AUGUST 5, 2003 AGENDACITY COUNCIL
MAYOR MEYERA E OBERNDORF, At-Large
VICE MAYOR LOUIS R JONES, Baystde - D~strtct 4
HARRY E DIEZ, EL, Kempsvdle - D~strtct 2
MARGARET L EURE, Centervtlle - Dt~trtct 1
REBA S McCLANAN, Rose Hall -Dtstrtct 3
RICHARD A MADDOX, Beach - D~strtct 6
JIM REEVE, Prmccss Anne -Dtstmct 7
PETER W SCHMIDT, At-Large
RON A IqLIMNUEVA, At-Large
ROSEMARY WILSON, At-Large
JAMES L WOOD, Lynnhaven -Dtstrtct 5
JAMES K SPORE, C~ty Manager
LESLIE L LILLE¥, Ct~y Attorney
RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMC, Ctty Clerk
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
"COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME"
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
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
5 August 2003
I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
- Conference Room-
1:00 PM
Ao
SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) AGREEMENT
E. Dean Block, D~rector- Department of Public Works
Wade Kyle, Administrator- Pubhc Works
Bo
"OLD BEACH" MASTER PLAN
Robert J. Scott, Director - Department of Planning
II REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS
III. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
IV. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
V. 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
VI. FORMAL SESSION
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf
B. INVOCATION:
Chaplmn Donald Staton
Christian Mission Fellowship 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. INFO~ AND FORMAL SESSIONS
July 8, 2003
G AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION
H. PUBLIC HEARING
1 AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM (ARP) - Blackwater and Hungarian Roads
a. Earl R. and Karen M. Bogda - 33.02 acres, 3272 Hungarian Road
b. Samuel R. Bradley - 41.30 acres, 5612 Blackwater Road
II
·
CONSENT AGENDA
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
o
Ordinances to AUTHORIZE the acqmsitlon of Agricultural Reserve Preservation (ARP)
easements and issuance of contract obligations:
ao
33.02 acres at 3272 Hungarian Road in behalf of Earl R. and Karen M. Bogda
(Installment Agreement 2003-58).
bo
41.30 acres at 5612 Blackwater Road in behalf of Samuel R. Bradley (Installment
Agreement 2003-59.
.
Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to accept a Deed of Termination from the
United States of America (USA) to vacate and convey unto the City the entire Lynnhaven
dredge spoil site easement together with all accretions.
o
Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute and deliver the Joint Powers
Association Agreement re purchasing electricity and becoming a member of the Virginia
Energy Purchasing Governmental Association (VEPGA).
.
Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute a Consent to the Assignment of
Ingenco's rights and obligations to MERCANTILE under The Amended Landfill Gas Sale
Agreement re gas recovery system at Landfill II.
o
Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $506,599 grant from the U.S, Transportation
Security Administration re replacement of some current marine patrol boats, related
equipment and additional trmning of the marine patrol unit for the Police Department.
o
Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $243,057 grant from the U. S. Department of
Justice re equipment to address tactical rescue and hazardous materials events for the Fire
Department
.
Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $100,000 grant from the U.S. Department of
Justice; and, TRANSFER $5,000 re hazardous incident robot to address multiple threats,
(such as explosives handling, incendiary devices, weapons of mass destruction, biological and
chemical weapons), to enhance the level of safety for emergency responders and the local
mtizens.
o
Ordinance to establish a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project re Red Wing Lake Golf
Course improvements; and, APPROPRIATE $1,000,000 of fund balance from the Parks and
Recreation Special Revenue Fund to tins project.
.
Resolution establishing the Trauma Center Task Force to restore the Level II Center
designation and identify other issues re current hospital services to be maintained and enhancer
for the citizens of Virginia Beach at Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital
10.
Resolution establislung an Unfunded Education Mandates Joint Task Force and providing
for its membership and duties.
11.
Resolution AUTHORIZING the City Manager issue a Request For Proposal (RFP) and
AWARD an exclusive contract for beverage vending machines on City property.
DEFERRED
July 1, 2003
Ko
PLANNING
.
THE FOLLOWING PLANNING ITEMS WERE ACTED UPON BY CITY COUNCIL
AT THEIR REGULAR FORMAL SESSION PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING ON
TWENTY-FOURTH DAY OF JUNE 2003; HOWEVER, DUE TO A PUBLISHING
ERROR, ADVERTISING OCCURRED ONLY ONCE IN THE BEACON.
THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 24TH WAS
DECLARED NULL AND VOID. THESE ITEMS WERE PUBLISHED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIRGINIA STATE CODE ON JULY 20 AND 27, 2003,
AND ARE SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL ACTION AT THEIR REGULAR
SESSION PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2003:
a.
Application ofTRACY REDBURN re expansion of a nonconforming use to construct
a garage for the one story structure at 615 Twenty-Sixth Street.
DISTRICT 6 - BEACH
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
DENIAL
ALLOW WITHDRAWAL
bo
Application of KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. re dtsconttnuance,
closure and abandonment of a portion of Deun Lane on the north side of Southern
Boulevard, west of Jersey Avenue, to create a consolidated parcel of approximately 5.5
acres.
DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
APPROVAL
APPROVED/CONDITIONED
C.
Application of RACHAEL A. SPRINGER for a Condtttonal Use Permtt re a
residential kennel for up to seven (7) dogs at 5544 Hatteras Road.
DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
APPROVAL
APPROVED/CONDITIONED
d.
Application of MOSE MAST- VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE CO. for a
Condmonal Use Permtt re a bulk storage yard to store raw materials and fimshed
marble products ~n Oceana West Corporate Park at 506 Viking Drive.
DISTRICT 6 - BEACH
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
APPROVAL
APPROVED/CONDITIONED
.
eo
go
ho
i i
i ii ii ' i i i i
Application of GRAND SLAM USA for a Con&ttonal Use Permit re a commercial
recreational facility to operate three (3) indoor batting cages, instructional and
practice facilities, glove repair and a retail business at 3636 Virginia Beach
Boulevard, Suite 107.
DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
APPROVAL
APPROVED/CONDITIONED
Application of WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST for a Condmonal
Use Permtt re a bulk storage for pallets, recyclable cardboard materials and
seasonal sales areas at 1149 Nimmo Parkway.
DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
APPROVAL
APPROVED/CONDITIONED
Applications of JOSEPH G. PIPER to subdiwde the existing lot into three (3) lots,
with two (2) flag lots, at 2332 Seaboard Road re:
DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE
(1) Variance to ~ 4 4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance
(2)
Change of Zomng Dtstrict Classtficatton from AG-2 Agricultural District to
R-15 Residential D~stnct
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
DENIAL
ALLOW WITHDRAWAL
Application of TRITON PCS/SUNCOM for a Mo&ficatton to the Green Run Land
Use Plan re a wireless communication tower on the east side of Independence
Boulevard, southeast of Nesbitt Drive, within an existing Virginia Power substation are~
DISTRICT 3 -ROSE HALL
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
APPROVAL
APPROVED/CONDITIONED
Ordinance to AMEND § 5.6 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance re the width of
sidewalks with a minimum of s~xty (60) roches (rather than 48").
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
APPROVAL
APPROVED
Application of the City of Virgima Beach for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment
of an alley an Block 72, (bordered by Atlantm Avenue, 30~ and 31 st Streets and Pacific Avenue)
beginmng at Laskin Road.
(DISTRICT 6 - BEACH)
Recommendation:
APPROVE
i
i
L. APPOINTMENTS
BEACHES AND WATERWAYS COMMISSION
DEVELOPMENT A~UTHORITY
FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION (HRPDC)
PARKS and RECREATION COMMISSION
PERFORMING ARTS THEATRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
REVIEW AND ALLOCATION COMMITTEE- COG
SHORE DRIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TIDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP HOME COMMISSION
TOWING ADVISORY BOARD
YOUTH SERVICES COORDINATING COMMITTEE
M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
N. NEW BUSINESS
1. ABSTRACT OF CIVIL CASES RESOLVED - June 2003
2. ABSTRACT OF CIVIL CASES RESOLVED - July 2003
O. ADJOURNMENT
If you are physically disabled or visually impaired
and need assistance at th~s meeting,
please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303
Hearing impaired, call: TDD only 427-4305
(TDD - Telephonic Device for the Deaf)
genda 08/01/03/gw
'ww vbgov com
ii i ii i i II III I
I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
- Conference Room-
1:00 PM
Ao
SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) AGREEMENT
E. Dean Block, Director- Department of Pubhc Works
Wade Kyle, Administrator- Public Works
Bo
"OLD BEACH" MASTER PLAN
Robert J. Scott, Director - Department of Planning
II REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS
III. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
IV. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
V. 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
II
i ii i i
! ! i i r i ·
il i i
VI. FORMAL SESSION
A CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf
B. INVOCATION:
Chaplmn Donald Staton
Christian Mission Fellowship 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
July 8, 2003
G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION
i
CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS: The Virgima Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION,
pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance w~th the provisions of The
Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and,
WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code ofVlrgima reqmres a certification by the
governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council
hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters
lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed
Session to which this certification resolution applies, and, (b) only such public business matters
as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or
considered by Virginia Beach City Council.
H. PUBLIC HEARING
1. AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM (ARP) - Blackwater and Hungarian Roads
a. Earl R. and Karen M. Bogda - 33.02 acres, 3272 Hungarian Road
b. Samuel R. Bradley- 41.30 acres, 5612 Blackwater Road
THE BEACON
SUNDAY, JULY 20 20C3
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY
OF I[~%TALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE
ACOUIS'TION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON CERTAIN PROPEPT~'
THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
Not,ce ~¢ hereby g~ven that the C~tv Councd of the C:ty of V~rg~ma
Beach V~rgm,a will hold a Pubhc Hearing wtth res~ct to the exe~u
t~on ar~d dehver~ of Installment Purchase Agreements fo~ the acq ~s,
tlOR of ~gr cu;tu~al ~and preset'at]on easements w~th respect to !and,
I~a~ed da Blackv, ater Road and on Hupgar,an Road, ~n tt'e C~ty of v,,
g, ma Beach V~,ma pursuam to Ordinance No 95 23t9 knov, n
the AgncuEbra[ Laqd~ Preservat,on Ord~,ance, which es[abl,shes
* ~ po~on of [he ~ ,*' des,
agrlcuJl ura J ~ g seA, e program for ,h ~ soutt~e~ n
na~ed to ~a) rromote 8'~g e,~comage tl~e preservat~oc of farmland ,:,
p~ese,,r opelq spaces 8nd the area s rural chafacte~ ICI "O~Ser,'
protect e~vlrcnmen~altv sensitwe resources (dj redure a-,d d~,er
need fei tnalO~ m~ras~ru/ure Ill~l)rOVelT, elltS and the expendcurc o~
pub' c fd~os fo sucI, uqpro~emeGIb, and ~ei assist ir, ~l~,~p'f ~ tl,p
character direction and h,mng of community develcpnae~'t
easeme~,'s w~t, be purchased pursuant to Installmep' Purcl~sse
~re¢~ n¢',~ ~ fo' an est,mated n,axm~um purchase price of ~ !8~ 93 o
The C~% s obh~at~on tc p3y the purchase price under the Ir~Staln,,¢n'
Pt,'chas¢ Ag, esme,~ts ~s a general obi,gat,on ¢¢ the C,t~ and if,
faith and credit and th~ un'~,,ted taxu,g power o¢ the C¢) ~ '~
voc8')') p'~dged to the ,)unctual paw]~ent of the purchase p,,ce
~r,te~est on the uapald pl,flOll, d' balance of the purchase p,~ce
whOr~ ti e Same rcsoeCt ~('Iv t~ecome due and pazable 7he
heanng wl~lcll n,8~ be conlmued or adlocmed Will b6 r,e~d b',
Co,]no cnAu~uS'5 2)03 8~600pm mtl,eQtvCoun,-~lCl3~'
Uca,ed c,~ th, 2,~¢ ftoc~ of tho City Hall Bj~ldmg 240i
D~,¢,- V~r2 sic Beac~ ¥1fd r~a Any person imemsted m t~s
CtT~ OF VIP%NIA BEACH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY
OF INSTALLMENT ~URCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON CERTAIN PROPERTY BY
THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
Nobce is hereb¢ g~ven tha', the Qty Councd of the Qty of Wrgm~a
Beach, V~rgm~a w~ll hold a Public Hearing w~th respect to the execu
t,on and del~ve-y of Installment Purchase Agreements for the acqu~s~
:'on of agncu!tura~ land preservation easements w~th resp~t to lands
located on Blackwater Road and on Hungarian Road, in the C~ty of
gm~a Beach, Wrgm~a, pursuant to Ordinance No 95~2319, known as
the ASr,cultural Lands Preservation Ordinance, ~¢mch estabhshes an
agncuttural reserve program for the southern port,on of the Qty desks
nated to ta) promote and encourage the preservabon of farmland (b)
preserve open spaces and the area's rural character (c) conserve and
protect enwronmentally sensitive resources, (d) reduce and defer the
need for major infrastructure ~mprovements and the expenditure of
pubhc funds for such ~mprovements and (e) assist in shaping the
character, d~rect~on and t~mmg of commumty development Such
easements will be purchased pursuant to Installment Purchase
Agreements for an esbmated maximum purchase pnce of $281 999
The Qty's obligation to pay the purchase price under the Installment
Purchase Agreements ~s a general obligation of the Qty and the full
faith and credit and the unlimited taxing power of the Qty will be ~rre-
vocably p~edged to the punctual payment of the purchase pnce and the
interest on the unpaid pnnc~pal balance of the purchase price as and
when the same respectwely become due and payable The Pubhc
Hearing which may be continued or adjourned, will be held by the City
Councd on August 5, 2003, at 6 O0 p m ~n the City Council Chamber
located on the 2nd floor of the Qty Hall Bu~ld~ng, 2401 Courthouse
Dnve, Wrg~ma Beach, V~rgm~a Any person interested tn th~s ma~er
may appear and be heard
CiTY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINI~
Ruth Hedges Sm '~, MMC
C~tv Clerk
Beacon h:ly 20 '~d J~,l¥ 27 2003 ~047653~
i
Jo
CONSENT AGENDA
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
Ordinances to AUTHORIZE the acquisition of Agricultural Reserve Preservation (ARP)
easements and issuance of contract obligations:
33.02 acres at 3272 Hungarian Road in behalf of Earl R. and Karen M. Bogda
(Installment Agreement 2003-58).
bo
41.30 acres at 5612 Blackwater Road in behalf of Samuel R. Bradley (Installment
Agreement 2003-59.
.
Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to accept a Deed of Termination from the
United States of America (USA) to vacate and convey unto the City the entire Lynnhaven
dredge spoil site easement together w~th all accretions.
Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute and deliver the Joint Powers
Association Agreement re purchasing electricity and becoming a member of the Virginia
Energy Purchasing Governmental Association (VEPGA).
Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute a Consent to the Assignment of
Ingenco's rights and obhgations to MERCANTILE under The Amended Landfill Gas Sale
Agreement re gas recovery system at Landfill II.
.
Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $506,599 grant from the U.S, Transportation
Security Administration re replacement of some current marine patrol boats, related
equipment and additional traimng of the marine patrol unit for the Police Department.
.
Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $243,057 grant from the U. S. Department of
Justice re equipment to address tactical rescue and hazardous materials events for the F~re
Department
o
Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $100,000 grant from the U.S. Department of
Justice; and, TRANSFER $5,000 re hazardous incident robot to address multiple threats,
(such as explosives handling, incendiary devices, weapons of mass destruction, biological and
chemical weapons), to enhance the level of safety for emergency responders and the local
citizens.
.
Ordinance to establish a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project re Red Wing Lake Golf
Course improvements; and, APPROPRIATE $1,000,000 of fund balance from the Parks and
Recreation Special Revenue Fund to this project.
.
Resolution establislung the Trauma Center Task Force to restore the Level II Center
designation and identify other issues re current hospital services to be maintained and enhancec
for the citizens of Virginia Beach at Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital
10
Resolution estabhshlng an Unfunded Education Mandates Joint Task Force and providing
for its memberstup and duties.
i
I
.
