. No local match is required. Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council Agenda notification process. Alternatives: A request could be made to the State that Virginia Beach be exempt from providing employment and training services to recipients of food stamps. Recommendations: Receive and appropriate $137,540 in federal funds for three (3) positions (FTE). Attachments: Ordinance and May 1, 2003 letter from State Department of Social Services Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Social Services Noncode/Food Stamp arf. d~- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE $137,540 IN FEDERAL FUNDS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TO THE FY 2003-04 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE FOOD STAMP EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM. 11 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 12 BEACH, Virginia: 13 1. That $137,540 of federal funds is hereby accepted and 14 appropriated from the State Department of Social 15 Services to the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget of the 16 Department of Social Services to administer the Food 17 Stamp Employment and Training Program, with federal 18 revenue increased accordingly. 19 2. That three full-time equivalent positions are hereby 20 established in the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget of the 21 Department of Social Services. 22 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 23 Virginia on the day of , 2003. 24 25 CA- 8888 26 Word/Noncode/Food Stamp. ord 27 RI 28 May 29, 2003 29 30 Approved as to Content 31 32 33 34 35 36 Approved as to Legal Sufficiency Law Department 5--23--03, 3 25PM;VB SOCIAl_ SERVICES ,757 43734~S ~ 2/ 3 DATE: May 1, 2003 TO: Directors ofFSET Agencies FROM: Duke Storen, Director, Division of Benefit Programs SUBJECT: FSET Program The Department has made a decision on which agencies will continue to operate FSET. We based our decision on feedback provided at and subsequent to the FSET meeting on April 24 and discussion with USDA. Seventeen (17) local agencies opted to not operate FSET for fiscal year 2004. Twenty- four (24) agencies wanted to continue. The Department will be able to fund these 24 agencies at the allocation they received for fiscal year 2003. These agencies represent a mixture of size and geographic coverage and include the nine largest agencies in the State. The agencies that wall continue to operate FSET effective June 1, 2003 are as follows: Alexandria Arlington Bristol Brunswick Chesapeake Danville Fairfax Hampton Henry/Martinsville gang and Queen Newport News Norfolk Pittsylvania Portsmouth Prince William Richmond City Roanoke City Roanoke County Rockbridge Area Smyth Surry Tazewell Virginia Beach Wythe The agencies that wall no longer operate FSET are' Accomack Pulaski Campbell Radford Charlottesville Russ ell Chesterfield Scott Halifax Staunton/Augusta Henrico Suffolk Lynchburg Washington Montgomery W aynesb oro Petersburg For the agencms who will continue to operate FSET, there wtll be no changes to current FSET policy However, the FSET Statastical Report will be revised to delete the section 5-23--03; 3 25PM;VB SOCIAL SECtVICES ,757 43734~¢j ¢ 3/ 3 regarding offered and filled slots for Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) and to add some clarifying information to the instructions for completion of the report. For the local agencies who opted out ofFSET, "close-out" procedures will be sent to you on Monday or Tuesday. Generally, these agencies will only be responsible for detenmning the work registration and work requirement statuses of individuals applying for Food Stamps and accurately entering this information into ADAPT. However, we strongly encourage local agencies to continue to work with their ABAWDs, primarily those in non-waived agencies, by providing information on how these individuals can meet their work requirement through employment and volunteering. We appreciate all the feedback we received fi.om local agencies in a relatively short period of time. We believe we will be able to operate a viable FSET Program. If you have any questions, please contact me at (804) 692-1702 or sds900@email l.dss, state.va.us or Pat Kearney at (804) 692-1712 or pdd2@email 1.dss.state.va.us. C: Regional Directors Regional Food Stamp Program Consultants Pat Kearney Joyce Davis Sandy Smith 0~. 0~)~ N~'[~0~ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Ordinance to Designate Heart Haven, Inc. as Being Exempt from Local Real and Personal Property Taxation MEETING DATE: June 10, 2003 Background: Article X, Section 6 (a)(6) of the Virginia Constitution provides that property used by its owner for religious, charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes may be exempted from taxation by classification or designation by an ordinance adopted by the local governing body. Prior to January 1, 2003, such exemptions could only be granted by the General Assembly. At § 58.1-3651 of the Virginia Code, the process is set forth for designating specific organizations as being exempt from local taxation, and a list of factors for the local governing body to consider is set forth. The City's application form asks for all the information that the City Council must consider. Considerations: Heart Havens, Inc. has requested the adoption of an ordinance exempting it from local property taxes; previously, the Council had adopted a resolution supporting action by General Assembly to exempt this organization. Heart Havens is a ministry of the Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church; it "provides forthe residential needs of disabled persons." The organization owns a single-family dwelling building located at 1609 Macleigh Court that is used as a group home (assessed value of $141,056 in FY '03; tax is $1546). Heart Havens also owns a van assessed at $8990 in FY '03; the tax is $329. Public Information: Pursuant to § 58.1-3651, an ad was published five days before the City Council meeting of June 10, 2003, to give notice of the required public hearing. Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: N/A Submitting D,D..epartmen~/Agency: City Council F:\DataWTY~Ordin\NONCODE\Heart Hav en.arf wpd AN ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE HEART HAVENS, INC., AS BEING EXEMPT FROM LOCAL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS, in accordance with ~ 58.1-3651 of the Code of Virginia, the Council of the City of Virginia Beach has advertised and conducted a public hearing on the issue of granting an exemption from local property taxes to Heart Havens, Inc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, hereby designates Heart Havens, Inc., as a charitable organization within the context of ~ 6(a) (6) of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia. 2. That personal property owned by Heart Havens, Inc., located within the City of Virginia Beach, and its real property located at 1609 MacLeigh Court, that is used exclusively for charitable purposes on a nonprofit basis is hereby exempt from local property taxation. 3. This exemption is contingent on the following: (a) continued use of the property by Heart Havens, Inc., for exclusively charitable purposes; (b) that each July 1, Heart Havens, Inc., shall file with the Commissioner of the Revenue a copy of its most recent federal income tax return, or, if no such return is required, it shall certify its 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 continuing tax exempt status to the Commissioner of the Revenue; and (c) that every three years, beginning on July 1, 2006, Heart Havens, Inc., shall file with the Commissioner of the Revenue an application for contInuatIon of the exemption. 4. That the effective date of this exemption shall be January 1, 2003. Adopted by the Council of the City of V~rg~n~a Beach, VIrginia, on the day of , 2003. CA-8891 ORDIN\NONCODE\Heart Havens. ord. wpd R-2 June 2, 2003 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY' CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Ordinance to Designate Cerebral Palsy of Virginia as Being Exempt from Local Real and Personal Property Taxation MEETING DATE: June 10, 2003 Background: Article X, Section 6 (a)(6) of the Virginia Constitution provides that property used by its owner for religious, charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes may be exempted from taxation by classification or designation by an ordinance adopted by the local governing body. Prior to January 1, 2003, such exemptions could only be granted by the General Assembly. At § 58.1-3651 of the Virginia Code, the process is set forth for designating specific organizations as being exempt from local taxation, and a list of factors for the local governing body to consider is set forth. The City's application form asks for all the information that the City Council must consider. Considerations: United Cerebral Palsy CUCP") has requested the City Council to adopt an ordinance exempting it from local property taxes. Previously, the City Council had adopted a resolution supporting action by General Assembly to exempt this organization, but the necessary legislation was not introduced. UCP provides "programs and services for children and adults with cerebral palsy and other developmental disabilities." The organization owns an office building located at 5825 Arrowhead Ddve (assessed value of $252,000 in FY '03; tax is $3074); part of the building is leased to other organizations and will not be eligible for exempt status. UCP also owns office equipment and other personal property with an assessed value of $37,992 in FY '03; taxes on this property would be $1405.70. Public Information: Pursuant to § 58.1-3651, an ad was published five days before the City Council meeting of June 10, 2003, to give notice of the required public hearing. Attachments: Ordinances Recommended Action: N/A Submitting Department/Agency: City Council · :\Data~,TY~Ord~n\NONCODE\cerebralpalsy arf.wpd AN ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE CEREBRAL PALSY OF VIRGINIA AS BEING EXEMPT FROM LOCAL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS, in accordance with § 58.1-3651 of the Code of Virginia, the Council of the City of Virginia Beach has advertised and conducted a public hearing on the issue of granting an exemption from local property taxes to Cerebral Palsy of Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, hereby designates Cerebral Palsy of Virginia as a charitable organization within the context of § 6(a) (6) of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia. 2. That personal property owned by Cerebral Palsy of Virginia located within the City of Virginia Beach, and its real property located at 5825 Arrowhead Drive, that is used exclusively for charitable purposes on a nonprofit basis is hereby exempt from local property taxation. 3. This exemption is contingent on the following: (a) continued use of the property by Cerebral Palsy of Virginia for exclusively charitable purposes; (b) that each July 1, Cerebral Palsy of Virginia shall file with the Commissioner of the Revenue a copy of its most recent federal income tax return, or, if no such return is required, it shall certify its 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 continuing tax exempt status to the CommIssioner of the Revenue; and (c) that every three years, beginning on July 1, 2006, Cerebral Palsy of Virginia shall file with the CommissIoner of the Revenue an application for continuation of the exemption. 4. That the effective date of th~s exemption shall be January 1, 2003. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2003. CA-8890 ORDIN\NONCODE\cerebralpalsytaxexord.wpd R-5 June 2, 2003 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY' Department U- Law CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM I ITEM: Encroachment Request- Construct and maintain a waterfall, landscaping, covered walkways, and porte cochere for Ocean Beach Club, LLC. MEETING DATE: June 10, 2003 Background: Ocean Beach Club, LLC has requested permission to encroach into the city right-of- way for the purpose of a waterfall, landscaping, covered walkways, and porte cochere. The property currently houses the Sea Vacationer Motel and the Thunderbird Hotel. It is the intention of Ocean Beach Club to begin construction in October 2003 on Phase I of 99 Timeshare Units. Considerations: City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended approval of same, subjected to certain conditions outlined in the agreement. Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda. 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, Exhibit, Elevation Views, and Pictures. Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works / Real Estate City Manager: ~~ ~____~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AT ATLANTIC AVENUE AND 34TM STREET BY OCEAN BEACH CLUB, LLC, ITS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, Ocean Beach Club, L.L.C., desires to maintain a waterfall, landscaping, covered walkways, and porte cochere into the City's right-of-way located at Atlantic Avenue and 34tn Street. WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2- 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize a temporary encroachments upon the City's right-of-way subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended Ocean Beach Club, L.L.C. its heirs, assigns and successors in title is authorized to maintain a temporary encroachment for a waterfall, landscaping, covered walkways and porte cochere in the C~ty's right-of-way as shown on the map entitled: "OCEAN BEACH CLUB FOR GOLD KEY RESORTS", a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and a copy of which ~s on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular description; and 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly sub3ect to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and Ocean Beach Club, L.L.C., (the "Agreement") which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the C~ty Manager or his authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as Bruce L. Thompson, Managing Member of Ocean Beach Club, L.L.C., Robert M. Howard, Assistant Secretary / Vice President of Beach Motel Corporation of Virginia Beach, and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2003. 40 41 42 43 CA-# gsalmons/ocean beach club/ord. R-1 PREPARED: 06.03.03 DEPARTMENT APPROVED A~ TO LEC. AL PROPOSED OCEAN BEACH CLUB PHASE I ATLANTIC LOCATION MAP _~,--SHOWING -ENCROACHMENT REQUESTED BY OCEAN BEACH CLUB, LLC INTO CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY 34th STREET, AVENUE, AND OCEAN AVENUE SCALE' 1" = 200' BEACH CLUB 34 DGN M J S PREPARED BY P/W ENG C..ADD DEFT MAY 9,2003 PREPARED BY VIRG~XlIA BEACH - CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXF.~ FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTIONS 5B l-~1 I(a)(3) AND 58 1-81 l(c)(4) RE]M~EMENT AL'rHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 2003, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and OCEAN BEACH CLUB, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company, and MOTEL CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA BEACH, aVirginia Corporation, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WITNE S SETH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as '~Block 81 Lot 1 and Lot 2" as shown on "- Property of- Virginia Beach Development Co., Virginia Beach, VA. North of 25' St." and being further designated and described as GPIN 2428.03.4372, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451, and is more particularly described as follows: "All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, in the City of Virginia Beach, State of Virginia. with the buildings and improvements thereon, and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, known, numbered and designated as Lot One (1) and the southern ten (10) feet of Lot No. Two (2) in block Eighty-one (81). As shown on Plat No. 3 of part ofthe property of Virginia Beach Development Company. In said City. Which plat is duly of record in the Clerk's Office ofthe Circuit Court ofthe said City. In Map Book 3, at page 177. Said land being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a stake in the western side of Atlantic Boulevard where it intersects with the northern side of34t~ Street, thence along the northerly side of 34a Street in a westerly direction 150 feet to a stake on the eastern side of Atlantic Avenue: thence along the eastern side of Atlantic Avenue in a northerly direction 60 feet: thence along a line parallel to the northern side of 34' Street in an easterly direction 150 feet to the western side of Atlantic Boulevard; thence along the Western side of Atlantic Boulevard, 60 feet to the point of beginning." GPIN 2428-03-4372 That, WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a waterfall, landscaping, covered walkways, and porte cochere, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City right of way known as 34t~ Street and the Greenbelt (formerly Atlantic Boulevard). "The Temporary Encroachment Area"; and 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 ofwhich is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Crrantee 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 ofthe 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: "OCEAN BEACH CLUB FOR GOLD KEY RESORTS", 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 one hundred eighty (180) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed t?om The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal; and that the Grantor shall promptly issue all necessary permits for said removal to ensure that Grantee may complete the removal within the time period set forth herein. Provided however, nothing herein shall prohibit the City from immediately removing, or ordering the grantee to remove, all or any part of the encroachment in the event of an emergency or public necessity. 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. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit and have approved a traffic control plan before commencing work in The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a fight of way permit, the Grantee must post sureties, in accordance with their engineer's cost estimate, to the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability 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 mount 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 Encroachmem. · 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 thereofto 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 flit 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 cominue 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 Ocean Beach Club, L.L.C. has caused this Agreemem to be execmed in its corporate name and on its behalf by Brace L. Thompson, Managing Member of Ocean Beach Club, L.L.C. and Beach Motel Corporation of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its corporate name and on its behalf by Robert M. Howard, Assistant Secretary/Vice President of Beach Motel Corporation. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereumo offixed and attested by its City Clerk CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ATTEST: By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager City Clerk OCEAN BE~ CLUB] L.L.C By :/× . . ~lgmce L. Tholfl~/son, President BQTS, Inc. a- Managing M0rtiber Ocean Beach Club, L.L.C. BEACH MOTEL CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA BEACH Robert M. ~I6~d, Assi~tmit Secretary/ Vice President of Beach Motel Corporation of Virginia Beach STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2003, by , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2003, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMC, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. My Commission Expires: Notary Public STATE OF L/, tz C~ ~: ~, CITY/COUNTY OF ~/~ 0.~;~,~ '~*.nc~, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2003, by Bruce L. Thompson, Managing Member on behalf of Ocean Beach Club, L.L.C. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 6.9 ~,~ '2- d ~ STATE OF b/~/z ~ ,a.,~ CITY/COUNTY OF k/t'~ O..c' a .~ g e~c.14 to-wit. The foregoing instmmem was acknowledged before me this day of ,~'~ ~ ,200~> by Robert M. Howard, Assistant Secretary/Vice President on behalf of Beach Motel Corporation of Virginia B~ Notary Public My Commission Expires' 0 2-,~ % o~/ 241939v2 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFIC~CY CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO CONTENT ~I~TY REAL ES'I~ATE AGENT ,,o- o~ - 11 ,,0 I ill [JI1 I ! i i i I I I I I i , i r.j-L,,'t.,_, ¢ ( L. PLANNING . Application of DAYSPRING OUTREACH MINISTRY for a Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing church in a shopping center at 3460, 3462 and 3464 Holland Road, containing 4,000 square feet. ( DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL) Recommendation: APPROVAL . Application of REED ENTERPRISES, INC. for a Conditional Use Permit to ADD an automatic carwash to an automobile service station in conjunction with a convenience store at 985 Chimney Hill Shopping Center, containing 21,755 square feet. (DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL) Recommendation: APPROVAL . Application of JOHN SWEENEY for a Conditional Use Permit re firewood processing and storage of wood at 2332 London Bridge Road. (DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE) Recommendation: DENIAL . Applications re property on the east side of Little Neck Road, north of Poplar Bend (864 Little Neck Road), containing 5.319 acres. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) a. VOICESTREAM GSM II, L.L.C. for MODIFICATION to eliminate Proffers Nos. 1, 2 and 4: and, REVISE Proffer No. 3 re communication tower as a use on the Change of Zoning in the application of Hubert L. and Mona H. Dail from R-3 Restdential District to O-I Office District (approved by City Council on February 9, 1981) b. VOICE STREAM WIRELESS for a Conditional Use Permit re wireless communwation facihty and commumcatzon tower Deferred: Recommendation: APRIL 22, 2003 APPROVAL . Application of GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. on the north side of Edison Road, east of General Booth Boulevard, containing 10.6 acres: (DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE) a. Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Distn'cts to Conditional B-2 Community-Business Dismct b. Conditional Use Permit for a mini-warehouse facility Recommendation: APPROVAL o Application of the City of Virginia Beach to AMEND the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re building height regulations in the Agricultural and certain Residential zoning Districts. Recommendation: APPROVAL Gtrin 1486-73-7186 ZONING HISTORY 1. 11-13.01 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (church) - Granted 10-12-99- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (church)- Granted 10-13-98 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (church)- Granted 6-27-83- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (tire mounting) - Granted 2. 2-27.01 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (auto sales & service)- Granted 4-13-99- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (auto sales & service)- Granted 11-25-85 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (auto sales & service) - Granted 3. 5-19-86- REZONING - A-1 Apartments to B-2 Community Business District- Granted 4. 3-12-92- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (church)- Granted 3-25-85- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (church)- Granted CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ITEM Daysprlng Outreach MImstry-Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: June 10, 2003 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Dayspring Outreach Ministry for a C__ondibonal Use Permit for a church on property located at 3460, 3462 and 3464 Holland -- Road (GPIN 1486737186). DISTRICT 3- ROSE HALL. The purpose of this request is to expand an existing church in a shopping center. Membership is anticipated to increase from 50 to 100 members. Considerations: The subject property is developed with a commercial shopping center (Holland Lakes Shopping Center) and is zoned B-2 Community Business District. Other uses on the site include two other churches, a daycare center, restaurants and various personal service and retail uses. The church currently occupies a 1,500 square foot space in the shopping center. The current Proposal is to expand into two adjacent spaces totaling 2,500 square feet, bringing the overall area to 4,000 square feet. The new space will be used for sanctuary space, while the existing space will be converted to offices and classrooms. Them are currently 50 members in the church. With the expansion, the church hopes to increase membership to 100. The parking lot has a total of 176 parking spaces as required for a 35,200 square foot retail shopping center (including the tire store). Although there are existing uses, such as restaurants, that typically require more parking spaces than retail uses, there appears to be no current parking Problem within this center. Due to varying operating hours and the fact that few businesses reach maximum capacity on a consistent basis, ample parking should be available for all uses within the shopping center. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because it is an expansion of an existing church and poses no parking conflicts with other occupants of the shopping center. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request. Dayspring Outreach Ministry Page 2 of 2 Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following condibons: , The unit shall be used for Bible study and fellowship only during the evenings on Tuesday and Thursday nights from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and for Sunday morning services between 9:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. 2. The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits, inspections, and approvals from the F~re 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. 3. The use shall be administratively reviewed on an annual basis. Attachments: Staff Rewew Disclosure Statement Planmng Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planmng Commission recommends approval. .k.,~ Submitting Department/Agency: Planmng Department ~ City Manager~ [(. DAYSPRING OUTREACH MINISTRY / # 4 May 14, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: G09 - 210 - CUP - 2003 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a church ADDRESS: 3460, 3462, and 3464 Holland Road :treach M" GI~ 1486-73-7186 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: 14867371860000 3- ROSE HALL Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 DAYSPRING OUTREACH MINISTRY I # 4 Page 1 SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 3 acres (total shopping center area) 4000 square feet (proposed church area) Ashby Moss To expand an existing church in a shopping center. Membership is anticipated to increase from 50 to 100 members. Major Issues: · Compatibility with other uses in the commercial center, particularly in terms of available parking. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The subject property is developed with a commercial shopping center (Holland Lakes Shopping Center) and is zoned B-2 Community Business District. Other uses on the site include two other churches, a daycare center, restaurants and various personal service and retail uses. Immediately west of the proposed church is another small church operating as "Bethel Foursquare Church." Bethel Foursquare Church was granted a Use Permit by City Council on October 13, 1998. Further west, there is a restaurant/nightclub and another church currently operating as "The Potter's House Christian Church" The Potter's House Christian Church was granted a Use Permit by City Council on October 12, 1999. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 DAYSPRING OUTREACH MINISTRY / # 4 Page 2 Surrounding Land Use and Zonin.a North: South: East: West: · Across Diana Lee Drive, auto sales and service facility / B-2 Community Business District · Drainage canal and vacant property / A-12 Apartment District · "The Lakes" townhouse neighborhood / A- 12 Apartment District · Across Holland Road, shopping center / B- 2 Community Business District Zonin_a History The applicant's original Conditional Use Permit was approved November 13, 2001 for a 1,200 square foot space. Conditions of this approval are: 1. The unIt shall be used for Bible study and fellowshIp only dunng the evemngs on Tuesday and Thursday nights from 7'00 p.m. to 10'00 p.m. and for Sunday morning services between 9'30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. 2. The applicant shall obtain all the necessary perm,ts, ~nspecbons and approvals from the F~re Department and the Perm,ts and Inspecbons D~ws~on of the Planning Department before occupancy of the buildings. A certificate of occupancy for a place of assembly shall be obtained from the Permits and Inspections D~ws~on of the PlannIng Department. 3. The Conditional Use Permit shall be for a period of three years Two other Conditional Use Permits for churches were approved within this shopping center. A Conditional Use Permit for Bethel Foursquare Church was approved on October 13, 1998 for a 1,200 square foot space in this same shopping center. The condition attached to Bethel Foursquare Church Use Permit is as follows: 1 The umt shall be utilized on Sunday, 9'00 a.m. until 1'00 p m., and Wednesday, 7:00 p.m. to 10'00 p m. On October 12,1999 another Conditional Use Permit for The Potter's House Christian Church was granted by City Council. This church occupies approximately 2,400 square feet of the shopping center. The conditions attached to The Potter's House Christian Church Use Permit are as follows: 1. The umt shall be used for gatherings only during the evemngs between 6.30 and 10.00 pm and all day Sundays 2. No more than 75 people can attend meebngs or gathenngs at any one bme Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 DAYSPRING OUTREACH MINISTRY / # 4 Page 3 A Conditional Use Permit for a Tire Mounting and Balancing business was granted in a free-standing building located in the northwestern corner of the shopping center parking lot in 1983. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of 65 - 70dB 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): Holland Road in the vicinity of this application is a four lane divided minor suburban arterial. The MTP designates this facility as a divided road within a 100-foot right-of- way. The current adopted CIP includes a project to widen Holland Road to a six lane divided facility (Holland Road Phase VII, CIP 2-008). Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Ex~sbng Land Use z_ Holland Road 34,576 ADT ~ 27,200 ADT ~ Sunday - 51 ADT Level of Service E Proposed Land Use 3 Sunday -154 ADT Average Dady Trips as defined by 1,400 square foot church as defined by 4,200 square foot church Public Safety Police: No comments. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 DAYSPRING OUTREACH MINISTRY / # 4 Page 4 Fire and Rescue: To be occupied as a place of assembly, additional building code requirements may be required in regards to fire protection, tenant separation, and the means of egress. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained from the Building Official prior to occupancy. 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 church currently occupies a 1,500 square foot space in the shopping center. The current proposal is to expand into two adjacent spaces totaling 2,500 square feet, bringing the overall area to 4,000 square feet. The new space will be used for sanctuary space, while the existing space will be converted to offices and classrooms. · There are currently 50 members in the church. With the expansion, the church hopes to increase membership to 100. Other uses in the shopping center include two other churches, a daycare, restaurants and various personal services and retail uses. There is also an outparcel on the property with a tire store which shares parking with the rest of the center. Site Design The strip shopping center is an "L" shaped 32,600 square foot building, with parking in front of the building. A 2,600 square foot tire store building is located in the northwest corner of the parking lot. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 DAYSPRING OUTREACH MINISTRY / # 4 Page 5 The parking lot has a total of 176 parking spaces as required for a 35,200 square foot retail shopping center (including the tire store). Although there are existing uses, such as restaurants, that typically require more parking spaces than retail uses, there appears to be no current parking problem within this center. Due to varying operating hours and the fact that few businesses reach maximum capacity on a consistent basis, ample parking should be available for all uses within the shopping center. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access The shopping center has two access points on Holland Road and two on Diana Lee Drive. The site is within a comfortable walking distance for residents of the existing townhouse neighborhood east of this site. Landscape and Open Space Desiqn · Landscaping within the site does not meet requirements since the shopping center 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. The applicant has stated that services and meetings will continue to be held only on Sundays and on Tuesday and Thursday evenings. There are two other churches within the shopping center also holding services on Sundays, but the combined membership of the two exisbng churches and the proposed church would not likely exceed 170 people on peak attendance days. This number of people equates to approximately 70 spaces or two-fifths of the available parking in the center during Sunday morning church service hours (9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) Since most church acbvities occur during off- or Iow-customer hours for the other businesses, parking conflicts are not anticipated on this site. Staff recommends that this proposal be approved subject to the conditions below. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 DAYSPRING OUTREACH MINISTRY I # 4 Page 6 Conditions ! The unit shall be used for Bible study and fellowship only during the evenings on Tuesday and Thursday nights from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and for Sunday morning services between 9:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. . 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. 3. The use shall be administratively reviewed on an annual basis. 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 f2 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 DAYSPRING OUTREACH MINISTRY /# 4 Page 7 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 DAYSPRING OUTREACH MINISTRY /# 4 Page 8 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 DAYSPRING OUTREACH MINISTRY I # 4 Page 9 Applicant's Name: ~_~/~/g?~/fO~- o-,~r[~ ~tfl~T¢~ I List All Current Property Owners: /~/~/,4/~ ~/f-~-~ /~~. /_-,/~. ~"~,~ APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the apphcant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary). . I"1 Check here if the apphcant ~s NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other o unincorporated organization. if the applicant is not b~e current owner of the property, complete the Property Owner Disclosure section below: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE if the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) r~, ~ ~-' · '',-.~- · ,~l,fl'f '"":'-'--~--~. .z.,-': - · -'-r~-t ~ " / If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organLzafion below: (Attach list if necessary) E] 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. Signature Print Name Conditional Use Permit Application Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 DAYSPRING OUTREACH MINISTRY / # 4 Page 10 Item ~ Dayspring Outreach M~nistry Conditional Use Permit 3460, 3462, 3646 Holland Road District 3 Rose Hall May 14, 2003 CONSENT Ronald Ripley: Okay, the next order of business is our Consent agenda. And, Vice Chairman Dot Wood is going to conduct this portion of our business. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ron. This afternoon we have ten items on the consent agenda. As I call the item, will you please step to the podium, either the applicant or his representative, state your name, you've read the conditions and agree with them. If there is anyone in opposition, we will call you after the person has come forward. If you do object, we will put this down to the regular place in the agenda. The first item is Item #4, which is Dayspring Outreach Ministry. It's an ordinance upon application of Dayspring Outreach Ministry for a Use Permit for a church on Holland Road in the Rose Hall District and there are three conditions. Is there anyone here representing Dayspring Outreach Ministry? Will you please come up ma' am? Good afternoon. Marcela Jarina: Good afternoon. Dorothy Wood: Would you state your name please? Marcela Jarina: My name is Marcela Jarina. Dorothy Wood: Have you read the four conditions? Three conditions, I'm sorry. Robert Miller: She'll give you a copy of it. Dorothy Wood: Right here, do you want to read them? It says you're going to use the unit for bible study and fellowship. Marcela Jarina: Conditions. The unit shall be used for Bible Study and fellowship only during the evenings on Tuesday and Thursday night from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and for Sunday morning services between 9:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. The apphcant shall obtain all the necessary permits, inspections, and approvals from the Fire Department and the Permits and Inspections Diws~on 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. The use shall be administratively reviewed on an annual basis. Dorothy Wood: Ma'am, do you agree with those conditions? Item g4 Dayspring Outreach Ministry Page 2 Marcela Jarina: Yes ma'am. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any objection to Item #4, Dayspring Outreach Ministry? Hearing none. Mr. Din, will please comment on that. William Din: Yes. I'm commenting on this item because we have placed it on consent. And just to provide some justification as to why the Planning Commission agreed to do that is the fact this is an existing church. They're asking for a Conditional Use Permit to expand this church from approximately 50 members to 100 members. The church is an existing one in the shopping. There are two other churches in there as a result of the evaluation, the City did not see that there was any conflict with parking since these Uses are during hours when there are low customer usage of this shopping area. So as a result we placed this on consent with no objections being seen. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Marcela Jarina: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Hearing no objection, Mr. Ripley, I would move that we approve this item on the consent agenda, Item g4 with three conditions. Ronald Ripley: So a motion to approve this item that was just read by Dot Wood. Do I have a second? Seconded by Gene Crabtree. Are there any comments? We're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. Map G-8 Reed Inc. Map Not to $co].e 10. Gpin 1486-44-9760 ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (gas sales) - Approved 4/20/81 Conditional Use Permit (gas sales and car wash)- Approved 7/5/88 Conditional Use Permit (gas sales and cony store) - Approved 2/25/03 2. Conditional Use Permit (motorcycle sales and repair)- Approved 7/5/00 3. Rezoning (R-8 Residential to B-2 Business) - Approved 10/11/76 4. Rezoning (O-1 Office to I-1 Industrial)- Withdrawn 3/3/86 Rezoning (O-1 Office to A-1 Apartment)- Denied 7/14/86 Rezoning (O-1 Office to B-2 Business)- Withdrawn 5/23/88 Conditional Use Permit (senior housing)- Approved 1/13 98 5. Rezoning (O-1 Office to B-2 Business) - Approved 3/18/85 6. Conditional Use Permit (car wash)- Approved 2/13/84 7. Rezoning (^-1 ^partment to B-2 Business) - Approved 6/2/86 8. Rezoning (A-1 Apartment to O-1 Office) - Approved 10/24/83 9. Rezoning (O-1 Office to B-2 Business) and Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) - Approved 8/4/86 Rezoning (^-12 Apartment to B-2 Business) and Conditional Use Permit (auto repair)- Approved 9/26/88 Conditional Use Pemrit (auto repair)- 4/23/96 r II CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Reed Enterprises, Inc.- Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: June 10, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Reed Enterprises, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile service station in conjunction with a car wash and convenience store on property located at 985 Chimney Hill Shopping Center (GPIN 1486449760). DISTRICT 3-ROSE HALL The purpose of this request is to add an automatic car wash to a site recently approved by City Council for gas pumps and a convenience store. Considerations: On February 25, 2003, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for a redevelopment of this site that shows the existing improvements will be demolished. The pump islands will be relocated under a new canopy and a new convenience store will be constructed. No car wash was shown on this plan. The applicant is proposing to make adjustments in the site plan referenced in the Conditional Use Permit granted by City Council on February 25, 2003 to reduce the size of the convenience store and add an automatic car wash. The new site plan shows that the convenience store has been reduced from 4,200 square feet to 2,600 square feet and a new car wash building measuring 576 square feet has been added on the eastern s~de of the convenience store. The setbacks for the convenience store from Chimney H~II Parkway and from the gas pump canopy have not changed. The configuration of the gas pump islands and canopy has not changed. The new car wash building does not meet the required setback of 55 feet from the gas pump islands and will require that the applicant seek a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the setback of 40 feet. The elevations provided with this request vary slightly from the elevations referenced in the Conditional Use Permit approved on February 25, 2003. The new design of the proposed convenience store building, car wash and canopy still meets the intent of the retail guidelines in the City Zoning Ordinance Reed Enterprises Page 2 of 3 The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because it is an expansion of an existing use. 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 with the following conditions: 1. The existing two entrances on Holland Road must be removed and replaced with a single entrance with a right turn lane The entrance and turn lane configuration and dimensions must conform to Public Works Specifications and Standards. , The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted site plan titled "Layout and Landscape Plan of Gas Sales and Convenience Store Addition", dated February 26, 2003, and prepared by Land Design and Development. Said plan has been exhibited to City Council and is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. . In order to construct the car wash in the location shown, the applicant shall seek a variance to setback requirements. If the variance is not granted, this Conditional Use Permit shall be amended to show the car wash building in a suitable location that meets all required setbacks. , The buildings shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the elevation titled "Reed Enterprises Convenience Store @ Holland Road and Chimney Hill Parkway (Sheets A-1 and A-2)" and dated 3/13/03. Said elevation has been exhibited to City Council and is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. , The new canopy shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the elevation titled "Reed Enterprises Convenenience Store @ Holland Road and Chimney Hill Parkway Gas Canopy (Sheet A-3)" dated 3/13/03. 6. Signage for the site shall be limited to: a. Traffic control signs; b. Striping on the canopy shall be limited to 10 feet on each side of the canopy or one-quarter of the length of each side. Signage on the canopy shall not be internally or externally illuminated. c. No signage in excess of a total of four (4) square feet of the entire glass area of the exterior wall shall be permitted. There shall be no other signs, neon signs or neon accents installed on any wall area of the exterior of the building, windows and / or doors, canopy, light poles, or any other portion of the site. Reed Enterprises Page 3 of 3 7. No outdoor vending machines and / or display of merchandise shall be allowed. 8. An on-site pedestrian walkway at least five feet in width shall be provided from the sidewalk on Chimney Hill Parkway to the convenience store. 9. Bicycle racks shall be provided near the entrance of the store. · Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission M~nutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~~~ City Manager:~ ~- .'~~h4'L, REED ENTERPISES/# 5 May 14, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: G08-212-C U P-2003 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for an automobile service station with convenience store and car wash ADDRESS: 985 Chimney Hill Parkway Ma~, C,-S Reed Inc. Ho No~, Scole 18 C_rlnn 1486 ~ 9760 GPIN' 14864497600000 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 REED ENTERPISESl # 5 Page 1 ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 3 - ROSE HALL 31,755 square feet Barbara Duke To add an automatic car wash to a site recently approved by City Council for gas pumps and a convenience store. Major Issues: · Degree to which the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning There are currenlty four gas pump islands and a kiosk under a canopy and an automatic car wash on the site. The site is zoned B-2 Community Business District. On February 25, 2003, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for a redevelopment of this site that shows the existing improvements will be demolished. The pump islands will be relocated under a new canopy and a new convenience store will be constructed. No car wash was shown on this plan. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: South: · Office Buildings / O-2 Office District and B-2 Community Business District · Shopping Center / B-2 Community Business Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 REED ENTERPISESl # 5 Page 2 East: West: District Retail Shops / B-2 Community Business District McDonald's Restaurant, Senior Housing / B-2 Community Business District and 0-2 Office District Zoning History There have been numerous use permits granted for auto related uses in the commercial areas surrounding the site. Listed below are the actions granted on the subject site. 4120/81 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (gas sales) APPROVED 715188 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (gas sales and car wash) APPROVED 2125/03- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (gas sales and convenience store) APPROVED with the following conditions: . The existing two entrances on Holland Road must be removed and replaced with a single entrance with a right turn lane. The entrance and turn lane configuration and dimensions must conform to Public Works Specifications and Standards. . The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted site plan titled "Layout and Landscape Plan of Gas Sales and Convenience Store Addition", dated November 12, 2002, and prepared by Land Design and Development. Said plan has been exhibited to City Council and is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. . The building shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the elevation titled "Reed Enterprises Convenience Store @ Holland Road and Chimney Hill Parkway". Said elevation has been exhibited to City Council and is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. . The new canopy shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the building. The same reddish brown brick veneer should be shall be used on the columns and a pitched roof with matching shingles shall be elements. 5. Signage for the site shall be limited to: a. Traffic control signs; Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 REED ENTERPISES/ft 5 Page 3 bo C. Striping on the canopy shall be limited to 10 feet on each side of the canopy or one-quarter of the length of each side. Signage on the canopy shall not be internally or externally illuminated. No signage in excess of a total of four (4) square feet of the entire glass area of the exterior wall shall be permitted. There shall be no other signs, neon signs or neon accents installed on any wall area of the exterior of the building, windows and / or doors, canopy, light poles, or any other portion of the site. 6. No outdoor vending machines and / or display of merchandise shall be allowed. 7. An on-site pedestrian walkway at least five feet in width shall be provided from the sidewalk on Chimney Hill Parkway to the convenience store. 8. Bicycle racks shall be provided near the entrance of the store. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of 65-70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer The site is currently connected to City water and sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) I Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Holland Road in the vicinity of the subject site is a four lane divided major urban arterial. It is identified on the Master Transportation Plan Map as a 120 foot wide divided highway. This roadway will be improved to a six lane facility with Holland Road Phase V (CIP 2-850). This project is listed as requested but not funded in the FY 2002-2003 Capital Improvement Program document. The right of way width along the frontage of this site ~s sufficient for the 120 foot width identified on the Master Transportation Plan. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 REED ENTERPISES/# 5 Page 4 Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 31,700 ADT ~ Level Of Ex~sbng Land Use 2_ 1,456 Holland Road 36,038 ADT 1 Serwce = F Proposed Land Use 3_ 3,552 Average Daily Trips as defined by 8 fuel pumps and car wash 3 as defined by 4,200 square foot convenience store, car wash and fuel pumps 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. Some items to consider are: Advertisements and/or displays should not be located in and around windows A maximum height of shelving of no more than 42 inches is recommended, with no stacking items on the top shelf. This will help with visibility throughout the store for employees and customers · Any pay phones on the site shall be located away from the convenience store · Use of closed circuit TV on the site is recommended. · Installation of an alarm system on the building. Fire and Rescue: Fire protection requirements will be addressed during detailed site plan review. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for retail, service, office and other compatible uses within commercial centers serving surrounding neighborhoods and communities. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 REED ENTERPISESl # 5 Page 5 Summary of Proposal Proposal The applicant is proposing to make adjustments in the site plan referenced in the Conditional Use Permit granted by City Council on February 25, 2003 to reduce the size of the convenience store and add an automatic car wash. No changes to the fuel islands and canopy are proposed. Site Desi.qn The site is 31,755 square feet. Section 225 of the zoning ordinance requires that sites containing gas pumps, convenience store and a car wash be at least 40,000 square feet. This site is deficient in that requirement. The new site plan shows that the convenience store has been reduced from 4,200 square feet to 2,600 square feet and a new car wash building measuring 576 square feet has been added on the eastern side of the convenience store. The setbacks for the convenience store from Chimney Hill Parkway and from the gas pump canopy have not changed. The configuration of the gas pump islands and canopy has not changed. The new car wash building does not meet the required setback of 55 feet from the gas pump islands and will require that a variance be granted from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the setback of 40 feet as shown. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access The only change to the applicant's access plan is that a one-way drive aisle has been added at the rear of the convenience store to access the automatic car wash. The area of the drive aisle was shown as a landscape buffer on the site plan approved with the Conditional Use Permit on February 25, 2003. Architectural Desien The elevations provided with this request vary slightly from the elevations referenced in the Conditional Use Permit approved on February 25, 2003. The new design of the proposed convenience store building, car wash and canopy still meets the intent of the retail guidelines in the zoning ordinance. The elevations depict a defined entryway with columns and a gable feature. White wood trim (dentil course) will be featured along all sides of the building. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 REED ENTERPISESl # 5 Page 6 Exterior materials include reddish brown brick veneer and charcoal gray or black architectural shingles. Landscape and Open Space Desiqn The applicant has provided a revised landscape plan for the site. A drive aisle has been added at the rear of the convenience store, eliminating the landscape buffer previously shown in this area. In lieu of this buffer, the applicant has provided additional foundation plantings along the rear of the convenience store. Crape Myrtle trees have been specified for the buffer along the eastern edge of the site in lieu of the Dawn Redwood trees shown on the site plan referenced in the Conditional Use Permit granted on February 25, 2003. Evaluation of Request The request for the addition of a car wash to this site to be operated in conjunction with a convenience store and gas pumps is acceptable. The revisions proposed to the site by the applicant to accommodate the car wash still exceed the minimum requirements for landscaping and do meet the guidelines for retail development. It is recognized that the site is less than the 40,000 square feet required for this combination of uses under Section 225 of the zoning ordinance, and as such, a Board of Zoning Appeals variance to setback requirements must be granted to construct the car wash in the location shown. The request to operate gas pumps, a car wash and a convenience store on the subject site is recommended for approval with the conditions listed below. The conditions listed below are identical to the conditions approved with the Conditional Use Permit on February 25, 2003 except for the language that was changed in bold to reference the revised site plan and architectural elevations and the need for a Board of Zoning Appeals variance. Conditions . The existing two entrances on Holland Road must be removed and replaced with a single entrance with a right turn lane. The entrance and turn lane configuration and dimensions must conform to Public Works Specifications and Standards. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted site plan titled "Layout and Landscape Plan of Gas Sales and Convenience Store Addition", dated February 26, 2003, and prepared by Land Design and Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 REED ENTERPISESl # 5 Page 7 Development. Said plan has been exhibited to City Council and is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. m In order to construct the car wash in the location shown, a variance to setback requirements must be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals. If the variance is not granted, this Conditional Use Permit shall be amended to show the car wash building in a suitable location that meets all required setbacks. . The buildings shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the elevation titled "Reed Enterprises Convenience Store @ Holland Road and Chimney Hill Parkway (Sheets A-1 and A-2)" and dated 3/13/03. Said elevation has been exhibited to City Council and is on file in the City of V~rginia Beach Planning Department. . The new canopy shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the elevation titled "Reed Enterprises Convenenience Store @ Holland Road and Chimney Hill Parkway Gas Canopy (Sheet A-3)" dated 3/13103. 6. Signage for the site shall be limited to: d. Traffic control signs; e. Striping on the canopy shall be limited to 10 feet on each side of the canopy or one-quarter of the length of each side. Signage on the canopy shall not be internally or externally illuminated. f. No signage in excess of a total of four (4) square feet of the entire glass area of the exterior wall shall be permitted. There shall be no other signs, neon signs or neon accents installed on any wall area of the exterior of the building, windows and / or doom, canopy, light poles, or any other portion of the site. 7. No outdoor vending machines and / or display of merchandise shall be allowed. 8. An on-site pedestrian walkway at least five feet in width shall be provided from the sidewalk on Chimney Hill Parkway to the convenience store. 9. Bicycle racks shall be provided near the entrance of the store. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 REED ENTERPISESI # 5 Page 8 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 May 14, 2003 REED ENTERPISES/# 5 Page 9 .....ji, F Planning Commission Agenda [~, __~ May 14, 2003~....~....~2 REED ENTERPISES/# 5 ~ Page 10 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 REED ENTERPISESI # 5 Page 11 ilnl Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 REED ENTERPISESI # 5 Page 12 I Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 REED ENTERPISESI # 5 Page 13 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 REED ENTERPISESI # 5 Page 14 Applicant's Name: _Reed_Entemrises. Inc. = .: ......................... List All Current Property Ownem: Reed Enterpd_ses,,Inc.. ,. APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below. (Attach list if necessary) Reed....Enterp~, in.c.~N .ea!, R...eed - President, Mantula Reed - Seq../Treas. 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. e'~ appecaet ~ n~ ~ ~ o,.,er ofme~, com~k~ the Pmparty Owner PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION. list all officem of the Corporation below. (Attach list if necessary) , R~..,Enterp. '.ris. es., In.c.,. N.e,a!..R..eed - President. !~ntula Reed - SecJ'rreas. If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCO~RATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below. (Attach list ~f necessary) !-1 Check hem if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the inforrna~on contained heroin is true and accuraY. , Nea!Reed Print Name Conditional Use Permit Application Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 REED ENTERPISESI ft 5 Page 15 Item #5 Reed Enterprises, Inc. Conditional Use Permit 985 Chimney Hill Shopping Center District 3 Rose Hall May 14, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #5, Reed Enterprises. An ordinance up application of Reed Enterprises for a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile service station in conjunction with a car wash and convenience store. This is in the Chimney Hill Shopping Center, Rose Hall District with nine conditions. Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Roger Pope: My name is Roger Pope and I represent the applicant. All the conditions are acceptable with the deletion of item 6e as we will be reusing the components of the canopy. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Roger Pope: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Is there any objection to Item #5, Reed Enterprises for a Conditional Use Permit for automobile service station, car wash, convenience store in the Chimney Hill Shopping Center? Hearing none, Mr. Din will you please comment on that? William Din: Yes. This is an existing gas station with a convenience store that was approved in February of this year. The Conditional Use Permit had to be applied for when they wanted to make a modification to this to add the car wash. As a result of the addition of the car wash, they're actually modifying the size of the building. They are making it smaller. However, all the previous conditions still stand. There is one condition that is being changed that was written in our agenda about reuse of the canopy in order to help out the applicant in this situation. We're allowing him to reuse the canopy with the striping on there. There were no objections or other comments that the Planning Commission had on this thing so we put it on the consent agenda. Dorothy Wood: Thanks Mr. Din. Mr. Ripley, I would move that we approve this item on the consent agenda, Item #5 with nine conditions with number "e" under condition "6" removed. Ronald Ripley: So a motion to approve this item that was just read by Dot Wood. Do I have a second? Seconded by Gene Crabtree. Are there any comments? We're ready to vote. Item #5 Reed Enterprises, Inc. Page 2 AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. Map KIO M~p Not to Scale R-20 %,Y AG-2 AG-2 Crl~in 2405-82-4128 ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (horses for him/boarding) - Granted 6-25-02 2. Conditional Use Permit (pet crematory) - Granted 4-9-02 Conditional Use Permit (single family dwelling)- Granted 8-1-83 3. Conditional Use Permit (recreational facility of an outdoor nature/corn maze)- Granted 5-23-00 Conditional Use Permit (borrow pit) - Denied 7-1-97 Conditional Use Permit (single family dwelling) - Granted 2-1-88 5. Conditional Use Permit (communication tower)- Withdrawn 10-11-94 Conditional Use Permit (single family dwelling)- Granted 10-10-88 6 Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District)- Granted 4-14-92 7. Conditional Use Permit (recreabon and amusement facility)- Granted 10- 22-91 8. Conditional Use Permit (single family dwelling)- Granted 3-20-89 9. Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to R-8 Residential District) - Granted 10-22-84 10. Change of Zoning (R-3 Residential District to R-8 Residential District) - Granted 10-22-84 11. Change of Zoning (R-3 Residential District to R-6 Residential District) - Granted 2-11-8,5 12. Change of Zoning (R-3 Residential District to R-5 Residential District)- Granted 11-5-84 13. Conditional Use Permit (single family dwelling)- Granted 2-28-83 Conditional Use Permit (riding academy and horses for hire/board) - Granted 10-26-81 Conditional Use Permit (country inn) - Granted 12-20-82 o CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: John Sweeney-Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: June 10, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of John Sweeney for a Conditional Use Permit for firewood preparation on property located at 2332 London Bridge Road (GPIN 2405824128). DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE The purpose of this request is to process firewood and store wood on the site. Considerations: The vacant, primarily wooded site is currently zoned AG-1 Agricultural District. A portion of the site has been cleared and is being used to process firewood harvested from the site and perhaps firewood from off site. This parcel is one of a small number of large lot home sites in this unique area on the Hunt Club Farm. The property adjacent and to the east was recently approved by the City Council for homes for hire and boarding. Recently, an application for a pet crematory was approved by City Council on a five (5) acre parcel in the vicinity of this property. There is an ex~sting single-family residence on that site approved by City Council on August 1, 1983. In May of 2000, City Council granted a Conditional Use Permit for a recreation facility of an outdoor nature (corn maze) on the site to the southeast. While this property and those around it are currently zoned agricultural, the lots in the vicinity are much smaller than what one would typically expect of agriculturally zoned property. Upon initial consideration, the agricultural zoning seems appropriate for firewood processing, but due to the small lot sizes (5 to 10 acres for s~ngle family dwellings) within this portion of the Hunt Club Farm, the distance the objectionable noise generated by th~s activity travels is much shorter. Therefore, the effect on neighboring properties is and w~ll be negative. Typically, agriculturally zoned property, particularly in the southern part of the City, consists of a larger lot size, making this type of actiwty more appropriate. Activities that may not be appropriate on smaller lots, such as a large dog kennel or firewood processing, may very well be appropnate on large lot agriculturally zoned parcels. Due to the fact that the proposed use is not appropriate on this John Sweeney Page 2 of 2 size agricultural lot, staff recommended denial. There was opposition to the proposal. · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to deny this request. · Attachments: Staff Rewew Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends demal. Planning Commission recommends den~al. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager~\L JOHN SWEENEY/# 17 May 14, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: K 10-211 -CU P-2002 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a firewood preparabon ADDRESS: Property located north of London Bridge Road, east of Pine View Avenue, 2332 London Bridge Road M~j) J~70 Mop Not to AG-I AG-2 Opm 2405-82-4128 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: 24058241280000 #7 - PRINCESS ANNE Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOHN SWEENEY I # 17 Page 1 SITE SIZE: 5.85 acres STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Carolyn A.K. Smith To process firewood and store wood on the site. This request was deferred at the February 12, 2003 meeting due to failure to post the required public notice. The request was deferred again by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2003, with the request that the applicant and an adjoining property owner meet and attempt to resolve outstanding issues. Staff has received no additional information. Major Issues: Degree to which the presence of a firewood preparation facility may impact existing surrounding uses and properties. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zonin,q The vacant, primarily wooded site is currently zoned AG-1 Agricultural District. A portion of the site has been cleared and is being used to process firewood harvested from the site and perhaps firewood from off site. This parcel is one of a small number of large lot home sites in this unique area on the Hunt Club Farm. Surroundin,q Land Use and Zoning North: South: Wooded site / AG-1 Agricultural District Ingress/Egress road, wooded single family home Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOHN SWEENEY I # 17 Page 2 East: · West: ° site / AG-1 Agricultural District Horse barn, field and single family dwelling / AG-1 Agricultural District Wooded single family home site / AG-1 Agricultural District Zonin,q History The property adjacent and to the east was recently approved by the City Council for horses for hire and boarding. Recently, an application for a pet crematory was approved by City Council on a five (5) acre parcel ~n the vicinity of this property. There is an exisbng single-family residence on that site approved by City Council on August 1, 1983. In May of 2000, City Council granted a Conditional Use Permit for a recreation facility of an outdoor nature (corn maze) on the site to the southeast. A Conditional Use Permit request for a borrow pit was denied on a parcel to the west. The existing dwelling on that same site was approved by City Council on February 1, 1988. To the east, Conditional Use Permits were granted on two separate lots for single-family dwellings as well as for a riding academy with horses for hire and board. Those were approved in 1988, 1983 and 1981 respecbvely. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone .(AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of greater than 75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics This property is located in the Southern Watersheds Management Area. A portion of this wooded site has been cleared to accommodate a single-family dwelling. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer City water and sewer are not available. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOHN SWEENEY / # 17 Page 3 Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): London Bridge Road in the vicinity of this request is a four (4) lane divided suburban arterial. There are no plans to improve this roadway within the MTP. The residential properties in this area as well as the existing riding stable are served by private roads that lead to a main access point on London Bridge Road No significant increase is expected as a result of the applicant's request Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Ex~sbng Land Use z_ 10 ADT London Bridge Road 20,209 ~ Proposed Land Use - 10 (from ADT ~ 28,200 ADT the smgle-fam~ly) plus an unknown add~bonal number as there are no rehable traffic data avadable for the cond~bonal use Average Dady Trips as defined by s~ngle-famlly dwelhng in AG DIstrict Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: 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. Adequate - no further comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends Iow-density suburban residential land use at or below 3.5 dwelling units per acre for this area. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOHN SWEENEY I # 17 Page 4 Summary of Proposal Proposal The applicant desires to bring in wood from tree service activities and saw and split the wood to sell for firewood. This activity requires a Conditional Use Permit for firewood preparation. Site Design · There is an unpaved entrance to the site along the southern property line. Other than the clearing of some of the trees on the site, all of the buildings (greenhouse and shed), the stockpile of processed firewood, and truck parking, etc., are located in the eastern half of the property. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access Access to this site is provided through a private road that is shared by residents living on the Hunt Club Farm property. The private road leads to an access point on London Bridge Road. Evaluation of Request Staff cannot recommend approval of this request for firewood processing. While this property and those around it are currently zoned agricultural, the lots in the vicinity are much smaller than what one would typically expect of agriculturally zoned. Upon initial consideration, the agricultural zoning seems appropriate for firewood processing, but due to the small lot sizes (5 to 10 acres for single family dwellings) within this portion of the Hunt Club Farm, the distance the objectionable noise generated by this activity travels is much shorter. Therefore, the effect on neighboring properties is and will be negative. Typically, agriculturally zoned property, particularly in the southern part of the C~ty, consists of a larger lot size, making this type of activity more appropriate. Activibes that may not be appropriate on smaller lots, such as a large dog kennel or firewood Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOHN SWEENEY I # 17 Page 5 processing, may very well be appropriate on large lot agriculturally zoned parcels. Due to the fact that the proposed use is not appropriate on this size agricultural lot, which adjoins other similarly situated and sized lots, staff cannot support the request. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOHN SWEENEY I # 17 Page 6 LA % % Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOHN SWEENEY I # 17 Page 7 Z Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOHN SWEENEY Ift 17 Page 8 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOHN SWEENEY I # 17 Page 9 [ [ [[ [[ Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: [[[ Il'lift[ I '3-o t~,~ ~- ~ ~ t ~ PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partnem in the organization below:. (Attach list if necessary) ~/~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 D/sclosure section below: APPMCANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below:. (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partnem in the organization below:. (Attach list if necessary) D Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accuraY. S~gr~at~re Print Name / iiiii iii i i ii . ,= ] ,., ,. i , i Conditional Use Permit Application Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOHN SWEENEY I # 17 Page 10 Item #17 John Sweeney Conditional Use Perrmt 2332 London Bridge Road District 7 Princess Anne May 14, 2003 REGULAR Ronald Ripley: Okay. Let's bring the meeting back to order and proceed. I think everybody's here except for applicants. Did they all leave? Mr. Miller, why don't you call the next item? Robert Miller: The next item is Item #17, John Sweeney. Arthur Erich: Arthur Erlich, Jr. for the applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. When we were here two months ago you granted a request for a deferral for the parties in opposition to discuss this matter with Mr. Sweeney to see if they could work it out. Unfortunately, that has not been accomplished. Mr. Tisdale, I understand is here representing some of the parties in opposition. So that's where we stand. Nothing was able to be resolved. Mr. Sweeney is not here and he asked me just to advise the Commission that it could not be resolved and for you to go ahead a render a decision. I do want to note one thing that I just asked Mr. Mellon regarding the deed restrictions. That came up with one of the members. I believe that someone had asked what effect that had. I will tell you that I've done some research on that. I think that is an issue between adjacent property owners and everyone that took under the original distribution or division of the property. I don't know if that has any bearing on your decisions today. But, I did look at that. And, I think that's between adjacent land owners or takers from the original parcel to sort out between themselves. Having said that, I have nothing further to add or to say today or to present unless there are any questions? Ronald Ripley: The question that I have is that did you get together? Did you try to get together? Arthur Erich: I understand the adjacent landowners met. There were some requests between the parties to meet outside at the presence to council. Now apparently, there's been some conversatmns but it didn't really go as requested. I spoke to Mr. J.D. Vogel who's here today and apparently Mr. Sweeney did not respond in a manner that met his satisfaction. And, I say, I don't want to put words in Mr. Vogel's mouth because he's here to speak to you today. But, I think the bottom line is there was never, what you had envisioned as everyone, all the property owners, being a large number getting together and talktng. Ronald Ripley: That was our hope. Item #17 John Sweeney Page 2 Arthur Erich: And, I understand. Ronald Ripley: Our hope was in the attempt was to have you all get together and meet some sort of a solution that everybody could live with. Arthur Erich: Yes sir. Ronald Pdpley: Okay. Are there any questions of council? Eugene Crabtree: I got one question. Arthur Erich: Yes sir. Eugene Crabtree: When Mr. Sweeney bought that property, I presumed that he read the deed restriction even though it is between the parties of other people. I presumed that he read that restriction. And, when he closed on the property he probably signed a statement that reflects such. Arthur Erich: Mr. Crabtree, yes sir. I looked. I asked Mr. Sweeney to provide me his original deed. It is contained in his original deed, so yes sir, when that matter did go to closing that covenant or restriction ran with the property and it has not been abolished. In fact, I will tell you my research. It's a long history of cases. I think it's the land law in Virginia's probably older than any other state in this nation. They have uniformly upheld every time these matters go to court and the only way that those disappear is if every taker agrees to lift them. And, in fact, one of the leading cases is out of Virginia Beach. And so, he did know about it. It was part of his original deed and again, unless everybody and I mean everybody to the very last landowner. It's not a majority rules. Everybody has to agree to lift those restrictions before they become invalid. Eugene Crabtree: Thank you. Arthur Erich: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Any other questions? Yes, Joe Strange. Joseph Strange: Was there any proposal made that Mr. Sweeney turn down? Arthur Erlich: No sir. There was not. I believe what transpired was Mr. J.D. Vogel had requested Mr. Sweeney put some things in writing and he didn't do that. And, my information is that it really wasn't acceptable, the restrictions. Joseph Strange: So they did? Arthur Erich: Well, they talked. Item #17 John Sweeney Page 3 Joseph Strange: Yeah. So they did give him some condition under which they would support him. Arthur Erich: Well, they asked him to put some things in concrete. Very specific things writing and again, Mr. Vogel, I think can address that better because I wasn't part of that conversation but it turned out that Mr. Sweeney never did put anything to paper but I believe it wasn't even close to what Mr. Vogel had asked for. Joseph Strange: Alright. Thank you. Arthur Erlich: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Then he's not willing to compromise at all? Is that what you're saying? Arthur Erlich: I think the parties are so far apart in this that it cannot be accomplished. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Arthur Erich: And again, Mr. Tisdale is here for Mr. Vogel and I think he can address that. Actually, Mr. Vogel, Sr. is here to and someone that I know and I respect him. I think he's got a very strong opinion as to the nature of the conveyance originally and what the intent was for that piece of property to be used for. This is just not something that I think they find acceptable. But again, I don't want to put words in their mouth. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Arthur Erich: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Arthur Erich: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Mr. Warren Tisdale. Warren Tisdale: Good afternoon. My name is Warren Tisdale, an attorney. I represent J.D. Vogel and Princess Anne Farms. My address is 1800 Bank of America Center in the City of Norfolk. I'd like to focus my brief comments today on land use considerations and not on deed restrictions. I think to the extent that we're here before you today in opposition to this application, we want to focus on very brief on what the zomng ordinance says and why we think it's a bad idea to recommend the application favorably to City Council. F~re wood preparation, I know some of you all may have visited the site and you know what's involved. But basically it consists of sawing with some high power saws. They're loud. You got sort of the explosions of the pneumatic splitting of logs. Item #17 John Sweeney Page 4 There's dust. There's rambling. There's vibration. And, adding on to that you got trucks. You have to be ~nvolved with the business because you got big logs going in and wood coming out. So, I think its fair to say it's an intense use. I think the City thinks its an intense use because the only two zoning districts where this permitted is, one is industrial and one is agricultural and even in those districts it's not a use as of right. You have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process and that's precisely because in any given set of circumstances the intensity of the use may not be appropriate. I think what we have here is a very good example where it's not appropriate. I think the Planning staff hit the nail right on the head when the report said that in most agricultural districts you can probably make a pretty good case that a firewood operation like this is not going to affect the neighborhood because typically agricultural process is pretty big and residences are far apart. But here you're dealing with an area, which while it is zoned agricultural. The lots are 5-10 acres in size so everything is close together. And, so the kind of activities that I described above would ~n fact create an objectionable noise. That's one thing. The second thing is and I'll use this chart again in a few minutes but access to this property, which is shown here in sort of a brown color. This is the property subject to the application, access off London Bridge Road is through a private road that comes up here, like this and then tums this way to get to the parcel. So that means that its not just the people who are right around the subject lot that is impacted, if you include in the use the actual tracks going in and out then all of the property owners and people that live on this side of the road are severely affected. The third thing is that the character of that development is sort of turning to a horse, animal type environment. And, there are also some easements for horse trails. The horses are either being cared for ridden on certain properties or they're being ridden on trails on the general development and the more big truck traffic that you have back there, it creates an issue of safety and a situation that is not conducive to what mainly is going on back in that neighborhood. Section 221 of the Zoning Ordinance... Ronald Ripley: Mr. Tisdale? Warren Tisdale: Yes? Ronald Ripley: Your nme limit is up. But I would like for you to and I don't know how much more you have to go over but we've heard this in quite long length once before and so maybe you could raise your points and then we'll conclude. Warren Tisdale: I'll be brief. There are four people who will speak very, very briefly after me, just some people who actually live in the neighborhood. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Warren Tisdale: Just in the zoning ordinance again, if you look under the Use Permit section, the kind of things that you're suppose to take into consideration in making this consideration of things like noise, vibration, fumes. All those things as applied to this particular set of circumstances, I think support a negative recommendation to C~ty Item # 17 John Sweeney Page 5 Council. And, I don't think there are really any conditions that would make it pallable. As I mentioned, there are four people whose lives are touched by this who will speak very briefly. John Vogel, Kelley Hansen, J.D. Vogel and Tyler Smith. I'll leave you with this chart, which shows in pink except there's an area here for A-4. Everything that is in pink is owned by a person who signed a petition that I will now turn in opposing the application to give you an idea of the breath of the opposition. And, I'll also submit a petition and a picture that I know you've seen before with those signatures. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Any questions of Mr. Tisdale? Joe Strange. Joseph Strange: The question I have is do you have a copy of what you asked Mr. Sweeney to agree too? Warren Tisdale: My understanding and again, I was only recently engaged to participate in this hearing when J.D. was available to speak, my understanding was there was no subject of conversations between the applicant and the neighbors not even to the point of saying if you do A or B, because frankly, I don't know what that list would be to actually make it acceptable considenng noise. Joseph Strange: When they were here before, there just seemed to be an attitude that there could have been something to reach or otherwise it wouldn't have been deferred. That's the reason why I'm asking. We didn't defer just to kill some time. It was because there seemed like there was something that could have been worked out. Warren Tisdale: I'm not sure whether the thinking involved after a while and the more they considered to talk about that in the interest of appearing flexible initially, the more they talked about it the more they had difficulty grasping coming up with conditions that would make it acceptable. But again, you can probably address those questions to J.D. since I was not aware. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much. Warren Tisdale: Thank you. Robert Miller: John David Vogel. John D. Vogel: Thank you. The name is John David Vogel. I own ten acres there. And, I'm totally against it because of the tracks coming in, the road conditions and the noise. I wasn't present at the last Planning Commission. John Sweeney has not tried to talk to me at all. He talked to my sister at one time. And, my sister recommended to him to write a letter and give it to all the opposing people and never did. I never got a letter or spoke to him. But again, I oppose it for basically the same reasons that Mr. Tisdale just told you all. Any questions? Item #17 John Sweeney Page 6 Ronald Ripley: Questions? I have a question. Is there any size of operation in there that you could agree that would be acceptable? John D. Vogel: No, because in this picture you will see the size of his tracks. Ronald Ripley: Yeah. I see the size of the wood and everything. John D. Vogel: And, he has no five trucks. And, Kelley Hansen will be coming up talking and it's right next to the horses. No matter what size it is it's going to impact the horses. Ronald Ripley: But even a small size? John D. Vogel: It's just not conducive there. Ronald Ripley: What about a fourth of it? Alright. Thank you. John D. Vogel: Thank you. Robert Miller: John C. Vogel. John C. Vogel: Thank you for your patience. My name is John C. Vogel. I have lot A-1. I was originally with a group of 12 that put this subdivision together about 40 years ago. I moved there 30 something years ago and still live there. So, I have a very vested interest in this property. My mama told me to be brief and not to be redundant. And, I obey my mama. So instead of giving you a lot of details, which I wasn't here last time. And, I saw you on television and there was a lot of stuff misrepresented. I'm not going to go over it. So, I'll ignore that. Mr. Tisdale covered most of the things. And, I won't repeat that. So in summary, I'll just give you the summary of my six pages of notes. Why do I oppose this? That operation is heavy agriculture. It's a bad land use in that neighborhood. You wouldn't want it in your neighborhood. The tracks are tremendous. They tear up that road. That road you can drag, you can smooth it and those tracks come up there and within a week you got a road that everybody else is bouncing up and down and going into the potholes. Last time you gave Mr. Sweeney a lot of slack. You thought he was so benevolent that he did all this work in getting this asphalt in there, putting it down and smoothing it. But what he didn't tell you is that all the neighbors gave him money. A thousand bucks a piece on some of them. So, he made money doing this. So, then you say you feel sorry for this guy. Well, don't feel sorry for him. Now, the thing that's really bothersome is the noise. The noise of the tracks, the noise that the chain saws, the chipper and what not and that's next to Mrs. Hansen's horses. And, there are little kids on those horses and if you think that's safe, it's mistaken because it isn't safe. And, there are no hours of operation that would be compatible with these horse lessons. And, if you were to approve this with him, you're going to ruin her business and Tyler's business is right adjacent to them. So, it's destructive for a business that's been there for 10 years. And, they got a big investment. They got a life investment in there. Item #17 John Sweeney Page 7 And, those trucks, those three huge trucks and it tears up that road. They're noisy. It's not safe. And, those kids are riding bicycles and tiding horses there, it's not only riding horses inside that ting, they go allover that property. And, that's the purpose of it. There's a riding easement around everyone of those parcels. And, the reason for that development was residential allowing you to have horses and allowing you to be able to have your kids enjoy it. But, if they're not safe, you don't let them out. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Vogel? You ran out of time. Can you sum it up real quick? John C. Vogel: Give me one minute. Ronald Ripley: Well, I'll give you a half a minute. John C. Vogel: Okay. I can't say enough on that road. It destroys the road. Now, the other thing is when he bnngs those trees in he's bringing a bunch of trash in. He doesn't know what he's bringing in there. You know trees have bugs, worms, beetles and everything else. Now that goes on that property. He processes it. Now where do those beetles and things go? They go on to the live trees and eventually going to destroy those. Anyway, I don't believe you would like that operation in your neighborhood. I don't want it in mine. I don't want it around my kids or my grandkids or any other kid. So, please turn it down. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Any questions? Barry. Barry Knight: Mr. Vogel, when you developed that land were you and your group part of the group that put the deed restrictions on the property? John C. Vogel: Yes sir. Barry Knight: They were. A lot of things that come to light since the initial meeting last time, one of the most important things in my mind is those deed restrictions that you put on there. John C. Vogel: Absolutely. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Vogel, you need to speak to this. John C. Vogel: Ten seconds. There are four occasions when the deed restrictions held up. I don't know what you want me to tell you. You know there was a man with a tree operation and his name was Perry Wood. He was down on what we call a bomber strip and somebody complained and said this is against the deed restriction. You got to stop it. There was and I'm not going to tell you about Corporate Landing. Corporate Landing wanted to buy all that property and extend Corporate Landing down to London Bridge Road. And, they have a real estate agent and that agent went out and he started buying the property. And, he bought three parcels and he came over to me and smd do you want Item #17 John Sweeney Page 8 to sell your property. I got a man in Charlottesville who wants to bring horses down here. So, he lied to me and at that time I said you know there are deed restrictions. He said, "I don't know there are deed restrictions." And, he was a real estate agent. Long story to make it short, Corporate Landing realizes, not Corporate Landing. It's the City Development Authority who developed Corporate Landing. They bought three parcels and they were going to buy the whole damn thing. Well anyway, they told Council one day when I came out that they made a mistake and they couldn't use the property so they resold some of that at a loss. A lady wanted a bed and breakfast. They turned it down because of deed restrictions. And, there were a couple of others, so anyway. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. John C. Vogel: Yes sir. Robert Miller: Kelley Hansen. Kelley Hansen: I'll be brief. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. My name is Kelley Hansen. I own property directly adjacent to Mr. John Sweeney, fight here. I not only own property but I live there and I ride and I have children and I mn a tiding/teaching academy. I have three pictures just to show you the big huge tracks that I deal with seven days a week. I teach Monday thru Saturday, Sundays off. And, the pictures state everything. I believe Mr. Ripley that you asked was there at any time if Mr. Sweeney could make his operation smaller if we would be willing to let that go? My answer personally would be "no sir, absolutely not." Not only has Mr. Sweeney not wanted to compromise or talk to us, but the fact of bringing and trying to make his business smaller it's still trucks back and forth. It's still machinery and machinery that does not belong with horses. In our last meeting, Mr. Din had asked about hours, seven in the morning until seven at night. I teach children after school. When do I get to teach? So, you have given myself a Conditional Use Permit over a year ago and a business license to let me operate my business and my livelihood. Now, we're getting ready to think about this with Mr. Sweeney. The two businesses do not mesh. And, there are several other horse people that have businesses and livelihoods out there and I provide a service to the community that is very much needed. It's healthy. It's an activity. It's a sport. I'm not cutting down a tree. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Any questions? Robert Miller: Tyler Smith. Tyler Smith: Hi. My name is Tyler Smith. And, my family has just purchased in the last year Princess Anne Farms, which is a 20-acre parcel. Ronald Ripley: There' s a little? Tyler Smith: Is there a pointer? Item # 17 John Sweeney Page 9 Ronald Ripley: That laser. Just pick it up. Tyler Smith: Okay. It's this parcel here. It's this parcel here. We bought this property to mn an equestrian facility. This happens to be one of the oldest equestrian facilities in Virginia Beach. We purchased it $4 million. It would be detrimental to my facility for him to cut a piece of wood over there. I have children that are coming out. We teach roughly about a 100 lessons a week on the property. We have horses that we board out there as well as horses that we train, horses that are worth thousands and thousands of dollars. I know Mr. Sweeney wants to make a living back there. He knew what he was getting into when he bought the piece of property. I think it would be very, very poor to allow him to cut wood, process wood back there. He doesn't care about the horses. He basically told us much he never tried to contact me and talk to me. The hours and I did look at your conditions. They were sent over by Carolyn Smith. The hours of operation are ridiculous. I mean seven to seven. When am I supposed to work? No cars coming back there to buy the wood. As you can see in some of the pictures you were flipping through earlier, he has entrance signs, all that kind of stuff. People come to me all the time asking me. Obviously, he's got people coming in there to buy firewood, as you can see. I really don't have anything else to say. I hope you all can see our side and would agree with us. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Tyler Smith: Does anybody have any questions? Ronald Ripley: Anybody have any questions up here? Thank you. Tyler Smith: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Erlich, do you want to come back and readdress? Arthur Erich: Just briefly. Obviously you can tell this, is if nothing else, that time has polarized the parties even more.' That's why Mr. Sweeney, I guess had to come before you guys for a Condiuonal Use Permit and ask your permission. It couldn't be worked out. So obviously, you're going to have to make a choice and I do appreciate your time. Thank you for that. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Barry. Barry Knight: I just want to comment. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Well, were finished with the public part of this. We need to discuss this so, Barry did you want to make a comment? Barry Knight: Last t~me that Mr. Sweeney came before us, it looked like maybe there could have been a compromise in this situation. But, understanding now that there are Item # 17 John Sweeney Page 10 deed restrictions on the property. And, he was asked to meet and compromise. And, he wouldn't even move his woodpile away from you. It just looks like we were trying to facilitate a meeting to make this work and it's not going to work. So, I certaily wouldn't be able to support this project. As such, at an appropriate time, I'll make a move for denial. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Any other comments? Yes, Jan. Janice Anderson: I'm in agreement with Barry that the Use Permit is a use that has a potential to disturb the rest of the neighborhood. He was on notice when he purchased the property that any kind of business should be equestrian and involved around that activity. And, as Joe said, we deferred this so he could make arrangements to see if they could work it out with the neighbors. And, he's not willing to make any or address any limited hours of operation or willing to move the site. So, it's clearly not a compatible use and I won't be able to support it. Ronald Ripley: Does somebody wish to make a motion? Barry? Barry Knight: I'll make a motion to deny the application. Ronald Ripley: Motion to deny by Barry Knight. Joe Strange: Second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Joe Strange. Any other comments? We're ready to vote. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 2 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD ABSENT ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-0, the motion carries. April 22, 2003 I initially negotiated this lease in question and I am abstaining to avoid any appearance of impropriety. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. Are you ready for the question? CITY CLERK: By a vote of 9 to 0 on all items except Number 6 on the Planning, which is 8 to 0, you have approved as read by the Vice Mayor in Consent. CITY ATTORNEY: Madam Mayor. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Lilley. It may have been my inattentiveness. I just want to check on one item. Planning Item Number 1, the Sifen Application. I heard Mr. Jones say deferral on the motion of the Applicant, but I did not hear the date. MAYOR OBERNDORF: May 13th. VICE MAYOR JONES: May 13th. CITY ATTORNEY: May 13th. April 22, 2003 FORMAL SESSION MAYOR OBERNDORF: The Agenda for the Formal Session was received by the Council on Friday and during the Informal Session we determined which items would be on Consent. However, if anyone is here to speak on any Item, that does not go on Consent. We will remove it and have it heard by the Council so that those who wish to speak will be able to do that. VICE MAYOR JONES: Under Item 6, for Consent to deferral until June the 10th, the Applications of the property on the east side of Little Neck Road, north of Poplar Bend, 864 Little Neck Road in the Lynnhaven District. A. Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. for a modification. And, B, Voicestream Wireless for a Conditional Use Permit and that's for Consent for deferral until June the 10th, with Mr. Wood abstaining. I move approval of the Consent Agenda. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Is there a second? COUNCILMAN~DOX: Second. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Mr. Wood. COUNCILMAN WOOD: Madam Mayor, let me just clarify my abstention before Mr. Lilley makes me do it. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Please, Mr. Wood. COUNCILMAN WOOD: I am currently an active Member of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club. I've served on the Board of Directors at Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club. I have served as the Vice President of Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club. April 22, 2003 he wants it either on the 6th, which is not a Planning Agenda, or the 10th of June. COUNCIL LADY WILSON' I think we should do it in June. STEPHEN WHITE: Madam Mayor, if I could. I have talked to the attorney representing the Applicant who has also talked to the attorney who sent that letter and they have come to an agreement on the June 10th date. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Great. COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: That's wonderful. MAYOR OBERNDORF- That's wonderful. We don't have to tear our hair out. COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: And if we can mention that. Because I'm sure there will be some people out there, if we can kind of mention it early. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yeah. VICE MAYOR JONES: Yeah. MAYOR OBERNDORF: You are right. VICE MAYOR JONES: Okay. Great. You saved us a lot of time there, Stephen. April 22, 2003 INFORMAL SESSION VICE MAYOR JONES: Okay. Application of property on the east side of Little Neck Road. This is in the Lynnhaven District. It's Voicestream and Voicestream Wireless. MAYOR OBERNDORF: We have two letters. VICE MAYOR JONES: You have a copy of this letter. COUNCILMAN WOOD: I have to abstain on this, Mr. Jones. VICE MAYOR JONES: Oh, you do. Okay. The attorney for the opposition apparently has written us a letter, Mr. Martin A. Thomas. He's stating that he's not available on the 13th, which is the date that he understood that it was going to be considered. He is available on May the 6th and June the 10th. MAYOR OBERNDORF: May 6th is not a Planning Agenda. VICE MAYOR JONES: It is not a Planning Agenda? MAYOR OBERNDORF: That's what the Clerk said. COUNCILMAN MADDOX: Either one? MAYOR OBERNDORF: May the 6th. COUNCIL LADY EURE: How about the attorney for Voicestream? Do they have a problem with the date as well? MAYOR OBERNDORF: Well, they are asking for a deferral from today. What did they say? The 13th? VICE MAYOR JONES: Yeah, they are asking for a deferral to the 13th, the Applicant is. But the attorney for the opposition is saying that he can't be there on the 13th. So, Virginia Beach City Council April 22, 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 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 CITY MANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Application of Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. and Voicestream Wirelsess - 53 - Item V-K. 6. PLANNING ITEM # 51092 Upon morton by Vtce Mayor Jones, seconded by Councdman Maddox, City Councd DEFERRED to the City Council Session of June 10, 2003, apphcattons re VOICESTREAM GSM II, LI... C. for MODIFICATION of Proffers Nos 1, 2, 4 and REVISE Proffer No 3 re a Change of Zomng tn the apphcatton of Hubert £ Dad and Mona H Datl from R-3 Restdenttal Dtstrtct to 0-1 Office Dtstrtct (approved by City Councd on February 9, 1981) and VOICE STREAM ff/IRELESS for a Condtttonal Use Permtt: Ordtnance upon Apphcatton ofVotceStream GSMII, L L C for modtficatton of proffers attached to a rezontng for Hubert L Dad and Mona H Dad approved by Ctty Counctl on February 9, 1981 Property ts located on the east stde of Little Neck Road, 130feet more or less north of Poplar Bend (GP1N # 1488-92-4743) Satdparcel ts located at 864 Ltttle Neck Road and contatns 5 319 acres DISTRICT5 - LYNNHA VEN AND, ORDINANCE UPONAPPLICA TION OF VOICE STREAM WIRELESS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICA~ON FA CILITY/COMMUNICA TION TO WER Ordtnance upon Apphcatton of Vmce Stream Wtreless for a Conchttonal Use Permtt for a wireless communtcatton facthty/communtcatton tower on property located on the east side of Ltttle Neck Road, 130feet more or less north of Poplar Bend (GPIN # 1488-92-4 743) Satdparcel ts located at 864 Ltttle Neck Road and contatns 5 319 acres DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN Vottng 8-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Vottng Aye Harry E Dtezel Margaret L Eure, Vtce Mayor Louts R Jones, Reba S McClanan, Rtchard A Maddox, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf Ron A Vdlanueva and Rosemary Wdson Counctl Members Vottng Nay None Council Members Abstatntng James L Wood Councd Members Absent Jtm Reeve and Peter W Schmtdt Counctlman Wood ABSTAINED on, as he ts currently an acttve member of Ltttle Neck Swtm and Racquet Club, Inc , and has served on the Board of Dtrectors as well as Vtce Prestdent Counctlman Wood tntttally negottated the lease in questton Aprd 22, 2003 Voice Stream GSM Little Neck Rd. R-30 Crpi~ 1488-92-4743 ZONING HISTORY 1. R-3 Residential to O-1 Office (Now O-2 Office) and CUP for private recreational club - Granted 2/9/81 2. R-30 Residential to R-20 Residential- Granted - 5/23/95 3. CUP for open space subdivision - Granted 7/25/86 4. Subdivision Variance- Granted 11/10/92 5. CUP (church addn)-Granted 6/12/01 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: VoiceStream GSM II, L.L.C. for a Modification of Proffers and VoiceStream Wireless for a Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: June 10, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of VoiceStream GSM II, L.L.C. for modification of proffers attached to a rezoning for Hubert L. Dail and Mona H. Dail approved by City Council on February 9, 1981. Property is located on the east side of Little Neck Road, 130 feet more or less north of Poplar Bend (GPIN # 1488-92-4743). Said parcel is located at 864 Little Neck Road and contains 5.319 acres. DISTRICT 5- LYNNHAVEN An Ordinance upon Application of Voice Stream Wireless for a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communication facility/communication tower on property located on the east side of Little Neck Road, 130 feet more or less north of Poplar Bend (GPIN # 1488-92-4743). Sa~d parcel is located at 864 Little Neck Road and contains 5.319 acres. DISTRICT 5- LYNNHAVEN The purpose of the requests is to modify the proffer attached to the 1981 rezoning of this property regarding use of the site and to request a conditional use permit to allow the construction of two (2) wireless communication towers on the site in addition to the existing recreational facility. These items were deferred by City Council on April 22, 2003 and on May 13, 2003. Considerations: A private recreational club is located on the site and the site is zoned 0-2 Office District. The applicant is proposing to modify the existing zoning agreement by eliminating Proffers 1,2, and 4 which are no longer necessary because the property has been established as a private club and to rewse Proffer 3 to list communicabon towers as an allowed use in addibon to the use of the property as a private club. The site plan submitted w~th this application shows two "stealth" communication towers located on the south side of the pool. Both towers are shown at a height VoiceStream Page 2 of 5 of 112 feet with a 22-inch diameter. Both towers have been designed to hold two sets of antennae, for a total of four spaces available to wireless communications providers. The equipment shelters at the base of each tower have been designed to also serve as shelters for the pool area. All equipment, including the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, has been internalized within the shelter. There will be no exposed cables or other equipment connecting the tower to the shelter. The shelters are located at the edge of the pool area and the towers are located behind the shelters, outside of the fenced pool area. The equipment shelters will have access doors that open to the parking lot, so that telecommunications workers can access the equipment from outside the fence, and will not have to enter the pool area to maintain the equipment. Typically, the equipment is maintained on a monthly basis. Additional details are provided in the attached staff report. The applicant has provided information from two additional carriers, Verizon and SunCom, that service is needed in this area and that the proposed towers will be in an appropriate location for their use. However, the staff is recommending conditions regarding the multiple use of the towers to ensure that all spaces on the tower are utilized efficiently. The applicant has also provided the required information on Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER)levels and the towers will not exceed the established FCC level. Staff recommended approval, finding that the request for wireless communication facilities met the criteria of Section 232 of the City Zoning Ordinance. There was opposition to the requests. On May 29, 2003, the applicant submitted to the Planning Department a revised site plan showing changes to Sheet 1, dated 5/27/03. The only revision on this sheet is to the parking layout, no revisions to the tower structures or equipment shelters are proposed. The revised plan shows that existing parking east of the clubhouse will be removed and replaced with a large green space. Additional parking will be added in the southeast corner of the site and along the entrance road. Grass paver blocks will be used for the parking areas shown along the entrance road. Staff feels the revisions are posibve enhancements to the plan and has no objections to the revisions proposed · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-2 to approve this request with the following conditions. Condition # 1 has been adjusted to include the revisions to Sheet 1 submitted to the Planning Department on May 29, 2003: , The project shall be developed as indicated on the submitted site plan entitled "Voicestream W~reless @ Little Neck Racquet Club VA10363-A," prepared by Lewis White and Associates and dated 12/04/02 and Sheet 1 revisions dated 5/27/03, along with the associated plans and drawings submitted w~th the VoiceStream Page 3 of 5 Conditional Use Permit application. These plans have been exhibited to City Council and are on file in the Planning Department. 