Resolution AUTI-IORIZING the City Manager issue a Request For Proposal (RFP) and
AWARD an exclusive contract for beverage vending machines on C~ty property.
DEFERRED July 1, 2003
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
II
I I
ITEM:
An Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of an Agricultural Land
Preservation Easement and the Issuance by the City of its Contract
Obligations in the Maximum Amount of $102,657 (Property of Earl R. and
Karen M. Bogda)
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
· Background: In May, 1995, the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the
"Ordinance") was adopted by the City Council for the purpose of promoting and
encouraging the preservation of farmland in the rural southern portion of the City. Under
the Agricultural Reserve Program established by the Ordinance, the City purchases the
development rights of eligible parcels of land, leaving the fee simple ownership of the land
unchanged. These purchases are embodied by perpetual agricultural land preservation
easements pursuant to which only agricultural uses, as defined in the Ordinance, are
allowed on the land.
The subject property has been appraised by an independent appraiser retained by
the City. The appraiser has determined the fair market value of the property, based upon
eighteen (18) comparable sales. From the fair market value, the value of the development
rights has been determined by subtracting $900 per acre, which has previously been
established as the farm value (i.e., value of the land restricted to agricultural uses) for land
throughout the southern rural area of the City. The resulting amount is the value of the
development rights of the property.
All offers by the City to purchase the development rights to property are expressly
made contingent upon the absence of any title defects or other conditions which, in the
opinion of the City Attorney, may adversely affect the City's interests, and other standard
contingencies.
· Considerations: The subject property consists of one (1) parcel of land having
approximately 36.02 acres outside of marshland or swampland. It is owned by Earl R. and
Karen M. Bogda. Under current development regulations, there is a total development
potential of four (4) single-family dwelling building sites, one (1) of which would be reserved
for future development. Thus, the preservation easement acquired by the City would cover
approximately 33.02 acres. The site, which is shown on the attached Location Map, is
located on Hungarian Road, in the District of Princess Anne. The proposed purchase
price, as stated in the ordinance, is $102,657 This price is the equivalent of approximately
$3,109 per acre of easement acquired.
The terms of the proposed acquisition are that the City would pay interest only for
a period of 25 years, with the principal amount being due and payable 25 years from the
date of closing. The interest rate to be paid by the City will be the greater of 4.25% per
annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS
purchased by the City to fund its principal obligation under the Installment Purchase
Agreement, not to exceed 6.25% without the further approval of the City Council.
The proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights
pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement, including the purchase price and manner
of payment, are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance.
· Public Information: The ordinance has been advertised by publication in a
newspaper having general circulation in the City once per week for two successive weeks.
· Alternatives: The City Council may decline to purchase the development rights to
the property.
· Recommendations: Adoption ofthe ordinance and acquisition ofthe development
rights, assuming all contingencies are met.
· Attachments: Summary of Material Terms of Installment Purchase Agreement (full
Agreement is on file in the City Attorney's Office)
Recommended Action: Adopbon ~
Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Agnculture
City Manager:~ [/'--'~) 04'f-
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF AN
AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION EASEMENT AND THE
ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF ITS CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS IN
THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $102,657
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agricultural Lands Preservation
Ordinance (the "Ordinance"), Appendix J of the Code of the
City of Virginia Beach, there has been presented to the City
Council a request for approval of an Installment Purchase
Agreement (the form and standard provisions of which have been
previously approved by the City Council, a summary of the
material terms of which is hereto attached, and a true copy
of which is on file in the City Attorney's Office) for the
acquisition of the Development Rights (as defined in the
Installment Purchase Agreement) on certain property located in
the City and more fully described in Exhibit B of the
Installment Purchase Agreement for a purchase price of
$102,657; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid Development Rights shall be
acquired through the acquisition of a perpetual agricultural
land preservation easement, as defined in, and in compliance
with, the requirements of the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed terms
and conditions of the purchase as evidenced by the Installment
Purchase Agreement;
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
1. The City Council hereby determines and finds that
the proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the
Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase
Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment,
are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of
the Ordinance, and the City Manager or his designee is hereby
authorized to approve, upon or before the execution and
delivery of the Installment Purchase Agreement, the rate of
interest to accrue on the unpaid principal balance of the
purchase price set forth hereinabove as the greater of 4.25%
per annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on
United States Treasury STRIPS purchased by the City to fund
such unpaid principal balance; provided, however, that such
rate of interest shall not exceed 6.25% unless the approval of
the City Council by resolution duly adopted is first obtained.
2. The City Council hereby further determines that
funding is available for the acquisition of the Development
Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement on the
terms and conditions set forth therein.
3. The City Council hereby expressly approves the
Installment Purchase Agreement and, subject to the
determination of the City Attorney that there are no defects
49
50
51
52
53
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
in title to the property or other restrictions or encumbrances
thereon which may, in the opinion of the City Attorney,
adversely affect the City's interests, authorizes the City
Manager or his designee to execute and deliver the Installment
Purchase Agreement in substantially the same form and
substance as approved hereby with such minor modifications,
insertions, completions or omissions which do not materially
alter the purchase price or manner of payment, as the City
Manager or his designee shall approve. The City Council
further directs the City Clerk to affix the seal of the City
to, and attest same on, the Installment Purchase Agreement.
The City Council expressly authorizes the incurrence of the
indebtedness represented by the issuance and delivery of the
Installment Purchase Agreement.
4. The City Council hereby elects to issue the
indebtedness under the Charter of the City rather than
pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991 and hereby
constitutes the indebtedness a contractual obligation bearing
the full faith and credit of the City.
68
69
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on this day of , 2003.
70
71
Adoption requires an affirmative vote of a majority of
all members of the City Council.
CA-8923
arppurchase/bogda/bogdaord, wpd
R-1
June 17, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT'
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY' ~~~/~~
La%f~D~partment
APPROVED AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS:
Finance Department
AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM
INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT NO. 2003-58
SUMMARY OF MATERIAL TERMS
SELLER: Earl R. and Karen M. Bogda
PROPERTY LOCATION: 3272 Hungarian Road
PURCHASE PRICE: $102,657
EASEMENT AREA: 33.02 acres more or less
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: 4 single-family dwelling s~tes (3 acqmred, 1 reserved for
future development)
DURATION: Perpetual
INTEREST RATE: Equal to yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS acqmred by City to fund purchase
price, but not less than 4.25% (actual rate to be determined when STRIPS are purchased prior to
execution oflPA). Rate may not exceed 6.25% w~thout approval of City Council.
TERMS: Interest only twtce per year for 25 years, with payment ofprincipal due 25 years from [PA
date
RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER: [PA ownership may not be transferred (except for Estate
Settlement Transfer) for one (1) year following execution and delivery of IPA.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
I
ITEM:
An Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of an Agricultural Land
Preservation Easement and the Issuance by the City of its Contract
Obligations in the Maximum Amount of $179,342 (Property of Samuel R.
Bradley)
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
· Background: In May, 1995, the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the
"Ordinance") was adopted by the City Council for the purpose of promoting and
encouraging the preservation of farmland in the rural southern portion of the City. Under
the Agricultural Reserve Program established by the Ordinance, the City purchases the
development rights of eligible parcels of land, leaving the fee simple ownership of the land
unchanged. These purchases are embodied by perpetual agricultural land preservation
easements pursuant to which only agricultural uses, as defined in the Ordinance, are
allowed on the land.
The subject property has been appraised by an independent appraiser retained by
the City. The appraiser has determined the fair market value of the property, based upon
eighteen (18) comparable sales. From the fair market value, the value of the development
rights has been determined by subtracting $900 per acre, which has previously been
established as the farm value (i.e., value of the land restricted to agricultural uses) for land
throughout the southern rural area of the City. The resulting amount is the value of the
development rights of the property.
All offers by the City to purchase the development rights to property are expressly
made contingent upon the absence of any title defects or other conditions which, in the
opinion of the City Attorney, may adversely affect the City's interests, and other standard
contingencies.
· Considerations: The subject property consists of one (1) parcel of land having
approximately 47.30 acres outside of marshland or swampland. It is owned by Samuel R.
Bradley. Under current development regulations, there is a total development potential of
seven (7) single-family dwelling building sites, two (2)of which would be reserved for future
development. Thus, the preservation easement acquired by the City would cover
approximately 41.30 acres. The site, which is shown on the attached Location Map, is
located on Blackwater Road, in the District of Princess Anne. The proposed purchase
pnce, as stated in the ordinance, is $179,342 This price is the equivalent of approximately
$4,342 per acre of easement acquired.
The terms of the proposed acquisition are that the City would pay interest only for
a period of 25 years, with the principal amount being due and payable 25 years from the
date of closing. The interest rate to be paid by the City will be the greater of 4.25% per
annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS
purchased by the City to fund its principal obligation under the Installment Purchase
Agreement, not to exceed 6.25% without the further approval of the City Council.
The proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights
pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement, including the purchase price and manner
of payment, are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance.
· Public Information: The ordinance has been advertised by publication in a
newspaper having general circulation in the City once per week for two successive weeks.
· Alternatives: The City Council may decline to purchase the development rights to
the property.
· Recommendations: Adoption of the ordinance and acquisition of the development
rights, assuming all contingencies are met.
· Attachments: Summary of Material Terms of Installment Purchase Agreement (full
Agreement is on file in the City Attorney's Office)
Recommended Action: Adoption
Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Agriculture
City Manager:~ ~--,'"~e'~
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF AN
AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION EASEMENT AND THE
ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF ITS CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS IN
THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $179,342
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agricultural Lands Preservation
Ordinance (the "Ordinance"), Appendix J of the Code of the
City of Virginia Beach, there has been presented to the City
Council a request for approval of an Installment Purchase
Agreement (the form and standard provisions of which have been
previously approved by the City Council, a summary of the
material terms of which is hereto attached, and a true copy
of which is on file in the City Attorney's Office) for the
acquisition of the Development Rights (as defined in the
Installment Purchase Agreement) on certain property located in
the City and more fully described in Exhibit B of the
Installment Purchase Agreement for a purchase price of
$179,342; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid Development Rights shall be
acquired through the acquisition of a perpetual agricultural
land preservation easement, as defined in, and in compliance
with, the requirements of the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed terms
and conditions of the purchase as evidenced by the Installment
Purchase Agreement;
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
1. The City Council hereby determines and finds that
the proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the
Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase
Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment,
are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of
the Ordinance, and the City Manager or his designee is hereby
authorized to approve, upon or before the execution and
delivery of the Installment Purchase Agreement, the rate of
interest to accrue on the unpaid principal balance of the
purchase price set forth hereinabove as the greater of 4.25%
per annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on
United States Treasury STRIPS purchased by the City to fund
such unpaid principal balance; provided, however, that such
rate of interest shall not exceed 6.25% unless the approval of
the City Council by resolution duly adopted is first obtained.
2. The City Council hereby further determines that
funding is available for the acquisition of the Development
Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement on the
terms and conditions set forth therein.
3. The City Council hereby expressly approves the
Installment Purchase Agreement and, subject to the
determination of the City Attorney that there are no defects
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
in title to the property or other restrictions or encumbrances
thereon which may, in the opinion of the City Attorney,
adversely affect the City's interests, authorizes the City
Manager or his designee to execute and deliver the Installment
Purchase Agreement in substantially the same form and
substance as approved hereby with such minor modifications,
insertions, completions or omissions which do not materially
alter the purchase price or manner of payment, as the City
Manager or his designee shall approve. The City Council
further directs the City Clerk to affix the seal of the City
to, and attest same on, the Installment Purchase Agreement.
The City Council expressly authorizes the incurrence of the
indebtedness represented by the issuance and delivery of the
Installment Purchase Agreement.
4. The City Council hereby elects to issue the
indebtedness under the Charter of the City rather than
pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991 and hereby
constitutes the indebtedness a contractual obligation bearing
the full faith and credit of the City.
68
69
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on this day of , 2003.
70
71
Adoption requires an affirmative vote of a majority of
all members of the City Council.
CA-8922
arppurchase/bradley/bradleyord, wpd
R-1
June 17, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT'
Agric~{6re' Department
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY: ./ !
La~ -DeDartme'nt ' -
APPROVED AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS:
Fi~naF~ce Department
AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM
INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT NO. 2003-59
SUMMARY OF MATERIAL TERMS
SELLER: Samuel R. Bradley
PROPERTY LOCATION: 5612 Blackwater Road
PURCHASE PRICE: $179,342
EASEMENT AREA: 41.30 acres more or less
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: 7 single-family dwelhng sites (5 acquired, 2 reserved for future
development)
DURATION: Perpetual
INTEREST RATE: Equal to yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS acqmred by C~ty to fund purchase
price, but not less than 4.25% (actual rate to be determined when STRIPS are purchased prior to
execution of IPA). Rate may not exceed 6.25% without approval of City Council.
TERMS: Interest only twice per year for 25 years, w~th payment of principal due 25 years fi.om IPA
date
RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER: [PA ownership may not be transferred (except for Estate
Settlement Transfer) for one (1)year following execution and delivery of[pA.
I i I
I
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM:
An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager To Accept a Deed of Termination
from the United States of America to Vacate the Lynnhaven Dredge Spoil Site
Easement
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
Background:
The City, with the concurrence of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the" Corps"),_constructed
the Lynnhaven Boat Ramp and Beach Facility ,,o,n what is,,,known as the northern portion of the Corps'
Lynnhaven Inlet Dredge Spoil. Site Easement ( Spoil Site ). To offset the Corps' loss of that portion of
the Spoil Site, the City agreed to provide an_ alternative s~te of equal volume for the placement of the
dredged sand from future Lynnhaven Inlet Maintenance Dredging cycles at Ocean Park Beach. On
February 5, 2002, City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a deed to convey an easement
to the United States of America for the placement of beach quality sand onto Ocean Park Beach, and
accepted a deed ofpartial termination from the United States which vacated and conveyed to the City
that portion of the Spoil Site Easement where the boat ramp was constructed. However, since the
adoption of the Ordinance, the Corps has determined thatit no longer needs the Spoil Site and has
agreed to vacate the entire_ Lynnhaven Dredge Spoil Site Easement together with all accretions and
convey same to the City. Acceptance of the deed of termination requires City Council action.
Considerations:
The proposed ordinance authorizes the City Manager to accept a deed of termination to vacate and
convey unto the City the Spoil Site easement together with all accretions. The legal instrument needed
to effect this conveyance has been reviewed and approved by the C~ty Attorney and Counsel for the
Corps.
Public Information:
Notification will be through the normal agenda process.
Recommendation'
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached ordinance.
Attachments:
Ordinance, Term~nabon Deed, Lynnhaven Dredge Spod S~te Plat with location map inset.
Recommended Action: Approval _~-~_ I
Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Pubhc Work
City Manag~ .... Approval
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ACCEPT A DEED OF TERMINATION FROM THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO VACATE THE LYNNHAVEN
DREDGE SPOIL SITE EASEMENT
WHEREAS, the Umted States of America acquired an easement over
approx,mately 15.67910 acres of real property located off Shore Drive ~n the City of V~rginia
Beach Virgima, for soil d~sposal ~n connection w~th the Un~ted States Army Corps of
8 Engineers' (the "Corps") Lynnhaven Inlet Maintenance Dredging Project (the" Dredge Spoil
Site") by deed recorded in Deed Book 2191, at page 1891;
l0
WHEREAS, the City of V~rg~ma Beach (the "C~ty"), w~th the concurrence of
the Corps, constructed the Lynnhaven Boat Ramp and Beach Facdity on the northern
portion of the Dredge Spoil Site;
13
WHEREAS, the City agreed to prov,de the Corps with an alternative sand
15
placement s~te of equal volume to offset the Corps' loss of a portion of the Dredge Spoil
S~te;
16
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2002, by Ordinance No. 2684G, the C~ty Council
authonzed the C~ty Manager to execute a deed to convey an easement to the United
States of America Corps for the placement of beach quahty sand onto Ocean Park Beach
and to accept a deed of parhal termination from the Un~ted States of Amenca which
vacated and conveyed to the City that portion of the Dredge Spo~l S~te Easement where
the boat ramp was constructed.;
WHEREAS, since the adopbon of the Ordinance, the Corps has determined
that it no longer needs the Dredge Spo~l S~te easement and has agreed to vacate and
2 & convey to the City the enbre Dredge Spoil S~te easement together w~th all accrebons; and
25
WHEREAS, the C~ty and the Corps desire to formalize the conveyance of the
26
2?
Dredge Spoil S~te easement through the execubon of the appropnate legal instrument.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
2 8 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
?.9
That the C~ty Manager ~s authorized to accept the Deed of Termination from
30 the United States for the vacabon and conveyance of the Lynnhaven Dredge Spoil Site
3 :l_ Easement together with all accretions ~n substanhally the same form as attached hereto.
32
This ordinance shall be effecbve from the date of ~ts adopbon.
33
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virgima, on the ~
day of ,2003.
CA- 8933
PREPARED 06/30/03
R-1
Approved as to Content:
~ks
Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency:
City Attorney
Exempt from recording taxes
Under Section
58.1 - 811(A)(3) &
58.1 - 811(C)(4)
TERMINATION DEED OF EASEMENT
LYNNHAVEN INLET BAY AND CONNECTING WATERS
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
TRACT NUMBER 100E-4
THIS DEED, made and entered into this day of ,2003_, by and
between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ("the GRANTOR"), acting by and through the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army (I&H) pursuant to a delegation of authority from the SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY (the "Army"), under and pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act
of 1949 (63 Stat 377), as amended, and the delegation of authority to the Secretary of Defense from the
Administrator of the General Services Administration (41 C F.R 101-47.601) and the redelegatlon of
authority from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of the Army (20 Federal Register 7113), party
of the first part, and the City of Vlrgima Beach, Virginia, ("the GRANTEE"), party of the second part:
WITNESSETH That for and in consideration of the sum of One and 00/100 DOLLAR ($1.00),
cash in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby REMISE,
RELEASE and FOREVER QUITCLAIM unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, all its right, title
and interest whatsoever m and to the following described property situated in Vlrgima Beach, Virginia
TRACT 100E-4
ALL THAT CERTAIN tract of land together with all accretions, lying and situate m Virginia
Beach, Virginia, by perpetual easement to the United States of America and more particularly described
as follows
ALL THAT CERTAIN piece or parcel of land situated in the Bayslde
Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated Lynnhaven Spoil Site,'
Parcel "A", as shown on "PLAT Showing Property to be Acquired by the City of
Vlrgmm Beach from Adin K. Woodward, George E Langley, F. Wayne McLeskey,
Robert A. Lawson, Jr, Nancy B. Lawson, John J. Digges and Mary B. Digges, Bayslde
Borough, Virginia, Virginia," dated July 21, 1981, made by the Bureau of Surveys and
Mapping, Engineering Division, Department of Public Works, City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, attached hereto and incorporated herein and recorded m Map Book 153, Page
41 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Virginia Beach, to which reference is
made for a more particular description.
Being the same lands conveyed to the United States of America by easement deed dated
February 9, 1982, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Virginia Beach, Virgima,
in Deed Book 2191, page ! 891
Prepared by: United States Army Corps of Engineers
GPIN: 1489-58-9234
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, unto the said Grantee, its successors
and assigns, forever, subject to the covenants and conditions herein set forth.
This conveyance is not subject to the reqmrements of Title 10, United States Code,
Section 2662.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused this Deed to be executed by
its duly authorized officer as of the day of 2003.
WITNESS:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BY:
Dillard H. Horton
T~tle. Chief, Real Estate Branch
Norfolk Distnct, US Army Corps of Engineers
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
C~ty of Norfolk
I, the undersigned, a Notary Pubhc in and for the Commonwealth of Virginia, City of
Norfolk, whose commission as such expires on the ~ day of ,200m, do
hereby certify that on this day personally appeared before me in the Commonwealth of V~rg~ma,
C~ty of Norfolk, Ddlard H. Horton, Chief Real Estate Branch, Norfolk D~stnct, whose name ~s
signed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the foregoing ~nstrument to be hIs free act
and deed, dated the ~ day of ., 2003, and acknowledged the same for
and on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL this
~dayof ,2003.
Notary Pubhc
!
I
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
I ITEM:
Ordinance Approvin. g a Joint Powers Association Agreement for the
Purchase of Electricity
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
Background: For many years, the City of Virginia Beach has participated with
other localities in the VMLNACo Virginia Power Steering Committee for the purpose
of negotiating terms for the purchase of electricity. During that time, Dominion
Virginia Power ("Dominion") was the only entity permitted by law to provide
electricity to the City. In 1999, however, the General Assembly enacted legislation
which, among other things, allows other suppliers to sell electricity to retail
customers. It is important to note that, irrespective of the supplier, Dominion will
continue to deliver the electricity.
The existing contract with Dominion runs through June, 2007. It provides that the
City may continue to purchase electricity from Dominion at capped rates orto switch
any or all of its accounts to other providers. Upon expiration of the contract,
however, the City will be required to purchase electricity through a competitive
process. To prepare for this change, Virginia localities have replaced the Steering
Committee with a new entity, called the Virginia Energy Purchasing Governmental
Association (VEPGA). Under the new legislation, VEPGA is an "aggregator" which
may lawfully purchase electricity on behalf of its constituent members. In order to
participate as a member of VEPGA, the City must enter into a Joint Powers
Agreement with other participating localities.
Considerations: There are several considerations involved with the decision to
participate in VEPGA:
Although retail competition has existed in theory since January 1,2003, there
is little likelihood of a true competitive environment in the near future, as no
viable competitors to Dominion have come forward. However, participation
in VEPGA would benefit the City even in the absence of a true competitive
marketplace. These benefits include monitoring of State legislative and
administrative regulatory actions, ongoing analysis of fuel costs (which are
factored into rates paid by the City), monitoring of developments in other
states to learn from their successes and failures, and ongoing assistance
with contract interpretations and service issues associated with the existing
rate contract.
The annual cost of membership for the City for F¥2003-04 is $11,576. This
amount is approximately the same as the annual fees Virginia Beach paid for
membership in the VMLNACo Virginia Power Steering Committee, and
funds are available within existing appropriations. It is anticipated that future
assessments, at least until 2007, will be consistent with this amount.
VEPGA would have the power to enter into legally binding contracts on
behalf of the City without specific City approval of those contracts. Contract
decisions are made by VEPG^'s Board, consisting of 15 members, all of
whom currently are from localities other than Virginia Beach. VEPG^'s by-
laws, however, contain provisions allowing contracts to be awarded only
when the projected costs under the proposed contract would be lower than
existing costs.
Approximately 185 other cities, counties, school boards and other political
subdivisions have already joined VEPG^.
Public Information: Public information for this ordinance can be addressed with
the normal advertisement of the City Council agenda.
Alternatives: Virginia Beach can choose not to participate with VEPGA. If the City
declines to join VEPGA, it could continue under the existing Dominion contract
through June 30, 2007. While the City may, in theory, solicit other suppliers during
the remaining term of the Dominion contract, it is unlikely that there will be any
viable suppliers in the near future. After the Dominion contract expires, Virginia
Beach will be required to purchase electricity using competitive means.
Recommendations: It is recommended that City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance to approve the Joint Powers Agreement under which it would become
a member of the Virginia Energy Purchasing Governmental Association.
Attachments: Ordinance, Summary of Joint Powers Agreement, VEPGA
Frequently Asked Questions
Recommended Action: Approval of Ordinance
Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works~
City Manager~ ¥'- ~ ~¢~'(L.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A JOINT
POWERS ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT FOR THE
PURCHASE OF ELECTRICITY
WHEREAS, the VML/VACo Virginia Power Steering Committee
5 (the "Committee",) which was comprised of representatives of the
6 City of Virginia Beach and other local governments and political
7 subdivisions of the Commonwealth, had for several decades
8 negotiated on behalf of such governmental units a standard form
9 contract for their purchase of electricity supply and delivery
10 service from Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Virginia Power")
11 as a sole source provider; and
12
WHEREAS, political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of
13 Virginia are authorized under Virginia law to exercise powers
14 jointly that they otherwise are authorized to exercise
15 independently, and the terms and conditions of such authorization
16 are set forth in Section 15.2-1300, et seq. of the Virginia Code
17 (the "Joint Powers Act"); and
18
WHEREAS, the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act (the
19 "Restructuring Act") further authorizes municipalities and other
20 political subdivisions in the Commonwealth to aggregate their
21 electricity requirements for the purpose of their joint purchase of
22 such requirements from licensed suppliers, and the Restructuring
23 Act provides that such aggregation shall not require licensure as
24 an aggregator; and
25
WHEREAS, upon an advance determination by the City Council set
26 forth in writing that competitive sealed bidding and competitive
27 negotiation are not fiscally advantageous to the public, the
28 Virginia Public Procurement Act exempts from competitive sealed
29 bidding and competitive negotiation requirements the joint
30 procurement by public bodies, utilizing competitive principles, of
31 electric utility services purchase through member associations; and
32
WHEREAS, the Committee recommends that the aggregation and
33 procurement of electric supply, electric delivery, and other
34 energy-related services ("Energy Services") be effectuated as
35 provided in the Joint Powers Association Agreement (the "Joint
36
Powers Agreement,"), a copy of which has been provided to each
37 member of the City Council and placed on file in the City Clerk's
38 Office, and a summary of the material terms of which is attached to
39 this Ordinance, in accordance with applicable provisions of the
40 Procurement Act, such as the utilization of competitive principles
41 pursuant to an exemption from the Requirements; and
42
WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement contemplates that other
43 services provided by the Committee to its members be effectuated,
44 such services consisting of (i) assistance in implementing standard
45 form contracts for the purchase of services from incumbent
46 electricity utilities (ii) education of members regarding
47 electricity procurement issues, (iii) monitoring of legal and
48 regulatory developments affecting the provision of electricity
49 service to local governments, and (iv) hiring of consultants and
50 legal counsel to assist in its provisions of the foregoing services
51 ("Steering Committee Services"); and
52
WHEREAS, it appearing to the City Council that the joint
53 procurement of the Energy Services pursuant to the Joint Powers
54 Agreement is otherwise in the best interests of the City of
55 Virginia Beach;
56
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
57 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
58
59
60
61
(1) That the City Council hereby finds that competitive
sealed bidding and competitive negotiation for the procurement of
Energy Services are not fiscally advantageous to the public because
the procurement process for Energy Services must be flexible enough
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
to respond to quickly changing market conditions in which energy
prices can fluctuate considerably on a daily or even hourly basis;
(2) That the Joint Powers Agreement and the performance of
the terms and conditions thereof on behalf of the City of Virginia
Beach are hereby authorized and approved; and
(3) That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed
to execute and deliver the Joint Powers Agreement on behalf of the
City of Virginia Beach in substantially the form presented to the
City Council at this meeting.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That the payment obligations of the City pursuant to the
provisions hereof and the Joint Powers Agreement shall be subject
to annual appropriation of requisite funds therefor by the City
Council.
77
78
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
on the day of , 2003.
CA-8377
wmm/ordres/JPA ordin.wpd
R-2 - July 3, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Publi~ Works Dep~rtment
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
S U~ ~[~ ~.FFi C I.EN C Y ·~ /
Cit~ -Attorney"s O~fice
VIRGINIA ENERGY PURCHASING GOVERNMENTAL ASSOCIATION
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
SUMMARY OF MATERIAL TERMS
Organization: Virgima Energy Purchasing Governmental Association (VEPGA)
(formerly VML/VACo Virginia Power Steering Committee)
Purpose:
Joint Powers Association Agreement for Virginia localities to aggregate purchase of
electricity in a competitive market and thereby realize benefits of volume purchases
Functions:
VEPGA develops bid package for purchase of electricity
VEPGA Board reviews bids and awards contracts on behalf of the VEPGA
members
Member agencies are bound by the decisions of the VEPGA Board
Member agencies pay invoices for electricity
Virginia Power continues as default supplier ofelectncityifcontractor cannot
fulfill its obligations
Member agencies are not liable for payment of any charges incurred by other
member agencies
Member agencies may withdraw on July 1 of any year after providing written
notification to the Board by March 1
Benefits:
Quantity purchase should reduce price to all members
Regulatory and legislation monitoring and reporting to members
Ongoing analysis of fuel costs (fuel adjustment clause allows costs to be
passed on to customer)
Monitoring and reporting developments in other states regarding competitive
purchase of electricity
Ongoing assistance with member localities with contract interpretation and
service issues
Cost:
FY2003-04 assessment of $11,576; future assessments anticipated to be a mmilar
amount
Virginia Energy Purchasing Governmental Association
Frequently Asked Questions
About VEPGA (1 to 4)
Jolmng VEPGA (5 to 7)
Fees for Participating in VEPGA (8 to 9)
Conduct of VEPGA Business (10 to 14)
Procurement by VEPGA (15 to 20)
Evaluation of Joint Procurement for Competitive Electricity Purchases (21 to 24)
Quahty of Service Offered by Competitive Electricity Supphers (25 and 26)
Vn'gima Power's Role (27 and 28)
Enrollment Materials (29)
Additional Questions (30)
P.O Box 12164
Richmond, VA 23241
(804) 643-0274
Fax - (804) 643-0351
About VEPGA
1 What 1S VEPGA9
VEPGA as the Vn'gania Energy Purchasing Governmental Association VEPGA is
forrmng March 1, 2002 utilizing a Joint Powers Association Agreement ("JPA
Agreement") as provided by Vlrgima statute VEPGA will, on behalf of 1ts members,
negotiate for power generation. VEPGA will also take over the functions historically
provided by the VML/VACo Vlrgima Power Steenng Committee, which will include
oversight of the current agreement with Dominion Varglma Power, future negotiations
with Domimon Vn'glma Power for distribution rates and terms and conditions of service,
momtonng of legislative and regulatory developments and other energy related functions
as outlined In VEPGA's Bylaws
2 Who are VEPGA Members9
Members are the governmental entities that approve the JPA Agreement by ordinance or
resolution Then' authorized representatives wall sign the JPA Agreement on then' behalf
3 Who makes decisions on behalf of VEPGA9
VEPGA IS governed by 1ts Board, which as assisted by the advice of consultants and legal
counsel and the officers of VEPGA, who are Paul Proto from Henrlco County, Steve
Smclmr from Fan'fax County, and Steve Crmg from the Vn'gmia Mumcipal League The
Board, with the advice and consultatmn of ~ts consultants and legal counsel, as
responsible for procunng bids for electric generation supply, evaluating such bids, and
approving the award of the contract(s) based on such bads
4 Why should our entaty joln VEPGA9
First, should deregulation result in the opportunity for savings, large volume consumers
are lflcely to reahze the greatest benefit Simply put, there ~s strength m numbers The
combined annual usage ofpubhc entities in the Domimon Virginia Power temtory
exceeds 3 7 bflhon kilowatt-hours
Page 2 of 5
Second, as electric deregulanon evolves, local governments anll be obhgated to
competatlvely procure electric generation This type of procurement requn-es spectallzed
expertise that few local governments have m-house Should your locality not have tlus
expertise m-house, you will have to contract with a vendor to provide such expertise If
you constder that cost compared wtth your VEPGA assessment, you wall likely find tt as
much more economtcal to parttctpate m VEPGA
Joining VEPGA
5 Must a local government approve the JPA Agreement by ordmance/resolutton9
Yes Since the JPA Agreement is being undertaken pursuant to the Joint Powers Act, the
JPA Agreement must be approved by ordinance by counties, clttes and towns and by
resolutton by other pohtmal subdlvtslons
Must a local government f'md that competitive sealed bidding and compettttve negotlatton are not
fiscally advantageous to the pubhc9
Yes, in order to take advantage of the exemption from competltave sealed
btddang/compettttve negotiatmn afforded by Section 2 2-4345 A 13 of the Pubhc
Procurement Act. This findtng as included an the sample JPA resolutaon/ordmance
included w~th the JPA matenals
7 Can staff of a locahty sign the JPA Agreement without the approval of tts board9
No The JPA Agreement must be approved by an ordinance adopted by counttes, ctttes
and towns and by a resolutton adopted by other pohttcal subdivisions
Fees for Participating in VEPGA
8 What are the fees for pamctpatmg m VEPGA9
The assessment represents your ent~ty's pro-rata share of the total assessment based on
your pro-rata talowatt-hour usage compared to total usage subject to a $25 m~mmum
9 How as the total assessment determmed9
A work plan and budget based on the expected activity of the Assoctatton for the 12-
month period beginning July 1st ~s developed annually The budget for 2003~04 is
$188,500 By way of comparison, local governments tn the Dommmn Vtrgmta Power
territory spend tn excess of $230 nulhon annually for electric power
Conduct of VEPGA Business
10 How were the lnmal VEPGA Board members selected~
Initial board members were selected from among local governments that actively
parttclpate ~n the VlVlL/VACo Virglma Power Steenng Commtttee process School
dtstncts represent approximately one-third of the total usage of local governments served
by Vtrgtma Power, and approxtmately one-thn'd of the ~mt~al board members serve as
representattves of school dtstncts The board members wall serve staggered terms as
shown on Schedule A of the JPA Agreement As then' terms expire, the Members will re-
elect these board members or choose new Board members to serve three-year terms
Page 3 of 5
11 Why ~s the maximum s~ze of the VEPGA Board hm~ted to fifteen9
The maximum sxze of the VEPGA Board ~s hm~ted to fifteen solely for ease of
administration A larger board (such as one composed of representatives from all
VEPGA members) would reqmre a larger quorum and make ~t more d~fficult for the
board to conduct business Although formal votes by the VEPGA Board will be hm~ted