2. The overall height of the proposed towers and antennae shall not exceed 112 feet. 3. The second tower shall not be constructed unless and until there are two carriers established on the first tower. 4. The detailed site plan submitted to the Development Services Center for review and approval for the communication tower(s) shall be approved initially for only one tower and shall provide parking at a ratio of 1:100 for the pool and clubhouse plus two (2) spaces per tennis court. An amended site plan for the second tower shall be submitted only ~f both antenna spaces on the initial tower are being used. o The detailed site plan submitted to the Development Services Center for review and approval for the communication tower(s) shall contain a certification by a licensed professional land surveyor that a field survey has been performed to verify that the setback of the tower of 200 feet from all existing residential structures has been met. , The existing stand of trees located in the southern portion of the site and noted on the site plan as "existing trees to remain" shall not be disturbed and shall be preserved as long as one or both of the towers remain standing. 7. The proposed communication antennae must be mounted "inside light pole" as depicted on the submitted plans. Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emissions study (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will not interfere with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities, shall be provided prior to site plan approval for the tower and all subsequent users. . In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and eliminate the ~nterference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference. 10. Should the antennae cease to be used for a period of more than one (1) year, the applicant shall remove the antennae and their supporting towers and related equipment. VoiceStream Page 4 of 5 · Attachments: Staff Rewew Disclosure Statement Revised Site Plan dated 5/27/03 Planning Commission Minutes Locabon Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planmng Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/A~ncy: Planning City Manager~~;~ ~ ~' ~'~e(j'~z' Departmen~ VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) / # 17 & 18 March 12, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION H05-210-MOD-2002 NUMBER: H05-210-C U P-2002 REQUEST: 17. Modification of Proffers placed on a rezoning from R-3 Residential to O-1 Office District on February 9, 1981 18. Conditional Use Permit for two (2) wireless communication towers ADDRESS: 864 Little Neck Road Map G, H 5 ~ro~ ~o Scele Voice Stream GSM Little Neck Rd. r-30 Cpm 1488-92-4743 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: 14889247430000 5 - LYNNHAVEN Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) / # 17 & 18 Page 1 SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 5.319 acres Barbara Duke To modify the proffer attached to the 1981 rezoning of this property regarding use of the site and to request a conditional use permit to allow the construction of two (2) wireless communication towers on the site in addition to the existing recreational facility. This application was deferred in January 2003 by the Planning Commission due to a sign posting error. Major Issues: There must be an identified need for service in the area and satisfactory evidence that there is a lack of space on suitable exisbng towers, buildings or other structures to locate proposed antenna. The proposed location of the towers must be unobtrusive and must not substantially detract from aesthetics or neighborhood character. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: .Existing Land Use and Zoning ^ private recreational club is located on the site and the site ~s zoned 0-2 Office District. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq North: South: · Single-family homes/R-20 (Open Space) Residential District · Single-family homes / R-20 Residential District Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) / # 17 & 18 Page 2 East: West: · Single-family homes / R-20 (Open Space) Residential District. · Church / R-15 Residential District. Zoning History The subject site was rezoned from residential to office use in 1981. A conditional use permit for a private club (recreational facility) was also granted in 1981. An agreement addressing conditions voluntarily proffered during the rezoning is recorded in Deed Book 2090, Page 728. The neighborhood of Bishopsgate immediately adjacent to the site on the north and east was rezoned in 1986. The residential properties immediately south of the site were rezoned and developed in the early 1990s. On March 25, 1997, the City Council denied a similar request for two wireless communication towers 135 feet in height on a site northwest of the subject site, at 1033 Little Neck Road (Lynnhaven United Methodist Church). The original recommendation from the Planning Department staff was to grant the use permit; however, there was very strong neighborhood opposition to the proposal on the basis that that the towers would have negative visual impact and would change the neighborhood's character. The applicant subsequently appealed City Council's denial to the District Court. The District Court's decision was in favor of the applicant; however, upon further appeal by the City to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, the lower court's decision was overturned and the denial of the application was reinstated. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The site is developed with a clubhouse, outdoor pool, tennis courts and parking areas. There are some mature trees in an open area on the southern side of the site, adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Them is an established row of large shrubs around the perimeter of the site on the east and north sides adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Along the frontage of the site there are some scattered mature pine trees. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer No water or sewer connections are necessary for the proposed use Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 3 Transportation There will be no measurable impact on traffic due to the proposed communication towers. 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 Rescue: Adequate. No comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan policies for the Little Neck Planning area recognize that a mixture of non-residential uses can coexist with residential uses, with more intensive commercial uses along the Little Neck Road corridor at the southernmost end at Virginia Beach Boulevard. To ensure that this relationship continues in a harmonious manner and does not impose any pronounced impacts on the residential area, all nonresidential development must be done in harmony with the concept of providing an attractive, safe and well-maintained physical environment. The existing neighborhood character must be protected at all times from inappropriate land use intrusion that does not provide a legitimate purpose to the surrounding community. Summary of Proposal The agreement that was recorded with the rezoning of this parcel to O-1 Office in 1981 is recorded in Deed Book 2090, Page 798. The recorded proffers are as follows: Original Proffers All of the principal uses and structures permitted in the R-3 Residential District shall be permitted on that portion of the Office Property prewously zoned R-3 as shown by said application number 3877 to the same degree and with all requirements as if that portion of the Property were zoned R-3 Residential District. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 4 2. All of the principal uses and structures permitted in the R-2 Residential District shall be permitted on that portion of the Office Property previously zoned R-2 as shown by said application number 3878 to the same degree and with all requirements as if that portion of the Property were zoned R-2 Residential District. . The Property shall not be used for any use or structure allowed in the O-1 Office District except that the Property may be used and developed for use as a Private Club for civic, social, cultural, recreational and like activities operated for the benefit of its members and not open to the general public pursuant to that certain Conditional Use Permit granted pursuant to said application number 3833, but expressly subject to the conditions and restrictions stated therein and herein. Said Private Club may include a gymnasium, structures and related facilities for tennis, racket ball, swimming and similar recreational activities. o Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Property shall not be developed or used as provided in paragraphs numbered 1 and 2 above unless and until the Property shall not have been developed or shall cease to be used, as determined by the zoning administrator, as a private club in which event the Property shall be deemed to have reverted to its former R-2 and R-3 classifications or to such future zoning classifications which may replace the R-2 and R-3 classifications. The applicant is proposing to modify the existing agreement to eliminate proffers # 1, #2, and #4 which are no longer necessary because the property has been established as a private club and to revise proffer #3 to list communication towers as an allowed use ~n addition to the use of the property as a private club. The revised proffers are as follows. Proposed Amendment to Proffers PROFFER # 1 "PROFFER 1" is deleted. PROFFER # 2 "PROFFER 2" is deleted Staff Evaluation: These proffers are being deleted because they are no longer necessary since the property has been established as a private club in lieu of residential development. PROFFER # 3 The Property shall not be used for any use allowed in the 0-2 Office District except that the Property may be used Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 5 and developed for (i) use as a private club for oivio, social, cultural, recreational and like activities operated for the benefit of its members and not open to the general public pursuant to that certain Condibonal Use Permit granted pursuant to application number 3833, but expressly subject to the conditions and restrictions stated therein and herein, and (ii) the installation and utilization of poles with telecommunications antennas, related equipment and devices and support structures and facilities. The Private Club may include a gymnasium, structures and related facilities for tennis, racket ball, swimming, and similar recreational activities. Staff Evaluation: This proffer adds communication towers as an allowed use on the site. PROFFER # 4 "PROFFER 4" is deleted Staff Evaluation: This proffer is being deleted because it is no longer necessary since the property has been established as a private club in lieu of residential development. PROFFER # 5 All of the terms, covenants and conditions set forth in "Covenants and Conditions" dated February 9, 1981, and recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book 2090, at Page 728, save and except, Proffer 1, Proffer 2, Proffer 3, and Proffer 4, as specifically amended and modified herein, shall remain in force and effect, running with the Property and binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under, by or through GRANTOR, his heirs, personal representatives, assigns, tenants, and other successors in interest or title. Staff Evaluation: This proffer restates the terms of the agreement. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 6 Site Plan / Conformance with Section 232 The site plan submitted with this application shows two "stealth" communication towers located on the south side of the pool. Both towers are shown at a height of 112 feet with a 22-inch diameter. Both towers have been designed to hold two sets of antennae, for a total of four spaces available to wireless communications providers. The equipment shelters at the base of each tower have been designed to also serve as shelters for the pool area. All equipment, including the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, has been internalized within the shelter. There will be no exposed cables or other equipment connecting the tower to the shelter. The shelters are located at the edge of the pool area and the towers are located behind the shelters, outside of the fenced pool area. The equipment shelters will have access doors that open to the parking lot, so that telecommunications workers can access the equipment from outside the fence, and will not have to enter the pool area to maintain the equipment. Typically, the equipment is maintained on a monthly basis. The towers have been designed to resemble a flagpole so that there will be no exposed antenna equipment on the pole. Cabling and antenna will be internal to the pole. Lights will be added to the pole at a height of 45 feet at the request of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club to provide lighting in the pool area. The tower locations on the site plan appear to meet the required setback from Little Neck Road of 50 feet and the required setback from existing residential structures of 200 feet. In lieu of the landscaping required around the base of the tower, the applicant has proposed additional plantings along the perimeter of the site to supplement the existing shrubs serving as a buffer, the addition of a planted berm along the frontage of Little Neck Road and the preservation of the existing stand of trees on the southern side of the site. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & t8 Page 7 The preservation of the existing trees on the site is important to maintain the visual integrity of the club property with the addition of the towers as it relates to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The exisbng tree stand serves as a visual screen for the towers from the single-family homes immediately adjacent to the south as well as from Little Neck Road. In addition, this existing tree stand will serve as a backdrop for the towers when viewing the site from the north. The applicant's lease agreement with the club also provides that Voicestream (T- Mobile) will upgrade all of the existing tennis court hghting fixtures to reduce sp~llover/glare onto adjacent residential properties and to increase energy efficiency. The existing light poles on the site are 35 feet in height. The mounting height of the new hght fixtures is shown at 40 feet. The plan also shows that the existing parking lot to the east of the clubhouse will be removed and the area returned to green space. However, some of the parking ~n this area may need to be retained based on the zoning ordinance requirements for the club. Evaluation of Request The request to modify the existing proffer agreement and to allow a conditional use permit for wireless communication towers on the subject property is acceptable. The applicant has worked out an agreement with the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club that was voted on affirmatively by the majority of the membership of the club. The application is a good example of how mutual cooperation can produce a plan that will provide towers that are not overly ~ntrusive to the visual aesthetics of the community as well as benefit the club financially and provide a needed service to the community as a whole. The stealth design of the towers is also consistent with the direction provided to staff in 2001 after a study of communication towers in the city. Council directed that towers in residenbal areas be 'stealth' in design rather than the traditional tower with antenna arrays. This proposal is consistent with that direction. The applicant has provided information from two additional carriers, Verizon and SunCom, that service is needed in this area and that the proposed towers will be in an appropriate location for their use. However, the staff is recommending conditions regarding the multiple use of the towers to ensure that all spaces on the tower are utilized efficiently. The applicant has also provided the required informabon on Non- Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER) levels and the towers will not exceed the FCC level established. Based on the conformance of this request, as conditioned below, with the provisions of Section 232 of the City Zoning Ordinance, staff recommends that the modification of Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 8 proffers be approved. Staff also recommends that the conditional use permit for the two communication towers be approved subject to the following conditions. CONDITIONS , The project shall be developed as indicated on the submitted site plan entitled "Voicestream Wireless @ Little Neck Racquet Club VA10363-A," prepared by Lewis White and Associates and dated 12/04/02, and the associated plans and drawings submitted with the conditional use permit application. These plans have been exhibited to City Council and are on file in the Planning Department. 2 The overall height of the proposed towers and antennae shall not exceed 112 feet. 3. The second tower shall not be constructed unless and until there are two carriers established on the first tower. 4. The detailed site plan submitted to the Development Services Center for review and approval for the communication tower(s) shall be approved initially for only one tower and shall provide parking at a ratio of 1:100 for the pool and clubhouse plus two (2) spaces per tennis court. An amended site plan for the second tower shall be submitted only if both antenna spaces on the initial tower are being used. . The detailed site plan submitted to the Development Services Center for review and approval for the communication tower(s) shall contain a certification by a licensed professional land surveyor that a field survey has been performed to verify that the setback of the tower of 200 feet from all existing residential structures has been met. . The existing stand of trees located in the southern portion of the site and noted on the site plan as "existing trees to remain" shall not be disturbed and shall be preserved as long as one or both of the towers remain standing. 7. The proposed communication antennae must be mounted "inside light pole" as depicted on the submitted plans. o Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emissions study (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) w~ll Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 9 , 10. not interfere with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities, shall be provided prior to site plan approval for the tower and all subsequent users. In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference. Should the antennae cease to be used for a period of more than one (1) year, the applicant shall remove the antennae and their supporting towers and related equipment. IVOTE: 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 March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 10 ,1 I i i i i i ii ii i i i tt 1t¢8 i t IExisting Site Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 11 , , ~ '] ~ ~'~ ' Proposed Site Plan PLAN REVIEWED BY PLANNING COMMISSION (PLAN WAS REVISED ON MAY 27 - SEE NEXT PAGE) Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) / # 17 & 18 Page 12 l ,o NEW PLAN SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT ON MAY 27) Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) / # 17 & 18 Page 13 // / Landscape Plan Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 14 I Pronosed Picnic Pavilion Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 15 o I Pronosed Pool Shelter Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 16 NO?E. F"R~ 2-5 I~R UG~T~G ~ gY P~~ F~'IROFIT OF' E::X. :55' UGHT PC~ ~ Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 17 W F- III I I II I . iiiii ri iiiiiiii i Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 18 I I IIIIII I / / Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 19 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 20 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 21 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 22 Applicant's Name:. List Ali Currmt L L ,, I i ~.~ ....... -~. > .~. ?' ~ .... , '..t. ,~ .... , ~... :-~.t ...,,~.,.~....~¢ ..~ ,...~..~.~.~-. . ~. .,~,~,,.....ti DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PROPERTY Owh~ DISCr~SURE If~h¢ properW owner is a CORPORATION. hst all officers of the Corporation be. low (Attach lrvr tfnecessary) , ,S..,~,,e Attached If the property owner ~s a PARTNERSHIP. FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, hst ail mem~ or partners in the orgamzauon below- fA~ch l~t if necessary) [~] Check here ff the property owner is NOT a corporation, pannership, firm. or other unincorporate~ orgamzat~on. If the appl~ant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicaat Disrlosurz section APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the apphcam is a CORPORATION, list all officers of thc Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) I/the applicant ~s a PARTNERSHIP, ~hXt, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, hst all members or partners m the organmat~on below (Attach hsI {fnece. w~ry) Nih , , [~] Check here ff thc applicant is NOT a corporauon, partnership, fgm~ or other unmcorpom, ed organizauon CERTIFICATION I certify that the information co._toined kerein is true and accurate. / p' $~gnature Pnnt Name Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 23 2~iGHT COAST CONSULTIN( 205 Street Virginia Beach, Virgulm ,~3451 757 718-9131 / bgarnbrel~exix, net To: From: Subject: Barbara Duke Bm GambreH Little Neck Swim and Racket Club September 15, 2002 The board members for the Little Neck ~wkn and Racket Club are as follows: Brian Miller, President W'dliam Stewart, Treasurer Gerrilyn Oleason Carla Hesseltine Diane Yams Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 24 Applie.~t's Name: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT VoiceStream GSM II, LLC Property Owners: Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club, Inc. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the propmy owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach Itst tfnece~aar, If the property owner is a PAR~, FIRM, or other LYNINCOBPORATED ORGANIZATION, hst all members or palzu:~ m the orgamzat~on below. (Attach Zi~ ffnece~ary) N/A Check her~ if the p~pewj owner m NOT a ~mon, ~hap, fi~, or ~er um~m~ A~u~ DIS~~ ~ ~h~t ~ a CO~~ON, ~t ~ offi~ of ~ ~~on ~w' (~h ~ if~c~) See attached. If the apl~eaut is a PA~I~P, FIRM. or other tFNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION. list all members or partners m the ~organ!~,a._on below: (Attach li.~t ffneee.~sary) Check here if the apphcaut m NOT a corpor~on, partnership, firm, or other unmcoxporated orgamza~on CERTIFICATION' I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. VoiceStream ¢S1~ II, LLC S~phe/~ t~. aom~a~ Pnnt Name Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 25 ~HGHT COAST CONSULTIN~ 205 23rd Street Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 757 718-9131 / bgambrel(~xix.net To: Barbara Duke From: Bill Cmmbrell Subject: Little Neck Swim and Rackm Club Date: September 15, 2002 The board members for the L/ttle Neck swim and Racket Club are as follows: Brian Miller, President W'flliam Stewart, Treasurer Gemlyn Gleason Carh Hesselfine Diane Yates Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 26 A,~tiom Covered POPs:. Technolo~' VoiceStream* Wireless Fact Sheet ~ ~ c~ ~.~ Tu~ Okh.; Wi~t~ ~ md ~, Wyo. · Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 27 FORM NO. P $ IB : (3ity of Virginia Beach .~ I~TER-OFFICE CORRESPONdEnCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-51M6 DATE: April 10, 2003 TO: FROM: Leslie L. Lilley B. Kay Wilsofi~[~ DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club, Inc. 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 December 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: Stephen R. Romine, Esquire LeClair Ryan 999 Waterside Drive, Suite 515 Norfolk, VA 23510 AMENDMENT TO CONDIT!,ONS THIS AGREEMENT, made this 12th day of December, 2002, by and between LITTLE NECK SWIM AND RACQUET CLUB, INC., a nondiscriminatory community membership organization, Property Owner, GRANTOR; and CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, GRANT..EE, party of the second part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Property Owner is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the Lynnhaven Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 5.319 acres and described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, such property hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, GRANTOR has initiated modifications to a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, by petition addressed to GRANTEE so as to modify conditions to the Zoning Classification of the Property; and WHEREAS, GRANTOR has requested GRANTEE to permit this modification of the previously proffered Covenants and Conditions dated February 9, 1981, recorded in Deed Book 2090, at Page 728, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, (the "Clerk's Office"), to reflect the amendments applicable to the land use plan on the Property; and WHEREAS, 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- 1488-924743 WHEREAS, GRANTOR acknowledges that the competing and sometimes 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 proposed modification of conditions to the zoning, 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 application gives rise; and WHEREAS, GRANTOR has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before GRANTEE, as part of the proposed modifications to the existing zoning conditions with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted, which conditions have a reasonable relation to the proposed modifications and the need for which is generated by the proposed modifications. NOW, THEREFORE, GRANTOR, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from 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 nmning with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through GRANTOR, its successor, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in interest or title; 1. "PROFFER 1" is deleted. 2. "PROFFER 2" is deleted. 3. "PROFFER 3" is amended to read: The Property shall not be used for any use allowed in the 0-2 Office District (formerly designated as 0-1 Office District prior to ordinance change by Grantee) except that the Property may be used and developed for (i) use as a private club for civic, social, cultural, recreational and like activities operated for the benefit of its members and not open to the general public pursuant to that certain Conditional Use Permit granted pursuant to application number 3833, but expressly subject to the conditions and restrictions stated therein and herein, and (ii) the installation and utilization of poles with telecommunications antennas, related equipment and devices and support structures and facilities. The Private Club may include a gymnasium, structures and related facilities for tennis, racquet ball, swimming, and similar recreational activities. 4. "PROFFER 4" is deleted. 5. All of the terms, covenants and conditions set forth in "Covenants and Conditions" dated February 9, 1981, and recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book 2090, at Page 728, save and except, Proffer 1, Proffer 2, Proffer 3, and Proffer 4, as specifically amended and modified herein, shall remain in force and effect, nmning with the Property and binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under, by or through GRANTOR, his heirs, personal representatives, assigns, tenants, and other successors in interest or title. GRANTOR further covenants and agrees that: Any references hereinabove to the 0-2 Office 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 GRANTOR and allowed and accepted by GRANTEE as part of the amendmem 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 amendmem 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 instmmem 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 such instrument is consented to by GRANTEE in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of GRANTEE, after a public hearing before GRANTEE which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Such ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with such instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, such instrument shall be void. (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, 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, and indexed in the names of GRANTOR and GRANTEE. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: GRANTOR: LITTLE NECK SWIM AND RACQUET CLUB, INC. STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 31st day of December, 2002, by William R. Stewart, as President of Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club, Inc., on behalf of the Company. Notary Public My Commission Expires: March 31, 2006 EXHIBIT A ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate, lying and being in the City of Vir~nia Beach, Vir~nia and being known, numbered and designated as Lot A, as shown on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF HUBERT L. DAIL AND MONA H. DAIL", which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 149 at page 6. Together with a perpetual 15' drainage easement and a perpetual 10' utility easement across Lot B on said plat. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Modffication of Proffers and Conditional Use Permit 864 L~ttle Neck Road District 5 Lynnhaven March 12, 2003 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next items are Item #17 & 18, Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Ronald Ripley: Before this application starts, and there are a lot of people signed up speak for and against this item. There's 36 people signed up. If you hear what you have to say already said and you want to acknowledge that ~s has already been said, that's fine with us. If the speakers get redundant, I will probably ask you to either get to a matter that's not redundant that we haven't heard because there's a lot of speakers. And, we'll be here a long time. Okay. Do you mind if we take a five-minute break? Steve Romine. I don't mind at all. Ronald Ripley: We're being requested up here to do that. So, we're going to take a five- minute break. And, we'll proceed m a minute. CONTINUED Ronald Ripley: If I can have you get your seats. Please quiet up so we can get started. Mr. Romine, did you want to get started? Steve Romine: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Steve Romine: Good afternoon Chairman R~pley and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Steve Romine. I'm the local attorney representing T-Mobile in these applications. I have with me today Tim Fincham, the Director of Engineering and Operations. Scott Debuke, our engineer and Bill Gambrell, the Planning Consultant. We also have representatives from two other licensed carners that will be used ~n this site, Verizon and Triton. You'll be heanng from a cross section of the residents as well who hve on Little Neck and strongly support this application. The Planning staff has over 1000 names of residents who support this application in their file. Because I have limited time, I'm just going to hit the highhghts of my presentation. My road map will ~nclude the need for wireless services on Little Neck, the proposed plan for the club property, the commumty process we used to receive input and refine the plan. And, we will address various ~ssues rinsed during this process. Bill Gambrell will then talk about the plan specifically and review certatnly alternative locations we looked at. I'd like to Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 2 keep in mind that like all good land use decisions there must be a balance between achieving the greater public good while minirmzing impact on the affected few. There are several licensed carriers in Virginia Beach. This application will provide service for four carriers on Little Neck. As you are well aware, demand for services has increased tremendously over the last five years. There's no dispute that there's a gap for service and coverage on Little Neck. This solution here will be something that will address for the four carriers that gap ~n demand. As most of you know, wireless technology provides a critical link for emergency services. Over 120 million Americans use wireless phones and more users jo~n the ranks everyday. The proposed two 112 foot cell poles, and I mention cell poles because they are not towers. They're replacement light poles on the 5.5 acre parcel of land zoned 0-2, will assist T-Mobile in providing infrastructure necessary to provide the w~reless service to this area of the City. I refer you to the site plan in your package for photo detml. These poles will provide adequate coverage for the current demand of four carriers and the poles have been specifically designed for the site. They're designed to be short and narrow as possible to minimize impact on surrounding properties. As I mentioned earlier, we went through an extensive community process. I've given you a handout that lists all the meetings we had over the past year. This culminated a vote by the club to approve the lease and proceed with the application. An overwhelrmng majority of the club members support the application. I wanted to do a quick digression and explain the applications today. As you know, communication facilities are permitted in every zoning district of the City. However, a Conditional Use Permit is required by the City for the ~nstallation and that's why we are applying for a CUP. Secondly, that apphcation is for the amendment to conditions that were recorded on the property in 1981 when it was rezoned for recreational purposes. The conditions recorded in 1981 allowed the properties to be used as a recreational facility and neither expressly permitted nor prohibited accessory uses like telecommunication facilities. The amendment to conditions is not a rezoning. The property was rezoned in 1981. The application today will not change the character or use of the property. The club will retain its use of the recreational facility. The placement of antennas within the two cell poles at best is an accessory use. A few citizens have raised concern about whether the placement of the poles at the site will commercialize the site. The use of poles and the nature of a public utihty placement of telecommumcation facihties in the slim line poles the club will not open the door for other types of commercial development any more than installing a new telephone line or electric service to a new house or the widemng of Harris Road, which is now undergoing a widening ~n this point in t~me. We believe this is the best reasonable solution. We believe the plan, which Bill Gambrell will talk to you in more detail in a moment will provide w~reless service to the nearly 3000 residents of Little Neck. It's on 5.5-acre parcel with substantial screening. I will leave it to Bill to go into greater detail on that plan. As a result of the numerous meetings, we were also able to address various issues that were raised by the community. And, I will go over those very quickly. Health concerns. The Federal government has established stringent guidehnes for the regulation and monitoring of telecommunication facilities. They have established an exposure standard for radiation called Maximal Perrmssible Exposure (MPE). In this proposal, the Maximum Permissible Exposure of all the antennas that will be ~nstalled in these two cell poles will not exceed five percent of the standard. The Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 3 cumulative impact is 95 percent less than what is considered a concern for human exposure by the Federal government. Some residents wanted to know if this would have an impact on their property values. There are numerous examples of facilities like tins next to residential areas in Virginia Beach. And, I'll leave this to Bill Gambrell as well to discuss that one. A s~gnificant number of 911 calls originate from wireless phones. And, those are increasing daily. Further, the Federal government has mandated all providers to implement E-911 service, which enables emergency responders and police to be able to locate callers by GPS or other means. A third issue of lightening was rinsed. There's an article in your package or a report and study that addresses that as well and I'll point that out to you. These poles, when constructed, are engineered with a very sophisticated grounding system to protect the various expensive equipment housed in the ground structure at the base of the pole. There's no scientific evidence or historical record that suggests that these poles will be a lightening hazard. Quite the contrary, the trees around the site are much more dangerous to the users of the club and as I indicated there's a handout. I already discussed why this is not commercialization. The last issue that was raised by the commumty was the visual effect. T-Mobile conducted multiple balloon tests of the site. The balloon test demonstrated the poles aesthetically blend with existing environment and conforms to existing uses. And, I will point in your package as well. There are four or five photo samples. They're taken from the surrounding neighborhoods, Bishops Gate and Little Neck Estates. The proposed cell poles are the least visually obtrusive type of facility. They will not be lit. There's also a profile in your package that gives you a site view that will be from the neighborhood surrounding the property as well. Staff recommends approval of this Conditional Use Permit. For these reasons I request that you approve these applications. I will now ask Bill to talk about the site plan and the possible alternatives. And, I'll stand by to answer questions ~n a moment. Thank you. Ronald Rtpley: Thank you. Bill Gambrell: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission, I'm going to take the site plan, if you don't mind and set if over here on the easel. Ronald Ripley: For the record, you need to state your name. Bill Gambrell: Again, my name is Bill Gambrell. I'm working as land consultant for T- Mobile on this project. And, I think Steven alluded to the fact that there have been over 20 community meetings on this project. When I assumed responsibility for working on the project, the first thing I suggested to the applicant was they needed to work with the community. It's a very sensitive area. I think what the applicant has done is created a very sensible solution to a very sensitive issue. The solution that they arrived at was a result of all of the community meetings, redeveloping and redeveloping the site plan and re-looking and re-looking at all of the alternatives that potentially could be out there. And, what you have today ~s a site plan. I have a small version. It is eas~er for you. Can you hear me? Item #17 & 18 Volcestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 4 Ronald Ripley: Can you kind of stay near the rmc? Bill Gambrell: Okay. I think I can work from here. After meeting with the club and meeting with a number of the communities, an initial site plan was drawn that showed three communication poles on this site and each of these wireless facilities were planned as light pole extensions. Very similar to what you have at the high schools except for a lot stealthier. They're 22 inches in diameter. So, if you were to take this piece of paper and double it in size that's the width of these communication facilities. These poles are 22 inches in diameter. They're 112 feet in height. We don't have in this City, I wouldn't think more than one or two that are of this limited in height. Actually, you don't have any that provides a combination for four providers because these two poles will provide services for four wireless providers. Those four providers are T-Mobile, SunCom, Intelos and Verizon. Each of them will have three antennas internally into the pole and you don't see any vertical dimension of them at all. Over a series of meetings they asked that we remove one of the poles. We didn't have support for all the providers to have three poles and there was concern from different people for different reasons that they should be relocated. One of the goals and I said this application was developed as a sensitive application. It was absolutely sensitive to the setbacks established to the guidelines that were established by the City of Virginia Beach and tried to be sensitive to all the people in the community. The result ended with two poles being relocated entirely outside of the activity area of the pool and racquet club. The poles originally, I think were planned over here. There was a challenge for setbacks with some decks in the back property line. And, it made more sense to move them. At the base of the poles there are two shelters that are planned. These shelters would double as a pool shelter and as an equipment building. You have a drawing of them in your package and T-Mobile is 100 percent agreeable to ensure that they're developed just exactly as they're shown. The perimeter of the site is surrounded by residential homes. So, what we tried to do was look at the perimeter. Try to say what can we do to make sure that we soften what's going on at this site. It's already an intensely developed site. If you go out there in the evening it is very, very bright. It is an activity center that is very heavily used. There's spill over lights that go on all of the adjoining properties. The cars that would come into these back parking lots, they're headlights will go directly into the adjoining properties. So what we tried to do is to develop a site plan that started to mitigate some of these existing problems. Over here, there's a large stand of trees. We agreed that we would preserve the entirety of the stand of trees and they would probably want to go in and do some under story vegetation as well. Along the rear property line, were showing a 20 foot landscape buffer. Right now, there is about a three-foot buffer with Photinias there. This landscape buffer will be incorporating the existing Photinias and then coming back with some Deciduous trees strategically placed along the back of these properties and then Leyland cypress that will grow to about 30 feet in height. On the plans, we show this going in at a 6-8 foot height at planting so they're more mature than your regular trees that would normally be planted as required under the City's code. On the side property line we did the same thing. We tried to evaluate what was there and try to say okay, we can matntain this buffer. The existing site plan that governs this site doesn't have any conditions as to how ~t should be developed. It doesn't show any landscaping at Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 5 all. So, by adopting this plan, you ~n fact provide the residents with some additional protection that they don't have. Because at this point the s~te plan really is entire imperious that was approved for the project. So, throughout the perimeter of the site you have a landscape buffer that really does start to give you a lot of separation between the club that you didn't have before. On the front portion of the site we propose to do a landscape berm and have trees on the front. We actually have got a plan that would show a walkway across here for pedestrians and the idea here is just to obscure your visual of the s~te as you go by. And, I challenge people to drive by and count to five and see how much you really are going to see because honestly you're not going to see very much at all. I got another visual that we have drawn and this is a visual that is drawn to scale and it shows you what potential perspective would be from the adjo~mng properties. Now, this perspective shows both existing and proposed vegetation so I don't want to mislead anyone. The intention here is to show you what the visual would be when tins project is fully developed. And, you can see that along the northern side of the property you have these existing trees and these ex~sting homes. You have the light extensions that are proposed over here and you really start to lose your line of sight. The best example I can give you is that if your cormng to the municipal complex, you know there are very two large towers behind the Kellum & Eaton hardware store that is right behind us. You only get a visual at its particular point. After you get to close, you don't see them. And, that was really the intention of trying to create a landscaping buffer that they had around the site. The other thing that we tried to incorporate into the plan was the recommendation of a number who did live in the community and that was to try to reduce the spill over elimination that was already occurring to try to really tone down the site. I'd like just to read qmckly a letter that we have that we hired a private consulting engineer that specializes in lighting and his letter goes, "as an overview, the new hghting design reuses the existing poles and locations. The arms will be changed. The new sports lighting fixtures will be provided. By changing the fixtures we will have the advantage of today's technology not only in the lens reflector design but also in glare control as well. Fixtures are provided with external visors required greatly to reduce the possible to alleviate glare problem that currently exist. Essentially, these components reduce the ability to see the fixtures from any where except the court's perspective. Better performance, reflector lamp and design help eliminate trespass on the adjoining property. And, the amount of light off court to the adjoining properties would expect to be reduced by 75-95 percent of the existing situation. So, as a component to this application, what we tried to do was look at a fairly improvement to some extent. We tried to minimize that and actually improve it. As a caveat or a carrot, if you will, to adding beyond the wireless poles ~n site, again, the existing poles that are there about 45 feet in height. These would take them to 112 feet in height. The overall width is 22 feet that's proposed. I know that I'm a quick time line because of t~me. Ronald Ripley: I think Mr. Gambrell that you have about a minute. Bill Gambrell: I can do this really quickly and then I can answer questions because I tinnk they will come up ~n the future. And, if you have questions at all, I'll be happy to come back. The map that you have here and you can't see it very well illustrates the Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 6 Little Neck pemnsula. On the Little Neck peninsula and in the package I think that you received from the folks that aren't supportive of the application, they suggest there are many alternative sites. None of the alternative sites have a silver bullet effect. All the additional sites have constraints of their own. We looked at every single parcel ~n the community that could meet setbacks. We looked at every parcel that didn't have any environmental impacts. We looked at every parcel that wasn't a none-useable activity center and we came up with a result that this was a very, very good location for the project. And, I'll leave it at that and answer any questions you might have. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Mr. Gambrell. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? William Din: I've got questions. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Go ahead. William Din: I brought ~t up at the informal meeting there, Bill about the height. Is the height sufficient? I notice that 112 feet ~s qmte a bit lower, shorter than most normal cell towers. Now, is this height going to be sufficient enough to provide coverage within this peninsula so that there is not another need that will crop up along the fringes? Bill Gambrell: I beheve so. The application was absolutely designed to try to serve all the residents in Little Neck. This application is not going to be perfect. The map I have is a pretty good illustration of what type of coverage you can anticipate. They're not an exact science. They are not perfect. But, what this map shows here, rather what this map shows here on the top is this means on street coverage and white means there is no coverage. These are the modelings that T-Mobile did and they did them most recently. If we replace and add the antennas that are proposed at the Little Neck Racquet Club, this is the situation that we have. And, what this means really is that you have a blue spot over here and you got a blue spot over here. You don't see any white in here but there could potentially be a little bit of white in here but effectively, it serves all of the community. It just doesn't give everybody full five bar service. But, in order to do that we would have to be more intrusive than when we were before. We would have to raise the height of the towers to the extent to where we felt like maybe it was an intrusion. We were really trying to estabhsh compatibility. So, these maps pretty well illustrate that the project is going to serve the preponderance of the community. Just to finish your answer to your question, all of these sites, all cell sites talk to one another. So, that means all the surrounding cell sites in the area and I did a little artistic on the board over them, but there are sites here, here, here and here that shoot into the peninsula now. As, these additional sites over here mature, and there most densely populated areas, you may well see that these providers are going to go out and probably re-distribute the load that's over here. And, you may well get improved coverage to these areas as a result of these roadways demanding greater service themselves. Ultimately, there are going to be more commumcation towers throughout the City. Will these communication towers necessarily have to be in L~ttle Neck? i don't think so. I think that th~s plan does a real Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 7 good job at addressing the preponderance of the concerns and I think much of what needs to be done in the future as you're having increased traffic, probably can be accomplished maybe outside of the area. William Din: Well, you got four providers there. Are you speaking that these poles will be sufficient coverage for all four providers or just for T-Mobile? Bill Gambrell: I specifically used the T-Mobile design because T-Mobile is the most immature player in this market. And, that means they have the least number of towers or wireless facilities anywhere in Virginia Beach. Verizon and SunCom have been around for six or seven years and are s~x or seven generation providers. The coverage is probably less than the ones that T-Mobile have at this point. William Din: A couple of more questions if I may? Ronald Ripley: Sure. William D~n: You identified four providers on these poles. Is there any room for any expansion on those poles? Bill Gambrell: The poles weren't designed for expansion and I don't know that they couldn't potentially in the future accommodate some kind of a sleeve that would give them some sort of expansion but they deliberately were not designed to anything except for what they are because there are folks that aren't supportive of the project. And, we didn't want to say that it was the bait and sw~tch thing, we're going to design poles so they can go taller ~n the future. That wasn't the intent. But, you will see through your City and throughout other cities where there have been modifications to facilities when there is additional need. And, I don't know the answer and I deliberately didn't ask them to design this so that it would be expandable. William Din: So four is the maximum number of users on these two poles. Bill Gambrell: At this location. But, as you also know that each of these providers probably have roaming agreements with the other providers so if you're not one of the four providers here and you chose and they absolutely had an opportunity to participate in this application, if they chose not to participate then they may have chosen not to participate because they don't feel hke tins is the best place to spend their money or they have chosen not to participate because they were going to have a roaming agreement at some point in the future with some other prowder that ~s already there. So, there are opportunities for other providers to provide service to this community as a result of this application. William Din: One of my other questions in the informal meeting was each of these service providers will require a maintenance call on their equipment. Correct? That's a separate maintenance call? Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 8 Bill Gambrell: Generally, there is a monthly maintenance that goes on at these sites. It could be more than once a month. It could be twice or three times a month. And, in fact one of the reasons for relocating the poles to the parking lot area was so that these providers d~dn't have to send their technicians actually into the actimty area of the club. They actually pull up to the pole shelters on the backside where their entrances are, they can do their work and then they could come and go. But, they all do annual preventative maintenance on a monthly basis. William Din: Monthly basis. So, there are four providers coming in to this area on a monthly basis. Right? What kind of vehicles do they use? Bill Gambrell: They generally use p~ck up trucks, four wheel drive vehicles. They don't use heavy vehicles. They don't go up on the poles at all. They simply go to the radios that are located in the room at the base of the tower and do the work they are required to do. William Din: And, how is that coordinated with the racquet club? Bill Gambrell: Well, I don't know the details of that have actually been worked out. But, I can tell you that in instances that the City of Virginia Beach where there are sensitive sites, they are required to notify and give advance approval. And, I suspect that the club may want to do that. But again, the reason why the shelters were located outside the pool area was that these technicians did not have to come on to that activity area. Did not have to intermix with the folks that are there, enjoying the pools and the tennis courts. William Din: Well, I looked more at the intrusive nature of the maintenance visits. What days of the week? Bill Gambrell: They check all of the facilities throughout. Generally, they have one technician that ~s assigned to several towers, maybe five or six towers in the area. They're not going to be any more intrusive than the Federal Express guy that's going to come to the site. You'll probably see a Federal Express, UPS guy going into the community a lot more often than you're going to see these vehicles. And, they are not large vehicles. They are generally, like I said pick up trucks or SUVs that can carry the radio testing equipment that they used. William Din: Okay. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Kathy Kats~as has a question. Kathy Katsias: You said earher that you had explored other sites and no other site was compatible. I received an alternative study by some of the residents and they mentioned Lynnhaven Methodist Church. Would you please explain? Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 9 Bill Gambrell: Yes ma'am. The United Methodist Church was approved for wireless facilities, about seven years ago by th~s Board. The C~ty Council voted unanimously against ~t and the community was overwhelmingly opposed to it. We discounted that site in particular because of the previous activities that occurred on that site and we also discounted that s~te because now, as opposed to then, we have a stricter policy as it relates to intrusion into the Resource Protection Area. And, ! brought a picture for you in partmular when it relates to the United Methodist Church because every portion of that site that's not developed w~th parking area is in the Resource Protection Area. And, in fact, this is the picture where the previous pole would go and you can see that it sits a top of bank. It's in the seaward component Resource Protection Area. And, it is adjacent to that marsh. And, one of the reasons why I advised my client not to suggest going in there besides the fact that it was already overwhelmingly disapproved by the community was because of the environmental complaints too. I would expect that I would have environmentalist down here saying, I can't beheve you're going to put a tower in high erodible softs because that is the definition of your Chesapeake Bay Ordinance. So, that was the reason for discounting that site. The other s~tes have similar discounts to them. The other s~tes that did have impacts or were impacted by the Resource Protection Area or Chesapeake Bay Program and there are other sites that are just visually challenged. That report also suggests that at Kingston Elementary School that it might be appropriate to put a site there and I took the liberty of taking picture of that elementary school and I can show you on a map but I can just graphically tell you that there is no where on this site where that tower won't be right in the middle of this activity field. In other words, if you come 200 feet of this property hnes where these houses are over here, that puts you in the middle of the field, and if you meet your 50 foot setback from the roadways that puts you in the middle of the field. There's nowhere here. There's no place to hide it. It's just a visual ~ntrusion. And, that was discounted for that very purpose as well. Kathy Katsias: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Gambell, was the original height higher? Did you propose a higher tower? Bill Gambrell: Th~s application started out a little blt higher height. I think 115-120 feet. There were people in the community that said, "can you make it lower?" We took a look at it and what we did was we squeezed the proximately of the antennas inside the pole so that the two providers actually have to kind of give up some of the space between. They like to have a little more separation. So, we did reduce it down to 112 for that reason. They are substantially lower than the ones that were approved at the Lynnhaven Church and at another church because they were 135 feet in overall height. Ronald Ripley: Is there any nmse associated with this? Bill Gambrell: The only no~se that is associated with th~s is going to be the air conditioning units that are mounted on the facility at the very base. We did some decibel readings and the units that they use are very similar to what you rmght find in a town Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 10 home. They're very nonqntrusive. They shouldn't be problematic at all. They won't be problematic for anybody on any of the adjoining properties. You absolutely won't be able to hear them from a distance. Sometimes with communication facilities you have a backup generator, so if power goes down they have a diesel or backup generator. Those from time to time can be fairly noisy. They are not proposed at this location. Ronald Ripley: Would you pass the coverage exhibits that you had? There were two exhibits that you had there that showed the current situation and what the new tower would possibly do in coverage around so that we can see that. Because trying to determine the need is very ~mportant to the Commission. Bill Gambrell: The first coverage map shows the tremendous amount of blue and shows white. White means no service. Blue means less than good service. We call it "On street service" on this map. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Are there any other questions at this time? I'm sure there will be other questions as we go through all these speakers. Okay. Mr. Miller would you mind calling? Robert Miller: Okay here we go. We have approximately 41 speakers. Each one of you, according to our rules ~s allowed three minutes but if you're going to be redundant or repeat yourself, Mr. Ripley says he's going to remind you. Peggy Witte. I'll read the second one and you can come forward and get ready to go. Vikki Camp, if you can come up. Are you people here? This is in no particular order. I don't know what order you may be assurmng there. Peggy Witte: I think I was the first one here. Robert Miller: Well, good Peggy. Peggy Witte: Good afternoon Chairman Ripley and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Peggy Witte. I am a resident of Little Neck and live at 1264 Hebden Cove in the Redwood Farm section. My family and I have lived in Redwood since 1980. Although, I currently serve as President of the Redwood Farms Civic League, what I say today does not serve as an official statement of the civic league but rather is my own personal viewpoint based on 23 years residency in L~ttle Neck. I support T- Mobile's apphcation 17 & 18. The first house in Redwood were built and occupied in 1974, thus making Redwood one of the oldest communities in Little Neck. In 1980, when I first moved into Redwood, Middle Plantation was in ~ts infancy. The swim and racquet club was in it's planmng stages and it would be many years before B~shopsgate was developed and close to 20 years before the first homes were built ~n Little Neck Estates. Many of the original residents still live in Redwood and are now in their late 60s and 70s with no intention of going any place any time soon. W~th them and their safety issue reliable phone service is a necessity. And, unfortunately in today's world we are unable to have complete faith in the reliabihty of any land-based utility. We are being Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 11 told to expect power outages, contamination of water and cut off of other utilities in the event of hurricane or worse. The public has no control over most of these situations but reliable phone service is available to us in the form of cellular service. In my home ~n Redwood as in many others, ~t ~s impossible to maintmn a cell phone call. We would be very happy in most of homes if we had one bar. We have none. And, this is regardless of brand of telephone used or the name of the cartier providing service. I ask therefore, that you grant this petition before you today. In the past months, many arguments against the towers have been offered. I believe though that the basic objection is not the necessity of the towers themselves but s~mply no one wants them in their backyard. A backyard, which happens to be the swim and racquet club, built many years before the houses surrounding it were constructed. To site precedent, a situation remarkably similar to this one presented itself over 20 years ago in the same little Neck corridor, namely, the construction of a bike path along Little Neck Road. No one denied that it was desirable to have this bike path or that it would bring mobility to a community with one road, one two lane road in and out of it. The problem then was agmn a simple one. No one wanted a bike path in, their front yard. Arguments then were specious, as some of those you will hear today. To date I have not heard of any joggers or mothers with baby carriages pressing their noses against the windows of the homes there m order to watch those families eating dinner. Nor have there been any situations where burglars on bicycles have been able to make a speedy get away down Little Neck Road. And believe me, those were two arguments sincerely offered. Unfortunately, it took a tragic accident where a young girl on a bicycle was hit by an automobile and lost her leg to force Little Neck residents to realize the proposed bike path. Ed Weeden: Ma'am, your time is up. Peggy Witte: May I finish completing my sentence? Ronald Ripley: Sure. Peggy Witte: I am thankful that the City had the foresight at that time to look beyond the objections of a very vocal minority. The bike paths were subsequently constructed and became a prototype for bike paths throughout Virgima Beach and has been the focal point of Little Neck becoming a community in a truly sense of the word. I respectfully ask you today that you grant these pernuts and I ask you once again look beyond a minority's objections and have the wisdom and foresight to grant what is in today's world a necessity and not a luxury. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Vikki Camp. Dr. Richard Klobuchar. Vikki Camp: Hello. My name is Vikki Camp and I live at 708 Downing Lane. I've been them for nine years. I grew up as a child in Ktngs Grant so I'm pretty aware of the area. My concern today I'm here as a working mom of small children and safety is my Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 12 concern. Because of where I live three fourths of a mile from Kingston Elementary, we are m a walking zone. We do not have buses. Therefore, as a working mother I communicate often with my babysitter by cell phone. However, the cell and regardless of the company doesn't work at Kingston Elementary. My frustration comes in one day I was called on the phone because my children were at school and there was no one to pick them up. Well, when I called my babysitter, I couldn't communicate with her. I heard bits and pieces, you know how it breaks up. So, my frustration is I, as a worlong mother don't have a way to communicate with my babysitter. And, that concerns me as a safety issue for my children. The other thing that I just want bring up ~s since I've lived here for so long we saw what happened years ago at the Methodist Church. And, I'm just asking for your support. Don't leave our community behind again. For people like myself and my husband and other people of my age will end up moving to other areas that have better coverage. So, I think it's an ~ssue for property value as well. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Dr. Richard Klobuchar and A1 Wallace. R~chard Klobuchar: My name is Klobuchar. I'm the group Chief Scientist and Corporate Vice President for a major system engineering firm in the area. My background is Ph.D. in Nuclear Chemistry with specialization in Electronics and Physics. Other aspect that I would like to bring to background is I'm the primary author of Emuls Information Technology Architecture that addresses the issues associated with safety and digital cell phone coverage. Comments that I'm making here are my own comments. I live in the Little Neck area. I have three cell phones. I'm on 24-7 emergency call for projects ~n support of the National Archives. I can get bars. I can get cell phone full coverage. I live out towards the Royal Grant area. It's actually one of the little bluish areas out there. The problem that I have and it's systematic through the region when you can get coverage ~s that you lose the connection. So, it's not only a matter of getting the signal strength coming out but it's a matter of making sure you have connections and you can keep those connections ~n the area. We live on the peninsula. If the C~ty had not gone to the circumstance of taking the lawsuit to remove the tower at Lynnhaven, none of us would be here today. So, what it means to me as a technical ind~wdual and I worked w~th Virginia Tech on a project for a high bandwidth wireless communications ~n support of the National Science Foundation as well as the National Response Center. If the City had not taken those actions, we would have coverage but it's been eliminated. And, the choices are very, very narrow. The only alternative to going down in terms in height on these towers is to have more geographically dispersed areas associated with them. And, you would be at lower power. I would like you all to think about the circumstances if one of these sites is not visually aesthenc. What does it mean to go ~nto an area and put them in, in that regard? I would also close because many of things that I would say have already been mentioned. I certainly support them ~n that area. Many of my neighbors know that my wife is the President of the Council of Garden Clubs of Virg~ma Beach. She is also a member of the Beautification Commission. So, I can tell you with my pillow talk that the ~ssues associated with beautification but I'm also sensitive and reahze Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 13 that you have to make for what amounts to a very difficult decision. And, this is good application. It will serve our area. I urge you to support it. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: A1 Wallace. Mark Norris. Al Wallace: How much time do I have for CCEO President? Ronald Ripley: Can you get it done in three nunutes? Al Wallace: Maybe 30 second after the three minutes. Robert Miller: Is Mark Noms here? Excuse me a minute Mr. Wallace. Mark Norris? George Fischer here? I'm just trying to get people line up to come here. A1 Wallace: Let me know when you're done. Robert Miller: Thank you. Go ahead sir. A1 Wallace: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. I am A1 Wallace. I'm the President of the Council of Civic Organizations of Virginia Beach. I'm also a retired naval officer having served as the electronics officer in the Navy with a Masters Degree in Engineering Management and a lot of experience with antenna radiation patterns. I have facilitated three meetings with Little Neck residents on this sighting of cell poles. I guess we'll get away from the cell towers and use cell pole issue. The last meeting included a descriptive presentation by the Planning staff member, Barbara Duke, followed by T-Mobile proposal. The meetings were required in order to get information out to the community and provide an opportunity for concerned residents to get their questions answered and voice their concerns and enable an open dialogue so we can discuss options. I believe the planning process did not really include a proactive effort to integrate community or technical inputs. And, I do understand that the Planning Commission holds these public hearings in order, to do that but, however, this is a technical issue and warrants time. But, let me first start with the Virginia Beach building blocks for healthy neighborhoods. From Barbara Duke, she passed these out and basically the first bullet reads many of our neighborhoods have particular, physical characteristics that are very reasonable that why the residents move there. The character of Little Neck is a primary concern." Now, I'm asking this Planning Commission to consider supporting the building blocks for "Community of a Lifetime" when you make your decisions on this issue. Secondly, I understand there is a report turned over was discussed previously over the Barbara Duke that provides alternatives, designs and considerations for sighting cell towers in this area. I don't believe the community was given the tree time and opportunity to discuss those items. The community is not saying no. In all of the meetings I've facilitated the community made very clear that they want and desire cell coverage so they are not saying no. What is Item//17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 14 being asked is all options need to be researched and use the best method practices for sighting of towers. Will the location of the proposed towers provide the quality of service for Little Neck residents? The technical aspects of tins proposal together with the recent study have not really been researched. I requested copies of the antenna radiation patters so I can see what the coverage is going to be. In other technical information and I've never received that information. Ed Weeden: Mr. Wallace, your time is up. A1 Wallace: In summary, I just feel that further staff research and collaboration with the technical folks or a consultant is needed in this case. My concern is the coverage for all of the residential areas and to provide quality service. By lowering the antenna as you brought out, there is trade-offs. And, I think it behooves us to identifying those residents that will not get cell coverage and recommend that further research be made to include a third party consultant to evaluate the numbers that are in the proposal. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Wallace, thank you very much. Yes. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Wallace, you said you met with three groups. Were these three c~vic leagues in the area? Al Wallace: The civic leagues in the Little Neck area. Dorothy Wood: Which ones were they? Al Wallace: All of them except for one. And, I can give you the meeting minutes. Dorothy Wood: I just wondered who they were. A1 Wallace: They're all except for one and we met with the presidents first and then we met with Barbara Duke and T-Mobile. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much. Robert Miller: In case I wasn't clear, I'm going through the list of the people that have marked support first because that's how we traditionally do this and then we will go through the people that have marked opposition. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Romine? Steven Romine: Mark Norris had to leave. Instead of reading this in, I'll just pass it around. Enjoy your next speaker. Robert Miller: George Fischer. And, then Bill Stewart will come forward please. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 15 George Fischer: Good afternoon Chairman Ripley and members of the Planning Comnussion. My name is George Fischer. I've been a resident of Little Neck for over 25 years. I live at 1261 Hebden Cove. I have not now nor have I ever been a member of the swim and racquet club and today I'm here to talk for Redwood Farm Civic League. At a meeting of the civic league on October 27 of last year, a motion was made to endorse the cell phone application of T-Mobile. After discussion the motion passed with over 90 percent of the member household were in attendance voting in favor of the motion. This past weekend, March 8-9 we canvassed the neighborhood to ask residents how they felt about the cell phone application. Of those households where someone was home, 92 percent expressed their support for the improved cell phone service and were in favor of the T-Mobile application. The residents of Redwood Farm strongly support the T-Mobile application 17 & 18. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Bill Stewart and if Tim Fincham would come forward please. Bill Stewart: Tins gentleman has to leave. Can he go ahead of me? Robert Miller: Who is that? Tom Dillon: Tom Dillon. Bill Stewart: Tom Dillon. Robert Miller: Certainly. Bill Stewart: Thank you. Tom Dillon: Good afternoon. I apologize for butting in but I do have to go. I'll keep this short because I haven't had lunch yet. My name is Tom Dillon. I live in Middle Plantation. I'm a ten-year resident and a nine-year member of the Little Neck Swimming Racquet Club. Before my wife and I signed the petition in support of these towers, we did a lot of research. We listened to our neighbors, both pro and con. We checked particularly the safety ~ssue of radiation being admitted from the towers because that was primary concern. Our children swim at the racquet club and we play tennis there. What we found frankly and what convinced us that this was not an issue was that cell on your hip is more dangerous than the tower at the swim and racquet club in terms of the radiation. The other point that I would hke to make is ~n terms of demand for cell phone service. Five years ago, my household we had one cell phone, now we have four. I got another teenager about ready to get one. The demand is only going to increase. And, like my neighbors I will say that Middle Plantation the service is very spotty at best and we need this technology. Thank you. Robert Miller: Thank you. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 16 Ronald Ripley: Thank you Tom. Robert Miller: Bill Stewart and Tim Fincham. Bill Stewart: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, my name is Bill Stewart. I'm President of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club, the s~te under debate here today. I'm also a resident of Bishopsgate, which is the neighborhood adjoining the swim club in back. I was the first resident of Bishopsgate, so I've been around a httle while. The swim club voted unaminously to support the cell towers. Our membership, which represents a good cross section of Little Neck voted 2-1 to support the cell phones. I'm very proud of the fact that our Board has presented fairly and accurately the facts about these cell phones. I have heard everything about why we should not have them. Probably the most absurd was that birds would be flying into them. I only heard one person who lives next to the swim club, who stated the real reason they don't want them. And, you heard this before, not in by backyard. Everyone recognizes and you heard the need for cell calls in the Little Neck area. But, everyone says not in my backyard. Unfortunately, that's not possible ~n L~ttle Neck. The area is just too populated. T- Mobile has done an outstanding job of listening to everyone's concern m Little Neck regarding these poles. They have attended over 20 meetings with various cimc leagues and groups to listen to their concerns. And, I have attended many of those with them. They tried to accommodate everyone. They've agreed to plant a number of new trees to shield the poles from public view so that the backyard will not be quite as visible in their backyards. The Little Neck Swim Club is a private, not for profit recreational club. We have operated in there for a number of years, unfortunately and not by choice, but the sw~m club is a jewel in the Little Neck community. We have recently completed as you saw on your tour a beautiful new building and a second swimming pool, which will be completed this month. I, along with many others have worked very hard to make this happen. I would not do anything to tarnish the nature of Little Neck. I do not feel these cell phones will do that. With the funds from the poles though, we can improve our facilities much. We can offer programs for the elderly, provide a physical fitness studio, which there is no recreation center, no City recreation center m the Little Neck area, have year round youth actiwties and perhaps attract more members. The club can become the recreation facility of our entire neighborhood. We have also pledged from these funds, a portion of our money to the Little Neck Commumty Enhancement Fund, which we use to financially support projects on beautification, safety and recreation in Little Neck. This should enhance the quality of life for everyone. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the fire station. I d~d not want it adjacent to my neighborhood. I did not want it in essence in my backyard. But, I'm here to tell you I was very wrong. Fortunately, the City disagreed with me and it was built and it is a tremendous asset for our neighborhood. Ed Weeden: Mr. Stewart, your time is up. Bill Stewart: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Thank you. Item #17 & 18 Vo~cestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 17 Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Tim Fincham and William Bailey please. Tim Fincham: Hello. My name is Tim Fincham. I'm actually the Director of T-Mobile in the State of Virginia. And, I just want to thank you for hearing this application and that I want to stress that we try to do everything we could to work with the neighborhoods to make this as good as an application as possible and I'll be available if you have any additional questions. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: William Bailey. Janice Alexander please. William Bailey: Good afternoon. My name is William Bailey. I'm a resident of Kemspville and I'm the President of the Virginia Beach Professional Firefighters. I think you're going to hear a lot of emotion from the pros and the cons on this particular issue. And, what I want to do is strictly give you some facts. Citywide, the cell phone calls to the dispatcher center for the 911 dispatch, in 2000 there were a 101,876 phone calls on cell phones. In 2002, that went up 10 percent to 111,865 requested 911 service by a cell phone, more than 10 percent of the entire 911 calls in the City of Virginia Beach Dispatch Center. I've heard from some of the residents of the pros and cons so I went up to the fire station and talked to the guys who worked up there. The fire truck has a cell phone it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Individuals there have cell phones. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's important to take into mind that fire station had 820 calls ~n 2002 out of there for residents of Middle Plantation, Little Neck Road in the wcinity. 458 of those calls were for rescue calls, heart attacks, strokes and things along that line. It's important to keep in mind that if there's an accident on Little Neck or Harris Road, we lobbied to get Harris Road w~dened because of the school bus accidents out there. It's important that the fire station plays a critical role in the Little Neck commumty. The members of the firehouse there have asked us to come forward and support this because they feel that the residents of Little Neck should have the same coverage as the rest of the c~t~zens cityw~de. It's important that in the event of an accident that time is of the essence. With the number of cell phone calls we have citywide, we don't have a record of the number calls that come out of Little Neck on cell phones for emergencies. I would assume there's going to be a certain percentage but since they don't have the coverage, obviously we don't have those records. Every minute that someone can't get to a phone because there are no pay phones on Little Neck Road and I don't ttunk there are many pay phones up in the Little Neck peninsula. I think ~t's ~mportant that we keep in mind our job is to provide coverage to the citizens, assist their needs and get there in an emergency situation rapidly as possible. The cell phone communication allows us to do that. And, with that I'd ask you to move forward with this application. And, thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 18 Robert Miller: Janice Alexander. James Alexander. Janice Alexander: Good afternoon Chairman R~pley and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Janice Alexander and I live at 1269 Southfield Place in the Redwood section ~n Little Neck. We've lived there about three years now and have been frustrated at the lack of cell phone signal. And, I tried to understand truly why the opponents to cell tower are so angry. And, given my background, I had to wonder ff they wree concerned about resale values for their properties. I realize that real estate is not an exact science but drawing on my 18 years of experience as a realtor, I'm convinced that if a effective buyer were not turned off at the prospect of buying one of those properties adjacent to the swim and racquet club, that the presence of the cell pole on that site wouldn't really deter him from buying an adjoining property. It would be more likely that lack of cell phone service would be a draw back, which might ~ndeed have a negative impact on value for many Little Neck homeowners. Recently, I asked the owner of one of the adjoining propemes if they were concerned about their property values if this pole were installed. And, the response and I quote was, "no, we just don't want to look at it." Well, frankly there will always be somebody who doesn't want to look at ~t regardless of the location. We desperately need access to cell phone service and I don't feel that not m my backyard is justification for denying access for the quiet majority of Little Neck residents. You can't please all the people all the time. And, I truly think that this pole ~n this place at this time really is for the greater good. And, I urge you to vote in favor of a positive recommendation. And, my voice is quavering. It's been a long time since public speaking 101. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: You did a good job. Thank you. Robert Miller: James Alexander and David Cooper would come forward please. James Alexander: My name is James Alexander. I live at 1269 Southfield Place ~n the Redwood Farms subdivision, which is in the cell phone black hole that we are discussing today. I had wanted to make several comments as a physician regarding health and safety ~ssues of not having good cell phone service, but most of them have been put forward to you. I would just like to add and it was mentioned that we have tins wonderful bike path and walkway that runs along Little Neck Road. Many people use that. We have an aging population. We have several elderly people in the Little Neck area who are encouraged by their health care prowders to get out and exercise. Many of them take advantage of this path way and you go by there almost anytime and see people walking along there. One of many concerns is if they had a medical emergency, what do they do? They can't reach for their phone and get a cell phone and expect to connect a call. It's a long way to neighboring houses. There are no pay phones out there. The other day we were going down L~ttle Neck Road and we came across an accident on the comer of Harris Road and Little Neck Road. We were about the third car on the scene. There was a two-car colhs~on. I got out to lend assistance to one of the victims. She was stall s~tting behind the steenng wheel of her car. The engine was still running. There was steam coming out from underneath the front wheels. There was a young lady standing next to her with her Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 19 cell phone, talking to the 911 operator and she was getting instructions as to what to do w~th this lady behind the wheel. If that accident had occurred further up Little Neck Road, she would not have had that opportunity. If it had been in our neighborhood entrance, it would not have been an option. Most people would not know exactly what to do when they come across an accident like that. Those are reasons why I feel it's very important to support the installation of the poles. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: David Cooper and Catherine Faulkner. David Cooper: Good afternoon. My name is Dave Cooper. I'm a resident of the Little Neck area. I've lived there now for 17 years. I'm also a member for the last 17 years of the L~ttle Neck Swim and Racquet Club. I have three points that I'd like to make and I think I can narrow that down to two to save time for all of us. Today, we talked about safety but the first one is what I handed out. You heard earlier from Bill Stewart, the President of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club about the Little Neck Community Enhancement Fund. This ~s an organization that will be created to share the revenue and the five percent of the gross revenues that come from the communication arrangement. We've estimated that to be approximately $80,000 times five percent. That gives tins Little Neck Community Enhancement Fund over $4,000 a year to work with and you can see by tins design that the purpose of this is for safety, security, recreation and other purposes such as beautification that can improve the quality of hfe for the residents in the Little Neck area. So, this will become an addendum to the lease. It will be created and the people who will serve in this organization are the presidents or a person appointed by the president or the Board of the Northern Little Neck C~vic Leagues, also, the Little Neck Fire Station, the Plaza Rescue Squad, the Lynnhaven District City Council, and obviously a designated representative from the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club. So, we feel that this is a good step to get some of that revenue in to the community to help. It might be the fire station that needs a $1000 for something very special that they haven't been able to get funded. It seems like money is a problem these days and it could be the police, so we want to do what we can do to give back some of that revenue. The second point that I wanted to make ~s to ask the Planning Cornnuss~on, prior to your final approval of the site plan that we would like to add some additional detail. A few of us have worked probably for over 12 hours in the last two weeks going over and scrutinizing the property from every possible angle. Bill Gambrell has met with two of the contiguous property owners and got some excellent feedback and we simply like to ask you ~f we could make some additional improvements to the site plan. I can go through about seven things quickly but to save time, we want to add some additional plantings. We want to add one entire line on the backside of the property. We feel that it's important. There are a lot of bare areas in the current vegetation that need to be filled. And, we feel like we could do a better job. And, I'd like to state that we like your approval conditioned upon the fact that we like to make some additional improvements on the site plan. Also, in Barbara's recommendation on Page 7, in the last paragraph it says, "in lieu of the landscaping around the exact facilities", we like to change that to Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 20 read "in addition to", because they agreed to do the landscaping around the facility as well. So, we need tins. I thank you for your time. Thank you. Robert Miller: Catherine Faulkner and if Dale Finocchi would come forward please. Catherine Faulkner: Good afternoon. Thank you for hearing this application today. I am Catherine Faulkner, a real estate manager in Virginia for Verizon Wireless, and much of what I would say, and could say has been said by Mr. Fincham and Mr. Gambrell. We are here in support of this tower. We have poor coverage in the Little Neck area. We have a large customer base and we do hear from them often with complaints on the coverage. The only thing really that I would like to add that's new is that Verizon sent out a mailing to our customers in the Little Neck area and it was a letter w~th a post card included. I believe the post cards have been forwarded to you. But, we received over 700 post cards in response to our letter. All of the post cards were in support of this tower except four. And, two of them just said no. One of them asked if the dues to the racquet club be lowered and then she would be in support of the towers. So, I was glad to hear that said. And, actually I feel like this is a good site. T-Mobile and Mr. Gambrell have worked very hard to include the residents in this design. It will be a very expensive site and one of the reasons we can build it is because there will be four carders sharing the expense or otherwise it would just be cost prohibitive. But, I am here for any questions and also our engineer is here if you have specific questions. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Dale Finocchi and Brian Miller come up please. Dale Finocchi: Good afternoon. I'm Dale Finocchi. And, I'm with SunCom. I'm the Zoning Manager. And, we're here in support of this application. We've been involved with it as many of the other carriers that are supporting it. And, one of those efforts as Mrs. Faulkner mentioned was to find out what our customers in this area really think. And, we did receive back and you have copies of those, 152 signatures on a petition as well as 165-faxed back, and actually that kind of response really shocked me because that is what most people talk about is the silent majority. We always know that there's a large amount of people that are supporting many of our applications but they don't take the time and effort to come out and express to you and I know that ~s part of your frustration. Many applications where you hear the folks that are agamst it or upset about it but you don't have a fair enough pulse on how many people really support it because they don't let you know. So, I was rather impressed that actually 165 people took the t~me to read the letter, fill out the information and then fax it back to us. And, that was from my perspective quite an effort. So, we do support this application. We have been in this area for a good while longer then some of the other carriers including T-Mobile. We have as some of the other folks have mentioned both a capacity and a coverage issue here. We need to get coverage in the Little Neck area but we also have a strain on our sites that are outside the Little Neck area and we do have customers on the fringes that do compete for those channels. So, this is a very, very important site for us. We have looked in this area. There are not a lot of options in it and we were happy to see something come forward and we're happy to be part of this application. As Mrs. Faulkner mentioned, ~t's going to be a Item #17 & 18 Vo~cestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 21 very expensive endeavor and it is something that is only going to be feasible because there are four of us shanng in its cost. Frankly, I'm a professional planner and I've been workang in telecom since 1995 and this is really, probably one of the most sensitive applications I've ever seen as far as being sensitive to a neighborhood and its concerns and how ~t addresses that. We can't make them go away completely but I think T-Mobile has done a job here that is about as best as anyone can expect anywhere. So, with that, SunCom hopes that this Commission will recommend approval of this application so we can provide the coverage to the over 300 customers that have expressed their need in here. And, I'm sure there are many more others. And, all of those responses did come from folks in the zip code 23452, which is that Little Neck zip code. And, this will help us to alleviate our need to have to go back in the L~ttle Neck area once agmn and begin looking for another site. We've been focusing in other areas because we understand the difficulties in Little Neck so we are happy to be a part of this, and if it gets approved to be involved with it. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Brian Miller and if Brenda Durden will come forward please. Brian Miller: Good afternoon Chairman Ripley and members of the Commission. My name is Brian Miller. I'm the former President of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club and a resident of 816 Prince Charles Court, Virginia Beach. I'd like to give you a httle history behind the events that brought us here today from the perspective of the club. And, knowing that, I'll follow your rules. I' ve scratched about half of my thing that I was going to read, so hopefully it will go through quicker. About 14 months ago, representatives from T-Mobile approached the club with an idea of placing the wireless towers on our club property. Club directors thought it would be a good idea and thought we had an obligation to present it to our membership. The process that followed by mutual agreement between T-Mobile and the club had been nothing but methodical and deliberant. There were numerous commumty civic meetings and communications and as club president, I can attest that I attended most of those meetings. The proposed plans that you have before were developed and changed facing the input we received at these community meetings. And, the input was hopeful at times and very good. Throughout this process, it was never kept a secret that the club supporting this proposal is contingent of its member's approval. So, on September 5, the club called had called a meetang to have this proposal voted on. Our members approved that proposal as Mr. Stewart said before by a 2-1 vote. I also wanted you to be aware that 70 percent of our active members voted on that and if you just look at how that rates with our votes here in Virginia Beach and if memory serves our last vote here on our Council elections was about 13-14 percent of our population who could vote. So, that is a substantial amount of people that came out to vote. The voting rules were clearly established on the ballots. We were very conscience about presenting ourselves ~n a very above reproach way. Our Committee Chair who is our membership chairman was Mary Vanson. We selected one upon it and one against. And, those votes were held in secrecy. Further more of the votes were given to a lawyer who was versed in constitutional law to look at the proxy's Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 22 and they are still held in a secured locked place where I don't know. But, lots of lobbying by opponents selling the worse case scenarios part~al facts ~n dealing with our community led to some of these comments and I know you heard some of them. And, some of them were the ugly towers would ruin the appearance of our community. The building suppomng the towers would stick out like sore thumbs. That's my own words. They were the choice of words submitted, proposed dangers to children. You already heard the property values. The L~ttle Neck Swim and Board Members were taking money or would benefit economically from this. Phone and personal door-to-door attempts were made by a well, organized group to sell their point, and using half-truths and innuendos. The factor ~n my opinion would probably be their best case. And, in my personal judgment I could understand their point. It's a valid point. But, no one likes changes. And, I'm going to be cut short. What I would like you to do is consider three things. Number one, the impact in the community; number two, the changes inevitable in technology necessitate change for our community; and number three, this has been a well thought out process and you might not hear it today but everybody has been well involved. And, the information has been at the fingertips of those making the decisions. I appreciate all your efforts on behalf of the community. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Brenda Durden and if Karin Fleischman would come forward please. Brenda Durden: My name is Brenda Durden. I live at the very end of the Little Neck peninsula on West Little Neck Road. My family has cell phone accounts with both SunCom and wireless. I have no coverage with either one. And, any time there is a storm in the heavily wooded area where I live, we lose power, we lose phone service on a regular basis. I have no cell phone service. I have to go out Little Neck Road between the swim club and St. Nicholas Church before I can get to bars to be able to make a call. I have two teenage drivers. I carry a cell phone with me at all times. And, it's really a problem not having any coverage unless you happen to stay home and your home phone ~s working. I would apprecmte it if you would support this. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Karin Fleischman. Karin Fleischman: Good afternoon. My name is Karin Fleischman and I live in the Kings Grant area. And, from what I can tell you, I've heard everything that I was going to say so I'll pass on to the next person. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Steve Fuschetti and and Dwight Handforth would come forward please. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 23 Steve Fuschetti: We actually have someone who has a commitment and needs to leave. Would you mind if went ahead of me, Blair Dunlap. Ronald Ripley: In support of? Robert Miller: These are oppositions. Ronald Ripley: Oh, oppositions? Okay. Robert Miller: Who is it that's coming forward? Blair Dunlap: My name is Blair Dunlap. Robert Miller: Come on down. Ronald Ripley: Sure, come on. Okay, we heard all the folks that are going to speak. Now, we're starting to hear opposition. Blair Dunlap: Right. Ronald Ripley: Yes. Blair Dunlap: I'm definitely in opposition. Ronald Ripley: Fine. Blmr Dunlap: Good afternoon. My name is Blair Dunlap. I'm a 16 year resident of Bishopsgate and I apprmse real estate for a living. I've been an appraiser for 26 years. I've appraised in excess of 6,000 properties m Virginia Beach. My job requires me to make judgments about factors that will affect market values of properties. It's not an exact science because the same factors will sometime affected different people differently. For instance, hving on a golf course is generally considered a desirable location however, some people are afraid of being hit by a golf shot would not buy property on a golf course. Some factors, however, are practically universal in nature having a negative effect on property marketability, and by extension, property value. Residential property is generally always negatively influenced by the existence of commercial property in close proximity. The commercial use such as the proposed cell towers would represent what is known in the appraisal industry as "incurable external depreciation." That's three minutes? Stephen White: You're fine. Blair Dunlap: Okay. Incurable depreciation is a type of property devaluation caused by factors outside the property boundary. Because ~t is outside the property boundary, the property is powerless to correct or address the problem. As you know, zoning regulations Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 24 are ~n place ~n part for harmonious use, which enhances property values. The enforcement of zoning regulations serve in part, to protect homeowners and revest in their property, whereas the properties in close proximately to the cell towers will be affected. All of the properties in close proximately. The properties most affected by the erection of the cell towers will be those that border directly on the swim and racquet club, 100 percent. That is none of the property owners that share a common border with the club favor the proposed cell towers. Their property will be impacted negatively not only to dimimsh aesthetics caused by the view of the towers but also by the perception that there may be health risks involved with living close to cell towers. I'm not trying to make a case about such health risks here. I'm only saying that the perception of such health risks particularly families with children is enough to significantly affect the decision to buy or not to buy property close to cell towers. The reluctance of perspective purchasers will typically lead to more difficulty of the marketing of these propemes ultimately the existence of the cell towers will often have a negative ~mpact on any offer to purchase these properties. It is not a coincidence that the people in favor of this proposal will not suffer any of the consequences of having cell towers close to their property. I'm in favor of better cell coverage in Little Neck as I'm sure most people in this room are. The question at hand should be, should better cell coverage for Little Neck be obtained at the expense of the property owners that live close to the sw~m and racquet club? When these property owners bought their property they purchased with the assumption that the swim and racquet club would always remain solely recreational. It's my professional opinion that these property owners will be unfairly penalized both in the enjoyment of their property and financially, and I respectfully request for the Conditional Use Permit for the cell towers be denied. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Steve Fuschetti and then Dwight Handforth. Steve Fuschetti: Good afternoon. My name is Steve Fuschetti. I am a member of the Little Neck Sw~m and Racquet Club. I am a homeowner in Bishopsgate. Since it seems important sometimes to establish our technology background, I'm also a President of a company called Infinet, which is a technology company in Norfolk. Not anti technology by any sense of the ~magination. I also, I guess according to Steve Romine, I'm one of the affected few, which was a new term category that I hadn't put myself in prior to this. I've attended many sessions where this issue has been discussed. And, I can certainly agree with one th~ng that has been said over and over today, this ~s an incredibly sensitive issue. And, it raises passion among neighbors unlike anything like I've ever seen. And, it raises questions among neighbors unlike anything like I've ever seen. I think it really comes down to two things. One, this is, in my opinion and also what I've heard ~n meetings where Barbara Duke was present, rather precendent~al in the sense that what we're talking about here are towers. It often starts these meetings by acknowledging how good the Voicestream people are because we now have people calling these poles as opposed to towers. They are 112 feet poles and they're replacing 20-foot wooden posts w~th lights on them, so, in our mind, the neighbors mind, these are towers. And, we are Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 25 placing them in the center of a residential neighborhood and to our knowledge that hasn't happened anywhere else. They have been on the peripheral neighborhoods. They've been in commercial areas but we have not seen anything quite like this proposal before. So, again it comes down to two things. One, the precendential nature of this so the guidelines that the Planning staff are using to even advise you are probably not quite adequate for a proposal such as this. And, the second thing is really from the neighbors and certainly the adjoining property owners, kind of a breach of trust and a breach of faith. We bought our homes in Little Neck because of the character of Little Neck. We bought our homes in Bishopsgate knowing that we were near a swim and racquet club and in fact endorsed being near a swim and racquet club but also knowing that there was a Conditional Use Permit that said that property would never be anything other than recreational. And, now if I want to be extreme, I could say that we have the beginnings of a cell tower farm. I'll leave that to you to decide how extreme that is. I also want to be sure that everyone understands that there is no d~sagreement that we would all like better cell coverage on Little Neck. And, what I respectfully ask of you folks and given the precedential nature of what is in front of you and given the fact that there is passionate opposition and you'll have folks here telling you how many names they have on proxy's and how many names they have on petitions, guarantee you that it's passionate and divisive. Given all that, I think there is a need for an independent.., may I finish? Ronald Ripley: Wrap it up. Steve Fuschetti: For an independent look at what it really will take to provide cell adequate cell coverage in a residential neighborhood such as Little Neck and that be done blind to the economic interests of those people who are providing the data for you because at the end of the day this is kind of a happy merging of a club that had poor financial planning trying to find a financial silver bullet and an immature cell carrier to this market coming in and trying to establish a footprint. And, doing their job and doing their job very well. Trying to get to the bottom line. But, I do ask that you at least defer your decision here until independent research can be provided to the municipality about alternative technology and sightings. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Dwight Handforth and Charles Pruitt come forward please. Dwight Handforth: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Commission. My name is Dwight Handforth. I'm a resident of Bishopsgate as well as a member of the swim and racquet club. And, before I get into my prepared remarks, I feel obligated to respond to a couple of things that have been mentioned earlier. Mr. Din, who asked is cell coverage going to be adequate in Little Neck and completely cover the peninsula with this, and I'll try to be brief. The answer is no. Ms. Durden who just came up and talked about being at the far end of Little Neck, this tower according to the propagation maps that you have before you will not change that coverage at the far end of Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 26 Little Neck. It is a possibihty that further towers will be put in or further carders will come and add more towers at the swim and racquet club or other locations. Also, they talked a little bit about light replacements for these poles. Understand this big fight. It's going to be this big and go 112 feet if this is approved. Now, I'm here before you to request that you deny this petition. There are three reasons. One, I think it goes against the deed and the intent of the deed. Second, it goes against the Planning staff' s July 21, 2001 study. I think there are some questions on whether it follows the ordinances specifically Section 232 of those ordinances. And, I think there are several alternatives that are available that need to be explored more thoroughly or at least information on why those would be worthwhile and known to all of us. I think that the deed the proffer three specifically states that it is to be for recreation. It goes so far as to specffically say the types of gymnasium and the light. To Mr. Romine, it's fight. It did not specifically exclude cell towers. I'm not sure that it was a cell tower when ~t first came up but it also doesn't exclude a used car lot and it also doesn't exclude a lot of other things. But, it does specifically say for recreation, gymnasium, racquets and specific ~tems. Also, the staff recommendation has proffer four being deleted. It' s in your packet. And, the reason for that is they say ~t is because the swim and racquet club has now been established as a recreation center. Proffer four specifically goes beyond that and states that if it ceases to exist as this it should also revert back to residential. By deleting the proffer from flus it takes away that portion of proffer four, which we don't feel, should have not been taken out. I go into the codes and the planning study and specifically 232, I think it's Sectmn 1 (4), it states that "we should at least attempt to put towers or cellular technology on top of existing buildings." I think that has not been fully explored. We've heard that the Lynnhaven Umted Methodist Church is not available or is not a possibihty because of various factors. I'm not sure its ever been explored whether they can incorporate an aesthetic pleasing tower in to the steeple apparatus of that church. And, I think that is a possibility that would fit w~th that section of Section 232. Furthermore, the planning board has put forth a study that the City in 2001 that talks on the northern part of Little Neck that they did not think that towers greater than 95 feet, I think it says 70-75 feet would be the norm. This clearly exceeds that by a substantial amount, at least in my opinion, a substantial amount. It also goes on Page 16 of that same study to state that as technology develops it would be possible to use light poles or telephones for this technology. I'm here to tell you that from everything that I've heard that technology ~s available today. There are several alternatives that are available. Ithtnk those need to be studied. I at least ask you to defer this. I recommend that you deny tins petition. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Charles Pmitt. And, I think that's Dr. Pruitt. Is that correct? I apologize. I didn't read the rest of it, and Kerry Caraman~s. Charles Pruitt: My name is Dr. Charles Pruitt. Mr. Chairman and members of the Comrmttee, thank you for listening to me. I'm an Emergency Medical Physician and an Injury Prevention Specialist at Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters. I'm also a property owner adjacent to the swim and racquet club. This is my home fight here. My Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 27 wife and I have lived on the beaches of California and in the mountains of Colorado. When we decided to have a family, we chose to come here to Virginia Beach. We chose to buy this home adjacent to the swim and racquet club. I found it frankly comfortable to live so near to a recreation center. I found it not a problem at all that the hghts were on until 10:00 P.M. It was actually somewhat in a sense of safety. I found it akin living next to a country club. I never in my worse nightmares imagined that two 112 foot and lets be clear, these are smokestack size towers were going to go up less than 300 feet from my back door. I would not have bought my home if I even considered this a possibility. I would like to speak secondly about the safety ~ssues. So, as an ~njury prevention specialist, I do want to touch on one ~ssue. That is the Consumer Products Safety Commission considers two issues concerning falls with children. Those are the height of the fall and anything above two stories or 22 feet increases the fatality greatly. The other issues are what children fall on. Concrete and stmcrtures are also considered very important issue when it comes fatality of falls. These towers, I suggest are an attractive nuisance in our neighborhood. To our children and adolescents in our neighborhood. You have 112-foot towers inviting adolescents to climb them. They are surrounded by concrete and structures. Children climbing these towers will fall and die. I would last like to address the issues of physicians in the area, in particular, the issues of 911 calls. We had one previous speaker mention that at most 10 percent of 911 calls in the area are getting from cellular phones. I would suggest that the numbers in residential areas are even lower. This is due to the prevalence of landlines and it is due to high speed multi-lane freeways in residential areas. 911 calls rarely come from residential areas. When they do come, they come from landlines. This is why we have a designated 800mh. I'll finish up. We have a designated 800mh frequency for paramedics and emergency service providers. I would like to submit a petition signed by 20 physicians and nine emergency medicine service providers including critical care nurses and paramedics, all in opposition to these cell phone towers. The last sentence in each of these petitions, and these are specific petitions. These describe exactly what these towers are. They are not general petitions that say are you in favor of better cell phone coverage. Well, everyone's ~n favor of better cell phone coverage. 1100 signatures that are talked about and that is what people agreed to and I would have signed that petition. These say specifically after describing the issue it says we don't believe that such towers would improve the safety of the surrounding residents or of the patients for whom we provide care. Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Kerry Caramanis and if David Bunnell would come forward please. Kerry Caramanls: Good afternoon. I'm Kerry Caramanis and I live on Beldover Lane in Bishopsgate. And, my property backs up to the racquet club. When I purchased my property I obviously purchased it with the understanding that the racquet would be there and it would be maintained as a racquet club. I'm obviously opposed to this. I don't want to sit on my deck and look at 112-foot towers everyday. I know that no one wants it ~n their backyard but I would say to you that the Commission is charged with mmntatmng Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 28 the integrity of neighborhoods and I feel very passionately about this that you need to keep that in mind and do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Dave Bunnell and if Michael Fick would come forward please. Dave Bunnell: Good afternoon. Thank you for letting me address my opimon today on this matter. I represent nine homeowners on Poplar Bend. I'm a resident of that street as well. My name is Dave Bunnell. Again, a lot of what I was going to cover has already been covered. We bought our homes there next to a racquet club because agatn, it was pretty. It was a nice place for our kids to get themselves involved in activmes. We never thought we would be faced with having to look out of our front yards and our backyards with two 113-foot cell towers. And, that' s how it really affects us. We are part of the affected few. We have no problem with improved cell phone coverage. My neighbors are all in favor of that. At some of the meetings we had previously to this, we have expressed to the T-Mobde people that alternative site locations need to be explored. If it comes down to the sw~m club being the only adequate site to improve cell phone servme in our area then we can probably accept that but we don't think that's been done. There are schools. There are city parks. There are properties that have all been suggested to the T-Mobile people at these various meetings. And, they never wanted to address the issue of alternative sites. This is the only site that will provide adequate cell coverage for the peninsula. That's not true. If the racquet club was not there, where would they stick these things? Ask yourself that question. Where would they put these towers? That is the issue. Alternatives, and they don't want to talk about it because they've spent a lot of money on legal advice to get this thing pushed through. They lobbied people all over M~ddle Plantation. Well, they're not sticking these towers in Middle Plantation. And, I guarantee you if they were proposing to put them there, they wouldn't of had all those people saying they are ~n favor of th~s th~ng because it's not in their backyard. It's not ~n their front yard. They want better coverage. Of course, we all do. But when you start sticking it in a residential neighborhood you're going to have some people who are going to be affected by it. There are nine families on my street that are affected by this. So, I'm here today to let you know how these nine folks and families feel about ~t. And, I think the Commission ought to postpone granting this waiver, or whatever we're granting here today, until they come up with alternate site locations. Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Michael Fick and if Steven Minnis would come forward please. M~chael Fick: Good afternoon. I also live in Little Neck Estates. And, Dave Bunnell was speakang for us as a group. I have nothing to add to that other than we are opposed to it. I moved here three years ago and had no idea that we would be looking at these towers. I appreciate it ~f you would not approve this. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 29 Donald Horsley: Mr. Fick, could you show us there where you live please, where the nine people who you are talktng about live? Michael Fick: Right here sir. Donald Horsley: Okay. Michael Fick: That would be my house right there. Robert Miller: Steven Minnis and Louie Gayton. Steve Minnis: Hello. My name is Steve Minnis and I reside at 861 Bishopsgate Lane. How do you work this? It's that house right there. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns about the proposed installation of the cellular communication antennas at Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club. In short, this is about money. It is obvious that Voicestream Communications stands to financially benefit due to the improved cellular coverage that will be provided to their carders by the installation of these antennas. The carriers will in turn benefit from the increased cellular traffic due to the ~mproved coverage. Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club will also benefit from thts commercial venture resulting from a lease agreement that will provide them with non- member funds that could be used to make many improvements to their property. The members would, I'm sure enjoy the benefits of these improvements for years to come. Everything comes at a cost. While the people I mentioned above stand to profit, the property owners that are adjacent to the club will realize the devaluation of their homes due to the aesthetic attraction that will result from these antennas that will tower over the surrounding tree line. I'm opposed to the installation of these antennas because I have a vested interest in the effect that it will have on the value of my home. It is a simple matter in my mind. The beneficiaries of the installation will not have to look at the finished product day in and day out like the property owners surrounding the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club. Even if the members of the club will see it as they visit the club ~t will be much easier for them to tolerate because after all, w~thout the antennas they would not have come by the numerous improvements so easily. Are there alternatives? As an electrical engineer in the communications and sonar engineering division at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, I'm aware that there are other methods that can be employed to achieve the coverage the Vo~cestream Communications hopes to provide its carries that serve the Little Neck area of Virginia Beach. I assume that these alternatives would require more planning time, more real estate, more permits, relaxation of zoning requirements, etc., and would overall be more costly while delaying the earnings that could be realized if the antennas are erected at the proposed location. Understand that I am not opposed to progress but it is clear that this is progress for convenience sake, not progress for necessity sake. Cell phones are generally a convenience that we have come to rely on and while I use one too, I'm not so dependent on them that I don't remember life before cell phones. I personally have no need for improved coverage when I'm at home because I use the landline in my home. And, even though that's the case, the existing coverage ~s adequate enough that I'm always able to connect. My point is that Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 30 the coverage is currently adequate. If the coverage is currently adequate, these antennas only serve to upgrade the ability for Voicestream Communications to make more money. I'm almost done. Put yourself in our shoes and imagine what ~t would be like for you to have to step out into your backyard and enjoy the view provided by the numerous trees on a sky blue backdrop or have the family cookout only to have it spoiled by the intrusive antennas. I appeal to your conscience. There is something wrong when those that stand to profit from this venture do so at the expense of the adjacent homeowners. It seems reasonable to expect the financial burden to fall fully on Vo~cestream Communications who over time stands to profit the most, not on the homeowners who stand to lose. Every effort should be made to find an approach that would be agreeable to the Little Neck community at large and not just a handful of people who because of their good fortune stand to profit at the expense of others. For example, this matter has already cost me four and hours of vacation time. Thank you. Robert Miller: Lome Gayton and Stephen Young. Louis Gayton: Good afternoon Chairman Ripley, I'm Louie Gayton, a 28 year resident and homeowner on the Little Neck peninsula and live in M~ddle Plantation on Glen Eden Quay. I'm opposed to the cell phone towers being constructed on property owned by the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club. I am not opposed to improved cell phone coverage. The L~ttle Neck Swim and Racquet Club is a private organization composed of approximately 500 due paying members. If cell towers are required in Little Neck I would recommend they be constructed on public land, parks, schoolyards or fire stations, all of which are located on Little Neck. I heard T-Mobile say that looked at alternative sites. Let's look at exploring new technology to promulgate wireless communication signals. In this way, the lease funds could possibly be used for the common good of all Virginia Beach citizens not just a few good paying members of a private club. I have two main reasons for opposing the poles being constructed, commercialism and the enforcement of present conditional zoning restrictions. If towers are erected on the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club, this is commercialism with T-Mobile paying rent for the land and subletting excess capacity to other carriers. Per Mr. Steve Romine, this is not commerciahsm, ff this is not commercialism, I'm not sure what commercialism is. The Little Neck peninsula is a lovely upscale, aesthetically pleasing residential neighborhood as reported in the Virginia Pilot/Ledger Star on September 2002. One major reason for this lovely neighborhood is the lack of commercialism on the Little Neck peninsula. We do not want a commercially owned camel with its nose ~ns~de our residential neighborhood. Number two, the Little Neck Sw~m and Racquet Club land is conditionally zoned for recreational use. This zoning was done at the request of City Council that was previously mentioned. Leasing land for the erection of towers is not recreational use of land. At present, the Virginia Beach Parks and Recreation Department does not permit new free-standing towers to be erected on their property that they control. I see no justffication for the Planning Commission to approve this Conditional Use Permit of a Conditional Zoning Change to permit towers to be erected on the privately held property. I urge you to disapprove this Conditional Use Permit and the Conditional Zomng Change subrmtted by T-Mobile, and to recommend disapproval Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 31 to City Council. We do need improved cell phone coverage but lets look at new technology and just not on the dollars today. Thank you for your time. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Stephen Young and Angela Hall. Stephen Young: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Stephen Young and I live in the Bishopsgate development. This issue was raised in the Little Neck area a number of years ago and was rejected then. Nothing has changed since then as to the appropriateness of the commercial venture in a residential area. It is unfortunate that economics, that is money, has again swayed a non-profit organization to attempt to ~mpose a commercial venture on a residential area. Homeowners have a right to expect the non-commercial aspect of their neighborhood being respected and mmntained. I employ you to support the Bishopsgate homeowners who voted overwhelming against these towers and reject this application. In addition, T-Mobile speaks of the process that they used with regard to getting the message to the community. My experience was qmte the contrary. I was given telephone numbers to call, and not one of my calls when someone did answer the phone ever return my calls. I do not believe that all less intrusive technological alternatives have been explored. Again, I request that you do not approve this variance. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Angela Hall and Jim Naylor. Angela Hall: Hi. My name is Angela Hall. I am an adjoining property owner. And, thank you for the letter to invite me to speak today. I do have a great concern as a property owner. And, ~t' s not just a not in my backyard situation. I love my home. My husband and I have put so much of ourselves in our home. We love it. Our living area is not just inside the house. It is expanded outside all the way to the fence bordering the racquet club, the front porch. Tins past year, we invested an awful lot of money to ~mprove our home to update it. That also ~ncluded landscaping with very defimte plans of additional landscaping on our backyard. I'd like for you to understand that our home ~s important to us. And, I know earlier today that somebody said that, oh, there is only opposition of a few adjoining property owners. We're important. Our home is important to us. The breakfast that we have on our deck, weekend, Saturday, Sunday lunches we have on our deck. Some our evemng dinners that really go all the way into the fall. We sit outside on our deck with antique candle lanterns. I try to cook and make a nice meal. And, we enjoy the fragrance of Gardenia and Jasmine. It's beautiful. It's just beautiful. I have to say that Saturday we invited Bill Gambrell to our home. I have also acknowledge Bill allayed some of my concerns. My husband has been involved in cell phone tower placements so he is much more ~nformed than I. However, I don't know ~f all of you members know this term "co-location" or "pole farm". This can be brought about by additional placement. Once we have precedent or you g~ve a recommendation Item 4/17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 32 for this, how can my husband and I have the City's support that it will never go beyond these two towers and as membership wanes and we all know that everybody signs up for the health club at the beginning of the year and they fade out after they're soar or golf season opens, they don't go. What's going to happen when the membership needs really to be boosted up and nobody wants to do it because now kids don't want to go any more. It' s nerdy to be at the pool with your family. We all know that's really life. Ed Weeden: Ms. Hall, your t~me is up. Angela Hall: Okay. My time is up. Please take it into account and Bill smd that it would spill over lighting. The better word is "Vulgarian." That light that Mr. Gambrell saw from our home, we even joked that we needed a visor in our house. It's bad and it is being a bad neighbor. We throw all the tennis balls back into their court. We do everything we can but I would like a few minutes. Please look on your map. Where you see our property is actually where the tennis court butts up to one home. There is no landscaping there. This racquet club stands to make an awful lot of monetary gain from this lease. The cellular phone company is going to stand to get a lot of new subscribers. What happens to property owner with their landscaping? We have even decided on a pergola to try and defuse some of the lighting. The lighting is atrocious. It is very invasive. One evening somebody was playing tennis at 4:00 in the morning. That's ridiculous. That' s being a bad neighbor. And, I feel that if it' s not going to stop and something needs to be addressed, I ask you to please look at this and have them come in and reduce the light height that is fight there fight now. It's not going to improve. It's not going to be easier. Ronald Ripley: Ms. Hall. Angela Hall: Mr. Gambrell said it would be reduced. But, I really want an assurance and I would like an assurance that they can never come back and ask for an additional pole and have a pole farm in our backyard. Ronald Ripley: Ms. Hall. Angela Hall: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: We'll make sure they readdress that. Angela Hall: Thank you. Robert Miller: Jim Naylor and Nancy Naylor. Jim Naylor: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planmng Commission. Good afternoon. My name is Jim Naylor. I live m Bishopsgate. I back up the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club. I've been in the Little Neck area for 13 years. I was attracted to the area because of the character of the neighborhood. The family friendly atmosphere and the school Item #17 & 18 Vo~cestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 33 system and those familiar with the area know there is no commercial development once you get pass the Home Depot on Virginia Beach Boulevard. The entire area is residential. There are a few churches. We got a firehouse and we have the sw~m club. I come to you today with my friends and neighbors for an attempt to preserve the quality of life that is attracting not only myself. But, most people, who have moved into the L~ttle Neck area. There is a proposal before you, that's attempting to change the original proffers that were approved by the City for the protection of the community back in, I believe in 1981. As a shareholder of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club, I'm troubled that the membershtp was never given an opportunity to vote on amending this deed. The only vote was a vote to sign a lease with Voicestream. I'm asking you to honor the deed not alter ~t. I'm not against improved coverage just like most people have spoken here. I'm agatnst smoke stacks in a recreation site that was designed and approved for fanuly friendly activities. There are activities that should be considered and there are other alternative sites that should be considered and other people have spoken to those. And, many of these sites don't alter the character or the atmosphere of the Little Neck area. The bordering properties, which were Bishopsgate and Little Neck Estates, overwhelming have voted against these properties. We don't want to be guinea pigs of this type for residential intrusion. Those in favor of the proposal have made the determination as long as it's not ~n their backyard. This ~s an acceptable alternative. Interesting enough, the City has taken the same position by not allowing cell towers on recreation parks because they are inconsistent with recreational activities but yet we are proposing to place them in a recreational facility. The appearance is that the swim club overwhelming voted for this proposal. I just want to give you a couple of numbers. There are over 900 members in the swim club. There are only about 338 that are paying members. Only if you're a paying member could you vote, 30 percent or more voted to abstain from the vote, so really when you get down to it there were a little over 200 people that voted for this. So, even if their numbers are 2-1 probably are correct, when you break it down by all the numbers you're talking about very small numbers. And, I d~d want to comment on that petition that was sent out that was asking people whether they were in favor of towers. Actually, the petition, I would think that you probably have in front of you had one question on it. And, the petition that was sent out to everybody really asked for whether or not whether you wanted improved cell coverage. Well, we all want that. We have an opportunity to serve a greater need by supporting alternative s~tes that will not compromise the aesthetics of our neighborhood and the quality of life in our commumty. I ask you to deny this Conditional Use Permit. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Nancy Naylor and Toni Minms. Nancy Naylor: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen of the Commission. My name ~s Nancy Naylor. I have been a resident of Little Neck and a member of the L~ttle Neck Sw~m and Racquet Club for 13 years. I come before you today to express my strong opposition for the proposed communications facility at the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club. As an educator and a lifelong child advocate, I view this proposal as reckless, child Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 34 unfriendly and one that clearly jeopardizes the safety of children. Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club is a family recreational facility that serves far more children than adults. This is a summertime haven for children, a place where children can enjoy a safe and healthy environment. I question why we need to sacrifice the health and safety of children for the convenience of wireless freedom. There are several safety concerns that must be addressed. First and foremost is lightening. Lightening is one of natures more deadliest phenomenon. According to the severe weather awareness website, every thunderstorm produces lightening which for your information lctlls more people each year than tornados. I am presenting to you a picture from a video clip of lightening winch hit a south tower in Chesapeake June 26, 2002. WVEC, Channel 13 provided me with this picture. Visualize tins within feet of a swimming pool. More troubling is the report that I have obtained for you from the International Conference of Atmospheric Electricity, which states the following. Measurements of lightening strikes to towers between 30 and 200 meters in height have shown that such towers increase the incidents of lightening at the tower location and that the probability of lightening to a tower increases roughly as the square of the towers height. This study clearly suggests that the livelihood of a lightening strike is magnified ten times over because of the proposed height of these towers. Common sense dictates that tall towers will attract lightening. And, the combination of water and electricity are a deadly combination. Another concern is that the current plan allows for 112-foot towers within 50 feet of a clubhouse and several feet from a swimming pool. Section 232 requires that there be a safety fall zone of 110 percent of the tower height from the residence. I'm going to finish. This is important. Shouldn't there be a stricter standard for a high. Ronald Ripley: Ms. Naylor, do you have a lot more to say? Nancy Naylor: No, I don't. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Nancy Naylor: Shouldn't there be a stricter standard for a high occupancy recreational facility. These towers will serve as an attractive nuisance to teenagers who frequent the pool during non business hours. The interest of this industry and the financial benefit to a private swim club should not supersede our ability to preserve the aesthetics of our neighborhood and to protect the safety of children. This proposal is reckless, dangerous and child unfriendly and I find it unfortunate that we have reached the point that we would rob children of a safe and healthy play area. Thank you. Robert Miller: Thank you. Toni Minnis and Bipin Vyas. Toni Minnis: Hi. My name is Toni Minnis and I reside at 861 Blshopsgate Lane and it's adjacent to the racquetball tennis swim club. I brought a picture of our home so that you can see and that is in the wintertime right around Christmas so you can see why the homeowners are concerned about our property values. From that picture right there, if you look at the picture the cell towers will tower over the tree line that is them. Being a Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 35 license realtor for 19 years that does affect your property values. Have you all been out looking at houses probably have passed a house that had a tall VEPCO towers or tall poles. There's people that just drive right by it. Don't stop the car, I'm not getting out. Th~s is going to affect our property values. We live next to the sw~m club for a long time and we are neighbors with them. And, we tolerated things like tenms balls in the yard and the tennis people getting upset when they miss the balls and you can hear them cursing. The parties at night and there are not a whole lot of them but there's possibly underage drinking parties at night and at 12:00-1:00 o'clock, they tend to get a little rowdy and that is not all the time. We have been good neighbors with the racquetball sw~m club and we don't want these ~n our backyard. We already compromised a lot with the racquetball club and this is where we want it to stop. And, that is all that I have to say. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Bipin Vyas and Mary Lee Wilkerson. Bipin Vyas: Good afternoon everyone. My name is Bipin Vyas. I live probably closest to the towers than anyone else. Robert Miller: Turn around. Bipin Vyas: This is my house right there. Well, anyway, I have three businesses in Virginia Beach and three teenagers in the house so I can understand the ~mportance of the cell phones. We are sharing a common fence with the racquet club and my house. In the winter there are no leaves on the trees you can see the whole club activity from my backyard deck and probably like more than live more than 200 feet from the tower. I strongly opposed these proposed towers. Those who are in favor of the towers would oppose the same if they are in my place. Since the club ~s benefiting from the towers when they are practically in my backyard. We have no problem w~th our cell phones and towers are going near our houses and those who are having problems with their cell phone service they will never get to see those towers. They won't have any problem with their property values. I only request that the C~ty Council to approve another location for this eyesore tower away from the development of new technology. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Mary Lee Wilkerson and John Walker. Mary Wilkerson: Well, I think I would say good evening. Your eyes are getting lazy so I can see how tired you're getting so I will try to be brief. I'm Mary Wilkerson. I live on Bishopsgate Lane, although not exactly adjacent to the club. I'm one of the charter members. My children grew up there. They learned how to swim them. Subsequently, we became lifeguards there, which are water safety instructors there. And, also they were lifeguards at the beach. So, I know what I'm talking about. I really do. The property is Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 36 one matter. I'm a teacher. I'm concerned about cbaldren and children safety. And, this neighbor just alluded to a lot so I'll try to leave a lot of that out. Lightening is my greatest concern. While my daughters were up there working one t~me, the hghtening was striking, she and two other lifeguards had to hit the ground. If you know anything about lightening clouds, you got most of the negative part at the bottom and then you got most of the positive at the top and ~t's hunting to make a connection to the ground. The connection to the ground that is going to ground it is going to be water. Where are children playing? And, this tower is this close. I'm thinking, come on people, these are our children. We don't put these in elementary schools. We put them on high schools because they can go on top of the building. Let's not take those same children and want to put that tower right over there, where those children are going to be playing. It's a dangerous situation. Every year or two, we know that there's somebody at the beach, very few clouds in the sky and what happens? Lightening strikes. Lightening has been known to strike from 20 miles away but not very often. Granted, ~t's normally 3-5 males away. But, even at that, try to get them out of the pool trying to get them corralled someplace else where they are going to be safe. That's a disaster waiting to happen. And, I'm very concerned about the safety of the children and the poles. It is known and I'll read to you what Norah says, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gives these warnings. There is no absolute safety from lightening. However, avoid being in or near high places, isolated trees, which by the way the big trees died away up there, shelters, communication towers and I fail to see these as poles. They're towers. Flag poles, light poles and other things of height. Now, that's from a very reputable ~nstitution here that's telling us this. However, doing a lot of search on the internet, I came across towers placed in church steeples. And, I wrote down one of them. Bell Mount United Methodist Church in Hills Borough Village in Memphis, Tennessee. If the technology is there you got several churches on the peninsula, Little Neck area that could be placed in their steeple. Number one, that would take care of the property value. I hope you do deny this. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: John Walker and Ruth Kral. John Walker: Good afternoon Chairman and Planning Commission. My name is John Walker. I'm a resident of Virginia Beach for 10 years and I worked in the wireless industry for 20 years, more if you include my time in the Marine Corp. I was contracted by the B~shopsgate Civic League to look at the plan and recommend perhaps, alternatives to their plan. I think everyone would agree probably the best cell site would be a site where we don't even know ~t's there. And, the question is that possible? Is that a possibility? And, the answer is yes. I believe a plan was subrmtted to you termed B~shopsgate alternative w~reless site study. And, in the plan you have examples where different facilities were used such as church steeples ~n Coral Gables, Florida; Newbury, Vermont, another c~ty in Vermont and other areas of the country. Technology also exists, which allows carriers to use one antenna opposed to two just mimmiz~ng one, the height of the towers as well as the need for multiple structures. In examining Volcestreams or Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 37 T-Mobile's application, I found no evidence that this was considered. I also found no evidence that multiple sites were considered either when I reviewed what was submitted to the Planning Department. I have before me an example of stealth tower that was designed in the Nimmo area of Virginia Beach. Mr. Din had asked a question, are there any towers that are shorter than the 112-foot height. Yes, there are. This one that was built and constructed by SunCom in Nimmo was only 90 feet in height. So, I feel what the need is for T-Mobile to honestly reexamine their proposal and for the Planning Commission to request T-Mobile to defer their commission to look at technology that is available currently that will meet the needs. One that will give the coverage citizens desire and will also rmtigate the opposition, which has been expressed. And, that type of plan is possible. I also request that perhaps that in the future applications by wireless careers that more information be provided so that those who are opposed can have a fair opportunity to present alternative plans. It was very difficult to examine the T-Mobile plan because much of the technical information that's required such as their equipment type, antenna types, power levels was not provided. And, that information is vital. If any sort of alternative plan is to be drafted. And, also I live in Larkspur. And, in Larkspur, we don't have good coverage either. I have had Verizon. I have had SunCom, I now have Sprint and I tell you I drop calls too. Because I really wonder if this plan is approved will these smoke stacks also come to Larkspur? I wish you to consider that please. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Ruth Kral. Donald Horsley: Your time is already up. Ruth Kral: Done already? Ronald Ripley: Stephen, on that again? Ruth Kral: Good afternoon. My name is Ruth Kral. I'm the President of the Bishopsgate Civic League. And, I'm speaking here in opposition. One thing that I wanted to point out is that I don't know whether or not you have seen a simulated photo of what the plan looks like and why so many residents are opposed to this plan. This ~s a simulated photo. It was not shown at any of the meetings w~th any of the commumty. And, I think the reason is because you can see how tall these poles are. And, Charlie Krumel, who ~s a former Planning Commissioner, is the individual who did this photo and he's opposed to the plan. So, that may explain why you have so many people who are opposed to it. I don't think from all the ~ndividuals that you heard hear speaking and I'm one of the last ones, a lot of what I was going to say has been said but nobody is opposing cell phone coverage. And, I think it's very easy for a lot of different people in the Little Neck commumty who are not directly affected by the detrimental ~mpact, to be for the benefits. Of course, everybody wants cell phone coverage but the aesthetics are problematic. And, I would like to refer to your own Comprehensive Plan for the Little Neck community. It Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 38 identifies as the first objecnve protecting the existing residential character of Little Neck. I do not think 10-11 story cell towers in the swim clubs parking lot protect the existing residential character of Little Neck. And, I don't know why you all would want to have a plan ~f you're not going to follow it. I would like to rebut something that was said earlier, not rebut ~t but just to clarify ~t a httle bit. The pool's talking about a 2-1 vote. Yes, I think it was a 2-1 vote. I do not believe that the numbers have been released but they are only approximately. It's a private club. There are 350 members. They have 70 percent voting with a 2-1 vote. We're talking about 162 private members. It's a boom for them. Of course, they're going to be for ~t. But, I don't think it's fair for the adjoimng property owners to be adversely affected both financially and visually by the pool's decision that completely disregards the property's intended uses, the current restrictive conditions on the pool. And, one of the things that in addition to the aesthetics and the other point that I wanted to make is that the applicant is required to submit substantial evidence, just a little bit longer. I'm almost closing, that no other alternative exists and because this is a precedential application, it's the first in the residential neighborhood. It's the first in the recreation area. It's the first next to a pool. I think alternatives need to be explored and I would encourage you all to do that and ask the Planning Commission to take a step back and take a serious look at how cell towers are sited in residential communities. And, I urge you to deny this petition. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: That's all the speakers we have. Ronald Ripley: That's all the speakers that have signed up to speak. We have two others over there that did signed up? Mark Norris: Mark Norris. I was here but then I had to leave but now I am back. Robert Miller: You already sent us a note. Ronald Ripley: We received a note from you. Mark Noms: Okay. Ronald Ripley: We received that. Come up please. Robert Miller: She could be in here somewhere. Ronald Ripley: Yeah. Could you please state your name? Kalyani Samudra: Sure. My name is Kalyani Samudra. I did fill out a card. I'm not sure why you don't seem to have ~t. Ronald Ripley: I don't know what happened to it either. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 39 Kalyani Samudra: Okay. Ronald Ripley: We have a lot of cards up here. I'm sorry. Please, go ahead. Kalyani Samudra: Okay. I am a homeowner of the adjoimng property. I live at 3113 Beldover Lane. As a homeowner, a mother of a young and a physician, I have many of the concerns that came p. I not going to belabor them. The aesthetics, the noise, the property value issue, all of those things concern me and I would not have bought my home two years ago if had I known that this might have been in the works. Secondly, T- Mobile says these are radio frequency waves that the towers would omit are safe, no worse than a microwave. But, how many of us would stand in front of a running microwave 24-7, 365 days a year for years. Intermittent exposure ~s one thing. Indefinite continuous exposure over the years is another. For the same reason why I don't put my two-year old daughter in front of a running microwave constantly throughout her child hood or place a cell phone to her ear, again, constantly, not for 18 years. I don't want her living next to these towers. And, I know that other homebuyers are going to have this concern especially with young children. And, they're going to p~ck someone else's house over mine. I also share a concern about the fact that the main beneficiaries are going to be financially the club and T-Mobile. To the detriment of my family, my neighbors and our community, please oppose these towers or at least defer your decision until other alternatives, particularly investigated by some independent consultants are explored. Thank you. Robert Miller: I did find your card and I apologize. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Well, I understand that is all the speakers and so, Mr. Romine, I don't know how you want to do this. Steve Romine: Let me take the lead and try to respond too much of what I just heard. And, if I omit some of the questions concerns, I hope you bring them up to my attention. We'll get those questions answered. And, th~s is not necessarily in any defined order but really responding to which I heard them. First of all, let me address what I heard from a few speakers that are in opposition to us regarding health concerns. As I indicated earlier, the Federal government regulates etmssions from these facihties and there's an MPE. The MPE ratio in this is less than five percent, which considers it completely safe. It's also a consideration that the locality can't really consider when they are placing towers. It's pre-empted by the Federal government with respect to health concerns but I did want to be respective and respond to that. I also find ~t precarious that Mr. Walker, who was retained I guess within the last 30 days to try and find an alternative site indicates that the school is a safe s~te to go to and churches are okay but the club is dangerous for children. I threw that out there for your consideration. I'm going to let Bill Gambrell discuss the issue about the precedence whether this ~s the first time ever these have been placed in a residential area. I think you'll find that ~s not true. He has some examples of that. I'm going to let him talk about the alternatives that we looked at on the peninsula to deternune why this ~s the best optimal reasonable solution that we Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 40 found. So, I'll leave those two things to him. And, I'm going to try and pick off some of the other issues that were raised. When you call back to about maybe two hours ago when I made my comments, these facilities are allowed ~n all districts w~th a CUP. They're allowed in residential districts. This ~s not a residential district. This is an 0-2 Office district. It's a 5.5-acre parcel, well screened. We have proposed to enhance the spill over light tremendously by replacing all the lights, which is a tremendous benefit to the adjoining neighbors. We're going to enhance the landscaping and we're going to add a lot of capital improvements to the club as an offset to a slight burden that we think we're going to have on the visual effect. There was another issue raised about commercialization. These poles are the nature of a public utility. They're not unlike the light poles in the peninsula. They're not unlike telephone hnes, not unlike electric poles. It does not change the use of character of the site. It does not change the zomng. The amendment to the conditions we made, three of the four were determined to be obsolete. Kay Wilson may want to address some of these issues and why we amended three of the four conditions that were on there. One condition that is remaimng, we just clarified to make it absolutely clear that we can install these antennas there. It doesn't change the use or character of the club. It doesn't rezone the club. 112 feet ~s necessary. It's the minimum height necessary because we have to get above the tree line. We're co-locating four carders, two per pole about 6-8 foot antennas, about a two foot separation and another 6-8 foot of an antenna. So, you have two of these poles that are going to carry four carriers. The bottom carrier if you do your math is going to be right at about 100 feet or so. The trees around that club are 65-85 feet, 65 on the Beldover side north on the Bishopsgate side about 85 on the Little Neck side. The trees on the peninsula can extend over 100 feet, 105 feet in some places, maybe taller. I haven't done a study. The point of the matter is for these things to effective this signal has to promulgate out over the top of those trees. That's why 112 feet was determined. We also narrowed that pole to 22 inches to make it as slim as possible and as least ~ntrusive as possible. We've made a lot of compromise. Everything is internal and everything is as slim or as low as possible. Let me alleviate the fear that people have about climbing the towers. Children will not be able to climb these towers. There's no physical way you can do that unless you do some act of a crane and you put it on top of the tower. There's no way to gain a foothold or a handhold to climb these towers. Little Neck Estate was represented today and I would like to address them quickly. They said that none of them were opposed to this apphcation. And, I am going to point to the photo simulation in a second because I think we have a battle of the photo simulation here in a minute between the photo s~mulation that I saw. Do I have a limit on my rebuttal? Okay. Let me wrap up real quick. There's no visible alternative. We did three tests ~f I would refer to your photo simulation, in the picture there are views from each d~rection. Mrs. Kral's photo simulation on a quick scale to that shows that it is ~n error. It ~s not a scale. Her math on the vote was off by about 18 percent too. I'd just like to point that out. Some of the active members did vote in favor. There's a letter in your packet about hghtemng. I'll leave that to you. Our last paragraph indicates that this will help dissipate lightening that might strike. We have sophisticated ground existent, more hkely to be hit by lightemng under a tree in that area or near one of the buildings. And, so I stand by for questions. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 41 Ronald Ripley: Let me ask you a quesnon. Steve Romine: Sure. Ronald Ripley: Lightening was raised and that's a safety issue. Could you describe the grounding? Can you describe why that grounding would be beneficial to the neighborhood? Steve Romme: I can refer you to the letter and I do have some of the technical engineers here if you want me to call one forward. I can call a construction manager forward and they might be able to address if you would like to hear that? Ronald Ripley: Yes. Jeff, are you ready to discuss that? Jeff is with T-Mobile. He's their construction engineer. Ronald Ripley: And, while he's coming up, the issue of climbing up a pole, how's the pole serviced? Steve Romine: I'll let Jeff address that as well. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Jeff Donovan: I'm Jeff Donovan, constmction manager for T-Mobile. Were in the State of Virginia. The concern you brought up in regards to number one, the lightening. We employ lightening specialist for two concerns. One ~s for equipment. We have high dollar equipment that makes the radios work, makes the cell site work. So, that is one concern that the protection of our equipment as well as protection of our technicians. Technicians will be the ones servicing the sites closest to the tower and the times that they are out are in txmes of storm when they'll struggle. The power outages and different things of that nature, so thunderstorms and lightening would be in the area. So, those are the two primary concerns. The general public is a concern but they are not m the immediate vicimty of most of the sites. So, with the grounding technology what we do is drive copper rods, steel rods well into the ground to divert the lightemng. Should lightening occur and htt the structure and divert it down into the earth where there is less potential and dissipates it ~n there. The letter from Emerson Network Power essentially states and there are many theories and many studies done on lightemng. What we do to protect our equipment is the radial affect essentially anything within a 45 degree angle from the top of tower is shielded per say from the lightening. Should lightening within the, for instance this case this 112 foot structure, should it occur within the 224 foot diameter, if it occurs w~thin that 224 feet, yes it may be attracted to the structure but it actually serves as a protection within that 224 foot diameter. It will take the lightening and divert it into the earth where it will be safe for a techmcian safe for anybody that happens within the 112 foot of the structure. Ronald Ripley: What is the 224-foot? Say that agmn. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 42 Jeff Donovan: Essentially the height of the pole is, if you take that and shadow it down, one to one is a 112 foot radius is essentially shielded from the earth being struck by lightening or a tree within that 112 foot. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Climbing the pole? How do you service the pole? Jeff Donovan: We service the poles with cranes and man baskets. Steve Romine: What's the surface? Jeff Donovan: Oh, I'm sorry. Ronald Ripley: No, service. How do you service? Because the question of climbing came up, which I've never heard that before but I never really thought about it. There's no ladders or anything on the pole? Jeff Donovan: On a typical structure, you will see bolts, ladders, some means to physically climb it without the means of a crane, man basket or anything else of your choosing that height. These poles will be slim lined poles. Essentmlly the only thing on it will be paint. As you get near the top, there will be fiberglass radio dome cover, which covers the antennas. They would have to be removed by a crane and then service personnel will have to be lifted by a crane and by a man basket to service the antennas. Donald Horsley: How often does that have to be done? Jeff Donovan: Very rarely in regards to servicing. We mention monthly maintenance. We do monthly maintenance inside the shelters. We add radios. We remove radios. We optimize the different things within the shelter. That is our routine monthly maintenance. We also go out to the site to make sure there is no vandalism. No rodents, anything of that nature. The antennas maintenance is typically, I would say once a year. If you wanted to average ~t out, twice a year for optimization if you wanted to tilt the antennas down, you need to get ~n there to tilt them downward, bring them upward some or even to physically change out the antennas should an antenna go bad. I don't know what the life expectancy is of an antenna. Of over thousands that we have, we may have replaced three out of a thousand. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? Joe, do you have a question? Joe Strange: Yeah. Did I understand you to say that the grounding mechanism would shield the area 112 feet from the base of the pole? Jeff Donovan: The main question ~s the height of the structure winch as many ~ndividuals are knowledgeable about hghtening or even kind of common sense says, you know something sticking up higher in the air, it may be more potential to be struck then a two foot tree that sits right besides the structure. So, w~thin a 112 feet radius of the pole, Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 43 unless there is another structure that exceeds the 45-degree tone, the pole is more likely to take the hit than the smaller structure beside it. And, should the tower be struck, the grounding system ~s in place to divert the energy down into the earth and not let it arch on to the ground, on to the water, on to trees, on to buildings. Many homes now they will put air termanals on their roofs so that if lightening should strike their home it hits the air terminals as opposed to it hitting the roofing and catching fire to the roof. So, the theory and the idea is to divert the energy into the earth where it can safely dissipate as opposed to creating an explosion or a spark or anything that could cause other hazardous conditions. Ronald Ripley: I think Mr. Din has a question. William Din: I've got a couple of questions. First, I don't see any pictures of the actual pole and the structure in the parking lot. Okay, you know, I see their picture. I don't see any pictures from you other than the picnic areas without a pole coming out. How is that actually attached? Is ~t an independent pole that's behind the structure? Jeff Donovan: The pole is independent of the shelter. The shelter is essentially just a building, a shed. Anything that you might build is s~milar and same construction that ~s used in that case, otherwise, it's actually more protective because they' re built more conscience to vandalism or storms and stronger construction. The cables, which go to the antennas, will be buried under ground in a concrete trough, PVC conducers in many different ways. Our proposal would be a concrete trough so that lines can be placed underground to come up in the foundation of the pole ~tself. The foundation of the pole is totally independent of the foundation of the building. William D~n: What's protecting the base of the pole from vehicle traffic or anything like that? Jeff Donovan: From vehicle traffic. Steve Romine: The poles are place off the pavement in the grassy area between the parking area and the fence, so the poles are not actually in the parlong lot. The vehicle would have to jump the curb and go about five feet. I presume you put protective. Jeff Donovan: Many things can be done. Actually the pole itself is similar as in a warehouse or in a parking lot you would put a steel bollard a post to take the impact of a blow. William Din: Right. But, I don't see any of that in any of the pictures that I see of the actual pole or even a schematic sketch of this thing. Bill Gambrell: I've got an actual drawing from the manufacturer of the pole and some of the other questions I think you have, I might be able to answer them. But, this shows that Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 44 the only difference in this pole that you will see is that this pole was an original pole that was proposed at 115 feet and the same manufacturer... Ronald Ripley: Bill, you need to speak into the m~c. Bill Gambrell: That's a detailed drawing. Each pole is an engineered pole specifically for this site. So, I think that shows a 115-feet. The height of this pole has been reduced. This gives you the schematic drawing that you want. Your question about the location of the poles is actually in the parking lot. I tried to develop a good picture for you but unfortunately, while I think th~s is fairly distorted, I didn't want to give you the same impression in the opposite direction. But, if you look at the picture that they gave you, this tree is 85 feet tall. So, this is 85-foot tall tree and this is a 35-foot tall structure, then based on the proposal, these would really be about this tall. They wouldn't be anywhere close to this height. And, the pictures are deceiving because and they would be deceiving if I even give you some and that is why I didn't because, the depth in the field just doesn't work very well with them. This pole that you see in this picture, I scaled it at a 105 feet here. And, this is a challenge. William Din: One of the things we're dealing with here is the aesthetic and what it looks like from various positions. You know, if you're in the parking lot what does it actually look like? What's protecting it? That is one of the concerns there. Bill Gambrell: It's a good question. William Din: And, I don't think this really shows me what ~t is going to look like in adjacent to this shelter per say. Okay. I don't know if th~s was brought up but you have two poles there, 112 feet tall, two users in each pole. Did you consider using one pole and maybe extending thxs one pole another 10 feet to put the other users in there? Why do you have to have two poles? Bill Gambrell: We were really trying to limit the visual intrusion that this was going to make. The goal was to provide for multiple carriers. Every part of th~s application was developed in concert and with sensitivity to 232. The increased height of the poles really became more intrusive in my mind as a planner. It's not ~mposs~ble to do, if a taller pole would be more acceptable, I'd suspect that the providers would feel okay with that but my sense is that minimizing the height of the pole, which has always been one of goals ~n Virg~ma Beach was an appropriate way to approach it. I would like to answer your question about 232. William Din: About what? Bill Gambrell: About Section 232 and questions were raised about whether this complies w~th 232. I think your staff has told you that it does. And, I can tell you that I am very farmhar with it. And, I can tell you that ~t was absolutely designed intentionally to meet all the codes and the reqmrements of the City of V~rginia Beach ordinance as very, very Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 45 best it could. And, I am sensitive to the adjoining property owners and that truly is why you have these landscape buffers that you got and the reduction in lighting that you have and the limitation on the height of the poles. The issue of whether these can go in steeples in Little Neck. If they could go in steeples in Little Neck they would be there if you could get reception. Churches can do that except for the fact that none of the steeples in Little Neck come anywhere close to exceeding the height of the trees. So, if you have one steeple across the street and I think Verizon or AT&T, one of the two providers d~d ask the church when they were doing the renovations ~f they could go in there. They did their radio test and it doesn't work. And, that would only accommodate one provider. So, then you have four other providers or three other providers cormng back and saying what about us. What are you going to do for us? And, that's why this apphcation was designed to accommodate as many providers as were interested. But the structures that are there don't work. We absolutely looed at it. And, ~f you have questions about the alternative sighting, I can address each and every one of them. William Din: Not necessarily the alternative sighting here. I'm looking at the aesthetics of this one s~te here. To me, one pole would be better than two poles. What would the height have to be in order to accommodate all the users in one pole? Bill Gambrell: I think the separation is generally going to be about 5,6, or 7 feet within the pole. So, if you wanted to put four providers in the pole, perhaps the pole would go up another 15, maybe 20 feet in height. It's probably more imposing to the site that each and every one of these poles also have to accommodate cable runs that go up in the middle to the antennas. And, that would substantially increase the girth to the pole. And, it would really make ~t more intrusive. The goal really was to minimize every part of this application. If I can emphasize one thing, in my role in this it was absolute trying to develop a site that really was considerate of the environment. You do have an activity center here. If you look anywhere else in the peninsula, I can't tell you where I have more concentration of activity centers. But, the application and that is why all the public meetings is why all the input was really trying, on my perspective to control the aesthetics. William Din: Well, I fully believe you have and everybody has put a lot of effort ~nto this thing. And, I appreciate your efforts and everybody else's efforts in providing the comments to you. And, I know you put a lot of effort in trying to accommodate all those. Agmn, there are options that people have asked us to look for, alternatives not only just sites. Bill Gambrell: I think I can answer any questions. William Din: Would you consider just this one site. I think originally, you proposed three poles on this site. It was reduced to two. I'm just wondering why did we go all the way down to one and maybe increase the height another ten feet ~f that is what it took. I don't know if those options were looked at because the aesthetics are a problem and people are concerned with the massiveness of two poles in this area. And, it just struck Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 46 me when I was looking at the xnformat~on that we had that we didn't really have a picture of a schematic of what this actually looks like in the parking lot. You know, this is an important aspect of it because looking at it from the neighborhood, wluch you do have pictures of. Looking through the tree, you do see that. If you're looking through the fence, there's nothing there. What does it look like? How does ~t protect? I understand. Bill Gambrell: In all of the poles and I'll ask everyone in every single pole that you have in the City of Virginia Beach, when you have a triangular installed hat, when you add that dimension to them, you get a much more intrusive look. The width of the girth of the pole, if you want to consider that impact on aesthetics, it's tremendous as well because the wider they get the more noticeable they become. So, that was really the purpose is to really try to minimize it. William Din: And the one question on hghtening. Is there an affinity for poles like this to attract lightening? Bill Gambrell: I'm not the expert but I can you that I have talked to police, fire and rescue people in this City and I can tell you that every single provider m the country has probably a million dollars located in the base of these antennas. So, the idea that hghtening strike is going to occur. They're going to protect that lightening strike and they protect it through the grounding. If there is anything that's probably more valuable to them as being the providers is the infrastructure they have in the ground. They wouldn't put poles up where they were going to potentially knock out a million dollars at a time. They're really very considerate of it. And, really the technology really takes the energy and directs it into the ground. As opposed to standing underneath a tree where the energy becomes part of the canopy. It's really an issue where your almost safer at the pole then you are adjacent to the trees. Absolutely. Wilham Din: The dissipation of the lightening into the ground is them an effective area around the base where it goes into the ground? Is there? Bill Gambrell: The letter that I have and I haven't read it so, but he says the facts of the s~te ~s to install towers slightly increase probability of lightening striktng the immediate vicinity realistically within the 125 foot radius of the tower. In addition, the power ground plan improves protection of the pool and other structures in the area if lightening occurs in the area, we would prefer that it hit the tower. This is from Emerson. They develop communication poles for everybody, T-Mobile, Voicestream or Verizon, all of the providers. I looked at it very carefully and I d~dn't take casually any of the comments that I received as I went through the public process. It ~s challenging and this is part of the challenge of the public process. In trying to make sure that you're doing an accurate job. This ~s accurate. So, a lot of the opposition, unfortunately that I feel like I have encountered has been because information isn't being provided necessarily by some of the folks aren't supportive of the application. In every instance, we tried to find the very best answers. Looking through Emerson, they are one of the largest manufacturers ~n the world. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 47 Ronald Ripley: Mr. Gambrell, I think Ms. Katsias has a question. Kathy Katsias: Yes. First of all, this was provided to us and of course it was on a scale like you smd but T-Mobile hasn't provided us with how the towers are going to look on the property. Bill Gambrell: I think Steve did pass out some photos but I don't think he did that. Steve Romine: Let me first respond to that. We have photos here that are from the manufacturer. They're kind of a different style. I'll pass them out. Here's an actual photo of the manufacturer. It's just a little taller than what we have on another application that it could look like. Kathy Katsias: My other question was in Mr. Walker's proposal or alternative study, he mentions steeples and putting the towers on top of church steeples. Can you address that? Bill Gambrell: I have a fair amount of respect for Mr. Walker. I worked with him when I used to a municipal planner. But, the proposal he gave you mixes things. In the first place it talks about shared antennas. I forget the name, metta antennas, none of them are stealth. All of them, from what I understand, 20 of the antennas themselves, 22 inches in width. That means you can need 12 of them in a pole to accommodate what you're getting in these two poles with two antennas. All of the alternative sites in particular with regard to these steeples, none of winch exceed above the height of the trees so your promulgation doesn't work. That's the challenge here is that you have a great canopy cover. And the RF engineers hke to call ~t clutter, but ~n fact what it does it dissipates the signal and it doesn't work. If they worked, I would be the first one here to tell you that you want these at a lower height. The existing lights in the area are 45 feet tall. If you could work them at 45 feet or 65 feet tall I would be here before you with an application that did that. I have personally looked beyond what T-Mobile has done to see whether or not I can find any apphcations that would result in that type of use. It doesn't occur when you have this type of s~tuation. They're very s~te specific and the canopy cover is really a challenge. Kathy Katsias: Thank you. Ronald R~pley: Dot Wood has a question. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Gambrell, I noticed that one of the speakers today said that these poles are not allowed on elementary schools. I know that we have quite a few of them on high schools in the City but are they allowed on elementary schools in Virginia Beach? Bill Gambrell: Let me see if I can get a picture for you. I can tell you that answer is that I don't believe there is an official policy. However, when the school board did consider putting commumcation faciht~es at their Ingh schools and they didn't discuss the issue of Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 48 elementary schools because there were no existing structures at the elementary school that lend themselves to it. The elementary school sites are quite a bit smaller and they don't have any tall structures so to speak of, but at Woodstock Elementary School you have one of the tallest towers in the C~ty. It was recently rebuilt. It was an ex~st~ng tower that was accommodate WHRO, which is a partner with Virginia Beach Schools and it also accommodates every other single wireless provider in the City. That ~s absolutely not to say nor are any of the other p~ctures I have that I can show you where these are located ~n residential zones but that's the optimal answer. In fact, the d~fference in this application and some of the applications, I can show you where there are tall structures commumcation facilities in residential neighborhoods and on public properties. They may not be the best examples, but they don't set precedence. They absolutely don't set precedence. They do set precedence it's a precedence for hawng a thin pole, a very, very thin pole, w~th multiple providers in it. The pole that Mr. Walker alluded to by Verizon or SunCom at General Booth is a s~ngle provider pole and is going to be replaced and it is in an area where there is no canopy cover. It is totally commercial surrounding the site. Ronald Ripley: Joe Strange has a question. Joseph Strange: Yeah. We keep talking about all these alternative places you might put them. How many places did you study? Bill Gambrell: These three boards and I'm not going to use them until you have a unspecific question about the sites represent the entire Little Neck peninsula. This will take you from the 7-eleven at Kings Grant or a little bit closer to the Boulevard and take you all the way out. The large drawing that I have is probably easier to work from but the individual drawings have some ~nformation, much of the information that the individual drawings are going tell you is like with the school site that I mentioned to you earlier. It would put these tall structures ~n the middle of a playing field. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Gambrell, can you pull that mic over to you a little b~t? Bill Gambrell: I'd rather speak to this larger drawing which shows the entire peninsula. And, I can speak to the various sites ~n the peninsula. And, I can tell you that even before I was hired to work on this application, I had the luxury of riding around the City of Virginia Beach ~n the Little Neck peninsula, probably more than most people. I worked for a while doing Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area work and I can tell you countless variances that I worked on ~n the peninsula, so I'm really famihar with the peninsula. Th~s map shows the entire peninsula. When you get south of this area here you start to get coverage from the tower that's located behind the Sam's Club. So, you really are getting into this area before you start to find a site that's not going to conflict wah what you have here. We specifically looked at the baseball fields here at Kings Grant Elementary School because they had tall structures. There are light poles over there. An application over here would drive the height of the tower up to 135 or 145 feet at best and there would still be overlap. So, as we looked, I looked at Brill F~eld, I looked at Kingston Elementary School and I showed you my reasoning for why that wasn't an Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 49 appropriate site. It's wide open. You will put communication facilities if they meet, and this is important. Remember when I said these are very sensitive to all the roles and requirements that we have in place today. So, if I meet all my setbacks like this application does I'll be in the middle of Brill Field. If I go over here to the park site, which is north of the racquet club site, I have a park site, by the way I have picture of park sites that have communication facilities in them as well in the City and other cities. Most of the time the only t~me they've been approved is if there is an existing structure there that you can attach to. They don't become a greater nuisance they are just simply part of something this already existing. And, that is the rationale here. Is that the intrusion that the people that surround this club have is a very, very active activity center. Very bright and as Mrs. Hall said, it is Hollywood when you look out her window. And, that is a great benefit when you see the reduction of light going 85 percent down and all the lights can be directed to the ground. We looked at the park site and the park site presented some of the same challenges you have here. And, yes you could probably meet the setbacks, however, you're going to be close to these people's property or you can be close to these people's property. You're going to have to cut down a lot of trees and the issue of whether or not you can climb towers. If you're really, really a genius and your out in the middle of the woods and you can't be seen, you might be able to find a way to shimmy up these towers. In an actiwty center like this these poles are very special. They don't have climbing rods on them but if you're out in the woods and you were away from people you might find a better opportumty for vandalism and you may find a better opportumty to try to climb the poles. So, as you go up the Little Neck peninsula, the other site you have, you have the Little Neck Methodist Church and I explained to you that we discounted that site for a couple of reasons. The Fourth District Court of Appeals made an argument that said that localities have the right to their own land use decisions when it comes to these things. It was a rezoning. There were thousands, not thousands, literally an entire peninsula that was opposed to an application there and it really just didn't make a lot of sense to go back. But, it also didn't make a lot of sense to go back and ask for an apphcation and a variance to the Resource Protection Area. So, then as you go further up the peninsula you find on Harris Road. Again, you're going to end up trading your situation. You're going to continue to have neighbors. Some neighbors are not going to like the idea of having taller structures around. If you go to Harris Road, I can't make my setbacks and I got Chesapeake Bay impacts. The individual maps that I made for you will show you where the Resource Protection comes in and will show you where the other adjoining propemes are. As I go further up Little Neck, I get to Sycamore Road where there was an old veterinarian. It's under development. Ken Olive said you are able to buy lots there for about $400,000 a piece. There is no place on that property that wall meet the setbacks and it won't be smack down in the middle of residential with no activity center at all as you have w~th the club. As you travel up further you have the park here the tennis courts are on, it to is entirely eaten up with resource protection area and it too can't meet the setbacks from adjacent residential homes. When you get far up in the peninsula, even though there's still nothing else up there for you to be able to get to that would be either not Chesapeake Bay impacted or not impacted by not being able to meet the setbacks from adjacent residential homes, you also have the problem of overlapping with the service that you get from the Harbour Gate Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 50 Towers or from the towers you have over there on the condominiums on Shore Drive. Every conceivable site I looked at presented challenges. This site that we have in front of you today presented challenges as well. But, there seemed to be mitigating circumstances that make this the most appropriate site considering all the rules that we have in place and considering the impact on the surrounding property owners and trying to accomplish a service that the providers have. I looked at every single property that there was to potentially look at and tried to find why ~t would or wouldn't be a good site. I won't tell you that there aren't other sites that are there. I will tell you that there are other sites that are there that are going to bring to you the same type of dissention or challenges that you've been presented with today, every single site. Ronald Ripley: Any other questions of Mr. Gambrell? Donald Horsley: I've got one. Go back over the park. What's the reason why you couldn't go to the park? Bill Gambrell: This park right here? In order to meet the setbacks from the residential, to meet the setbacks from the road, I would have to be almost in the middle of their play area on this site and I'd have to cut trees. And, I have a situation where I already have the communities out here paying for hghts to go out because they have vandals out there because it is not a very active place. So, it's hard to meet the setbacks. I'd have the adjacent property owners that maybe weren't favorable to the idea in the first place and it really was a more passive area park. It's unlike the park that you have ~n Kemspville, there's a major power transmission line that runs through and you have four providers on the tower for that. It's very, very different. But, that was the discounting of that. And, you can see ~t's a irregular shaped parcel so that down here at the tip you don't get anywhere close to being able to meet your setbacks. As you get ~nto the center, we already have an activity area and then you go over here and you're closer to the homes. And, again, I'm afraid that I would bring to you a different set of residents who will tell you, "oh my gosh, not here, not in our community park." I mean it's a real challenge. And, I do appreciate all the people's concerns that aren't supportive of it and I told them that from the very onset. And, I also told them that if there is anythxng that you can recommend to me, and Tim Fincham from T-Mobile has said tlus countless times, ~f there's anything you can recommend. Any better situation that really addresses all the needs we will absolutely look at it. And, that has been the case, absolutely has been the case all along. Donald Horsley: I have one follow up. Can you come with a picture that you can show us what it will look like in that parking lot? This is their version. Can you give us a diagram? Bill Gambrell: I would cut down half the distance and maybe that would be what they look like. They really appear to me to be 200 feet. I know they weren't done ~ntentionally wrong but like I said, the clubhouse ~n that picture is I th~nk is about 35 feet. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 51 So, if you take the height of that clubhouse and you multiply it by three, that's going to put you where the height of these towers are and that's about how thick they are. Kathy Katsias: Bill, do these pictures depict the towers in the back? Bill Gambrell: Yes ma'am. And, actually those pictures are a result of balloons that were flown in the air and that shown the actual height and where they would be when the towers were constructed. Kathy Katsias: They look like trees. Bill Gambrell: Many of us are not going to notice this application ~f and when it's approved. Some people are going to hang on it. But many people who think that there's a challenge with it now like those people who thought there was a challenge with the Lynnhaven Umted Methodist Church will probably say, "they're not so bad." But, that's absolutely the intention and the design. Yes ma' am. Janice Anderson: Bill, how large is that elementary school field? Bill Gambrell: Brill Field. Janice Anderson: Is that rather large? Bill Gambrell: I'm going to guess that the school site itself looks like its about 20 acres. Janice Anderson: 20 acres. Bill Gambrell: Of which all of tins portion is dedicated to building parking areas in this portion, which is open. And, again, I would be pushing these stmctures close to these homes with no backdrop. Ronald Ripley: No trees on that field. Bill Gambrell: No trees. And, the trees really do provide a visual barrier. If you look at the facilities throughout the City and you see a backdrop of the trees, it really does help them tremendously. There aren't any trees. There's nothing to obscure the visual there. Ronald Ripley: Dot? Dorothy Wood: I think Mr. Fuschetti would like to say sometinng. If he has something different, I will certainly sponsor him. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Well, lets finish with tins first. One second. Robert Miller: One of the things that ~s obvious is that you have put these towers in a Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 52 location of the site that is favorable to the location of the facilities that are being built for the club. They could have put on another location on the site, somewhere else that would have still been 200 feet away from houses. Right? Bill Gambrell: Yes sir. Robert Miller: So, they could have been put closer to the road or something like that? Bill Gambrell: Yes sir. Robert Miller: Did you all look at that and discuss that too? Is there further reasoning besides the actual? Bill Gambrell: The goal was to meet setbacks. The goal was to try to make sure that they were outside the activity areas. As we went to the pubhc meeting, originally they were not outside the activity areas and that was something that came fairly clear to us that they were concerned about it being in the activity area. They were concerned about it because some folks are concerned about the health affects associated with telecommunication facilities and some folks are just concerned about the fact that technicians would be walking in and out of the site. So, they were located there for that purpose. I can tell you if there is a better location on this site that meets everybody's interest they could be moved, absolutely. Robert Miller: Well that is what I was leading to. If you looked at other locations, none of those were down the furthest analysis you did on this. Bill Gambrell: Correct. Robert Miller: I'm not sure they meet anybody's favor. Ronald Ripley: Bill, thank you very much. Now, there's a gentleman back there. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Fuschetti. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Fuschetti wants to make another comment. And, I assume this is new information? Steve Fuschetti: I'll let you be the judge of that. I was just sitting here listening to this. I just tlunk it's very ~mportant for you to understand that the photos that we provided were done by Charlie Krummel. These were photos that were done and obviously by someone who we asked to do ~t but someone's who integrity is beyond anyone's doubt here. I do want to underscore that fact that whether our photos or their photos or our statistic or their statistics will say whatever they say, the ~mportance of getting an independent wew of how to get cellular service into a densely residential area that has no apparent Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 53 commercial value is so obvious to me as we listen to this, I thank you for your patience in allowing me to point that out again. But, it is critical to this. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Okay. That's a quite long discussion there. Anybody want to make any comments here? Robert Miller: I'll start. Ronald Ripley: Step up on the box. Robert Miller: Sure. Have no fear. How long have we been here? Ronald Ripley: This has been a pretty long application. Robert Miller: I know that we got here nine this morning. Ronald Ripley: I don't mind but we have two more items to deal with too. Robert Miller: Yeah. I think the difficulties that we're hearing from everybody without disrespect to the people's statement either for or against are somewhat redundant and repetitive but they've been said and they've been said and they've said. And, not that they haven't been said well, I think they've been said well by both sides. I can't help but look back to the United Methodist Church and think we pushed and smd that looks like a good decision, let's go that way. That obviously did not work out. There was a tremendous amount of opposition to that. If you go forward with this and if we were to make a recommendation to go forward, I would anticipate perhaps a similar result. It just doesn't feel and fortunately you get a whole lot better just because each time you tried to put somethtng in Little Neck and I live on Brea Road and my cellular phone service isn't very good. Bill, I don't know it's not good over there but your map says, it's suppose to be alnght. I didn't mean to do that to hurt you in anyway. I apologize if I did. Mostly, my feehng is that no matter where we put these poles or suggest that these poles be placed after the study of the study of the study that might be the study of the original study, we'll still be at the same answer. A lot of people may or may not like this and I think what we found out over the years that I've served on Planning Cornrmssion and watched City Council is that our favorite answer is go to water towers and go to Virginia Power poles and to go to schools with the athletic fields where we' re able to put these tower sites. If you really stay there and look at them, they're intrusive when you stay there and look at them in most cases but at least we feel like people are looking at a water tower so they can't see the antenna perhaps. And, as an engineer I can flunk you can always stand there long enough to see the problem that perhaps you're looking for. I would wish there was an exact place on Little Neck that would say, "please, put it here, put it on top of my water tank." I was just thlnlong that we don't want to recommend a water tank out there. Clarence Wamstaff saw me earlier and said, "make sure you take care of my neighbors" and he didn't tell me which one of his neighbors I was suppose to take care of though so I'm in a little bit of a conundrum figuring out which one of you are Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 54 his exact neighbors. I don't feel like if we're going to debate tins and move it to three or more sites, I don't feel like we're going to come to any different end then this is going to be in a place that someone is going to say, "not here, not now, not ever." So, I think the choice is pretty simple. Either we provide cellular service to that peninsula or we wait until, as some people had said, "there's some other technology" through satelhtes or other possibilities. I'm not that kind of engineer. People think that because you're an engineer, you're suppose to understand, how to fix cars and do all kinds of things, and I don't know how to do any of those things. So, I don't know what the technology is that is going to answer it. I know that on top of my building I now have a broadband antenna, little tiny thing like that and it sends all my, and instead of a T-1 connection. I now have that. I don't exactly know how all that works but it seems to work fairly effectively. I'm sure there are technologies that are coming along and if we wait long enough perhaps there won't be any towers. But, I also know and I occasionally talk to some of the students at ODU and some other places and engineering students that one day we may be ZBOTS. And, I love using that term because they all look at you and frown and think, "what is he talking about?" Because they are sure they know everything about whatever there is that's going on and when I said something like that I like to surprise them because it doesn't exist. It's just something that you put on our belt and you push a button and you levitate 12-15 feet in the air. You don't need cars anymore. So, I suppose someday we won't need cars but right now we need cars and we need roads and the government thinks we need to fix the holes m the road. I honestly do not we can study this thing beyond a reasonable point and find an answer that some of you, may be ~t would be this group sitting over there next. I don't know, which one of you is Clarence's neighbors and that group will be sitting over there and you'll be against it and you'll be for it. I think I'm out of gas with this thing and no sir you can't come back up again. We're just running off at the mouth now because we get to talk and I get to go first. Well, you don't have to. I already answered my own question. My answer to the question is that if can move it to a better place on this site then I'm also in favor of that if it would help the neighbors in some way, shape or form. I'm going to support the request to put it on this site. Send it forward. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Din, do you have a question? Wilham D~n: I guess I have a comment also. In a lot of ways I feel the same way has expressed his comments. I think we need to come out with a win-win out of this thing. I think there are a lot of people on both sides of the fence who want the service, who need the service and people who want the service but don't want the poles. I don't think there's anybody, out here in this room that debates the fact that this area, is under served of cellular service. And, it's really a debate as to where are we going to put these poles. Eventually these poles are going to get someplace. I think my concern is to make sure wherever we pick a site that it's adequate to supply enough service for th~s area and not to have to go through this evolution again if we can avoid ~t. I object to two poles to maybe one pole rmght be less objectionable. I think the proliferation of cell phones is evasive into everybody's life even at this meeting, I've heard several cell phones go off. I really don't think ~n residential area it is needed as much as ~n commercial area. And, I Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 55 do believe that in some instances that this is a commercial invasion of a residential area. I'm heartened by the fact that the funds that are being shared here will help the neighborhood through the Little Neck Community Enhancement Fund. But, I think and I don't want to look for a temporary fix here. I want to look for a fix that will help everybody ~n this area and help the City and help the neighbors live with each other. I think what's mostly impacted here are the neighbors who are around this site. We've heard from several of those neighbors who actually along the fence line who really object to this. I think they honestly feel and tightly or wrongly they will be impacted the most with property values, resale values of their homes. And, I think they are the most affected on this. A lot of the people I've heard who want the service probably don't live in this area adjacent to the area that won't be visually impacted by it as much. So, I think we have to listen to adjacent property owners. I have some reservation that this is an intrusive area as far as the maintenance of this area of the poles go. I believe that there is some noise issue. I think there are some vehicle issues. With that, again, like I said I don't want a temporary fix here. If narrowing this down to this site is the site, my recommendation is to one pole. Maybe it has to be ten feet higher. It's only one pole. So, my point of view here, I don't think I'm going to support this because of the issues that I see that there is some reservations that this is a temporary fix that there should be some other option out there that we should be able to consider. And, I don't think we've been presented that so, with that, I probably won't be support this. Ronald Ripley: Don Horsley has a comment and then Dot Wood. Donald Horsley: Well, I didn't know that the upper pomon of the City was deprived of something as the rural area but we don't have phone service either. We have cell telephones and we become very dependent on those things and when you get involved in a business and you get a call and it's breaking up and you can't hear, you get very ~rritated. I know I do and even where I live in Blackwater and every once in a while I'll get call through but most of my stuff goes through to voicemail and then I spend an hour hstening to voicemail and I have to go to the house to do that on the other phone because I can't use my phone to get my voicemail. So, I can understand the frustrations that people have with using ~t. A lot of times we fear the inevitable and I have a lot of faith that the folks that have explored this site have looked at a lot of different places in that area. And, we've heard tower applications before and the tree issue is the big issue. If we can find a grove of trees, that's the best place to pursue to put a tower. It looks like that this is the best place that they've been able to come up with ~n this area. I plan to support this. I think they've done an excellent job on trying to calm an issue that I think in the long run everybody will benefit from it's not just one group. And, I guess for those reasons, I think the safety ~ssue, you know everybody's concerned about children and safety and whom do you put your belief in? We got one letter that says that these towers are completely safe and then we got the idea that says they're not safe. But, I got a feeling that if people are going to invest this kind of money they're not going to do it on something in an area where they know they're going to have kids involved that's going to be unsafe and I put my belief in that, so, I'm going to support this effort that they're coming out with. The only thing that I would of liked to have seen would have been Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 56 these pictures that Will had asked about earlier on what would it look like. And, maybe because we don't' know actually what it's going to look like and maybe we're better off if we don't know if ~t's the right thing. We've got to wait and see the real thing because if we're given a picture and says that this what the utopia is and it doesn't look like that then everybody's mad. So, I think unless we really know what ~t's going to look like we're better off and I appreciate that effort from them. I think the applicant's been very frank in his comments and I think they've done a good job of looking around and moving these poles around the site to meet the setbacks and get it out of the activity area and I think the racquet club whether you think it's a monetary gain for them or not, I think it's a good gain for the community to be able to benefit from the lease of the sites. But, I do plan to support the application. Ronald Ripley: Dot? Dorothy Wood: Thank you. I appreciate the concerns of the possibility that the towers can be, a lightemng magnet and that the light poles have a possible affect on the health of children. Because of these concerns, I've carefully studied the reports and in particularly a letter by Mr. Neal Rose, who's V~ce Chairman of our School Board and I think he's also an affected resident. I would like to quote Mr. Rose and he said in his letter that, "he was sure that parents would take their children out of harms way if lightening is in the vicimty. And, then if the parents are not at the pool, the hfe guard such as Mrs. Wilkerson's children, I am sure will also remove the children." I think the sun from Mr. Rose that the sun offers much more of a health hazard to the lifeguards and to the children swimnung then any possible radio waves. I support this application for several reasons. The first ~s the safety. We had Mr. Bailey from the Fire Department tell us how the fire trucks can't receive calls w~th their cell phones in this area. I read this morning the USA Today how many calls now that so many emergency calls are coming from cell phones. I hope that the application will not adversely impact the neighbors and their real estate values. We heard two different sides today. We've heard neighbors say that the values will be adversely impacted because of no cell service. And, then we hear neighbors saying that the cell service towers will affect theirs. One lady was talking about the light that's coming from the towers now, the present light poles in her house and I believe from what Mr. Gambrell said that the new lights will have less impact on her. Many of these homes I've heard the neighbors say were purchased near the recreation center and I've heard several people say that this was a problem to them with the tennis balls and the loud noise and the parties. I don't think this is going to change at all because of the cell towers. It has been developed with an enormous community participation to try to move tins someplace else will just result in a different set of neighbors who object. The club is on a large parcel and the application meets all the City's reqmrements. The cell poles are well screened and the applicant has committed to making significant capital ~mprovements that will further benefit the community, installing new lights to minimize the light pollution. And, I understand they are going to remove some of the impervious parkdng surface and replace it with green space, which will ehminate parking next to the neighbor's houses. I think the neighbors that are ~mmediately adjacent to the club will benefit as well from the s~gnificant reduction in Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 57 light glare. It is clear that the club's trying to be a good neighbor and the applicant has gone out of his way to work with the commumty. Good people can certainly disagree. I have a great deal of respect for a lot of people I've seen here today. Mrs. Kral with her work with the Gift Scouts. Mr. Miller with his work with the students ~n Princess Anne H~gh School and also he's one of the soccer coaches. I see other people here in the neighborhood with both sides are wonderful neighbors and have done a lot for the community. I am certain that if it is the will of the Planning Commission to move this application forward, there will be no negative effects to the community. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Yes, Janice. Janice Anderson: I'd just like to make a comment on the application. I think the applicant has done an excellent job trying to work with the community and with the site. I do have some problems with this application and I'm not going to be supporting the application. Not because the efforts but I think they have done everything that they could. My concern is and we keep hearing that I don't want them on my side but it's going to be the next site. Maybe that is why you don't have cell service in that area. In 97, they turned it down on the church site, a little further up the street. I'm assuming that the Council decided then it wasn't good for the neighborhood. So, I don't think the cell tower down the street is going to be any different in that end result. This is a commercial entity that's going in to what should be a residential area. One of the gentlemen did bring up the deed restrictions and I think that changes the whole intent of the pool. The pool is only approved to be in there as a pool and as a recreation area. It was not to be a industrial or any commercial business. If you do this and take out one of the proffers, it roms into an industrial area. Not industrial but an office area. There's no way it can revert back and if the club goes under and it would have to be a commercial site. So, those are the reasons I won't be support it. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Are there any other comments? Joe. Joseph Strange: I'd just like to say that, I will reluctantly, be supporting this application. I say reluctantly because I don't think there is a perfect solution to this problem out them. And, I suffer a lot of anxiety over changes such as this before and I know what it's like to people. I just hope that it doesn't mm out to be as intrusive to these people lives they kind of think its going to be. I think that the applicant has gone out of their way to work w~th the community. Cellular service is here to stay. It's not a fade. And, I think and I hope that any money that they rmght get in this five percent, since the people around it since they think to lose the most by it being there. I hope most of this money goes to the immediate are them to offset any devaluation of their property that they might will happen. But, I will be support the applicanon today. Ronald Ripley: Charlie and then Gene. Charlie Salle': Okay. I'm going to support this application too, although, I mean candidly if I were one of the landowners of the residences that boarded the fence here, I'd Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 58 probably be much opposed to it. And, it's unfortunate that those who live right adjacent to any type of public works facility disproportionably share the burden that comes with that development of that type of facility and that is what I v~ew this is, it's a public utility facility. And, if you live next to where a new road construction is coming through, I think you just proportionally bare the cost of that and the burden of that on your property. But, it's one of those things. It's a fact of hfe that public utility and public improvements are going to occur. It appears to me that this is the only practical site in this area to relocate this facility. I guess it's a question of either no service or service at this site. And, I think that in this day and age that cell phone service is a necessity. And, I think the service needs to be provided to that are and I think it enhances the safety. It promotes the general welfare of the area to provide this service and having listen to all of what we heard today and nobody has come up with a site that would be better than the one that we before us today. So, in understanding and appealing to the property owners who will be fight next to it, but at the same time for the majority of people who have expressed a negative oplmon today, when these towers are built I bet within two weeks they ride them and never pay any attention to them. So, It will become part of the neighborhood and I' ve seen that with water towers. I've seen people dimly to a water tower being built ~n the neighborhood and by the time it's been there six weeks or six months at least, everybody's forgotten the thing exists. And, I think that's what will occur here if these towers are built. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Charlie. Gene. Eugene Crabtree: Real quick like. I support Dot, Charlie of what they say so I'm not going to repeat theirs. We've heard a lot of things about statistics and things speaking of danger, radiation, etc., and from having worked in a couple of places to where investigators are assigned to have done things, I have never seen an investigator to disapprove his theory. He always works to prove his theory. Therefore, you can take statistics and you can take studies and you skew them anyway you want them to one side or the other, to what way which side is fight and which side is wrong. Recreational use of the facility and they say it's only recreational. My grandson thinks cell phone is recreational, so therefore, he has one in his ear all the time. If it wasn't him, he probably wouldn't have any recreation so I don't know if I would d~sallow that as being a misuse of the recreational property. I am going to support this. I hope that the home values do not go down. And, as far as the towers being ugly, I think that ugly is in the site of the beholder and as Charlie says, "I think after a httle while you won't even see ~t." Dot said it fight. They said they were going to turn the lights in and it's going to down to where the hght will not be as intrusive on the surrounding property. So, therefore, I think it is going to be a community enhancement and I th~nk the profits from it will benefit the entire community of Great Neck. In fact, that entire area that goes all the way over to Virginia Beach Boulevard and maybe every a little bit across the Boulevard, so, I'm going to support the application. Ronald Ripley: Barry, do you want to comment? Item 4/17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 59 Barry Knight: Yeah. I live in the southern end of the City and I don't have any cell service either. I'm like Don. It all goes to voicemail and you can't get out down there. The thing that kind of scares me is that is not really an inconvenience because I can come home or go to my farm and make a phone calls from there. What if some accident happens out there and here I am removed from a landline and it takes me five or ten minutes or maybe I can't even get to phone and I understand that Little Neck the proximity to landlines are whole lot closer. But you could be involved in an accident or some person could have a heart attack on the walk way and time is of the essence. So, the safety ~ssue kand of struck a cord with me because I kind of relate to it living where I live. So, because of the safety issue I'm going to support the cell towers. Ronald Pdpley: And, I will be supporting it also and the safety weighed very heavily on my thinking of the support. I think that the alternative sites have been looked at as hard as they possibly could and I think the need has been demonstrated. In fact, when you go back to the report that was given to the Planning Commission on January 23, 2001 and you see the map and you see it does indicate that there's a tower in Little Neck but ~t's in error. It's the tower that was turned down, so it's glaringly in the middle of the City and the needs there and I think Bob Miller said it well, "are we going to provide the opportunity for cell communication in the pemnsula or not?" And, it does unfortunately is becoming a utility and it's almost like the telephone wires have sprung out all throughout the whole city. And, we would like to get rid of them. You don't even see them after awhile. They just blur because you don't have them you don't get the telephone. Anyway, I do think it's an appropriate location. I do think that this is what I would consxder a somewhat commercial mode and probably in deed an appropriate spot for it to be and safety was critical to my thinking. So, I will be supporting ~t. Kathy? Kathy Katsias: I'd like to thank everybody for coming down and voicing their opinions for and against this apphcation. I also want to comment on what a wonderful and thorough presentation Bill Gambrell has presented us and by T-Mobile m trying to address all the concerns of the neighborhood. I think everybody has said what I was going to say and I'm the last one. I am also concerned about the safety issue and I think we all agree that the Little Neck area deserves cellular service, therefore, Mr. Chairman I recommend approval of this application. Ronald Pdpley: So, we have a motion by Kathy Katsias to approve. Do I have a second? Eugene Crabtree: Second. Ronald Ripley: A second by Gene Crabtree. So, we're ready to vote. AYE 9 NAY 2 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON CRABTREE DIN AYE NAY NAY Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 60 HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-2, the motion carries. Mr. & Ms. William F. Barns 849 Bishopsgate Lane Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452 Mr. J. Golden Manager, Project Implementation MD/DC/VA Network Verizon Wireless 7600 Montpelier Road Laurel, MD 20723-9966 February 23, 2003 Dear Mr. Golden, We recently received your letter (undated), which included a pre-addressed postcard, concerning improved cellular coverage in the Little Neck area. We are not returning the card in order to show support of this initiative as you have requested. While improved cell phone reception and coverage are important to us and all cell phone users, there are numerous issues associated with thin particular initiative that are of immediate concern to this community. For example: According to our City Planning Commission Reviewing Official, locating a cell tower in dose proximity to residences (... and swimming pools), is unique and there are no studies available in Virginia Beach to gauge the long-term impact of a similar installation. Despite T-Mobile's assertion that thc proposed locations of the cell Wwcrs at Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club is in compliance with federal regulations and exposure limits, thc evidence of actually living in proximity to a source of non-ionizing radiation and being subjected to continual noise from the peripheral equipment is a matter of concern. · The 112-foot height of the towers will be nnnightly from the surrounding and approaching areas; well above existing tree lines. Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club, adjacent to two prestigious neighborhoods in this community and across the street from a third, will realize substantial financial gain by allowing the cell towers to be built on its property. However, property values of the surrounding homes will be adversely affected as a result of this project. This project is controversial and there is an active movement within the adjoining community to voice these concerns to the Virginia Beach City Council, prior to that body making a decision to approve commuction. As Verizon customers, our preference is for your company to use its considerable talent to champion new technology in partnership with T- Mobile, SunCom and Alltel that will simultaneously improve cell phone coverage while answering the concerns and perceptions of numerous citizens. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to your response. Sincerely, c/c: Ms. Ruth Kral President, Bishopsgate Civic League 3104 Bishopsgate Ct. Virginia Beach, VA 23452 Ms. Barbara Duke Planning Commission, City of Virginia Beach Municipal Center 2401 Courthouse Dr. Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Members of City Council Virginia Beach, VA: Ms. Margaret L. Eure 5400 Compton Ct. Virginia Beach, VA 23464 Mr. Louis IL Jones 1008 Witch Point Tr. Virginia Beach, VA 23455 Mr. Richard A. Maddox 1609 Atlantic Ave. Virginia Beach, VA 23451 Ms. Reba S. McClanan 3224 Burnt Mill Rd. Virginia Beach, VA 23452 Mr. Jim Reeve 1476 Lotus Dr. Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Mr. Peter W. Schmidt 1029 Bobolink Dr. Virginia beach, VA 23451 Mr. Ronald A. Villanueva 5691 Pin Oak Ct. Virginia Beach, VA 23464 Ms. Rosemary Wilson 1304 Wren PI. Virginia Beach, VA 23451 Mr. James L. Wood 3778 Prince Andrew Ln. Virginia Beach, VA 23452 ve rlwireless 7600 Montpelier Road Laurel, MD 20723-9966 Dear Verizon Wireless Customer, We are sending you this letter because you are a resident of the Little Neck' peninsula. Most of the licensed wireless carriers have not been able to provide adequate coverage to their customers in your area. We are trying to improve the coverage, not only for Verizon Wireless customers, but for the other carriers which include T-Mobile, SunCom and AIItel. There is a proposal at the City of Virginia Beach for a wireless facility located at the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club at 864 Little Neck Road. As a wireless customer, we need your evidence of support for the proposed improved coverage. If you would like to see improved wireless coverage in the Little Neck area, please help us by completing and mailing the enclosed pre-addressed and stamped postcard no later than February 28, 2.003. We value you as a customer and would like to continue to serve you and the community with an enhanced coverage footprint. Thank you for your support, J. Golden Manager, Project Implementation MD/DC/VA Network RFl~eople 5n~needn~ Statement Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Analysis " VA10363 Little Neck Racquet Club 864 Little Neck Road Virginia Beach, VA 23452 The purpose of this engineering statement is to document the results of a non- ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) analysis performed for the proposed installation of wireless communications equipment at: 864 Little Neck Road in: Virginia Beach by: T-Mobile Back_~round A NIER analysis is typically performed for new radio communications sites, or for modifications to ex~sting radio communication sites to verify that levels of RF energy do not exceed the levels that have been deemed safe by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for both the general public and occupational categories. The FCC has determined (see FCC OET Bulletin 65) safety limits for occupational exposure (those that are trained and familiar with the risks and limitations of working in the vicinity of RF transmitters) and general pubhc exposure (those untrained and unfamiliar with the risks and limitations of working in the v~cinity of RF transmitters). Appendix A contains some tables and charts from FCC OET-65. Analvsis This analysis was performed using industry-accepted techniques that are consistent with those described ~n FCC Bulletin OET-65. Th~s analys~s used the worst-case, point source scenano to calculate the maximum RF expsosure at a human head height of 6 feet above the base elevation. This analysis included all emitters aggregated by carrier and height, that were indicated to be present, and their operating parameters, as provided by T-Mobile The results of this analysis are tabulated in Appendix B. Eng,neenng Statement- Non-lon~ng Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER) RFpeople Results This analysis has determined that there is no area accessible to the general public that exceeds the limits specified by the FCC in Bulletin OET-65. The actual results are listed in Appendix B. For information or questions regarding this report, please contact Davidson Scott, P.E. davidson@rfpeople.com, (866) 590-0975 RFpeople Appendix A (A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure Frequency Electric Field Magnetic Field Range Strength (E) Strength (Iff) (MHz) (V/m) (A/m) Power Densaty (s) (mW/cra2) Averaging Time lEI2, IHt2 or S (minutes) 0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6 3 0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f~)* 6 30-300 61 4 0 163 1.0 6 300-1500 .... 17300 6 1500-100,000 .... 5 6 (B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure Frequency Electric F~eld Magnetic Field Power Density Averaging Tune Range Strength (E) Strength CH) (S) lEI2, IH]2 or S (MHz) (V/m) (Mm) (mW/cra2) (minutes) 0.3-1 34 614 1 63 (100)* 30 1.34-30 824/f 2 19/f (180/f~)* 30 30-300 27.5 0 073 0.2 30 300-1500 .... 171500 30 1500-100,000 .... 1.0 30 f = frequency in MHz *Plane-wave equivalent power density NOTE 1. Occupational/controlled hm~ts apply ~n s~tuat~ons in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment provided those persons are fully aware of the potennal for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure L~mlts for occupatmnal/controlled exposure also apply in s~tuatmns when an md~vxdual xs transient through a locatmn where occupational/controlled hm~ts apply provided he or she ~s made aware of the potential for exposure. NOTE 2' Generalpopulation/uncontrolled exposures apply ~n s~tuattons ~n which the general pubhc may be exposed, or m which persons that are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or can not exermse control over their exposure. RFpeople FiGure 1. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Piane-wav~. Equivalent Power Dewsity ] I I .... I ..... ~i 'i' I .... I ' ' ~ ,, , 5 0,2 0.03 0 3 /~111 t I ! I I I ! I 13 3O 1,:W 1,5Cm 100.000 Frequency (MHz) Transmitters Name Frequency EiRP Orientation Height Gain Antenna (MHz) (dBm) (Degrees) (fi) (dBi~ Vo~ceStream(Tx 1 ) 1965 60 0 112 17 Panel Genenc Vo~ceStream(Tx2) 1965 60 120 112 17 Panel Genenc Vo~ceStream(Tx3) 1965 60 240 112 17 Panel Genenc Ntelos(Tx4) 1955 60 0 102 17 Panel Genenc Ntelos(Tx5) 1955 60 120 102 17 Panel Genenc Ntelos(Tx6) 1955 60 240 102 17 Panel Genenc Career 3(Tx7) 865 60 0 112 14 Panel Genenc Carr, er 3(Tx8) 865 60 120 112 14 Panel Genenc Career 3(Tx9) 865 60 240 112 14 Panel Genenc Camer 4(Tx10) 1930 60 0 102 17 Panel Gener, c Camer 4(Tx11) 1930 60 120 102 Career 4(Tx12) 1930 60 240 102 17 Panel Genenc 17 Panel Genenc Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel RFpeopl Appendix B VA10363 Distance (ft) 10 15 864 Dtfle Neck Road Virg~ma Beach Carrier Career 3 Camer 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStrearn Total: Career 3 Carrier 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Camer 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: VA Latitude: unknown Maximum Limit (mW/cm^2) 0.58 1 00 1.00 1 00 0.58 1.00 1.00 I 00 0.58 I O0 1 O0 100 0 58 1 00 1.00 1 00 Longitude: unknown General Public (%) 1 56 111 111 O9 4.68 I 56 1.11 111 09 4.68 1.56 1 O8 1.08 09 4.62 1 53 1.08 1.08 0 87 4.56 Maximum Public Exposure 4.68 (%) Occupational (%) O3 0.21 0.21 018 0.9 03 021 0.21 018 0.9 03 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.9 0.3 0.21 0.21 015 0.87 RFpeopl 20 25 3O 35 4O 45 5O Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Carrier 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Camer 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Camer 3 Camer 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: 0.58 1 00 1.00 1 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 1.00 1 00 1 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 I 00 0 58 I 00 1.00 1 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 53 I O5 1.05 0 87 4.5 15 I 02 1 02 0 84 4.38 1 44 0 99 0 99 0 84 4.26 141 0 96 0 96 081 4.14 I 38 0 93 0 93 0 78 4.02 1.32 09 09 0.75 3.87 1 29 0.87 0 87 0 72 3.75 03 021 0.21 015 0.87 0.3 018 018 015 0.81 0 27 018 018 015 0.78 0.27 018 0.18 0.15 0.78 0.27 018 0.18 0.15 0.78 0.24 0.18 018 0.15 0 75 0.24 015 015 012 0.66 RFpeople 55 6O 65 7O 75 8O 85 Camer 3 Camer 4 Ntelos · ' Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Camer 3 Career 4 Nteios Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Carnet 4 Ntelos VolceStream Total: 0 58 1.00 1.00 1 00 0.58 1.00 I 00 1.00 0.58 I 00 I 00 I 00 0.58 I 00 I 00 1.00 0.58 I 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 1.00 1.00 1 00 0 58 I 00 I 00 1 00 1 23 081 081 0 72 3.57 12 0 78 0 78 0 69 3 45 I 14 0 75 0 75 0 66 3.3 1 O8 0 72 0 72 0 63 3.15 1 O5 0 69 0 69 06 3.03 0 99 0 63 0 63 0 57 2.82 0 96 06 O6 0 54 2.7 0 24 015 015 012 0.66 0.24 0.15 015 012 0.66 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.63 0.21 012 012 0.12 0.57 0.21 012 012 0.12 0.57 018 012 0.12 0 09 0.51 018 012 012 0 09 0.51 RFl: ople 90 95 100 125 150 175 200 Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos · ' VoaceStream Total: Camer 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos VmceStream Total: Camer 3 Camer 4 Ntelos VmceStream Total: Career 3 Camer 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos VolceStream Total: 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 1.00 1 00 1 00 0.58 1 00 1 00 I 00 0 58 1 00 1.00 I 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 I 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0.9 0 57 0 57 051 2.55 0 87 0 54 0 54 0 48 2.43 0 81 051 0.51 0.48 2.31 0 66 0.39 0 39 0.36 1.8 051 O3 O3 O3 1.41 0 42 0 24 0.24 0.24 1.14 0 33 018 018 018 0.87 018 0 09 0 09 0 09 0.45 015 0.09 0 09 0 09 0.42 0.15 0 09 0.09 0.09 0.42 012 0 06 0 06 0 06 0.3 0 09 0 06 0 06 0 06 0.27 0 O6 0 O3 0 O3 0 O3 0.15 0 06 0 03 0 03 003 0.15 RF eopl 225 250 275 300 4O0 500 6OO Camer 3 Camer 4 Ntelos ', Vo~ceStream Total: Camer 3 Career 4 Ntelos VotceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos VotceStream Total: Camer 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total.. Camer 3 Camer 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 1 00 I 00 I 00 0.58 1.00 1 00 1.00 0.58 1 00 1.00 1 00 0 58 1.00 1.00 1 00 0 58 1 00 1.00 1 00 0 58 I 00 I 00 I 00 0 27 0.15 015 015 0.72 0.24 0.12 0.12 012 0.6 018 0.12 0.12 0 09 0.51 015 0 09 0.09 0.09 0.42 0.09 0 06 0.06 0 06 0.27 0 06 0 03 0 03 0 03 0.15 0 03 0 0 0 0.03 0 03 0 03 0 03 0 03 0.12 0.03 0 0 0 0.03 0 03 0 0 0 0.03 0 03 0 0 0 0.03 RFpeople 700 8OO 900 1000 Camer 3 Camer 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos VolceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos VolceStream Total: Camer 3 Career 4 Ntelos VotceStream Total: 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0.58 1 00 1 00 I 00 0 58 1 00 I 00 1 00 0 58 I 00 1 00 1 00 0 03 0 0 0 0.03 Table of Contents · W~reless tn the Commumty · Rachofrequency Emissions from W~reless Antennas · W~reless Rachofrequency Ermsslons · Rachofrequency Energy General Health Issues & Safety Standards · Federal Regulations on Rachofrequency Ermsslons from Wzreless Antennas · How to Find More Informauon on Rachofrequency Energy · Background Sm&es and Reports on Rachofrequency and Telecommumcauons TALKING POINTS- WIRELESS IN THE COMMUNITY Wireless Users Today The number of Americans using wareless services has increased more than 1000 percent m the past decade, from only about 11 mflhon Americans using wzreless m 1992 to nearly half of all Americans today. Today, more than 135 mflhon Americans use their wareless phones and other devices to stay connected to farmly, conduct business, talk to friends, and even call for assistance when needed Wireless and Em ergency Service Approximately 40 percent of the 911 calls recmved today by emergency sermce personnel are made from w~reless phones. Thas equals more than 115,000 w~reless phone calls made every day to 911. As part of the Federal Commumcattons Commtsslon's mandate for E-911, wxreless carners also are reqmred to be able to locate a call from a w~reless phone to an increasingly accurate geo-locauon In order to meet these emergency location reqmrements some careers, mcludtng T-Mobile, need to add rmmmal adchttonal eqmpment to their sites. Wireless Infrastructure Creating a network of cell sites, xv~th a wareless tower or antenna at its core, helps ehmmate consumer sermce problems hke dropped calls, no signal, or poor quahty because a cell s~te ~s too far away or not geographmally situated to be able to provide servace. Creating tbas infrastructure of cell sites requires w~reless careers to lease and pay for sites, construct towers and antennas, and pay bflhons of dollars into the U.S Treasury for use of the wxreless spectrum Only xv~th th~s infrastructure m place can consumers rece,ve the quahty and geographic coverage they expect from thmr w~reless services Radiofrequency Emissions From Wireless Antennas · Wh, ~tl; Is ~t ~are.le.ss antenna~ · ~,,rhere are wrreless antennas locate.d~ · How do.cs a wJ4:eles~, antenna wo~:k and what 15 1~;$ functton~ · D.9 wLrele$s ,an,.tenna,s ermt rachof, requency (ILF) energy> · ~¢.rhat xs ,th.e pQwer level of rachofrequency ener..~, from a w~relcss anl;enna¢ What is a wireless antenna? A xxnreless antenna, also called a base stauon, Is a commuracauons demce that receives and transrmts rachofrequency (R.F) energy. There are two ma.m types of wireless antennas. The first is called the "low-gain" or "omm-dtrect~onal" antenna. It sends and receaves signals tn all chrections An omm-chrecuonal antenna looks lake a pole or a whtp, and may be from 2 to 10 feet tn length and a few tnches m wxdth. The second is called a "high-gain" or "sector" antenna It focuses signals tn one dtrecuon and typmaily ;s a rectangular panel about 4 feet long and one foot w~de. Where are wireless antennas located? W~reless antennas are located above the ground - usually between 100 and 200 feet high, but someumes much lower- to promde maxmaum reach and to ensure mmmaum interference. You wzll find most antennas on towers or specially built poles, but they are also on the sides and tops of braidings, on water towers, and someumes even in the tops of artificial trees installed to blend xxnth natural surrounchngs. Experts determine precisely where to locate each antenna to ensure it operates safely and dehvers clear and rehable service. In selecung the best site, these experts consider many things, tncludmg: the number of people requrrtng sermce and how they will use their w~reless phones, local topography and potenual obstrucuons that may interfere wath clear racho signals, and the concerns of people who bye and work nearby They work w~th zomng boards, cluzen groups, and pubhc servace cornrmsslons among others to make sure that each new antenna comphes w~th all laws, orchnances, and regulauons How does a wireless antenna work and what is its function? When you place a wireless call, your phone uses low-power md.to signals to send your rome to an antenna at a base stauon The base stauon sends your call to a switching center where it is connected to the landhne phone network and dehvered to the phone you called. If you are calling another wireless phone nearby, the switch might just connect you chrecfly to the base statton servmg the cell where the other phone is located When you approach the boundary of one cell whale using your w~reless phone, the wireless network senses that the signal is becoming weak and automattcally hands off the call to a base stauon m the next cell and your call continues umnterrupted An antenna chstributes racho waves throughout its cell much hke a lamp chstributes hght throughout a room A hght bulb can provide hght evenly throughout a room :f it's located m the right place. In the same way, a properly located antenna can provide htgh-quahty calhng throughout its cell. That xs why they are usually found above the ground on towers, poles, and bml&ngs. Do wireless antennas emit radiofrequency energy? Wtreless antennas send and receive racho signals - RF energy. The RF carnes the phone call to or from a wireless base stauon antenna, wb_tch then connects your phone with the phone you are c;tlhng or with the phone calhng you. Engineers carefully design each antenna to make sure It sends s~gnais m prectsely the right chrecuon and at the right power level to promde the best calling quahty to its coverage zone or "cell." It ~s n'nportant to note the difference between, antennas, towers and base stattons. Antennas transrmt the RF and are attached to structures such as buflchngs or towers, and the antennas, towers and all of the related eqmpment make up a base stauon Cells, or coverage areas, come in all sizes - they may be as small as a single bmlchng (hke an a~rport or an arena), as large as a rural area of 20 rrales across, or any s~ze m between - and each cell has its own base stanon. What is the power level of radiofrequency energy from a wireless antenna? A typical cellular antenna ermts about 100 watts or less of power per channel, lust one-fifth the level perrmtted by the Federal Commumcattons Comrmss~on (FCC) In urban areas, power levels are often as Iow as 10 watts per channel. PCS rmcrocell antennas ermt between 0.25 and 10 watts per channel In comparison, a TV tower ermts up to 5 mrlhon watts, and an FM racho station erruts as much as 100,000 watts of power. Wireless antennas located above the ground chrect very httle RF energy downward In adchuon, levels of rachofrequency energy decrease very qmckly w~th &stance Most of the energy released downward from a 50 to 200-foot }ugh antenna has chssipated before it reaches the ground. In~orznation sourced ~rom the Cellular Telecommunications and Interact Association irelcss R diofrequenc Emissions Electromagnetic Frequency Spectrum 1~ 1~ 10' 1~ 10" 10~ 10" 1~ o lO Rachofrequency emttted from telecommumcauons antennas and towers ts "non- lorazmg" energy, which means it is too weak to break chemical bonds. Other forms of nonqonizmg energy are the warmth you may feel from a hght bulb or from a fireplace. Wireless telecommumcations radtofrequency xs located on the natural electromagnetic spectrum above sound and below visible hght It IS the same type of energy used to broadcast racho and television signals The Federal Commuracations Comrmsslon (FCC) regulates rachofrequency ermssmns to ensure pubhc safety. Telecommuracattons towers operate well below these hrmts, often at lust one-quarter, or less, of the power level perrmtted, creaung ground level power densmes thousands of umes less than the FCC's lamts for safe exposure Rachofrequency emissions from a telecommumcattons antenna/tower are dtrected toward the horizon and not downward Because of this, the RF at the ground level dLrecfly below the antenna is low, increases shghtly as one moves away from the base statton and then decreases sigmficantly as the chstance from the antenna increases. Radiofrequency Energy: General Health Issues & Safety Standards Scaenusts have smched rachofrequency energy (RF) for decades and hundreds ofsmches have been pubhshed m peer remewed scaenufic loumals. The consensus mew among these experts - both m the Umted States and anternattonally - as that exposure to levels enutted by w~reless antennas ~s not hazardous to pubhc health · Does RF from w~reless ante~r~a, pose a risk to the pubhc> · Why do ex~erts beheve that there :s no risk from w~reless antennas> · Is there a health ~;~sk for people who hve, play, work or go tO school near a w~rele,s antenna site? · What about towers and rooftop sates where there are muluple antennas> Doesn't the combined RF ener~r pose a health · What about w~rele$$ antelana~ mounted on the sade Of a bmlchng> Does RF from wireless antennas pose a risk to the public? No. Experts - including doctors, biolog~sts, engineers, and other sdenttsts ~n the U.S. and other countries - have conducted or parttclpated m rachofrequency (RF) stuches over the last several decades and pubhshed thezr results m peer-reviewed scaenufic journals. The consensus of the sciennfic community is that pubhc-level exposure to levels of RF from wzteless antennas ~s not hazardous to human health. These smches have been used to estabhsh the safety standards and gmdehnes, such as those used by the FCC, which were desagned to hrmt the pubhc's exposure only to safe levels of Ri:*. In recent years, many experts from around the world have rexaewed these sclenufic fmchngs. Agatn, they conclude that there are no adverse human health effects associated w~th pubhc-level exposure to RF from wzreless antennas Why do experts believe that there is no risk from wireless antennas? The type of RF used by wn:eless phones and antennas ~s classffied as "non- iomzmg" energy, wbach means ~t ~s too weak to break chermcal bonds. Other fam~ar forms of non4omz~ng energy anclude the warmth you feel cormng from a fzreplace, and v~slble hght. The World Health Orgamzauon says' "Current sclenufic evidence lnchcates that exposure to RF fields, such as those ermtted by mobile phones and their base stauons, is unhkely to induce or promote cancers." Experts at the FCC, which regulates w;.reless antenna ermsslons, smd the following in a recent report "Measurements that have been made around typical [wzreless antennas] have shown that ground-level power denslues are well below lmuts recommended by currently accepted RF energy and rmcrowave safety standards." Sclenusts at the World Health Orgamzauon ('WHO) draw a smular conclusion. They say: "Because of the narrow verucal spread of the beam, the RF field intensity on the ground chrectly below the antenna Is low and decreases rapidly as one moves away from the antenna. At all chstances, the RF field levels on the ground from [antennas] are well wit. Mn mtemauonal RF gmdelmes for exposure of the general pubhc" Finally, the power levels that vareless antennas actually use to transmtt s~gnals are very low - much lower than those permttted by government regulauons and much lower than the levels ermtted by other antennas hke those to transrmt FM racho and televisxon signals. Is there a health risk for people who live, play, work or go tO school near a wireless antenna site? No The height of the antennas, the fenced-off areas around them, and their relauvely iow power levels all assure that only rmnuscule levels of RF energy reach nmghbors and passersby. The overwhelming thrust of expert opm_ton m tbas field is that there is no evidence of any harmful health effects from vaxeless antenna racho signals. What about towers and rooftop sites where there ate multiple antennas? Doesn't the combined RF energy pose a health risk? According to the FCC's _Questwns and~4ns:vers about Bzologtcal Effects and Potenttal Hazards of Radto-Frequen~ Electrom~nettc Fields "Even If RF levels were bagher than deszrable on a rooftop, appropriate restncuons could be placed on access The fact that rooftop cellular and PCS antennas usually operate at lower power levels than antennas on freestanchng towers makes excessive exposure conchnons on rooftops unhkely. In adchnon, the slgmficant s~gnal attenuauon [weakemng] of a bufldmg's roof rmnamzes any chance for persons hying or working w~thm the building itself to be exposed to RF levels that could approach or exceed apphcable safety lmuts." What about wireless antennas mounted on the side of a building? All w~eless antennas must comply with the FCC's RF emissions gmdehnes, including roof-mounted antennas. The bmldmg and roof prevent much of the RF from entering In fact, the roof alone can decrease RF sxgnal strength sxgnificantly -- ~.e. by as much as a factor of 10. In adchnon, most of the RF from a w~reless antenna ~s chrected towards the horizon and not chrecfly downward The FCC also reqmres antennas mounted on rooftops to have s~gns or fences to keep people away from places where the RF fields exceed ~ts hrmts Information sourced from the Ce//u/ar Telecommtmicadons and Intemet Association Federal Regulations on Radiofrequency Emissions From Wireless Antennas · What federal regulauon, do -artreless promders have tO meet when stung an antenna? · How can the rmbhc be sure that wireless antennas are safe> · Do wrreless antennas comply w~th these safety h_m~t$ for pubhc exposure> · If RF energy from w~rele$s antennas ss safe, why is there a need for semng exposm-e lirmt~> What federal regulations do wireless providers have to meet when siting an antenna? All wzreless base stauons must meet the science-based RF ermsslon gmdelmes of the Federal Commumcauons Cornnussion (FCC), wluch estabhsh conservative exposure hrmts to ensure that the health of all cmzens is protected. The gmdehnes are designed wtth a substanual margin of safety. These mtemauonally recognized gmdehnes were estabhshed by leachng independent sclenufic orgamzauons ~ncluchng the American Nauonal Standards Insumte (ANSI), the Insumte of Electrical and Electromc Enganeers (IEEE), and the Nauonal Council on Rachatton Protecuon and Measurement (NCRP), an independent orgamzauon chartered by Congress. The U.S. arm of the IEEE has issued a formal statement endorsing the consensus gmdelmes, wbach says m part. "Based on present knowledge, prolonged exposure at or below the levels recommended m these gmdelmes is considered safe for human health Measurements near typical cellular base stauons have shown that exposure levels normally encountered by the pubhc are well below hrmts recommended by all nattonal and mtemauonal safety, standards...Therefore, one can conclude that exposure from properly operaung base stauons Is safe for the general populauon." How can the public be sure that wireless antennas are safe? Both the NCRP and ANSI/IEEE exposure gmdelmes were developed by sclenusts and engineers w~th a great deal of experience and knowledge m the area of RF bmlogacal effects and related issues. These mchmduals spent a considerable amount of ume evaluaung pubhshed scmnufic smches relevant to estabhshmg safe levels for human exposure to RF energy These gmdehnes are designed to make sure that wireless antennas are designed and operate m a safe manner Other federal agencies have reviewed and endorsed the FCC's gmdehnes. These include the Enmronmental Protecnon Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Admtmstrauon (FDA), the Occupauonal Safety and Health Adrmmstrauon (OSHA), and the National Insutute for Occupauonal Safety and Health (NIOSH) EPA concluded' "It Iisi EPA's view that the FCC exposure gmdelmes adequately protect the pubhc from all scienufically estabhshed harms that may result from [Racho-Frequency] energy fields generated by FCC hcensees" Do wireless antennas comply with these safety limits for public exposure? In Bulletln 56, the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology smd, "Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS mstallattons, especially those with tower-mounted antennas, have shown that ground-level power denslues are well below lmuts recommended by RF/mtcrowave safety standards." If RF energy from wireless antennas is safe, why is there a need for setting exposure limits? These gmdelmes are designed to ensure that FCC-regulated transrmtters do not expose the pubhc or workers to levels of RF energy that are considered by expert orgamzauons to be potenttally harmful Therefore, if the FCC regulates a transrmtter and its associated antenna, they must comply with promslons of the FCC's rules regarding human exposure to RF energy In a 1997 Order, the FCC adopted a provision that all transrmtters regulated by the FCC, regardless of whether they are excluded from rouune evaluatton, had to be m compliance with RF exposure gmdelmes by September 1, 2000. Information sourced fi'om the Cellular Telecommtmications and Interact Association How to Find More Information on Radiofrequency Energy There are numerous government, independent health, umverslty, orgamzauon, and assocmuon web sxtes that promde reports, simches, quesuon & answers, and other mformauon on rachofrequency 0t.F) energy. The sites and links hsted below are some of those that have informauon on the topm U S. Federal Commumcauons Comnuss;on http'//www, fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf- faqs..html Nauonal Insumute of Environmental Health Sctences, Nauonal Insumute of Health http' //www mehs.nih gov/oc / factsheets/emf/emf, htm Mechcal College of W~sconsm http-//www.mcw edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc html The Institute of Elecmcal and Electromcs Engineers (IEEE) Committee on Man and Rachauon (COMAR) http //www.seas.upenn edu/'--kfost¢r/base htm U.S. Food and Drug Adrmmstrauon wv~v. fd.a.gov/cdrh/o.c.d/mobflphone.html U.S. General Accounung Office htm//xvww ~ao ~ov/newatems/d01545 r~df Cellular Telecommumcauons and Intemet Assocmnon htm//www wow-com.com/ cons .um. er/~sues/health/ European Sc:ence and Engineering Orgamzauon, COST281 ht.tp //www c.o$..t281 org/acum, ti.e$/Sho, rt. term. rmssmn pdf World Health Orgamzauon http'//www.wh,o ant/peh-em f/ htq~.//www.who mt/mf-fs/en/fact193 html htrp. //wx ,v~-nt who ;n,t/peh-¢mf/emfstuches/database.cfm The Health Council of the Netherlands http //www ..er nl/engels/welcome/frames,et btm Intemauonal Cornmass~on on Non-Iomzxng Rachauon Protecuon http://w,0cw xcnu'p.de/Explorer/pubEMF.htm 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) Background Studies and Reports On Radiofrequency and Telecommunications (By Date) European Scaence and Engmeenng Orgamzauon, COST 281 - Mobile Telecommumcauon Base Stauons - Exposure to Electromagneuc Fields, March 2002 Mechcal College of Wisconsin, Electromagneuc Fields and Human Health- Cellular Phone Antennas (Mobile Phone Base Stattons) and Human Health, last updated January 2, 2002 Federal Commuracauons Comrmssion, Office of Engmeenng & Technology - Frequently Asked Quesuons About the Safety of Rachofrequency (l~U) and M. tcrowave Ermssions from Transrmtters and Facthues Regulated by the FCC, last updated October 2001 U.S. Food and Drug Admmtstrauon - Center for Devices and Rachologacal Health - Consumer Update on W~reless Phones, July 2001 U S General Accounung Office - Telecommumcattons, Research and Regulatory Efforts on Mobile Phone Health Issues, May 2001 The Insutute of Electrical and Electromcs Enganeers (IEEE) Comsmttee on Man and Rachatton (COMAR) - Safety Issues Assocaated xxath Base Stat. tons Used for Personal Wzreless Commumcauons, September 2000 Federal Commumcauons Commission, Local and State Government Advisory Comrmttee - A Local Government Official's Grade to Transrmttmg antenna RF Ermsslon Safety. Rules, Procedures, and Pracncal Gtudance, June 2000 The World Health Orgamzauon- Fact Sheet: Electromagneuc F~elds and Pubhc Health, Mobile Telephones and Thezr Base Stauons, revised June 2000 Federal Commumcauons Commission, Office of Engineering & Technology, Quesuons and Answers about Blologacal Effects and Potenual Hazards of Rachofrequency Electromagneuc Fields - OET Bulleun 56, Fourth Echuon, August 1999 Federal Communlcauons Commission, Office of Engineering & Technology - Informauon on Human Exposure to Rachofrequency Fields from Cellular and PCS Racho Transrmtters, January 1998 Note Many of these stuches are accessible on the Intemet T LITTLE NECK RACQUET CLUB VA 10363 A Kings t.~l~ z SITE NUMBERS INDICATE PHOTOGRAPH LOCATIONS T MOBILE LITTLE NECK RACQUET CLUB VA 10363 A VIEW OF PROPOSED 112' GALVANIZED MONOPOLES ANTENNAS CONCEALED WITH IN ATHLETIC LIGHTING MOUNTED AT 45' PHOTO TAKEN 12/12/02 PERSPECTIVE IS FROM POPLAR BEND ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA T MOBILE LITTLE NECK RACQUET CLUB VA 10363 A VIEW OF PROPOSED 112' GALVANIZED MONOPOLES ANTENNAS CONCEALED WITH IN ATHLETIC LIGHTING MOUNTED AT 45' PHOTO TAKEN 12/12/02 PERSPECTIVE IS FROM 3109 BELDOVER LANE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 2 T MOBILE LITTLE NECK RACQUET CLUB VA 10363 A VIEW OF PROPOSED 112' GALVANIZED MONOPOLES (ONE TOWER IS NOT VISIBLE) ANTENNAS CONCEALED WITH IN ATHLETIC LIGHTING MOUNTED AT 45' PHOTO TAKEN 12/12/02 PERSPECTIVE IS BELDOVER LANE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 3 T MOBILE LITTLE NECK RACQUET CLUB VA 103~3 A VIEW OF PROPOSED 112' GALVANIZED MONOPOLES ANTENNAS CONCEALED WITH IN ATHLETIC LIGHTING MOUNTED AT 45' PERSPECTIVE IS FROM THE INTERSECTION OF BISHOPS GATE LANE AND BISHOPS GATE COURT VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA I I I I I I ! I ! ! Ill U 0 ~- ~ ~j - iz 0 ~ ~ ¢~ .b .- ~ ~ 0 > · ~ 0 ~ II III ~'-- N~ ~ ~ ~ Sim Z r~~ L 0 OE ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ EMERSON. Power March 12, 2003 James N. McDonald, PE Director of Engineering Northern Technologies, Inc. 23123 E M=smn Liberty Lake, WA 99019 T (509) 927 0401 F (509) 927 0435 IJmrn(~_.no rthem-tech corn V~rgima Beach Department of Planning Municipal Center Building 2405 Court Dnve Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Attention: Barbara Duke RE: T-Mobile's Proposed VA 10363- Little Neck Facility Ms. Duke, I have been asked to offer my assistance on the above-referenced facility with regard to the design considerations and the lightning safety of the site after it is built. I have consulted on site design, grounding and related lightning issues for T-Mobile and other world-class communications companies for several years. I have reviewed T-Mobile's proposed facility design and the soil testing previously performed for the VA 10363 - Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club telecommunications pole and equipment. Specifically, my rewew of the plan was focused on the potential changes to lightning damage susceptibility in the immediate vicimty. My understanding of the situation seems to indicate some resistance to the idea of a communications tower being installed somewhat near a pool and the safety issues that go along w~th it. A review of the site grounding (3-point test) and soil (4-point test) conditions at this facility seem to indicate excellent resistance values, which are well suited for sensitive communicabons systems and lightning suppression systems alike. Based on the test data, I believe T-Mobile's standard site and grounding design will actually improve protection from lightning in the immediate vicinity. Regarding the facility (pool) protection, I am encouraged that there are other structures (light posts and buildings) ~n the area that will attract lightning and dissipate that energy as well. Most people in the lightning-related industries (including NFPA 780 - Lightning Protection) agree that a structure (typically referring to lighting air terminals and other metallic structures) w~ll prowde a 45 degree angle "cone" of protection downward from the tip. This indicates that the tower and air terminal on top ~s expected to protect NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. EMERSON. anything within a radius from the tower equal to the height If they are 120' tall, then anything within 120' of the tower has some level of protection from I~ghtmng. The facts for th~s site are.: 1) Installing a tower will slightly increase the probability of a lightning strike in this im~nediate vicinity (realistically within the 120' radius of the tower only) and 2) The addition of the tower and ground plane will improve the protection of the pool and other structures in the area, should lightning strike there. If lightning occurs in this area, we would prefer that it hit the tower, rather than a poody grounded fence of lamp post due to the improved grounding system. The installation of the tower and site grounding system will improve the protection of the local area, since the tower will sink most of the lightning current below it into the earth. Without the tower present, the lamps, buildings and fences will be likely to take a lightning hit and without sufficient ground systems in place (as is very common for these structures) could cause more damage or injury. ! hope this information helps. If ! can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call on me here at NTI, 800-727-9119 Best Regards, Jim McDonald, PE Director of Engineenng NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FILE No.375 03/12 '03 09:59 ID:NTELOS FAX:8043275~91 PAGE 2 9011 Arboretum Parkway Sude 295 R~chmond, VA 23236 March 12, 2003 City of Virginia Beach Planning Commission City Hall Building Princess Anne Courthouse Virginia Beach, Virginia H05-210-MOD-2002 and H05-210-CUP-2002., Application by VoieeStream GS.M II,.L.L.C. for a new Communieatmns Facility/Tower located at 864 Little Neck Road Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission: Rachmond 20MHz, LLC is an FCC Personal Communications Service licensee for the NorfolkNirginla Beach Basic Trading Area and provides PCS service regionally under the trade name "NTELOS". NTELOS fully supports the application by T-Mobile USA before thc Commission and respectfully requests your approval of this application as submitted. In November of 1996 NTELOS launched the first dig2tal wireless communications service in Hampton Roads operating then under the name PrimeCo. Since that time, customers of PrimeCo and now NTELOS continue to be unable to use their service within the Little Neck peninsula. In fact, the Little Neck peninsula remains the only major populated area within the entire NTELOS network in Virginia which does not have adequate signal levels for NTELOS customers to receive phone service. On behalf of the Virginia Beach customers of NTELOS, we support the T- Mobile apphcataon and again, respectfully request your approval. Sincere~y~ D~rector of Site Development pETITION, .- COMMUNICANTION ,TOWERS,, TO BE INST~LED AT THE L ,ITTLE NECK S .WIM AND R~.. CQ~T CLUB~ 864 Little Neck Road~ Virginia Beach~ Virginia 2_3452 To: The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia BE IT HEREBY KNOWN and stated that the PHYSICIAN/residents of the areas surrounding the Little Neck Peninsula who have affixed their signatures below are against building, or allowing to be built or erected on the site of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club property, any communications towers. We strongly believe that any towers, whether disguised as light poles, flag poles, or other stealth object, or any other conceivable design, will ruin the aesthetics of our Peninsula and neighborhood where our children swim and play. We do NOT believe that such towers would improve the safety of the surrounding residents or of the patients for whom we provide care. SIGNATURE PRINT ADDRESS PHONE DATE l~ght2 (720x480x24b ~peg) Little Neck Community Enhancement Fund Purpose: To establish a fund, the Little Neck Community Enhancement Fund (LNCEF), to financially support projects focused on beautification, safety, security, recreation, or other purposes which enhance the quality of life for residents of the Upper Little Neck Peninsula This fund has been established so that all residents of the Upper Little Neck peninsula may benefit from the sacrifice of esthetics in lieu of financial lease proceeds resulting from erection of cellular towers at the LNSRC. Source of Funds: The LNCEF will be established as an addendum to the lease agreement between Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club (LNSRC) and VoiceStream Wireless for the siting of cellular towers on LNSRC property. LNSRC will endow the LNCEF with a sum equal to 5% of the gross annual lease proceeds fi~om the lease agreement with VoiceStream Wireless. The LNCEF may, in addition, be contributed to from other sources such as civic leagues, commercial concerns, etc ~- Utilization of LNCEF: ' LNCEF resources will be utilized on beautification projects along primary feeder roads in the Upper Little Neck peninsula including Little Neck Road (north of the intersection with Lynnhaven Road), Lynnhaven Road, Kings Grant Road, Little Haven Road and Harris Road. The fund may also be used for safety, sec__.__urity,__recreation or other purl~ose which primarily benefits those residents of the nortl~ern Little Neck Peninsula Administration of LNCEF: The LNCEF will be administered by a committee consisting of the presidents of northern// Little Neck civic leagues, a designated representative of the Little Neck Fire Station No. 20, a designated representative of the Plaza Volunteer Rescue Squad, the Lynnhaven District City Councilman, and a designated representative of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club The committee will meet at least once yearly to review funding requests and to select requests for funding. The committee will periodically distribute information describing the LNCEF, its purpose and application, and soliciting requests for funds to civic leagues, Little Neck Schools, the Little Neck Fire Station, the Plaza Volunteer Rescue Squad, Little Neck Church pastors At the discretion of the LNCEF committee, funds may be carried over from one year to the next to support costlier projects The LNCEF committee will designate a chairperson, a secretary and a treasurer Minutes of meetings will be maintained and a treasurers report will be prepared with a copy submitted annually to the LNSRC Board of Directors. Reasonable operating expenses of the board (e.g copy expenses, supplies) may be withdrawn from the fund. PETITION COMMUNICANTION TOWERS TO BE INSTALLED AT THE LITTLE NECK SWIM AND RACQUET CLIYB~ 864 Little Neck Road~ V~ia Beach, Vira, inia 23452 To: The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia BE IT HEREBY KNOWN and stated that the PHYSICIAN/residents of the Little Neck Peninsula and surrounding subdivisions who have affix~ their signatures below are against building, or allowing to be built or erected on the site of the Little Neck Swim ~nd Racquet Club property, any communications towers. We strongly believe that any towers, whether disguised as light poles, flag poles, or other stealth object, or any other conceivable design, will ruin the aesthetics of our Peninsula and neighborhood where our children swim and play. We do .NOT believe that such towers would improve the safety of the surrounding residents or of the patients for whom we provide care. SIGNATURE PRINT ADDRESS PHONE DATE COM]V[UN~C~ION TOWERS TO BE INSTALLED AT THE LITTLE NECK SWIM AND RACQUET CLUB~ 864 Little Neck Road~ Virginia Beach, VirRinia 23452 · To: The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia BE IT HEREBY KNOWN and stated that the HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL/residents of the Little Neck Peninsula and surrounding subdivisions who have affixed their signatures below are against building, or allowing to be built or erected on the site of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club property, any communications towers. We strongly believe that any towers, whether disguised as light poles, flag poles, or other stealth object, or any other conceivable design, will ruin the aesthetics of our Peninsula and neighborhood where our children swim and play. We do NOT believe that such towers would improve the safety of the surrounding residents or of the patients for whom we provide care. SIGNATURE PRINT ADDRESS PHONE DATE ' · · va , v'4 3qo- t ,%° o o · _ , , , PETITION COMMUNICANTION TOWERS TO BE INSTALLED AT THE LITTLE NECK SWIM AND,RACQUET CLUB~ 864 Little Neck Road~ Virginia Beach~ Virginia 23452 To: The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia BE IT HEREBY KNOWN and stated that the residents of the Little Neck Peninsula and surrounding subdivisions who have affixed their signatures below are against building, or allowing to be built or erected on the site of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club property, any communications towers. We strongly believe that any towers, whether disguised as light poles, flag poles, or other stealth object, or any other conceivable design, will ruin the aesthetics of our Peninsula and neighborhood where our children swim and play. We do not want to deny our children the right to have a beautiful, uncluttered-eyesore towers, place to enjoy their sports. SIGNATURE PRINT ADDRESS PHONE DATE ~K~T ! T 1' 0 lq Regarding COHHUNICATION TOWERS PROPOSED TO BE ~qSTALLED AT THE LITTLE NECK SWIM AND RACQUET CLUB, 86~ LITTLE lqECK ROAD, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23&§2 To: The City Council of the City of Vir$inia Beach, Vir§inia BE IT HEREBY KNO~ and stated that the reaidents of the Little lqeck Peninsula and surrounding sub-divisiuns, who have affixed their slSnatures below, are against building or allo~ln$ to be built or erected un the site of the Little lqeckS~lm and l~cquet Club property, any communication to~erso We strongly believe that any towers, whether disguised as light poles, flag poles or other stealth object, or any other conceivable design, ~ill ruin the aesthetics of our Peninsula and neighborhood where our children s~rlm and play. We do not want to deny our children the right to have a beautiful, uncluttered-by- commercial-eyesore tmeer~ place to enjoy their sports. Resardin$ COIdHI~XCATXON TOWEl, S PItOPOSED TO BE II/STAIA~D AT THE LI~ NECK St/IH AND EACQUET CLUB, 864 LITTLE NECK ROAD, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGIl/IA 23452 To: The City Council of[ the City of Vlrsinia Beach, Virginia BE IT HEItEBY ENO~ and stated that the residents of the Little Neck Peninsula and surrounding subodivisians, who have affixed their signatures below, are against bulldins or all,ins to be built or erected un the site of ~he Little Neck and ~cquet Club property, ~y co~icacion t~ers. Ne scronsly believe any towers, whether disguised as light poles, flag poles or o~her stealth object, or any other conceivable desi~, ~ill ruin the aesthetics of our Peninsula and nelshborhood where our c~ldren s~m ~d play. ~e do not want to deny our c~ldren the right to have a beau~iful, unc~utCered-by- c~rcial~yesore towers, place to enjoy their sports. PETITION COMMUNICANTION TOWERS TO BE ,INSTALLED AT .T. HE. L,,IT,T~. E NECK. SWIM AND RACQUET CLUB~ 864 Little Neck R.oad: Virginia Beach: Virginia 23452 To: The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia BE IT HEREBY KNOWN and stated that the residents of the Little Neck Peninsula and surrounding subdivisions who have affixed their signatures below are against building, or allowing to be built or erected on the site of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club property, any communications towers. We strongly believe that any towers, whether disguised as light poles, flag poles, or other stealth object, or any other conceivable design, will ruin the aesthetics of our Peninsula and neighborhood where our children swim and play. We do not want to deny our children the right to have a beautiful, uncluttered-eyesore towers, place to enjoy their sports. SIGNATURE PRINT ADDRESS PHONE DATE ~KTIIION Regarding O~)NI~JNICATION TOILERS PROPOSED TO BE IN~klJJ~D AT THE LITII~ NECK SIqlN AND RACi~UET CLUB, 864 LITILK NECK ROAD, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIP. GINIA 23452 To: The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia BE IT HEREBY KNO~N and stated that the residents of tha Little Neck Peninsula and surroundin$ sub-divisions, who have affixed their signatures below, are against building or allowing to be built or erected on the site of the Little Neck Swim and RAcquet Club property, any co~nunication towers. We strongly believe that any towers, whether disguised as light poles, flag poles or other stealth object, or any other con~eivable design, will ruin the aesthetics of our Peninsula and neighborhood where our children swim and play. We do not want co deny our children the right to have a beautiful, uncluttered-by- couumrcial-eyesore towers, place to enjoy their sports. SI~AI1JR~ PRINTED NANE ADDRESS PHONE NO. DAI__.