to VEPGA Board members present at a meeting xn whmh a quorum ~s present,
representanves of all VEPGA members are encouraged to attend board meenngs and
part~cxpate in the d~scuss~on of ~ssues being considered by the VEPGA Board
12 What costs are VEPGA members responsible for?
VEPGA members are responsible for an annual assessment based upon annual energy
consumptmn and for fees associated with any optional VEPGA actlwtaes that VEPGA
members may choose to participate m VEPGA members are also responsible for
payments due under any contract wath a competitive service provider to service that
member's accounts
13 Can VEPGA expand ~ts authority on ~ts own9
The JPA Agreement and the JPA bylaws estabhsh the authority of VEPGA Any
revision of the JPA Agreement would reqmre the agreement of all Members A two-
thirds vote of the entrre Board or a two-th~rds vote of all the Members may amend the
JPA Bylaws
14 What ~s the planned scope of duties and responsibilities of VEPGA members9
Once VEPGA members have executed the JPA Agreement, their ongoing obhgat~ons will
be the payment of annual assessments and the elect~on of the Board at annual meetings
Procurement by VEPGA
15
Will joxnt procurement be undertaken pursuant to competitive sealed btddxng/compet~t~ve
negotmnon reqmrements of Pubhc Procurement Act9
It ~s expected that the joxnt procurement process will be exempt from the competitive
sealed b~ddmg/compet~t~ve negotmt~on reqmrements of the Pubhc Procurement Act
pursuant to the exemption afforded by Section 2 24345 A 13 of the Procurement Act
The JPA Agreement establishes a membership assocmt~on to conduct the joint
procurement pursuant to such exemption
16 Wall competitive pnnmples be employed m the procurement9
Yes Competitive pnnc~ples are reqmred to be utilized pursuant to the exemption
afforded by Section 2 24345 A 13 of the Procurement Act, and the procurement process
to be authorized by the VEPGA Board will be based on compent~ve principles
17 On what bas~s wall the wmmng suppher(s) be selected9
Supphers will be selected based on their quahficatxons and the price savings they offer, as
described m more detml m Section 2 of the JPA bylaws
Page 4 of 5
18 Is VEPGA authorized to execute contracts on behalf of its Members9
Yes The JPA Agreement and the Bylaws perrmt the Chair or V~ce Chau' of VEPGA to
execute on behalf of a VEPGA member one or more contracts for electricity generation
services
19 Who will be obhgated to pay lnd~vidual bills corresponding to each account9
The same entity that pays the bills now will be obligated to pay the ball m the future
There w~ll be no obligation on behalf of one VEPGA member to pay the electric bills of
another VEPGA member
20 Is the payment obligation subject to annual appropriation9
Yes
Evaluation of Joint Procurement for Competitive Electricity Purchases
21
Can a local government achieve similar results by purchasing electricity competitively on its own
rather than joamng VEPGA9
It is possible, but unlikely, that a local government could achieve s~mflar saxangs by
purchasing electricity competltavely on its own Smaller unaggregated accounts are
likely to get higher price bids due to increased transaction costs for competitive suppliers
and due to the suppliers' inability to take advantage of potentmlly better load profiles
offered by a larger aggregation of accounts In addition, using joint procurement permits
consultant's fees and legal fees to be spread out over a larger group Having expertise in
evaluating bids may be particularly helpful due to the currently volatile and evolving
nature of the market for competitive electricity supply
22 Are savings guaranteed to VEPGA members9
No Savings depend upon whether competitive electricity supphers can beat the
shoppmg credit, which as based on the Virglma State Corporation Commission's estnnate
of what future market prices will be The shopping credit xs the amount not paid to
Virginia Power when the supply as purchased from a competitive supplier Pamclpatmg
in VEPGA should make it more feasible for local governments to realize any available
savings that the competitive electricity market can offer. However, if actual market
prices are higher than the shopping credit, then competitive electricity suppliers wall not
be able to offer savings
23 Is participation in VEPGA reqmred?
No Local governments do not have to participate an VEPGA to procure electricity
competitively
24 What is the amount of savings, if any, envisioned by paroclpatmg in VEPGA9
The amount of potential savings between now and 2007 is not known In the local
government pilot program, savings ranged from 3% to 33% with average savings
exceeding 5% of the amount that would otherwise be paid to Vargtma Power In 2007,
capped rates will be eliminated and rates will be estabhshed through competitive
procurement It as reasonable to assume that the purchasing power of a large group of
users will yield better rates than a single user
Page 5 of 5
Quality of Service Offered by Competitive Electricity Suppliers
25
Will the w~nmng suppher(s) be requu'ed to guarantee power quahty and rehabfl~ty equal to or
greater than existing guarantees from Vlrg~ma Power'~
Yes
26
What ~s the risk with regard to rehabfl~ty and quahty of power bexng supphed by a non-Vu'g~ma
Power suppher9
The electricity will still be dehvered through Vzrgm~a Power's transmission and
d~stnbution hnes as well as xts other d~stnbut~on facflxt~es, ~ncludmg the existing
customer meter Nottung will change wath respect to the rehabfl~ty of such transmission
and d~stnbunon servxce, so there should not be any greater risk as to rehabihty and
quahty as a result of purchasing fi'om a non-Vn-glma Power generation suppher
Virginia Power's Role
27
Does the electricity supply service agreement w~th V~rg~ma Power, whach xs effective as of July 1,
2000, address retail access9
Yes In the agreement that was negotiated by the VML/VACo Virginia Power Steenng
Commxttee and fmahzed ~n July of 2001, to be effective as of July 1, 2000, V~rgm~a
Power has agreed to pernut retail access on terms that are s~mflar to the terms offered to
~ts junsdmt~onal customers Local governments have the right to remmn on capped rate
servme through June 30, 2007, or (subject to a phase4n period over 2002), local
governments may purchase electricity supply from competitive supphers' provxders
between 2002 and 2007 All accounts may freely go back and forth between capped rate
service and retail access service, except for larger accounts w~th an annual peak demand
of 500 kW or greater If these larger accounts purchase from compet~uve supphers and
then demde to return to capped rate service, they will have to stay on V~rgmm Power's
capped rate sermce for a m~mmum of one year before they can purchase from
competmve supphers again
28
Will there be any risk that V~rg~ma Power will not service an account that has been dropped by a
competmve servme provider9
Vu'g~ma Power will be obhgated to supply a returmng customer upon the same terms as
if the returning customer had not taken supply from a competitive sermce provider The
risk of entering into a supply contract w~th a non-Vu'g~ma Power suppher ~s not the risk
of whether "the hghts will stay on," but, rather, whether the suppher will walk away from
the contractual obhgatlon to provide the electricity at the agreed upon price The joint
procurement documentation will ~nclude requn'ements related to the obhgatlon of the
proposer to honor ~ts commitment as to price
Additional Questions
29 Where can I get VEPGA enrollment
materials9
Ms Sarah Laumer
Vzrgm~a Mumc~pal League
15 E Frankhn Street (23219)
P O Box 12164 (23241)
Pdchmond, Vn'gm~a
Phone 804 643 0274
Fax 804 643-0351
Emafl slaumer@vml org
30
Who can answer additional questions
about VEPGA9
Mr P Steven Crmg
Vu'g~ma Mumc~pal League
15 E. Franklin Street (23219)
P O Box 12164 (23241)
R~chmond, Vu'gm~a
Phone 804 643 0274
Fax 804 643-0351
Emafl scralg(~,vml org
,0~ OUR #~
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM:
An Ordinance To Authorize The City Manager To Execute A Consent To The
Assignment Of INGENCO's Rights And Obhgations Under The Amended Landfill Gas
Sale Agreement Between The City, VB LFG L.L.C. and INGENCO
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
Background: Industrial Power Generabng Corporation (INGENCO) has been operating the landfill
gas recovery system under the Amended Landfill Gas Sale Agreement ("LFG Agreement") at Landfill
II since January 23, 2001.
INGENCO currently has a loan with Wachovia Bank, N.A. ("Wachowa") to finance its operations. Due
to the drop in interest rates, INGENCO desires to refinance its existing loan with Wachovia and
Mercantile-Safe Deposit and Trust Company ("Mercantile") will agree to make a loan or loans to
INGENCO. As a condition of making the loan, INGENCO has agreed to assign all of its right, title and
interest in the LFG Agreement. The assignment requires the consent of the City.
Considerations: Under the proposed ordinance, the City's consent to the assignment ~s subject to
certain conditions. Specifically, in the event of INGENCO's default under the loan with Mercantile and
upon receipt of written notice from Mercantile of such default, the City will conbnue performance of the
LFG Agreement, provided that (i) any subsequent assignment by Mercantile be approved ~n writing by
the City; (ii) Mercantile or any approved assignee shall assume ~n writing all of INGENCO's obligations,
covenants and agreements under the LFG Agreement; and (iii) the City shall be reimbursed for any
costs incurred by its performance in accordance w~th the terms of the LFG Agreement. The City will
agree to not,fy Mercanble in the event of INGENCO's default under the LFG Agreement, and allow
Mercantile or an approved assignee to cure the default within 60 days or any agreed upon time period
if the default is other than the payment of money which cannot with due diligence be cured within the
60 day time period.
Public Information: Any public information will be handled through the normal agenda process.
Recommendation: The City staff has determined that the consent to the assignment in accordance
with the attached Summary of Terms is appropriate and w~ll not be detrimental to the C~ty's interests.
IGENCO has been fulfilling its responsibihties underthe LFG Agreement and INGENCO's services help
meet the requirements of Virginia Department of Enwronmental Quality pertaining to gas management
plans.
Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed ordinance be adopted.
Attachments:
Ordinance
Summary of Terms
IRecommended Action. Approve Ordinance s~
Submitting Department/Agency: Dept. Of Public Work e Management
C'\Docurnents and Settlngs\cbunnga\Local SettJngs\Temp\~ngencoass~gn2 arf wpd
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSENT TO THE
ASSIGNMENT OF INGENCO'S RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE AMENDED
LANDFILL GAS SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY, VB LFG L.L.C., AND INGENCO
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
WHEREAS, Industrial Power Generating Corporation ("INGENCO") has operated
the landfill gas recovery system under the Amended Landfill Gas Sale Agreement (the "LFG
Agreement") at the landfill owned and operated by the City at 1989 Jake Sears Road, Virginia
Beach, Virginia ("Landfill IT') since January 23,2001;
WHEREAS, INGENCO currently finances its operations through a loan with
Wachovia Bank, N.A.;
WHEREAS, INGENCO desires to obtain a lower interest rate by refinancing its
existing loan with Wachovia, and Mercantile-Safe Deposit and Trust Company, a Maryland banking
association ("Mercantile"), will agree to make a loan or loans (collectively, the "Loan") to
INGENCO to effect the refinancing;
WHEREAS, as a condition of making the Loan, INGENCO has agreed to assign to
Mercantile all ofINGENCO's fight, title and interest in the LFG Agreement;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13.1.(a) of the LFG Agreement, INGENCO is
required to obtain the City's consent to any assignment of rights; and
WHEREAS, the City staff has determined that consent to the assignment of
INGENCO' s rights and obligations under the terms and conditions set forth in the attached Summary
of Terms is appropriate and not detrimental to the interests of the City in that, inter alia, the services
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
to be performed by INGENCO or any approved assignee w~ll assist in meeting the requirement of
the Vlrgima Department of Environmental Quality for a gas management plan at Landfill II.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That the consent to the assignment of INGENCO's rights and obligations under the
LFG Agreement by INGENCO to Mercantile is hereby approved, and the City Manager or his
designee is hereby authonzed to execute such consent in accordance with the Summary of Terms
attached hereto.
32
ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ~ day
33 of .,2003
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Comment
The proposed ordinance allows the collateral assignment of INGENCO's rights and obligations under
the LFG Agreement by INGENCO to Mercantile as required under INGENCO's Loan. For all practical
purposes, the assignment will not be affected unless INGENCO defaults under the terms of its loan agreements.
The City's consent to the assignment is subject to certain conditions which are set forth in the attached Summary
of Terms.
City Council approved a similar assignment on January 22, 2002 between INGENCO and Wachowa
Bank. INGENCO is refinancing its existing loan due to the drop in interest rates.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Dept. of Public Works/I
CA-8937
07/17/2003
R-2
F \Users\VValldej\WPkBZA\mgencoass~gn2 ord wpd
APPROVED AS TO
LE~FFICIEN ~~j~
Law Dept. ~]
OWNER:
ASSIGNOR:
ASSIGNEE:
TERM:
SUMMARY OF TERMS
ASSIGNMENT OF INGENCO'S RIGHTS
UNDER THE LANDFILL GAS SALES
AGREEMENT AT LANDFILL II
City of Virginia Beach
1NGENCO, a Virginia corporation.
Mercantile-Safe Deposit and Trust Company, a Maryland banking association
December 31, 1996 - December 31, 2011
CONDITIONS OF CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT:
In the event oflNGENCO's default under the Loan with Mercantile and upon
receipt of written notice by Mercantile of such default, the City will continue
performance of the LFG Agreement, provided that (i) any subsequent
assignment by Mercantile is approved in writing by the City; (ii) Mercantile
or any approved assignee shall assume in writing all of INGENCO's
obligations, covenants, and a~eement under the LFG Agreement; and (iii)
the City shall be reimbursed for any costs incurred by its performance in
accordance with the terms of the LFG Agreement.
City a~ees to notify Mercantile in the event oflNGENCO' s default under the
LFG Agreement and to allow Mercantile or an approved assignee to cure the
default in within 60 days or any agreed upon time period if the default is
other than the payment of money which cannot with due diligence be cured
witban the 60 day lame period.
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
OF INGENCO UNDER THE LFG
AGREEMENT:
Operation, mmntenance and repair of the LFG processing facility.
Improvement of the existing 12,000 square foot building and installation of
noise abatement equipment such as mufflers, insulation, no~se barrier walls
and landscaping.
Production of electricity for wheeling to customers throughout the Umted
States.
INGENCO will be liable directly to and will ~ndemmfy the City for any and
all liabilities and environmental conditions and/or habihtles created at
Landfill 11 by INGENCO and/or resulting from the LFG processing facility.
Additionally, INGENCO will secure and maintain all insurance policies and
coverages required under the LFG Agreement.
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
VIRGINIA BEACH:
The Department of Public Works Waste Management Division will monitor
the operation of the LFG processing facility and all operations at Landfill 11
to ensure compliance with the LFG Agreement and compliance with the
requirements of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
F \Users\Walldej\Wl:SBZAhngencoass~gn2 sum wpd
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Transportation Security Administration Grant- Port Security
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
· Background:
The C~ty of Virginia Beach has been awarded $506,599.00 from the U.S. Transportation Security
Administration's Port Security Grants Program. These funds w~ll provide for the replacement of
some current police marine patrol boats, related equipment, and provide additional training of
marine patrol officers.
· Considerations:
There ~s no local cash match requirement associated with this grant The grant is for twelve months.
The general categories of the funding requested in the grant application were approved in the
award, however the amount requested in the application v~s not fully funded. Final decisions on
the specific use of these funds still need to be decided between the Pohce Department and the
Transportation Security Administration.
· Public Information:
Public ~nformation will be handled through the normal Council agenda process.
· Alternatives:
This grant will allow for earlier replacement and upgrade of some current manne patrol boats and
equ,pment. Many of these replacements and upgrades have been requested dunng the past few
budget cycles, however limited funding d~d not allow for their inclusion m the ~inal budget.
· Recommendations:
Accept and appropriate $506,599.00 in grant funding from the U.S. Transportation Secunty
Administration's Port Security Grants Program.
· Attachments:
Ordinance
Award Letter
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Police Department ~[~~ .~.
City Manager~, ~.~-
Data/atylord~nlnoncodelManne Patrol ARF
AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE
$ 506,599 FROM THE U. S. TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT' S FY 2003-04 OPERATING BUDGET TO
PURCHASE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT AND PROVIDE
TRAINING FOR THE MARINE PATROL UNIT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
9 VIRGINIA:
10
That $506,599 in grant funds is hereby accepted from
11
the U. S. Transportation Security Administration and
12
appropriated to the Police Department's FY 2003-04 Operating
13
Budget to purchase equipment replacements and training for
14
the Marine Patrol Unit, with federal revenue increased
15 accordingly.
16
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
17 Virginia on the
day of , 2003.
18
19 CA8964
20 Data/aty/ordin/noncode/Marine Patrol ORD
21 R-2
22 July 23, 2003
23
Approved as to Content
Department of Management Services
Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency
Dep~ent~ o~L~w /
Statement of Work
Transportation Security Administration Grant # DTSA20-03-G-01057
Virginia Beach Police Port Security Initiative
The TSA Port Security Grant awarded the City of Virginia Beach $506,599.00 to
increase the Police Departmem's Marine Unit operational preparedness level. This in
turn would increase the overall security level of the Port of Hampton Roads. The Grant
requires the VA Beach Police Departmem to use $400,599 of the grant funds to purchase
3 vessels, which would upgrade currem VA Beach Police vessel capabilities. The Grant
also allocates and additional $106,000 for the purchase of Marine Equipmem.
The Departmem will seek to buy 3 additional vessels that will increase the response
capabilities of the marine unit. Two 27-29 foot vessels and one 30 foot plus vessel will
be sought that are law enforcement proven and capable of responding to incidents in all
types of weather in a safe and rapid manner.
The Marine and Dive unit will use the $106,000 to purchase equipmem that will increase
the respective units ability and capability in performing operations. Dive equipmem will
be upgraded from recreational dive equipment to professional/commercial grade
equipmem. Equipment upgrades include such items as dry suites, full-face
communication masks, dive lights. The cost to upgrade a singe diver will be about
$5,000 with 8 divers being upgraded for a total of $40,000. Other dive equipmem to be
purchased includes high-powered searchlights, two digital underwater cameras, 2
underwater metal detectors; several lit~ bags (capable of lifting 8,000lbs), and tank racks
for marine vessels. These items have a combined cost of $15,000 to $20,000. The
Marine unit will purchase one portable side scan sonar unit at a cost of $20,000. Two
night vision binoculars and 3 EPIRBs will also be purchased for the marine unit at a cost
orS10,000. Each marine unit officers will also have equipmem upgrades, to include foul
weather gear, auto inflating life jackets, stainless steel shotguns, safety helmets, and web
gear for their duty weapons. Upgrades will cost about $1,600 an officer, at 10 officers
this will cost about $16,000. Any additional funds that remain will be used to purchase
equipmem that the marine or dive unit could use to increase their perspective units
operational preparedness level and capability.
July 14, 2003
Re: Transportation Security Administration Grant No. DTSA20-03-G-01057
Dear Mr. Spiess ·
The Review Boards have completed their evaluation of applications submitted under the
Transportation Secudty Administration's (TSA) Broad Agency Announcement for Round 2 of
the Port Security Grants (PSG) Program. As a result, you have been selected for award
under this announcement. Your total awarded amount for the twelve-month project period is
$506,599.00.
You are herein authorized by the TSA Grants Officer to commence work on the project(s) for
which you have been selected. Expenditure of funds may not exceed 30% of the funded
amount prior to negotiation and definitization of changes to terms and conditions under your
onginal application. Negotiations are scheduled to be completed within ninety (90) days after
the award effective date.
Your award can be located at the PSG Round 2 website at
(htt_ps.t/www p_ortsecurttygrants.dottsa_.n_et/). The assistance award with the terms and
condibons and other required forms are available on the PSG website where all requested
reformation must be provided electronically. Although funding is being provided with the initial
award, negotiations to finalize the statement of work, budget, and other terms and conditions
will be conducted after award. You are required to complete this information as soon as
possible in order that we can finish the final negotiation process within the allotted time frame.
The web maintenance team will send you an e-mail informing you on how to access these
documents.
The TSA assumes acceptance if no response is received within two days of this award notice.
You must confirm acceptance of each project awarded to you under the subject grant by
cl~cking on the "Accept" button under Award Letter Link on the Award Information Page. You
are further required to provide the primary point-of-contact (POC) authorized to negotiate the
final SOW, budget, and other terms and conditions with the TSA. Please provide the name,
title, phone and fax numbers, and e-mail address of this POC
In the interest of time, please provide or update the information contained in your original
application by completing and submitting the following documentation using the
corresponding links on the PSG Round 2 website within 30 days:
1 a milestone schedule;
2 SF 424, "Application for Federal Assistance";
3. the apphcable budget pages (SF 424A, "Budget Information - Non-
construction Programs," and/or SF 424C, "Budget Information -Construction
Programs"),
4 the applicable assurances not yet completed (SF LLL, "Disclosure of
Lobbying Activities)"
5 information pertaining to your purchasing system in accordance w~th the
applicable OMB c~rcular;
6 a revised or updated statement of work reflecting the TSA total award amount;
https//mail vbgov com/servlet/webacc/nyrkQdipm~i/GWAP/HR.EF/?action=Attachment .. 7/14/2003
7. the date of your last audit and the organ~zahon that performed the audit
(including audit organization's POC and phone number); and
8. SF 3881, "ACH Vendor/Miscellaneous Payment Enrollment Form," ~f not
already completed and faxed to the TSA Payment Center.
Additionally, please forward to me via email the name, email address, and telephone and fax
numbers of the project contact, if someone other than yourself, for each project. Please refer
to your grant number in the subject line and each project number and title within the text of
your message.
Congratulations! TSA looks forward to working with you on the PSG Program. If you have any
questions, please submit them on the PSG website or contact the Grants Officer assigned to
your award.
Sincerely,
Award
David L. Batcheller
Grants Officer
david, batchelle r@ dhs. gov
https'//mml vbgov.com/servlet/webacc/nyrkQdipmgAi/GWAP/HREF/?acfion=Attachment 7/14/2003
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM:
US Department of Justice Equipment Sub-Grant-Regional Imtiative
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
· Background:
On April 22, 2003, Council adopted a resolution to support a regional grant application for $243, 057
in federal pass through funds from the US Department of Jusbce, to purchase an array of equipment
to address tacbcal rescue and hazardous materials events. The grant was a cooperative effort
between the V, rg~nia Beach F~re Department and Chesapeake Fire-Rescue. On July 9, the Virginia
Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) advised our application had been approved for full
funding.
· Considerations:
The funding w~ll provide enhanced capabilities to safely address rouhne and specialized incidents in
both communities, as well as significantly increasing regional preparedness to mibgate events
revolving terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. As the lead agency of the grant, Virgima
Beach will retain full responsibility for management of the grant funds, distribution of equipment to
the City of Chesapeake and reporting requirements. W~thin the total funding, $118,837 ~s
designated for Virginia Beach and $124,220 is designated for Chesapeake.
· Public Information:
Pubhc Information wll be handled through the normal Council agenda process.
· Alternatives:
The c~ty does not have the capacity to fund the requested ~tems w~thin current revenue projections.
Without approval of the grant funding, the F~re Department would be unable to purchase these items
to enhance capabihties.
· Recommendations:
Accept and appropriate the $ 243,057 US Department of Jushce Equipment Sub-Grant to address
ongoing emergency response needs and increase both the City's and regional capability to
effechvely respond to WMD events.
· Attachments:
Ordinance
Award Letter from Virg~ma Department of Emergency Management
Recommended Action: Accept and appropriate funds
Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department
AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE
$243,057 FROM THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S FY 2003-04 OPERATING
BUDGET TO PURCHASE TACTICAL AND HAZARDOUS
RESPONSE EQUIPMENT FOR THE VIRGINIA BEACH AND
CHESAPEAKE FIRE DEPARTMENTS
WHEREAS, the U. S. Department of Justice has awarded the
9 City of Virginia Beach a $243,057 grant to purchase tactical and
10 hazardous response equipment, and the terms of the grant provide
11 that $124,220 of the grant-funded equipment is intended for the
12 City of Chesapeake.
13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
14 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
15 1. That $243,057 in grant funds is hereby accepted from
16 the U.S. Department of Justice and appropriated to the Fire
17 Department's FY 2003-04 Operating Budget to purchase tactical and
18 hazardous response equipment for the Virginia Beach and
19 Chesapeake Fire Departments, with federal revenue increased
20 accordingly.
21 2. The Fire Department is hereby authorized to provide the
22 City of Chesapeake with equipment purchased using $124,220 of
23 these grant funds, which were awarded by the Department of
24 Justice on behalf of the City of Chesapeake.
25 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
26 Virginia on the day of , 2003.
27 CA-8962
28 Data/aty/ordin/noncode/DOJ Fire Equipment Grant. ORD
29 R-6
30 July 25, 2003
31
Approved as to Content
Department of Management
Services
Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency
Department ~ Law
Department of Justice Cooperative Grant with the City of Chesapeake
The cooperative grant was chosen to facilitate building each jurisdiction's
capabilities in both hazardous materials and technical rescue, while enhancing
regional response assets and capabilities. Both cities are members of the Regional
Hazardous Materials Response Team as well as the Tidewater Regional Technical
Rescue Team. The guidelines of this particular grant program restricted each
jurisdiction to one application in each of two categories-regional and individual
grants. By applying for the regional grant with Chesapeake, we were able to
purchase needed equipment to support local/regional response teams and left the
individual grant for the VB Police department to purchase equipment for
individual department/city use.
Va. Beach will manage all funds. No money will be turned over to Chesapeake.
All purchases will be made by Va. Beach in accordance with local and state
procurement roles and regulations. This will allow for total control and assurance
that all purchases will be made within grant guidelines and regulations and insure
records will be available for the required three years for audit purposes.
A letter has been drafted for to Chief Best with Chesapeake Fire Department
detailing the procurement process that will be followed and responsibilities
required of them in areas such as record keeping, disposition of equipment and
long-term maintenance. Va. Beach will not assume ANY liability for long-term
maintenance costs of any equipment purchased for Chesapeake.
· This grant is for purchase of equipment only. No personnel, construction or
motorized vehicles are allowed within the grant guidelines.
VA. Beach will be purchasing an assortment of heavy rescue equipment
such as a Hurst Tool ("Jaws of Life") and all attachments, air bags for
lifting, and rope rescue devices. Also designated for purchase are fully
encapsulating suits, respiratory protective equipment, and mass
decontamination equipment and monitoring/detection devices for the
Hazardous Materials Team to support Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD) preparedness. Total: $118,837.
Chesapeake equipment designated in this grant include a wide assortment
of heavy/technical rescue tools such as saws, drills, hydraulic tools,
cutting torches, and rope rescue devices. Also included in their portion is
a confined space search camera package as well as a trailer to transport
this new equipment. Total: $124,220.
· The performance period is from the formal acceptance date by City Council-
August 5, 2003 to July 31, 2004.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
MICHAEL M CLINE
State Coordinator
JANET L CLEMENTS
Deputy Coordinator
L RALPH JONES, JR
Deputy Coordinator
Mr James K Spore
C~ty Manager
C~ty of V;rg~ma Beach
Mumc~pal Center Building, #1
V~rg~n~a Beach, V~rgmm 23456
Dear Mr Spore
Department of Emergency Management
10501 Trade Court
Richmond, V~rglma 23236-3713
(804) 897-6500
(TDD) 674-2417
FAX (804) 897-6506
July 8, 2003
'" JUL - 9 2O03
We are pleased to ~nform you that your applications for both the Individual and Cooperative projects under
the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) Equipment Program Compebbve Sub-Grant process have been
approved for funding Your apphcabons were selected from among 80 apphcabons received by the Virginia
Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) The amounts funded for the Ind~wdual and Cooperative
projects submitted were $100,000 and $243,056 26, respecbvely. Please see the attachment for further
informabon on the breakdown of the funds by grant year
To receive your funds you will need to complete the attached forms. These forms ~nclude a Cert~flcahon
that the funds will be expended ~n substanbal conformance w~th your applicabons and m conformance w~th the
ODP restncbons on these funds Th~s cerbficatlon must be completed and sent to VDEM before we can transfer
the funds to you The apphcable restncbons (attached) on the funding are dependent upon which year's funds are
being used for which specific purchase Also included is an Equipment Budget Detail Worksheet Th~s worksheet
may be useful for you to keep track of your purchases of ehg~ble equipment.
The equipment must be purchased before the close of the grant period--July 31, 2004. You must also
prowde evidence to VDEM by the close-out date ~n the form of receipts or invoices that only ehg~ble eqmpment
was purchased w~th these funds In add~bon, you must document the benefits of the equipment purchased using
the performance measures ~denbfled m your apphcabons. The evaluabon using these performance measures
must a~so oe received by VDEM by Ju~y 31,2004
Congratulations on your grant awards We look forward to working w~th you as we ~mprove V~rglma's
capabfl~bes to respond to terronst incidents If you have any quesbons, please call Juhan Gilman at
804-897-6500
S~ncerely,
MMC/bab
Michael M Chne
Attachments
c Chief Alfred Jacocks, Jr
Chief Gregory B Cade
"Worktng to Protect People, Property and Our Commumttes"
ITEM:
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
US Department of Justice Equipment Sub-Grant - S~ngle C~ty In~t~abve
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
· Background:
The C~ty of Virginia Beach was awarded $100,000 from the US Department of Justice Equipment
Sub-Grant for the purchase of a hazardous ~nc~dent robot for the Virginia Beach Pohce Department.
This robot is designed to address multiple threats, such as explosives handling, incendiary dewces,
weapons of mass destrucbon, and b~ological and chemical weapons. Most importantly, ~t will also
allow an enhanced level of safety to all emergency responders and the local c~wlian population
· Considerations:
The funding was awarded based on a threat assessment of a high potential for terror~st and
weapons of mass destruction events ~n the Hampton Roads area. There is no match requirement
associated w~th this grant, however the base cost of the robot exceeds the funding available through
th~s grant. This additional funding requirement is estimated at $5,000, and w~ll be transferred from
the Pohce Department's FY2003-04 operating budget
· Public Information:
Pubhc ~nformation will be handled through the normal Council agenda process.
· Alternatives:
Th~s equipment has been requested during the budget process for a number of years, but funding
had not previously been available for this purpose Without the acceptance of th~s funding, the
Pohce Department cannot proceed with th~s purchase to provide the ~ncreased safety requirements
for these types of situabons.
· Recommendations:
Accept and appropriate $100,000 from the US Department of Justice for the purchase of a
hazardous ~ncident robot, and transfer $5,000 from the Department's FY 2003-04 operating budget
to account for the d~fference ~n equipment cost and the awarded amount.
· Attachments:
Ordinance
Award Letter
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Police Department
Data/aty/ordin/noncode/DO',+'robot. ARF
AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE
$100,000 FROM THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S FY 2003-04
OPERATING BUDGET AND TRANSFER $5,000 WITHIN
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S FY 2003-04 OPERATING
BUDGET TO PURCHASE AHAZARDOUS INCIDENT ROBOT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
9 VIRGINIA:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Virginia on the
1. That $100,000 in grant funds is hereby accepted from
the U. S. Department of Justice and appropriated to the
Police Department's FY 2003-04 Operating Budget, to
purchase a hazardous incident robot, with federal
revenue increased accordingly.