~E ~o~ ~o~ ~o ~oo~ General L.L.C. Gpm 2415-43-938~ C~ 90~2 ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) - Granted 1-12-99 2. Conditional Use Permit (parking lot addition)- Granted 9-9-97 Subdivision Variance - Denied 12-18-89 Conditional Use Permit (church) - Denied 12-18-89 Conditional Use Permit (church)- Granted 5-23-88 3. Modification of Conditions- Granted 6-25~96 Change of Zoning (A-6 Apartment District to I-1 Light Industrial District)- Granted 11-9-93 4. Change of Zoning (0-2 Office District to B-2 Community Business District) - Granted 8-13-91 5. Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District) - Granted 8-13-91 6 Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District) - Granted 8-13-91 7. Change of Zoning (O-1 Office District to B-2 Community Business District) - Granted 9-8-86 8. Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to R-8 Residential District) - Granted 8-20-84 9. Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to R-8 Residential District)- Granted 8-20-84 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: General Edison, L.L.C. - Change of Zoning District Classification and Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: June 10, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of General Edison, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-2 Community-Business District on the north side of Edison Road, 285.91 feet east of General Booth Boulevard. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for residential use at or above 3.5 dwellings units per acre or for commercial use consistent with the policy recommendations of the plan (GPIN 2415439381; 2415439012). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE ,,, An Ordinance upon Application of General Edison L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for a mini-warehouse facility on the north side of Edison Road, 285.91 feet east of General Booth Boulevard (portion of GPIN 2415439381; 2415439012). DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE Considerations: The applicant wishes to rezone two (2) parcels totaling 10.6 acres of agriculturally zoned property to community business for the development of a retail building and a mini-storage facility. The s~te plan depicts an 8,500 square foot commercial building. The applicant has indicated that a childcare facility will lease this space and plans to construct a 4,200 square foot playground (depicted on the plan) to the rear of the building. Thirty four (34) parking spaces are provided on the plan for the commercial building. The plan also depicts 5.1 acres of mini-storage with 110,475 square feet of interior storage area within eight (8) buildings on the southern portion of the property. The storage facility is proposed on a separate lot. A 720 square foot office and a 1,680 square foot residence are also depIcted on the plan, contained within a two-story structure on a 1,200 square foot building footprint. A large parcel juts into the site, dividing it and impacting its developability. The developers have been unable to acquire this parcel. To the east of this parcel, there is an existing stormwater management facility that is sized to accommodate General Edison Page 2 of 3 the stormwater from the development proposed on these sites. This stormwater facility also serves as a buffer between the proposed use and the neighborhood to the east. The request is consistent with the recommendabons within the Comprehensive Plan for this area. This property is located within the Dam Neck Node of the General Booth Boulevard Corridor, which is primarily commercial in nature. The Plan states that proposals that go beyond the Design Standards for General Booth Boulevard should be given the highest consideration. The submitted elevations depict a highly attractive commercial site as well as a mini-storage facility designed to complement the commercial buildings. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the requests are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, exceed the design standards for the General Booth Boulevard Corridor and are compatible with the surrounding uses. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the requests. · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 with 1 abstention to approve this request subject to the submitted conditional zoning agreement and the following conditions for the mini-storage facility: , The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted site plan entitled, "Conceptual Site Layout and Landscape Plan of Commercial Use & Mini-Storage General Booth Boulevard Virginia Beach, VA," prepared by MS^, PC and dated 3/27/03, which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. . The architectural design elements and exterior building materials for the northern and western facades of the mini storage facility shall be substantially in conformance with the submitted elevations entitled, "Storage Facility," prepared by Ansell Collins Astrin Architects, dated 12/20/02, which have been exhibited to the City Council and are on file in the Planning Department. 3. No barbed wire, razor wire or electrified fences shall be installed on the roof or walls of any of the buildings or on any fencing on or surrounding the property. 4. The installation of chain link fencing shall not be permitted on the site. 5. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded to direct light and glare onto the premises, said lighbng and glare shall be deflected, shaded and focused way from all adjoining property. Any outdoor lighbng fixtures shall not be erected any higher than fourteen (14) feet. General Edison Page 3 of 3 , There shall be no electric powered or diesel powered generators or generators fueled by any other source of energy located outside of any building. 7. The storage units shall be used only for storage of non-hazardous goods. 8. The units shall not be use for office purposes, band rehearsals, residential dwellings, or any other purpose not consistent with the storage of goods. · Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~~J~/~[ City Manager:~'~.-, ~~ GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C./# 12 & 13 May 14, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION L10-211-CRZ-2002 NUMBER: L 10-211 -CU P-2002 REQUEST: 12) Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional B-2 Community Business District. 13) Conditional Use Permit for mini-warehouse. ADDRESS: Property located on the north side of Edison Road, 285.91 feet east of General Booth Boulevard. ~ap L-10 Mop Not, 'to Scole General Edison L.L.C. ]-! [4] Glum 2415-43-93~1 C~ 9012 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. I # 12 & 13 Page 1 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 24154393810000; 24154290120000 6 - BEACH 10.6 acres Carolyn A. K. Smith To develop a day care facility and to construct a self-storage facility. Major Issues: Degree to which proposal is compatible with surrounding properties and the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for the General Booth Boulevard Corridor. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property is currently zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. It is heavily wooded with the exception of the construction of a stormwater management facility along the eastern property line. This facility currently serves .as the best management practice for the existing shopping center to the north. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Looking north to south on access road to outparcels facing General Booth Boulevard North: · Retail center / B-2 Community Bus~ness Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. / # 12 & 13 Page 2 South: East: West: District · Private road, single-family dwelling units / R5-D Residential District · Single-family dwelling units/AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District · Retail out-parcels / B-2 Community Business D~strict Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing The property could be utilized consistent with allowed Zoning: uses within the AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. With Proposed Zoning: Under the proposed zoning, the 10.6 acre site will be developed with a 8,500 square foot retail building (the applicant has a child care business ready to lease the building), and 5.1 acres of mini storage. The proffers tie the architecture to that presented in the elevations and limit the uses within the retail building and the mini- storage site. Zoning History Review of the zoning history in this area reveals that much of the activity consists of requests for rezonings. These applications included several requests for changes to residential districts but the majority are for expansion to the B-2 Community Business District along the General Booth Boulevard corridor. Several auto related use permits and a use permit for a church were also granted near this property. It should be noted that in 2000, a request for a mini-warehouse facility, near the intersection of Culver Lane and General Booth Boulevard with frontage along General Booth Boulevard, was denied by City Council. That use was found to be not suitable for that site, as the Comprehensive Plan recommends suburban residential at medium to high densities. In addition, that property is immediately adjacent to residentially zoned, single-family properties. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is within both the 70 to 75 and the greater than 75 dB Ldn AICUZ surrounding NAS Oceana. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. / # 12 & 13 Page 3 Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The site is predominately wooded and is within the Southern Watersheds Management Area. The majority of the existing trees are not of exceptional size. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is an eight (8) inch water main along the west and north property lines. This site must connect to City water. There is an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer main along the west and north property lines. This site must connect to City sewer. The developer must provide an analysis of the sewer system and pump station to ensure adequate capacity exists prior to connection. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) I Capital Improvement Program (ClP): General Booth Boulevard in the vicinity of this request is a four (4) lane collector roadway. There are no plans to improve this section of General Booth Boulevard in the current ClP. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Ex;st~ng Land Use z_ 10 ADT General Booth Boulevard 31,700 ADT ~ 36,367 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3_ 950 ADT Average Dady Trips 2 as defined by agricultural uses 3 as defined by the square footage of the proposed commercial budding and m~n~-warehouse un~ts that generate a very Iow ADT Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. I # 12 & 13 Page 4 Fire and Rescue: 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. The storage units are to be used only for storage of non- hazardous goods. The units are not to be used for office purposes, band rehearsals, residential dwellings, or any other purpose not consistent with the storage of goods. Gated sites shall provide for Fire Department access using the Knox or Supra Key System. Gates shall have a fail-safe operation in the event of a power failure. All other Fire Department concerns will be addressed through the building permit process. A certificate of occupancy must be obtained from the Building Official prior to occupancy. The shopping center shall be constructed providing adequate tenant separation based on various uses. Comprehensive Plan This property is discussed within the Courthouse / Sandbridge Issues and Policy Section under the Site Specific Planmng Issues, General Booth Boulevard Corridor Area of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for retail commercial. This property is located within the Dam Neck Node of the Design Standards for General Booth Boulevard, which is primarily commercial in nature. The Plan states that proposals that go beyond the Design Standards for General Booth Boulevard should be given the highest consideration. Specific attention should be directed at ensuring adequate buffering of uses from adjacent residential neighborhoods. In the case of the current proposal, this is accomplished in part due to an existing drainage and impoundment easement located adjacent to the residential area. The Plan also points out that the existing road stub in the neighborhood to the east should be considered as a means of providing either vehicular or pedestrian access from the neighborhood to the development; however, the applicant is hesitant to make this formal connection. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. I # 12 & 13 Page 5 Summary of Proposal Proposal The applicant wishes to rezone two (2) parcels totaling 10.6 acres of agriculturally zoned property to community business for the development of a retail building and a mini-storage facility. A conditional rezoning request is required in order to develop the property as proposed. A conditional use permit is also required for the 5.1 acres of mini- storage. The existing parcels are to be resubdivided to accommodate both uses on separate sites. A preliminary plat has been submitted to the Development Services Center for review. Site Design · The site plan depicts an 8,500 square foot commercial building. The applicant has indicated that a child care facility will lease this space and plans to construct a 4,200 square foot playground (depicted on the plan)in the rear of the building, adjacent to the . existing K-Mart parking lot. Thirty four (34) parking spaces are provided on the The plan also depicts 5.1 acres of mini storage with 110,475 square feet of interior storage area within eight (8) buildings on the southern portion of the property. The storage facility is proposed on a separate lot. A 720 square foot office and a 1,680 square foot residence are also depicted on the plan, contained within a two-story structure on a 1,200 square foot budding Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. I # 12 & 13 Page 6 footprint. A large parcel juts into the site, dividing it and impacting its developability. The developers have been unable to acquire this parcel. To the east of this parcel, there is an existing stormwater management facility that is sized to accommodate the stormwater from the development proposed on these sites Vehicular and Pedestrian Access A single vehicular ingress/egress point is proposed into the site that will serve both the retail/day care building and the mini storage operation. Access to General Booth Boulevard will be provided via an existing ingress/egress through the K-Mart parking lot. · Pedestrian access appears to be adequate. Architectural Design · The commercial building's elevation depicts a predominately light brown brick exterior with one (1) large arcade above the main entrance. The arcades are designed with a cream exterior finish insulation system (EFIS) and a grayish blue standing seam metal roof. Awnings of the same blue color match the arcade's metal roof and trim. Glass storefront windows and doors are also depicted. Both the buildings for the proposed day care (the commercial building) and the mini-warehouse structures mimic each other in terms of both the overall design and building materials. The applicant has designed the mini warehouse with faux shutters and roof treatments to provide some architectural relief to the structure. Landscape and Open Space · Category VI, a s~x (6) foot high fence with evergreen shrubs, is required around the perimeter of the mini storage units and as such is depicted on the plan. A six (6) foot high ornamental fence is depicted on the site plan with evergreen shrubs. All fencing throughout both the commercial and mini-storage sites will be consistent in color and material. ! Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. I # 12 & 13 Page 7 Foundation landscaping, interior parking lot landscaping and landscaping around the playground fence is also depicted on the concept plan. A more detailed review of all of the landscaping requirements will be performed during final site plan review. Proffers PROFFER # 1 The site layout shall be developed substantially as shown on that certain exhibit entitled "Conceptual Site Layout and Landscape Plan of Commercial Use & Mini-Storage General Booth Boulevard Virginia Beach, VA," prepared by MSA, PC and dated 3/27/03, (the "Site Plan") which has been exhibited to City Council and is on file with the Planning Department. Staff Evaluation: This proffer ensures that the location of the buildings, parking, landscaping and other components of this project will be as proposed on the plans submitted with this application. This proffer is acceptable. PROFFER # 2 When developed, that portion of the Property depicted on the Site Plan as the Mini-Storage Area (the "Mini-Storage Area") shall be developed for a mini-warehouse facility, with accessory parking and other accessory site features. Staff Evaluation: This proffer identifies the proposed use allowed under the conditional zoning. The use on the specified portion of the property is limited to the mini-warehouse use. PROFFER # 3 When developed, that portion of the Property depicted on the Site Plan as the Commercial Area (the "Commercial Area") shall be developed for uses permitted in the B-2 District along with accessory parking and other accessory site features. Staff Evaluation: This proffer identifies the proposed use allowed under the conditional zoning. The use on the specified portion of the property is limited to commercial uses allowed by right in the B-2 District. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. / # 12 & 13 Page 8 PROFFER # 4 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 5 Staff Evaluation: City Attorney's Office: The architectural design of the Commercial Area shall be substantially compatible with the architectural style and materials reflected in the rendering entitled "Commercial Area," prepared by Ansell Collins Astrin Architects, which has been exhibited to City Council and is on file with the Planning Department. The proffer will require the development to adhere to the high quality design and building materials as depicted on the elevations. This proffer is acceptable. The architectural design of the improvements located in the northern and western portions of the Mini-Storage Area shall be substantially compatible with the architectural style and materials reflected in the rendering entitled "Storage Facility," prepared by Ansell Collins Astrin Architects, dated 12/20/02 which has been exhibited to City Council and is on file with the Planning Department. The proffer will require the development to adhere to the high quality design and building materials as depicted on the elevations. This proffer is acceptable. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated April 23, 2003, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request These requests for a rezoning from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District and a Conditional Use Permit for a min-warehouse facility is acceptable. The request is consistent with the recommendations within the Comprehensive Plan for this area. This property is located within the Dam Neck Node of the General Booth Boulevard Corridor, which is primarily commercial in nature. The Plan states that proposals that go beyond the Design Standards for General Booth Boulevard should be given the highest consideration. The submitted elevations depict a highly attractive commercial s~te as well as a mini-storage facility designed to complement the Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. I # 12 & 13 Page 9 commercial buildings. The Plan also suggests that specific attenbon should be directed at ensuring adequate buffering of uses from adjacent residential neighborhoods. The proposed plan accomplishes this in part due to an existing 105-foot wide drainage and impoundment easement along the eastern property line. This drainage easement combined with the intervening parcel places the mini-warehouse buildings nearly 300 feet from the residential area. The Comprehensive Plan also points out that the existing road stub m the neighborhood to the east should be considered as a means of providing access from the neighborhood to the development; however, the applicant is hesitant to make this formal connection, citing primarily liability concerns. Staff understands the reluctance of the applicant to provide this connection, but encourages the applicant to further investigate the potential of this connection as a means of reducing the number of vehicle trips on the roadways in th~s area, allowing neighborhood residents the ability to walk or ride a bicycle to this and the adjacent retail center. Staff is recommending approval of these Change of Zoning and Conditional Use Permit requests subject to the submitted conditional zoning agreement and the conditions listed below regarding the mini-storage facility. Conditions for Use Permit , The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted site plan entitled, "Conceptual Site Layout and Landscape Plan of Commercial Use & Mini-Storage General Booth Boulevard Virginia Beach, VA," prepared by MSA, PC and dated 3/27/03, which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. . The architectural design elements and exterior building materials for the northern and western facades of the mini storage facility shall be substantially in conformance with the submitted elevations entitled, "Storage Facility," prepared by Ansell Collins Astrin Architects, dated 12/20/02, which have been exhibited to the City Council and are on file in the Planning Department. 3. No barbed wire, razor wire or electrified fences shall be installed on the roof or walls of any of the buildings or on any fencing on or surrounding the property. 4. The installation of chain link fencing shall not be permitted on the site. . All outdoor lighting shall be shielded to direct light and glare onto the premises, said lighting and glare shall be deflected, shaded and focused way from all adjoining property. Any outdoor lighting fixtures shall not be erected any higher Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. I # 12 & 13 Page 10 than fourteen (14) feet. 6. There shall be no electric powered or diesel powered generators or generators fueled by any other source of energy located outside of any building. 7. The storage units shall be used only for storage of non-hazardous goods. 8. The units shall not be use for office purposes, band rehearsals, residential dwellings, or any other purpose not consistent with the storage of goods. ~OTE: I I · Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable city Codes., ,, Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. / # 12 & 13 Page 11 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. I # 12 & 13 Page 12 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. / # 12 & 13 Page 13 =2= il Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. I # 12 & 13 Page 14 IInterior of units Il Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. I # 12 & 13 Page 15 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. / # 12 & 13 Page 16 Z Z Z Z ,., , ,sc-osUR =,ST^T M NT,, , ,,,, t i F iil ~ ii" i ii 11 11 t i i11 i i i Ell i1 il ~11111 i ii 11111 ii iii iii i Applicant's Name: ~ 7.z:liso~, L.L.C. List Ail Current Property Owners: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) ~ IV I~ve~~~,, I~,,c. r,,S~_~t ,Jo~s, Presi. ,.,d~n, t 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) ~ ~, L.L.C. - ~ O. ~a~, I-I Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other · umncorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below:. APPUCANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below:. (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) I-I 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 Conditional Rezoning Application Page 10 of 14 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GENERAL EDISON, L.L.C. / # 12 & 13 Page 17 Item #12 & 13 General Edison, L.L.C. Change of Zoning Classification and Conditional Use Permit for mini-warehouse facility North side of Edison Road District 7 Princess Anne May 14, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next two items I will call together. Items 12 & 13 its General Edison, L.L.C. Number 12 is an ordinance upon application of General Edison for a change of zoning district classification for AG-1 and AG-2 Agriculture to Conditional B- 2 Community Business District. This is on the north side of Edison Road east of General Booth. It is in the Princess Anne District. The next item, Item #13 is an ordinance upon application of General Edison for a Conditional Use Permit for a mini-warehouse facility on the north side of Edison Road. This is also in the Princess Anne District and there are eight conditions. Yes sir. Tom Kleine: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. For the record, my name is Tom Kleine. I'm a local attorney here on behalf of General Edison, L.L.C. We have reviewed all eight of the conditions and they are acceptable to the applicant. I would note that I understand that in the morning briefing session there was a substitution for condition number two under the Conditional Use Permit. And I understand it was acceptable to the Commission. And it was acceptable to staff. I just wanted to make that clarification. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Kleine. Tom Kleine: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Is there any objection to Item #12 & 13, General Edison for a change of zoning from AG-1, AG-2 to B-2 and for application of General Edison for a Use Permit for mini-warehouse facility? Hearing none, Mr. Knight. Barry Knight: The Planning Commission has looked at this and it looks like their request is consistent with the recommendations within the Comprehensive Plan for this area. It's located on General Booth Boulevard/Dam Neck area, which is primarily commercial in nature. The Plan states that proposals should go beyond the design standards, which they clearly do. The elevations show highly attractive mini-warehouse on the elevation. The Plan also suggests that specific attention should be directed in assuring adequate buffenng uses from adjacent residential neighborhoods and you've done that also. So, the Conumssion feels that this is an adequate use of this property. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Knight. Thank you Mr. Kleine. Item #12 & 13 General Edison, L.L.C. Page 2 Tom Kleine: I thank the Commission. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Ripley, I would move that we approve these items on the consent agenda, Items #12 & 13 with eight conditions. Ronald Ripley: So a motion to approve the items that were just read by Dot Wood. Do I have a second? Seconded by Gene Crabtree. Are there any comments? Robert Miller: I need to abstain from Items #12 & 13. My firm is working on the project. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Are there any other comments? We're ready to vote. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-0, the motion passes with the abstention so noted. 10. Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District) - Granted 4-9-84 11. Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District) - Granted 4-9-84 I:'OR~ NO P S IB OUR #~ City of Virginia Beach In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5663 DATE: May 28, 2003 TO: Leslie L. Lilley DEPT: City Attorney FROM: B. Kay Wilso~~°' DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application General Edison, L.L.C. The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on June 10, 2003. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated April 23, 2003, 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 Document Prepared By: Troutman Sanders LLP 222 Central Park Avenue Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462 Phone: (757)687-7500 Facsimile: (757) 687-7510 AGREF~MENT TI-ilS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made thiso?/Or~ day of April, 2003 by and between GENERAL ,E, DISON~ L.L.C. a Virginia limited liability company (the "Grantor") and the CITY OF VIRGINIA, BE~, CH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"). WITNESSETH: WItEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of certain property generally located in the Beach Election District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia off the eastern side of General Booth Boulevard to the north of Edison Road which contains approximately 10.602 acres, more or less, which property is more particularly described on Ex~,i,b.it A attached hereto (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grante~, so as to change the classification from AG-1 and AG-2 to B-2 Conditional on the Property; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes, including mixed use purposes, through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict, and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the subject Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of the change and the need for various types of uses, GPIN NOS.:2415-43-9381-0000 2415-42-9012-0000 certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned B-2 are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WltEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered in writing in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as part of the proposed conditional amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for in the existing B-2 zoning district by the existing City's Zoning Ordinance (CZO), 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 new Zoning Map relative to the Property, all of which have a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning; and Wl~REAS, said conditions having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, such conditions shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the Property covered by such conditions; provided, however, that such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment if the subsequent amendment is part of the comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance, unless, notwithstanding the foregoing, these conditions are amended or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and executed by the record owner of the subject Property at the time of recordation of such instrument; provided, further, that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee advertised pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2204, which said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent. NOW TItEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, it's successors, 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 of quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit or subdivision approval, hereby make the following 2 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 these proffers (collectively, the "Proffers") shall constitute covenants running with the said Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, it's heirs, personal representatives, assigns, grantees and other successors in interest or rifle, namely: 1. The site layout shall be developed substantially as shown on that certain exhibit entitled "Conceptual Site Layout and Landscape Plan of Commercial Use & Mini-Storage General Booth Boulevard VA. Beach, VA." prepared by MSA, PC and dated 3/27/03 (the "Site Plan"), which has been exhibited to City Council and is on file with the Planning Department. 2. When developed, that portion of the Property depicted on the Site Plan as the Mini-Storage Area (the "Mini-Storage Area") shall be developed for a mini-warehouse facility, with acx, essory parking and other accessory site features. 3. When developed, that portion of the Property depicted on the Site Plan as the Commercial Area (the "Commercial Area") shall be developed for uses permitted in the B-2 District along with accessory parking and other accessory site features. 4. The architectmal design of the improvements in the Commercial Area shall be substantially compatible with the architectural style and materials reflected in the rendering entitled "Commercial Area" prepared by Ansell Collins Astrin Architects, which has been exhibited to City Council and is on file with the Planning Department. 5. The architectural design of the improvements located in the northern and western portions of the Mini-Storage Area shall be substantially compatible with the architectural style and materials reflected in the rendering entitled, "Storage Facility" prepared by Ansell Collins Astrin Architects and dated 12/20/02, which has been exhibited to City Council and is on file with the Planning Department. Further conditions mandated by applicable development ordinances 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 All references hereinabove to zoning districts and to regulations applicable thereto, refer to the City Zoning Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date the conditional zoning amendment is approved by the Grantee. The Grantor 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, including (i) the ordering in writing of the remedying of any noncompliance with such conditions, and (ii) the bringing of legal action or suit to ensure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages or other appropriate action, suit or proceexlings; (2) the failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) if aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator made pursuant to the provisions of the City Code, the CZO or this Agreement, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proc~ngs in court; and (4) the Zoning Map shall show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the subject Property on the map and that the ordinance and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department and that they shall be recor~ in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and indexed in the name of the Grantor and Grantee. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] GRANTOR: GIENF_2AL EDISON, L.L.C. By: Robert O. Copeland COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing_ instrument .w~..ac)/cnowledged before me this~-day of April, 2003, by Robert O. Copeland~, ,, ~ ~ 5~ .~q .~af~eral Edison, L.I..C. He/she is personally known tome. Notary Public EXtlIRIT A Parcel 1: ^I.1. THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying, being and situate in the C~ty of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as PARCEL 2, 9.102 ACRES, MORE OR l.l~$S, as shown on that certain plat entitled "AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OF GENERAL EDISON ASSOCIATES AND DAM NECK PROPERTIES, DB 2490, PG 1877, PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", prepared by Langley and McDonald, dated July 30, 1985 and revised March 31, 1987, which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 2665, at page 1878, et se.q, and said property being further bounded and described as shown on the survey entitled "PHYSICAL SURVEY OF PROPERTY OWNED BY GENERAL EDISON ASSOCIATES, A VIRGINIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" prepared by Site Improvements Associates, Inc., and dated May 25, 1999, as follows: BEGINNING at southwest comer of property of Johnnie Leon Hyman thence N 69° 13' 07" W 27.76'; thence N 24° 50' 36" E 454.51'; thence N 3° 58' 42" E 304.09'; thence N 11° 57' 27" E 37.76'; thence N 30° 25' 02"E 210.73'; thence S 63° 42' 22" E 621.67'; thence S 69° 05' 57" E 116.42'; thence S 28° 29' 40" W 938.07'; thence N 69° 13' 07" W 119.97'; thence N 21° 20' 32"E 899.60'; thence N 69° 13' 07" W 145.21' thence S 21° 20' 32" W 449.60'; thence N 69° 13' 07" W 145.20'; thence S 21° 20' 32" W 225.00'; thence N 69° 13' 07" W 144.94'; thence S 21 o 20' 32" W 225.00 to the point of beginning. TOGETHER WITH that certain variable width cross reciprocal ingress/egress easement shown on the plat entitled "AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OF GENERAL EDISON ASSOCIATES AND DAM NECK PROPERTIES, DB 2490, PG 1877, PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", prepared by Langley & McDonald, dated July 30, 1985 and revised March 31, 1987, which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Deed Book 2665, at page 1878, et seq. It being a part of the same property conveyed to GENERAL EDISON ASSOCIATES, A VIRGINIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP from W. S. Braithwaite and Elizabeth Allis Braithwaite, husband and wife, et als dated 2/16184 and duly recorded 3/12/84 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Virginia Beach in Deed Book 2319 page 235 and Corrected in Deed Book 2335, at page 1910 and by Deed from Jesse R. James, a/k/a Jesse James, a/Ma Jessie James and Gladys James, husband and wife, dated 10/7/86 and recorded 10/22/86 in Deed Book 2556, page 1092 and by deed from Frances G. Willis and Walter G. Willis, her husband, dated 6/27/84 and recorded 712/84 and recorded in Deed Book 2344, at page 1426. Parcel 2: .AlL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a station on a 20 foot road on the plat of Gresham Village in the line of the property of John Hyman, and running thence North 21° 20' 32" E 450 feet along said Hyman's line; thence S 69° 13' 07" E 145.20' to the line of Sadie Walker's; thence along Walker's line S 21° 20' 32" W 450' to said 20 foot road; thence along said road N 69° 13' 07" W 145.20' to the point of beginning, and containing 1.5 acres, more or less, as shown by a plat of Gresham Village, made by W. B. Gallup, County Surveyor, September 20, 1941 and recorded in Map Book 22, at page 70, and being a portion of the property conveyed to Hattie B. Gresham by deed ofP. W. Aclciss, Special Commissioner, dated June 9, 1941, and recorded in Deed Book 206, page 344, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach (formerly Princess Anne County),Virginia. It being the same property conveyed to GENERAL EDISON ASSOCIATES, L.P. a Virginia Limited partnership, by deed from John P. Jackson dated 12/23/98 and recorded 1/26/99 in Deed Book 4021, at page 562. ! CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach, City Zoning Ordinance Amendment MEETING DATE: June 10, 2003 Background: Application of the City of Virginia Beach to amend the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to height regulations in the Agricultural and Residential Districts. Considerations: The last decade witnessed a change in preferred styles for single-family dwellings and in methods of construction. In general, the size of homes increased in terms of interior floor area and the architectural design, particularly the exterior, became more complex. Interior floor to ceiling heights have increased. Roof pitches have become steeper and roof framing more complicated with multiple intersecting roof systems. The overall result has been homes that present a large mass to the streetscape, maximizing every dimensional limit placed on homes within the Residential zoning districts. In a number of instances, the limitation on height, currently at 35 feet, has resulted in problems. As a result of requests from builders, citizens, and the development community, staff examined the current requirements in the City Zoning Ordinance regarding height in the Residential and Agricultural zoning districts and determined that in certain instances, as described in the amendment and the attached staff report, an increase in the limit to 42 feet might be appropriate. Recommendations: The amendments respond to an identified trend in the construction of single- family homes during the last decade without adversely affecting existing homes built at the 35-foot height limit. The amendments are designed, through the restrictions on when the 42-foot limit could be used, to ensure that homes that are built at 42 feet are not grossly incompatible with homes at the existing 35-foot limit. The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request. Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance C~ty of Virginia Beach / Height Amendment Page 2 of 2 Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~ City Manager: ~ }~, ~T'~~ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - HEIGHTI AMENDMENT / # 16 I May 14, 2003 Background: The last decade witnessed a change in preferred styles for single-family dwellings and in methods of construction. In general, the size of homes increased in terms of interior floor area and the architectural design, particularly the exterior, became more complex. Interior floor to ceiling heights have increased. Roof pitches have become steeper and roof framing more complicated with multiple intersecting roof systems. The overall result has been homes that present a large mass to the streetscape, maximizing every dimensional limit placed on homes within the Residential zoning districts. In a number of instances, the limitation on height, currently at 35 feet, has resulted in problems. As a result of requests from builders, citizens, and the development community, staff examined the current requirements in the City Zoning Ordinance regarding height in the Residential and Agricultural zoning districts and determined that in certain instances, an increase in the limit to 42 feet might be appropriate. This item was deferred at the February 12, 2003, March 12, 2003, and April 9, 2003 hearing at the request of staff to provide time for further discussion with the community and development industry representatives. Proposed Amendments: Application of the City of Virginia Beach to amend the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to height regulations in the Agricultural and certain Residential Districts. The proposed amendment will allow the following to be 42 feet in height: 1. single-family dwellings in the R-15, R-20, R-30 and R-40 Residential Districts in subdivisions of more than 10 lots created after the date of adoption of the amendments; 2. single-family dwellings in the R-40 or R-30 Residential District where all side and rear yard setbacks are at least 5 feet greater than the minimum required; and Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - HEIGHT AMENDMENT I # 16 Page I 3. single-family dwellings in Agricultural Zoning Districts in subdivisions of ten (10) or more lots created after the date of adoption of this subsection or having side and rear yard setbacks of at least twenty - five (25) feet. The method of determining height does not change. That method is to measure from the top of the structure to the lowest point of the lot at a distance of six feet from the structure. The graphics on the following pages are provided as an illustration of the changes. Evaluation: The proposed amendments are recommended for approval. The amendments respond to an identified trend in the construction of s~ngle-family homes during the last decade without adversely affecting existing homes built at the 35-foot height limit. The amendments are designed, through the restrictions on when the 42-foot limit could be used, to ensure that homes that are built at 42 feet are not grossly incompatible with homes at the existing 35-foot limit. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - HEIGHT AMENDMENT I # 16 Page 2 CURRENTLY,THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED A SINGLE-FAMILY, DUPLEX, OR SEMI-DETACHED DWELLING IN ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT IS 35 FEET, AS MEASURED BELOW. LOT LINE I I SINCE THE LOT LINE IS MORE THAN 6 feet · 6 FEET FROM THE BUILDING, MEASURE AT THE LOWEST POINT OF THE LO'PS FINISHED GRADE BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND A POINT 6 FEET FROM THE BUILDING. LOTiLINE i 1 UJ IF THE LOT LINE IS LESS THAN 6 FEET FROM THE BUILDING, THE HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST POINT OF THE LOT'S FINSlHED GRADE WITHIN THE AREA BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE LOT LINE. I I ! ! LOT LINE LOT LINE Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - HEIGHT AMENDMENT I # 16 .... Page 3 PROPOSED - Method of measuring height will be the same as it currently is -- LOT LINE I 6 feet LOTiLINE I I MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 35 feet EXCEPT in the following situations where height can be 42 feet~ FOR SUBDIVISIONS OF TEN (10) OR MORE LOTS CREATED AFTER CT'HE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMB'iT) IN THE R-.40, R-30, R-20, AND R..'lS DISTRICT AND IN THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. OR FOR SINGI,G.FMLY DWELLINGS IN THE AGRICULTURAL DISTIUCT AND IN THE R-30 AND R-4O RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WHERE SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS ARE AT LEAST S FEET GREATER THAN THE WIRED MINIMUM Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - HEIGHT AMENDMENT I # 16 Page 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN SECTIONS 402 AND 503 OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO BUILDING HEIGHT IN AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Sections Amended: City Zoning Ordinance Sections 402 and 503 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so require; BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Sections 402 and 503 of the City Zoning Ordinance are hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 402. Dimensional requirements [Agricultural Zoning Districts]. The following chart lists the requirements within the AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts for minimum lot area, width, yard spacing, and height regulations for single-family dwellings. Note, however, that minimum lot area, as stated in section 402(a) (1), shall not be used to calculate density allowance. Allowable density shall be determined in accordance with section 402(b). (a) For single-family dwellings: (1) Minimum lot area: (2) Minimum lot width: (3) Minimum front yard setback: Agricultural Districts AG-1 AG-2 1 acre 1 acre 150 feet 150 feet 50 feet 50 feet 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 (4) Minimum side yard setback' (5) Minimum rear yard setback: (6) Maximum height, ex- c.ept as provided in subsection (al): 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 35 feet 35 feet (7) The setback for any yard that adjoins a major street or right-of-way designated on the official transportation plan shall be 50 feet. (al) The maximum heiqht for sinqle-family dwellinqs in subdivisions of ten (10) or more lots created after the date of adoption of this subsection, or for single-family dwellinqs having side and rear yard setbacks at least five (5) feet qreater than required, shall be forty-two (42) feet. COMMENT The proposed amendments allow single-family dwellings within Agricultural Zoning Districts in subdivisions of ten (10) or more lots created after the date of adoption of this subsection, as well as single-family dwellings having side and rear yard setbacks at least five (5) feet greater than required, to be 42 feet in height. Sec. 503. Height regulations [Residential Zoning Districts]. The following shall constitute the maximum height requirements for all structures within all Residential Districts. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Me~x-~mmaxlmum height for all buildings and structures ~ shall be thirty-five (35) feet. 59 60 R-40, (b) The maximum heiqht for single-family dwellinqs within the R-30, R-20 or R-15 Residential District in subdivisions of 61 ten (10) or more lots created after the date of adoption of this 62 subsection, or for single-family dwellings located in the R-40 or 63 R-30 Residential District and havin~ side and rear yard setbacks at 64 least five (5) feet greater than required, shall be forty-two (42) 65 feet. (c) Notwithstanding the above, no building or other 67 structure shall exceed the height limit established by section 68 202(b) regarding air navigation. 69 70 71 72 73 COM~fE~ The proposed amendment will allow single-family dwellings within the R-40, R-30, R-20 or R- 15 Residential District in subdivisions of more than 10 lots created after the date of adoption of the amendments, as well as single-family dwellings located in the R-40 or R-30 Residential District and having side and rear yard setbacks at least five (5) feet greater than required, to be 42 feet in height. 74 75 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia, on the day of , 2003. CA-8633 wmm\ordin\heightordin, wpd R-8 May 2, 2003 Virginia Beach, APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Plannin~ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: . -- CUi~y Attorney ~{ O~fice Item #16 City of Virginia Beach/Height Regulations Application of the City of Virginia Beach to amend the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to height regulations in the Agricultural and certain Residential Districts May 14, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item and the last consent item is Item #16, which is the City of Virginia Beach on height regulations, an application of the City of Virginia Beach to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance pertaining to height regulations in the Agricultural and certain Residential Districts. Mr. Scott, would you please comment on that? Robert Scott: Yes ma'am. Planning staff has looked at the zoning regulations that we have in light of recent trends in residential housing construction. And, it's our conclusion that this is a regulation that is in need of some adjustment. We think that in certain situations it would be appropriate to allow houses to be built to a somewhat taller height, specifically 42 feet instead of 35 feet. But in other cases, it would be inappropriate. So, we took a great deal of care in trying to separate the two and we think in the Agricultural Districts where lots are ordinarily quite large and in larger subdivisions, subdivisions of a large number of new lots. And, also on larger lots where the opportunity exists to increase the side yard setbacks to keep the hoses away from the neighbors, it would be appropriate to increase the height to 42 feet instead of 35 feet. In the interest of retaining the residential character that exists in many of our well-established neighborhoods where all the houses before have been built to 35, they would not be allowed ~n those established neighborhoods. We think that's a good separation. We have met with some of the most effected civic league groups on this and we've also met with the home building industry and we feel we have their concurrence on th~s issue. It comes with our recommendation. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Scott. Is there any opposition to item #16, the City of Virginia Beach on height restrictions, an application to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance pertaining to height regulations in the Agricultural and certain Residential Districts? Heating none, Mr. Ripley, I would move that we approve this item on the consent agenda, Item #16. Ronald Ripley: So a motion to approve this item that was just read by Dot Wood. Do I have a second? Seconded by Gene Crabtree. Are there any comments? We're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE Item #16 City of Virginia Beach/Height Regulations Page 2 HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. ABSENT M. APPOINTMENTS ARTS AND HUMANITII~.S COMMISSION BEACHES AND WATERWAYS COMMISSION HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION (HRPDC) OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD SHORE DRIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TOWING ADVISORY BOARD YOUTH SERVICES COUNCIL N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS r i i i i i i i i i i i O. NEW BUSINESS I P. ADJOURNMENT i [ i · I I I Il I I I I I I I I 3