2. That $5,000 is hereby transferred within the Police
Department's FY 2003-04 Operating Budget to cover the
full cost of the robot.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
day of , 2003.
20 CA-8961
21 Data/Aty/Ordin/Noncode/DOJ robot.ORD
22 R-3
23 July 23, 2003
24
25
Approved as to Content
Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency
COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA
MICHAEL M CLINE
State Coordinator
JANET L CLEMENTS
Deputy Coordinator
L RALPH JONES, JR
Deputy Coordinator
Mr James K Spore
C~ty Manager
C~ty of V, rgm~a Beach
Mumc~pal Center Budding, #1
V~rgm~a Beach, V~rgm~a 23456
Dear Mr Spore
Department of Emergency Management
July 8, 2003
10501 Trade Court
Rmhmond, VIrginia 23236-3713
(804) 897-6500
(TDD) 674-2417
FAX (804) 897-6506
JUL - 9 20O3
We are pleased to ~nform you that your apphcabons for both the Individual and Cooperabve projects under
the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) Eqmpment Program Competitive Sub-Grant process have been
approved for funding Your apphcabons were selected from among 80 apphcabons received by the V~rglma
Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) The amounts funded for the Ind~wdual and Cooperabve
projects submitted were $100,000 and $243,056 26, respectwely Please see the attachment for further
~nformabon on the breakdown of the funds by grant year
To receive your funds you will need to complete the attached forms These forms include a Certification
that the funds will be expended ~n substantial conformance w~th your applicabons and in conformance w~t'h the
ODP restncbons on these funds. Th~s cert~ficabon must be completed and sent to VDEM before we can transfer
the funds to you The applicable restrictions (attached) on the funding are dependent upon which year's funds are
being used for which specific purchase Also included is an Equipment Budget Detad Worksheet Th~s worksheet
may be useful for you to keep track of your purchases of ehg~ble eqmpment
The eqmpment must be purchased before the close of the grant period--July 31,2004 You must also
prowde ewdence to VDEM by the close-out date ~n the form of receipts or invo~ces that only ehg~ble equipment
was purchased w~th these funds In addition, you must document the benefits of the eqmpment purchased using
the performance measures ~denbfled ~n your apphcabons The evaluabon using these performance measures
must a~so De received by VDEM by Ju~y 31,2004
Congratulabons on your grant awards We look forward to working w~th you as we ~mprove Vlrg~ma's
capabd~bes to respond to terrorist ~nc~dents If you have any quesbons, please call Julian Gdman at
804-897-6500
S~ncerely,
MMC/bab
M~chael M Chne
Attachments
c Chief Alfred Jacocks, Jr
Chief Gregory B Cade
' Workmg to Protect People, Property and Our Communmes"
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Establish CIP Project g4-042 Red Wing Lake Golf Course
Improvements and Appropriate $1,000,000 of Fund Balance from the Parks and Recreation
Special Revenue Fund to CIP Project #4-042 Red W~ng Lake Golf Course Improvements
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
· Background:
The Virginia Beach Department of Parks and Recreation has operated the 288-acre Red
Wing Lake Golf Course since it first opened in 1971 on land leased from the
Commonwealth of Virginia. After many years of discussion and negotiation, the City of
Virgima Beach recorded the Deed of Sale and Deed of Property Settlement for Red Wing
Lake in July 2002. The course has been heavily utilized and is contmned within a large
track of land. However, the popularity and acreage of the course translates into high
maintenance costs and is in need of improvement and renovation.
· Considerations:
The Executive Director of the Virginia Beach Golf Association and staff from Convention
and Visitor Development agreed it would be more beneficial to take Red Wing Lake
"offiine" for several months to improve the product for both our c~t~zens and our visitors.
We have sufficient capacity in our other courses to absorb Red W~ng's potential rounds
dunng its renovation.
· Public Information:
The Parks and Recreation Commission held two public meetings in October 2000 to obtain
opinions on possible renovations to Red Wing Lake Golf Course. Both meetings resulted
in 90 percent support for Parks and Recreation to renovate the Red Wing Lake Golf Course
rather than contract for another organization to renovate and operate the facility.
· Alternatives:
1__ Refurbish by the City: Total cost is $5 million. In the first year $1,000,000 will be
provided for the initial designs, permitting, studxes, installation of electrical service, and
construction of a new ~rdgation pump house at Red Wing Lake Golf Course. In the
following year, contribute $4,000,000 to complete the project.
2_ Refurbish by the C~ty Including Structures: Total cost is $8 mdhon (Alternative #1 +
$3 million). In addition to those improvements in Alternative #1, this would include
constructmn of a new clubhouse, cart storage, parking lot paving, entrance treatment,
landscaping and on-course restrooms.
3_ Public Private Partnership: Enter into a land lease with a private developer who would
finance, improve, build and operate the golf course.
4_ Sale of Property: The property could be sold with an additional deed restriction
requiring the owner to develop and operate a public golf course.
5. Status Quo: Continue to provide limited improvements.
Recommendations:
Adopt Alternative 1. Establish a $5,000,000 project in the Capital Improvement
Program for Parks and Recreation for Red Wing Lake Golf Course Improvements
by appropriating $1,000,000 from the Parks and Recreatmn Special Revenue Fund
balance in FY 03-04. The additional $4,000,000 for FY04-05 is anticipated from
the General Fund balance, the Parks and Recreation Special Revenue balance and
general debt. The debt will be repaid over a 20-year period with interest to the
General Fund from the revenues generated by Golf Course Operations.
· Attachments:
Draft CIP Project Detail Sheet
.C
Clarence O. Warnstaff, Interim Chief Operating Officer
Cindy A. Curtis, Director, Parks and Recreation ~
Recommended Action:
Submitting Department/Agency:
Redvang Lake Golf Course ARF
AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH CIP
PROJECT #4-042, RED WING LAKE GOLF
COURSE IMPROVEMENTS, AND
APPROPRIATE $1,000,000 OF FUND
BALANCE TO THIS PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Department of Parks and Recreation, on July 8,
8 2003, presented a policy report to City Council recommending
9 improvements to the Red Wing Lake Golf Course; and
10
WHEREAS, the City Council expressed the desire to improve
11 Red Wing Lake Golf Course.
12
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
13 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
14
1. That CIP Project #4-042, Red Wing Lake Golf Course
15 Improvements, is hereby established.
16
2. That $1,000,000 of Fund Balance from the Parks and
17 Recreation Special Revenue Fund is hereby appropriated to CIP
18 Project #4-042, Red Wing Lake Golf Course Improvements, to fund
19 improvements, with estimated revenue increased accordingly.
20
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
21 Virginia on the
day of , 2003.
22 CA8960
23 Data/Ordin/Noncode/Red Wing Lake Golf Course. ORD
24 R-4
25 July 24, 2003
26
27 Approved as to Content
28
29 '
30 .
31 Department of Mana~e~ment~
32 Services
Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency
~partment Q~ZLaw '
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Draft Project
Project # and Title: 4-042 Red Wing Lake Golf Course Improvements
Parks & Recreation I Business Area: Cultural & Recreational
Responsible
Dept.:
Opportunities
Total Total Budget Unappropriated Subsequent Years Future
Programmed Appropriations Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Funding
Funds To Date FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 Requirement
5,000,000 0 1,000,000 4,000,000 0 0 0 0 0
This project is for improvements to the ex~sbng golf course at Red Wing Lake by extending water and sewer utlllbes to the s~te,
new irrigation systems, new greens complexes, cart path renovations, and improvements to the maintenance complexes
The Virginia Beach Department of Parks and Recreation has operated the 288-acre Red Wing Lake Golf Course s~nce ~ first
opened in 1971 on land leased from the Commonwealth of V~rgln;a After many years of d;scussion and negotiation, the C~ty of
Virginia Beach recorded the Deed of Sale and Deed of Property Settlement for Red Wing Lake in July 2002 Because of
concerns over ownership and commitments for ~nfrastructure, improvements and renovations to the course have been prudently
delayed As a result, course infrastructure needs to be brought up to a higher standard than currently exists in order to meet
the recreat;onai needs of our c~lzens
New Project This proJect has been requested in previous years, however until ownersh;p issues were resolved improvements
could not be made
Basis for Estimate FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
0 0 0 0 0 0
Activity From - To Amount Fundin.q Source Amount
Design 08/03-07/04 450,000 2004 Charter Bonds 2,500,000
Construction 11/03-06/05 3.959,800 Fund Balance - General Fund 1,250.000
Equipment 01/04-06/05 250,000 Fund Balance - Parks and Recreation 1.250.000
Contingencies 08/04-06/05 340.200 Total Programmed Financing 5,000,000
Total Budgetary Cost Estimate 5,000,000 Future Funding Requ;rements 0
Total Non-Programmed Costs 0
Total Programmed Costs 5.000,000
Fiscal Year 2003-04 1 Parks and Recreation
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM:
Resolution Establishing the Virginia Beach Trauma Center Task Force
and Providing for its Membership, Duties and Other Matters
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
Background: On June 27, 2003, Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital
downgraded its designation as a Trauma center from Level II to Level II1. As a
result, some trauma victims will have to be transported a much greater distance to
Sentara Norfolk General Hospital.
Considerations: The proposed Resolution, which has been placed before the City
Council at the request of the Mayor and Vice-Mayor, would establish a Virginia
Beach Trauma Center Task Force ("Task Force"), to consist of seven members
appointed by the City Council. Its duty would be "to work cooperatively with
Sentara, the City and the community to explore options to restore the Sentara
VBGH Trauma Center to a Level II designation and to identify other issues facing
Sentara VBGH and its physicians, so as to ensure that current hospital services are
maintained and enhanced for the benefit of the citizens of Virginia Beach."
The Task Force would make its recommendations to the City Council by the end of
November, 2003.
· Public Information: The Resolution would be advertised as a normal agenda item.
· Alternatives:
Recommendations: Adoption of Resolution.
· Attachments:
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Requested by the Mayor and V~ce-Mayor
City Manager:
REQUESTED BY MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF & VICE-MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE VIRGINIA BEACH
TRAUMA CENTER TASK FORCE AND PROVIDING FOR ITS
MEMBERSHIP, DUTIES AND OTHER MATTERS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2003, the designation of Sentara Virginia
Beach General Hospital ("Sentara VBGH") was downgraded from a Level
II to a Level III Trauma Center; and
WHEREAS, the change in designation was made by Sentara with
very little community discussion concerning the potential impacts
of the decision; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the decision, in some emergency
situations, people living in or visiting Virginia Beach will have
to be transported as many as twenty (20) miles to Sentara Norfolk
General Hospital; and
WHEREAS, it is the sense of the City Council that critical
decisions such as this should be made only after members of the
community have had ample opportunity to state their views;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
1. There is hereby established the Virginia Beach Trauma
Center Task Force ("Task Force"), which shall consist of seven (7)
members, who shall be appointed by the City Council and shall serve
without compensation;
2. The duty of the Task Force shall be to work cooperatively
withe Sentara, the City and the community to explore options to
restore the Sentara VBGH Trauma Center to a Level II designation
and to identify other issues facing Sentara VBGH and its
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
physicians, so as to ensure that current hospital services are
maintained and enhanced for the benefit of the citizens of Virginia
Beach;
3. The Task Force shall meet with management of Sentara in
order to fully understand the basis for the decision to change the
designation to Level III and any other service reductions that may
be under consideration; seek public input concerning the decision
and potential solutions; seek the views of the Emergency Medical
Services Department and other appropriate City agencies concerning
the operation ramifications of the decision; identify solutions
implemented by other communities faced with similar circumstances;
identify potential solutions for Virginia Beach; and make
recommendations to the City Council for its consideration.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That the Task Force shall make its report, with
recommendations, to the City Council by November 30, 2003.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia on the day of , 2003.
CA-8968
wmm\ordres\traumacenterres.wpd
R-1 - July 31, 2003
APPROVE, D AS TO LEGAL SUFFIC~NCY:
Depa:tment of' L~w
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
II
Item: Resolution Establishing a Joint Task Force on Unfunded Mandates for Education
and Providing for its Membership and Duties
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
Background: Both the Federal and State governments have imposed significant
mandates upon localities in Virginia (and elsewhere) without providing funding for
compliance with those mandates. Because local governments have no choice but
to comply with the mandates, they must either find new sources of revenue or
sacrifice or limit necessary local programs in order to comply with the mandates.
Among unfunded mandates relating to educabon are the No Child Left Behind Act
and the Virginia Standards of Learning.
Considerations: The resolution establishes a Joint Task Force on Unfunded
Mandates for Education. Members would include Councilmembers Rosemary
Wilson and Ron Villanueva, one representative each of the City Manager's Office
and the City ^ttorney's Office, two members of the School Board, who would be
appointed by the Board, and the Superintendent of Schools.
The mission of the Joint Task Force would be to identify all unfunded federal
and state mandates applicable to the Virginia Beach Public Schools and to
recommend, when appropnate, legislation to rescind or adequately fund such
mandates; and to identify those unfunded mandates which have been imposed by
statute and those which have been imposed by administrative regulation.
The Joint Task Force would be required to report its findings and
recommendations, in writing, to the City Council and the School Board by November
1,2003.
Public Information: The Resolution itself requires no special advertising and will
be advertised as an ordinary agenda item. Once constituted, the Joint Task Force
meeting will be fully subject to the requirements of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act.
Recommendations: Adoption of Resolution
· Attachments:
Recommended Action: Adoption
Submitting Department/Agency: Requested by Councilmembers Rosemary Wilson and Ron
Villanueva
City Manager:
1 REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBERS ROSEMARY WILSON AND RON A. VILLANUEVA
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A JOINT TASK FORCE
ON UNFUNDED MANDATES FOR EDUCATION AND
PROVIDING FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP AND DUTIES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WHEREAS, the Federal and State governments regularly
impose mandates upon local governments in such areas as the
environment, homeland security, election reform and education; and
WHEREAS, such mandates are rarely accompanied by adequate
funding provided by the Federal or State government imposing them,
thereby placing the burden of funding such mandates upon
localities, which are less able than either the Federal or State
government to adequately fund such mandates; and
WHEREAS, in 1995, Congress enacted the Unfunded Mandate
Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, among the stated purposes of which were
to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on
State and local governments and to ensure that the Federal
government pays the costs incurred by those governments in
complying with Federal law; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the enactment of such
legislation, the Federal government has continued to impose
unfunded mandates upon local governments; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia has also continued
to impose upon local governments unfunded mandates, and the General
Assembly has not enacted legislation prohibiting or limiting such
unfunded mandates; and
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
WHEREAS, unfunded federal and state mandates have forced
localities to sacrifice or limit necessary local programs in order
to comply with the mandates imposed by either the Federal or State
governments;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
1. There is hereby established the Joint Task Force on
Unfunded Mandates for Education (hereinafter "Joint Task Force"),
which shall consist of Councilmembers Rosemary Wilson and Ron A.
Villanueva, one representative each of the City Manager's and City
Attorney's Offices, two members of the School Board, who shall be
selected by the Board, and the Superintendent of Schools or his
designee. Members shall serve without compensation.
2. The mission of the Joint Task Force shall be to
identify all unfunded federal and state mandates applicable to the
Virginia Beach Public Schools and to recommend, when appropriate,
legislation to rescind or adequately fund such mandates.
3. The Joint Task Force shall also identify those
unfunded mandates which have been imposed by statute and those
which have been imposed by administrative regulation; and
4. The Joint Task Force shall meet monthly and shall
report its findings and recommendations to the City Council and the
School Board, in writing, by November 1, 2003.
49
50
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on the day of , 2003.
CA-8859
wmm\ordres \mandatetas kforceres2, wpd
R-5
July 31, 2003
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY'~~~_ v ~~
Department of Law
July 1, 2003
MAYOR OBERNDORF'
Are we ready for the question?
CITY CLERK-
Your Honor, I didn't hear whzch Item that
was. I'm sorry.
CITY MANAGER'
Item K-4.
MAYOR OBERNDORF-
Item K-4.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON'
No. No.
CITY ATTORNEY-
No. No.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
No, J-3.
VICE MAYOR JONES ·
That was the Centerville Turnpike
acquzsltion.
CITY CLERK: By a vote of 11 to 0 you have approved the
consent items as read by the Vice Mayor with
the exception of Item 5 for the award for beverage vending machznes
being deferred unt!l August the 5th.
19
July 1, 2003
FORMAL SESSION
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Okay. Mr. Jones, do you want to do the
Consent Agenda?
VICE MAYOR JONES: Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Madam Mayor, under the Consent Agenda I
would like to move for approval of Item J-5, consent to defer until
August the 5th, the Resolution to authorize the City Manager to issue
a Request For Proposal and award an exclusive contract for beverage
vending machines on City property. So move the approval of the
Consent Agenda.
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
Second.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
Are we ready for the question? Mrs. Wilson.
I have a disclosure to make.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
Okay. We pulled Item 4.
I know, but I have another disclosure to
make.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Oh, okay.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I am making this disclosure regardmng City
Counczl dmscussmon and vote on the Ordinance
to authorize the acquisition of land on the west side of Centervzlie
Turnpmke, north of Kempsville Road.
My husband's accounting fzrm provide services to M~chael D. Smfen,
Incorporated, the party to the transactzon; but, he does not
personally provzde services to that corporation.
So, I wish to dzsclose that I am able to partzcmpate zn the
transactzon fazrly, objectmvely and in the best mnterest.
18
July 1, 2003
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Then am I hearing that the
motion that will be adopted will be to delay
this decision until the City employees have a chance to be apprised
of what the staff is going to recommend to the Council. Okay.
CITY MANAGER-
that.
I would recommend that we put mt off untml
August 5th so we have adequate tmme to do
MAYOR OBERNDORF-
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
Okay. Delay until August 5th.
So does that mean that the e-maml wmll be
sent out --
VICE MAYOR JONES'
I'm sure the Manager will take care of mt.
MAYOR OBERNDORF'
Mr. Spore, Mrs. Wmlson has a questmon.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON'
CITY MANAGER:
Does that mean that you're going to be
sending out e-mail to the employees?
It wzll probably be an employee memo,
because not all the employees have e-maz!.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON-
COUNCILMAN REEVE-
Okay.
Put "stickzes" on the drink machmnes.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON'
Thank you.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. So, Number 5 will be pulled and make
a separate motion or mf we consider -- zf
we've all agreed, we wmll delay it until August 5th. Can we just go
ahead and put that on the Consent Agenda?
VICE MAYOR JONES-
Yeah, for consent to do that.
MAYOR OBERNDORF'
Okay. Good.
17
Have you done that?
July 1, 2003
RON KUHLMAN: No.
VICE MAYOR JONES: I guess the hang-up that I have ms, I don't
have a problem wzth what you're proposmng.
I guess my problem ms you haven't told them what you're recommendzng
the Council do and zt would just seem to me -- maybe Mrs. McClanan's
suggestion ms a valid suggestion in that we delay making the
decision until you at least have an opportunmty to tell them what
your conclusmons were and what you're proposal ms to the City
Councml. So, that they don't think we dmd something behmnd themr
backs I guess is what --
RON KUHLMAN:
That's a good point.
VICE MAYOR JONES:
That would be my one concern.
RON KUHLMAN: It was lust -- I hate the word assume, but
mt was pretty much through the Cmty what the
conclusion was going to be, but we never specmfmcally as you
mentioned put out a bulletin saying this ms a result of what we're
doing and thms is what the RFP looks like.
VICE MAYOR JONES:
fair.
It seems to me that what you're recommendmng
reasonable people would conclude that mt's
RON KUHLMAN:
Right.
VICE MAYOR JONES: But mf you do it wmthout tellzng them in
advance that that's what you're gomng to do,
they may think you're trying to pull something over thezr eyes and I
would lmke to try to avomd that mf we could.
RON KUHLMAN:
to do that.
We would too. I mean we're part of
the -- you know part of the team and we want
16
July 1, 2003
COUNCIL LADY EURE: The concern that I have is the size of the
drmnk. If they are gomng to go to a
20-ounce drink which I think ms pretty high, certainly there's gomng
to be more money because everyone is gomng to buy a 20-ounce drmnk
whether they do it, whether they use it or not. So, I'm a lmttle
drawn more to a 16-ounce or a 12-ounce. And I understand there ms
some difference in there between the can and the bottle.
RON KUHLMAN:
Sure.
COUNCIL LADY EURE: But I have a problem wmth having people only
access a 20-ounce drink. I thmnk that's
pretty heavy and so that's my only real concern about it. Other than
that, I don't see a problem with mt.
RON KUHLM~N: I understand that and San Diego, for
example, negotiated themr contract with I
believe mt was Pepsi Cola and there was a commissmon rate for cans
and a commission rate for the 20-ounce bottles. We have a machine
here in this buildmng that vends both.
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
Uh-huh.
RON KUHLMAN:
You can pay the $1.15 for the 20-ounce
bottle or 65-Cents for the 12-ounce can.
So, the bottling companies seem to be more flexible than they used to
be on that issue. I mean we're the buyer and we're at the
negotiating table and if it's something that we don't want
particularly then we can walk away from it.
MAYOR OBERNDOP~F:
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
VICE MAYOR JONES: Earlier you told us that you dmd
an inventory and that you spoke to all the
different areas of employees in order to find out how many dr~nks
they were using and all that sort of thmng, but you dmdn't say that
you had znformed them of your decmszon as a result of that inventory.
15
CITY MANAGER:
July 1, 2003
Right.
RON KUHLM~N'
It's on the incremental part.
COUNCIL LADY EURE:
Okay.
COUNCILMAN REEVE-
But that's for the consultant though --
CITY MANAGER:
Right.
COUNCILMAN REEVE'
-- not the vendor.
RON KUHLMAN-
It's a different group.
COUNCILM~N REEVE' The consultant we hired -- I guess part of
hms contract deal was mf we mncrease revenue
by 20%, he gets 10% of that 20% increase, correct?
COUNCIL LADY EURE-
COUNCILM~N REEVE'
the best --
And the vendor gets whatever he's selling?
The vendors are gomng to negotmate a
prmce with us and I guess the lowest bmd and
RON KUH~'
That's correct.
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
-- proposal is gozng to get the contract.
RON KUHLMAN: They wmll give us a commissmon level and
then it -- whatever the drink cost and
that's -- you know what's over and above, that ms the commission ~hat
will come from that. Then, that commmssmon will be apportioned
accordzngly, employee groups and then how -- to 0peratzng Budget that
are currently using vendzng revenues such as Parks and Recreatmons
for their programs and then into the general fund to fund, you know,
a project that's perhaps under funded rmght now. However, you want
to do mt that.
14
July 1, 2003
COUNCILMAN VILLANUEVA: Well, you know a lot of these Employee
Groups have dzfferent purposes for what we
use the funds for. Is there a current City Policy zn regards to the
"slush fund"?
CITY I~a_NAGER: Well, technically it's prohibzted. The
United Way and the Relay For L~fe are
specmfically provided for, but beyond that there aren't supposed to
fund-raising activities going on City Property.
Now, that doesn't mean there aren't any, but that technically ms the
Policy.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Mrs. Eure.
COUNCIL LADY EURE: For what it's worth, Mr. Bamliff, with the
Fire Department, called thms morning and
said that his concerns have been resolved and he wasn't, you know,
going to be out tonight to speak against this. I don't know what
that's worth, but I wztl pass that along to you. The thing that
persuades me to go ahead w~th this is that the funds are going to
revert back to the employees as they always have, if I understand zt
correctly.
And that vender will not get any of that money. The only thing that
he's gomng to recemve ms 10% over what they are already establmshed.
So, whatever funds they are takmng mn now that's the bar,
I guess.
CITY M~NAGER: We're actually hoping that through thzs
approach we can actually enlarge the amount
of money that would eventually go back to the employees.
COUNCIL LADY EURE: But hms commmssion of 10% is not gomng to
be on what they are getting now. It's going
to be on the increase over; am I correct?
RON KUHLMA/q:
That's correct.
13
July 1, 2003
the most recent information that we had.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Mr. Diezel.
COUNCILM~N DIEZEL:
I think you will fmnd that some of that
would be true in terms of the donations.
If I heard you correctly, Steve, you sazd they could keep thezr old
refrigerators and it wouldn't create a problem? If thezr
refrigerators are red, white and blue, 120-can capacity, that's not a
problem?
RON KUHLMAN: No, and this operation differs. That's
exactly right. This differs from the
230-some machines that the Schools had where there was no chozce
gzven. An RFP went out and Pepsi got the contract and went to the
School Board and that was a done-deal. But, there was a little
different audience. It was a different situatzon entzrely.
So, you know we're trying to address all of these zssues and keep
everything mn balance as we go along.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
I have Mr. Villanueva, Mrs. Eure and
Mr. Jones.
COUNCILMAN VIL~VA: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Ron, thank you for
involving all of the employees zn your
group. You talk about revenues and what you're going to find out
zs -- say we go forward with thms contract and the vending machines
are in the employee areas, the employees m~ght not buy from the
vending machines. They lust hand-bag it and brzng their own stuff
!n.
What is the current City Polmcy mn regards to employees razsing
revenues on Czty Property? Is there a current polmcy on that zn
regards to, you know, funds?
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Do you mean like for Relay For Life or --
12
July 1, 2003
of the discussion other than the members that are on the commmttee?
RON KUHLM~N: Thank you, Steve. On a couple of occasions
we have -- I say a couple, two occasmons we
have sent out to all the City facilmties where we have identified
soft drink machines and have asked for inventories and that is:
Who's the vendor, how many machines do you have, what quantities are
being vended, what's the price and/or what are the commission rates?
So from that perspective, the employees have known that we're going
to do this. Did we say, this ms exactly what we're going to do? No.
But the letter that went out, the memo that went out alluded to the
fact that we're trymng to gather this znformation to consolidate
these contracts. What we got back was the same concerns that are
being vomced now and that ms what happens to our commission revenues.
We have got, you know, these funds. We have thms charmty or
whatever. And the committee with the help of Mr. Thompson and some
conversations we had wmth some Members of Council, you know really
felt that you know having more or less of a self-directed fund
committee within the Employee Groups, you know, was really the way to
go rather than us addressing -- the 40-hour work week came up through
the management leadershmp team.
We have met with them a couple of tmmes and it's not one of the
situatzons where we want to say we're doing this on the back of our
employees.
There are lot of optmons out there where we can, you know, make this
thing work. In looking down through, you know, the Fire and the
Police Department, I noticed that all the Fire Departments
and -- unless somethmng has changed all of the Fmre Departments that
I have lmsted here are emther vended dmrectly by Coke, Pepsi or Royal
Crown. They are all factory machmnes.
Maybe they donated the machines and are allowing the staff to go
ahead and fmll those complete. They dmdn't mention that, but I know
one person within the Fmre Department did accumulate all that data
then, you know, got mt over to us about smx months ago. So, that was
11
COUNCILMAN WOOD:
July 1, 2003
Rmght.
CITY MANAGER SPORE:
can do that in a day.
-- to all the employees through all the
Departments, their dzstrlbution channel. We
In terms of time to respond, you know, you have got the Holiday
coming up over the weekend and so on and so forth. I don't know mf
they would think that was adequate or not.
COUNCILMAN WOOD:
the Council break?
So, if it was a deferral it would
probably be a deferral untml August after
CITY MANAGER:
VICE MAYOR JONES:
August 5th if you want.
The first week in August ms the earliest we
would be able to vote.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Mr. Reeve.
COUNCILMAI~ REEVE:
STEVEN THOMPSON:
But you formed thms committee from some of
the Employee Groups, correct?
Yes, sir.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
That's what I thought.
COUNCILMAN REEVE: So mn a sense the posztion over the prospect
has been out there within the groups that
were managing these machmnes, correct?
STEVEN THOMPSON:
Yes, sir, that's correct.
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
I know Ron ms here.
STEVEN THOMPSON:
I guess -- Ron, has there been any
wide-scale effort to znvolve the employees
10
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
July 1, 2003
Okay. Mr. Schmidt.
COUNCILM~N SCHMIDT: It seems to me that if the zntent behind
this !s to develop some economies of scale
and we go poznting this group and that group out, then we are
defeating the purpose of why the proposal came up in the fzrst place.
I think if we're gozng to do it, we need to step up to the edge and
do zt and see how zt works and presumably we will have good success.
MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Let me go back to the request that
Mrs. Wilson asked that there be a delay for
a week and I believe she and Mrs. McClanan would prefer that there
would be an e-mail alert to the members of the staff of the Czty to
get their input.
Obviously, this won't go on Consent, because I assume there will be
at least three different motions. One, to approve it, one to defeat
it and one to delay it. What is the -- you want to leave ~t off the
Consent Agenda because -- I'm ready to make a decision.
COUNCILM~N MADDOX: If Reba would like to, you know, delay it
for a week, I don't have a problem wmth
that, but I'm also -- if you want to vote it up or down tonight, I'm
okay with that too. But out of deference to them, if they want to
put zt off for a week, I'm fmne.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Mr. Wood.
COUNCILM~N WOOD: I guess this zs a question for the Manager.
Logistically how do you send out an e-mail
to all the employees? And, is one week long enough to let us know,
and this is why, yes. And this is why, no. That you would get
back --
CITY M~NAGER: Well, that's a good poznt. I mean, not all
employees have an e-mall address. A lot of
them do. We can get out a Member Memo --
M]~YOR OBERNDORF:
July 1, 2003
Mr. Jones.
STEVEN JONES:
We have a set contract on that.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Mr. Jones.
VICE MAYOR JONES: What procedure, Steve, are you going to use?
Assuming we pass this, what procedure are
you going to use to determine what machines would be exempted and
what machines would be managed by you and the money that would be
distributed to the employee?
STEVEN THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Jones. We're suggesting to
you that there are no exemptions. That
instead the revenue stream come back and the idea of having a
Commmttee for each Department or each facllmty I think ms fine with
everybody that's been mnvolved ~n this issue; but, the money would
come back to those groups not in actual cash form but they would know
how much money they would they have to allocate to the charmtles or
to offsetting drink prices or whatever.
So, they would decide where that fund ~s going, but we haven't
suggested any exemptions from the fund.
VICE MAYOR JONES: Ail right. So, you're ]ust suggestzng
redistribution of the benefzt fact of the
employees based upon their request? Is that the --
STEVEN THOMPSON:
VICE MAYOR JONES:
Yes, sir. Let them decide how they would
like to use the money.
And you will just be managzng it ms what it
comes down to?
STEVEN THOMPSON:
VICE MAYOR JONES:
That is correct. We take the cash and
disperse mt back to the groups.
Thank you.
July 1, 2003
much are we going to pay them? There was no mention. I know you're
going to have a contract and they are going to put the machznes
but who is gozng to administer it at the City level?
STEVEN THOMPSON: As far as assisting wmth the RFP process,
the Bonham Group, the consultant that we've
used for this will continue to help wmth the RFP all along the lmne
as far as adminmstering the vendor contract once thms ms up and
runnmng next year or the year after and that type of thing.
Presently we would use either Management Services or General
Services. Although, we are changmng our structure somewhat and that
may change.
COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN-
Well, who ms the consultant that you've used
to develop this?
STEVEN THOMPSON-
COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN-
Yes, ma'am. The Bonham Group.
Pardon?
STEVEN THOMPSON'
Bonham, B-o-n-h-a-m.
COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN-
STEVEN THOMPSON'
And how much have we paid them?
We are paymng them 10% of the additmonal
increase mn revenue.
COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN' To the point they haven't been pamd?
STEVEN THOMPSON-
was --
They have been paid. We have paid them
for the initial study whmch I believe
COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN' How much?
STEVEN THOMPSON'
Was about 15 to $20,000. We had a set
contract.
~4AYOR OBERNDORF:
July 1, 2003
Mr. Reeve.
COUNCII/~a_N REEVE: Thank you, Mayor. How is prlcmng for the
drinks? Because I know there was discussion
from possibly a 12-ounce can to a 20-ounce bottle.
In Richard's situation where the Fire Department was basically doing
it at cost as a service, how would pricing for individual machmnes be
set? Would that be the vendors' call?
STEVEN THOMPSON: The issue will be, as you mentioned, going
from a 12-ounce can of product to a 20-ounce
bottle. That's the standard. They sell more and all that.
That would come out of the RFP process, setting the product prmces
and all of that. And, again, what we are suggesting ms the Member
Committee could choose whether they want to use some of the proceeds
to further reduce 5he dollar amount. But, that would be set mn the
negotiations with mhe vendor and through the RFP process.
COUNCILM~N REEVE: So, in a sense the vendor would recommend a
sale price, but then Employee Groups, if
they wanted they could reduce their own price to the benefit of their
employees, yet knowmng that their revenue stream would be reduced?
STEVEN THOMPSON: They would use some of the money that would
naturally come back to -- mn thms case we're
talking about letting each Department set up a Member Committee.
That Member Committee will decmde how much they would lmke to set the
prices at.
COUNCILMAN REEVE:
Okay.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Mrs. McClanan.
COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: I want to ask a question about -- durmng all
of these Presentatmons and I went back
through -- who is gomng to adminmster this at the Cmty level and how
benefzts to the employees.
July 1, 2003
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
your hand or --
I see you, Mr. Reeve, and I have to
recognize -- Mr. Villanueva, did you raise
COUNCILMAN VILLANUEVA: I see no need to delay this request. I'm in
favor of the vending machines being on
public facilities, but not employee areas. I think that's the
contention of the issue here. You know we are raising money on
employees' backs and, you know, they are using it for morale funds
and those purposes are good purposes.
I like your suggestion earlier exempting certain areas, certain
machines and we can go forward with the contract.
STEVEN THOMPSON: Yes, sir. And, agamn, it comes down to
which is the better way to go exempt them,
so you're exempting them from the growing revenues that they can
achieve as well or include them and give them some control over the
say of how the money goes out?
The way thms has evolved and as Mr. Spore mentioned the Member
Committee has really gone into a lot of intricacy on this issue and
the way this has evolved it's turning into -- yes, the choice issue
is something, but there seems to be more of a benefit for the
employees than a loss.
But I mean, yeah, that's just a call. Whichever you would prefer and
whichever you think that the Members would like. Are they better off
limiting their choice and getting greater revenues for their pet
projects or instead would they be better off lust exempting them from
the issue?
Exempting them does reduce your volumes and does reduce the
attractiveness of the RFP. So, it's not a dollar-for-dollar loss in
the benefits of the Program; but, instead it's more than that.
Because as you go down mn volume, then you change the RFP.
July 1, 2003
I know we've e-mailed them and asked them on other items. I guess
one concern I have is that we just lengthened their work-week and
then we do this right afterwards. It's kind of lmke a whole lot on
them all at once.
So, I would be znterested in just delaying zt a week and sending out
an e-mazl to get some type of response on how they feel about it.
I know we have 6,000 employees. I mean, if we get 20, 30 or 50
e-mamls, that's not very many out of thousands.
COUNCILMAN MADDOX: Right. I understand and you had the publmc
comment permod last tmme wmth that idea in
mind and we only had the one employee turn out. It's really whatever
you would like.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON:
Well, it's up to the Council.
COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN:
That's the kmnd of thing we hear about
afterwards. Usually, after it's passed.
CITY MANAGER: Ail rmght. Let me just say I think we share
some of the sens~tmvitmes that are being
expressed wmth these zssues and when we fmrst started talking about
thms some couple of years ago now and we established an Employee
Committee to look at th~s, a lot of these complexitmes came out.
It's not as szmple as you might thmnk at fmrst mn terms of let's just
have a consolzdated vending machmne contract. That's why the
committee bumlt znto the structure this component of the proceeds
would go back to the employees, so that we would not be dmminishmng
the amount of money. In fact, we hope to be able to increase some of
the funds they would have to use for those thmngs that they are now
using the funds for.
I think from just a f~nancial control standpoint there are some
mssues out there that probably need to be addressed mn an aggressmve
way. So, I think the commzttee has trzed to structure a balance in
terms of oversight and yet not dimmnishzng the
July 1, 2003
COUNCILMAN MADDOX:
You're exactly rmght.
STEVEN THOMPSON: I'm not sure how you really -- I haven't
given it any thought. Pete and Ron are
the other room and watching this. Maybe they have some ideas.
But I'm like you. It's just a refrigerator. You're putting it in
there and you're just working it as a way to -- without a third-party
vendor, I'm not sure that it really makes a heck of a lot of
difference. I would say just accept it.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
COUNCILMAN WOOD:
I promised Mrs. Wilson, but if it's a direct
follow-up to what Mr. Maddox.
It's actually.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Mr. Wood.
COUNCILMAN WOOD: It's actually a very, very similar
follow-up. On buzldlngs that are owned by
volunteers, when he mentioned the fire houses, it comes to mind
Thalia Volunteer Fire Department and also Ocean Park. Would they be
exempt automatically since they are not City-owned buildings?
Because they are used for Czty purposes, how does that work?
STEVEN THOMPSON:
for City facilities.
It depends on mf they are truly separate
facilities. We've really just targeted thzs
COUNCILMAN WOOD:
Okay.
MAYOR OBERNDORF:
Okay. Mrs. Wilson.
COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I just wanted to say that it would be really
interesting to hear from our employees and I
was wondering if there would be any interest on the Counczl to lust
delay this a week and let the Staff e-mail the employees and see what
kind of response that we get from them.
July 1, 2003
would lmke to use the funds to reduce the price of the soft drinks or
if they would like to increase money for charities or whatever, then
those members could have that choice.
But, you really have an awful lot of ability. That's exactly right.
COUNCII/~A/~ REEVE:
As is certainly written.
STEVEN THOMPSON:
You mmght want to make your positzon known
and we can make the change as necessary.
~YOR OBERNDORF:
Mr. Maddox.
COUNCII~ ~ADDOX: I had a question. It seems lmke in the Fire
Department -- and maybe this zs the
exception to the rule. There are certain fire houses that are usmng
donated machznes and going and buying themr own soft drinks and
puttmng them in their and they're charging 35-Cents for a soft drink
more as a convenience and I guess to keep everybody honest as opposed
to puttmng a little silver cup mn the refrigerator and just keepmng a
smx-pack in there.
So, no one is makzng any money off that. There is not a company
that's znvolved that -- you know it's lzke I sazd a donated machine.
Thzs isn't a huge issue, but I thought I should at least brzng that
up. I mean, zf you start exempting people then you would dzmmnzsh
the zmpact of the whole thmng in having one system I guess. In that
partmcular case, there really is no money you know; but, mf you put a
machine in there a month from now chargzng 75-Cents, I mean, you've
actually doubled the prmce of the drink, i'm ~ust commentmng on
that. That's all.
STEVEN THOMPSON: Well, I know what you mean. I'm not
famzliar wzth the ~ssue of someone donatmng
the machine and not charging anythzng for it. I mean, that would be
very smmilar to just puttmng a refrigerator in an office and putting
some soft drmnks in it. I mean --
July 1, 2003
INFORMAL SESSION
M~YOR OBERNDORF: Number 5, Resolution to authorzze the City
Manager to ~ssue a request for proposal and
award an exclusive contract for beverage vending machines on City
property.
Yes, Mr. Reeve.
COUNCI~ REEVE: I have gotten the e-mail -- I'm sure all
of you did from the Sheriff regarding thzs
concern over his machines and I just saw Steve Thompson's response to
that.
And, Mr. Spore, I didn't get the chance -- maybe Steve can elaborate.
It seems to me that there were optzons if the Sheriff's Department or
other Departments possibly wanted to go their own way if they had the
option. You don't recommend that, because that reduces the amount of
machines.
I have some concerns because of -- you know can we opt out
so-to-speak? Can we go on our own? I would like to get some more
znsight, if you don't mznd, of what your thoughts are on that.
STEVEN THOMPSON: You can take either approach. You can
either exempt machines from the total or you
can -- if we're going to appoint an Employee-Member Morale and
Recognztion Commzttee, you could have one for each facmlity or even
each department dependzng on what works best.
My suggestion to you would be that exempting machznes from the
process still leaves you with lack of control over the cash ~ssues
and you -- the members mn those areas would not benefit from what we
expect to be a growing fund. So, it's not to themr advantage. Now,
that does limzt their choice, whzch is certainly an issue; but, we
could go ezther way. We could exempt the machines or we could go
wzth a commzttee for each fac!lity or for each Department and let
them pmck how they would like to dmstribute the funds. And zf they
- 25 -
Item V4.5.
ORDINANCES/RES OL UTION
ITEM # 51384
Upon motion by Vtce Mayor Jones, seconded by Council Lady Eure, City Councd DEFERRED until the
City CounciI Session of .4ugust 5, 2003:
Resolutton to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to issue a Request For
Proposal and ,4 [YARD an exclusive contract for beverage vending
machines on City property.
Vottng 11-0 (By ConsenO
Councd Members Voting ,4ye'
Harry E. Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vzce Mayor Louts R Jones, Reba
S McClanan, Rwhard,4. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf, Jim
Reeve, Peter W. Schmtdt, Ron ,4. Villanueva, Rosemary Wdson and
James L. Wood
Councd Members Voting Nay'
None
Council Members ,4bsent'
None
Ju y J, 2oo
Virginia Beach City Council
July 1, 2003
CITY COUNCIL:
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor
Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones
Harry E. Diezel
Margaret L. Eure
Reba S. McClanan
Richard A. Maddox
Jim Reeve
Peter W. Schmidt
Ron Villanueva
Rosemary Wzlson
James L. Wood
At-Large
Bayside - District 4
Kempsvzlle - Dmstrict 6
Centerville - District 2
Rose Hall - Dzstrict 3
Beach - District 6
Princess Anne - District 7
At - Large
At - Large
At - Large
Lynnhaven - Distr~ct 5
CITY MANAGER:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY CLERK:
STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER:
James K. Spore
Leslie L. Lllley
Ruth Hodges Smmth, MMC
Dawne Franklin Meads
VERBATIM
Beverage Vending Mach~nes
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Exclusive Beverage Vending Machine Contract
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
· Background: There are currently 193 cold drink vending machines in place around
the City which are being serviced by 25 vendors under 36 individual contracts. Currently
these sales create private income generated at public facilities, and the present system
has resulted in cash transactions that have not been placed through competitive or
negotiated contracts. This income is also outside of the City's audit and contract
process. Through the use of an Exclusive Beverage Vending Machine Contract, the City
has the ability to manage and account for these funds, and may have the further ability to
both increase vending commissions and create marketing revenue as well. The
consolidated beverage-vending contract will be awarded on the basis of the best offer to
the City in response to a Request For Proposal procurement process.
· Considerations: City Council was briefed on this issue on June 10, 2003. City
Council requested staff follow-up which was distributed in the June 20, 2003 City Council
packets. On July 1, 2003 City Council deferred this resolution to August 5, 2003 to
provide an opportunity for member input.
· Public Information: Opportunity for public comment was held at the regularly
scheduled June 24, 2003 City Council meeting.
· Member Information: Through intemal communication opportunity for member
comment was made available from July 8, 2003 to July 25, 2003.
Altematives: Stay with the existing arrangements.
· Recommendations: To authorize the City Manager to issue a Request For
Proposal for an Exclusive Beverage Vending Machine Contract and to authorize the City
Manager to execute the Exclusive Beverage Vending Machine Contract after negotiations
have been concluded. This RFP and Exclusive Beverage Machine Contract will exclude
any machines on City property not involving an outside party or vendor.
Attachments: 1)
2)
Resolution
July 28, 2003 Letter from the City Manager to City Council
that includes the results of the member survey and discusses
changes made to the earlier resolution to address some of
the survey results.
Recommended Action: Recommend acceptance of the resolution authorizi);~ the City
manager to Issue the Exclusive Beverage Vending Machine RFP and t~/execute the
contract after negotiations have been concluded. ~
/11~-.,..~
Submitting Department/Agency: Convention and Visitor Development ~~,
City Manager: ~~ ~: ~(~._ ~J
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS AND AWARD AN EXCLUSIVE
BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE CONTRACT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach ("City') currently
has a variety of beverage vending machines, operated by different
vendors, that are located on city property;
WHEREAS, the City can better manage these machines and
significantly increase revenue by entering into an exclusive
contract for the placement of beverage vending machines on city
property; and
WHEREAS, this contract will be awarded after a request
for proposals has been issued that gives all prospective vendors a
chance to compete.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to have
prepared and issued a request for proposals for an exclusive
contract for the placement of beverage vending machines on city
property.
2. After a review of the submitted proposals and the
conclusion of negotiations, the City Manager is hereby authorized
to enter into an exclusive contract for the placement of beverage
vending machines on city property.
25
26
27
3. The request for proposals and any resulting contract
shall exclude machines on City property not operated by an outside
party or vendor.
28
29
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on the day of , 2003.
CA-8931
ORDIN \NONCODE\RFPres. wpd
R-3
July 30, 2003
TENT:
zChief Fihancial of~i~~cer
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
Department of ~[w
City of Virginia Beach
OFICE OFTHE CITY MANAGER
(757) 427-4242
FAX (757) 427-5626
TDD (757) 427-4305
MUNICIPAL CENTER
BUILDING 1
2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE
VIRGINIA BE. ACH, VA 23456-9001
July 28, 2003
The Honorable Mayor
Members of Council
Dear Councilmembers:
RE: Consolidated Beverage Contract Survey Results
At the request of City Council, we have provided members with information on
the consolidated beverage contract under discussion with City Council, and have
requested their input and participation on this issue. The attached memorandum was
included in a special edition of Member Update and posted on BEACHnet July 8, 2003. I
also instructed each department to distribute copies to all members without access to a
City e-mail account or BEACHnet. E-mail, telephone, and written responses were
collected until July 25, 2003. We received a total of 116 responses, and have
summarized these below.
Where possible, we have tried to give credit to the individual members
contributing to group responses, and for example, if we received a response from 12
members, we counted that as 12 separate responses. We have also attached the actual
comments submitted with these responses.
17 Thought the contracts should be consolidated.
56 Thought the beverage vending should be left as it is.
7 Thought there should be a choice of both Coke and Pepsi
10 Prefer Coke
6 Prefer Pepsi
There were 20 responses that did not fit into these categories. These include a
variety of ideas ranging from what to do with the proceeds, comments on 12oz versus
20oz drinks, requests for healthy snacks and drinks, and requests for recycling to be part
of the project.
In addition, the members of the committee reviewing this issue visited 11 fire
stations to determine how the vending machines in these facilities differ from the general
vending machines available in other facilities. The committee found that in most of the
stations the members either stock a refrigerator or vending machine and keep the price
for these beverages as low as possible. A third party vendor is generally not involved,
and any proceeds go toward replenishing the drinks and purchasing sugar, coffee and
other "canteen" supplies. As a result of these visits we see no reason to change this
process in the fire stations.
Based on the very low response rate to this survey, most members generally do
not appear to have strong feelings on consolidation of beverage contracts, but of those
with enough of an opinion to respond, more prefer to have the choice of products than
they would receive with a consolidated contract. Based on the responses, we have
slightly changed the resolution under consideration to eliminate inclusion of any
machines not involving an outside party or vendor. We have also changed, based on
these discussions, the Member Morale and Recognition Committee from a City-wide
committee to a committee for each department, allowing each department to decide how
to distribute funds generated from these machines.
This issue is scheduled for City Council consideration at the formal meeting of
August 5, 2003. Of course, please call Steve Thompson (427-4242), Pete Hangen (427-
4209), Ron Kuhlman (437-4793), or me (427-4242) if you have questions or need
further information on this issue.
Sincerely,
JKS:PH:STI~:pam
Attachments
F \UsersM°Mnttlua\l Steve\CVD~Sofuiru~ Sponsorship\7-28 03 bev survey re. sits In' w CC. doc
Th~s memo was posted on BEACHnet (City's intranet) July 8, 2003 and in a special
edition of Member Update
Memo to All Members from Jim Spore:
We have an upcoming ~ssue that may affect many C~ty members, and I would like to take
a moment to outhne the ~ssue and to invite your response.
As you may know, and at our request, a member committee has been studying the use of
a consohdated beverage vending contract. Under such a contract, vendors b~d for the
City's bus~ness for all beverage vending machines located in City facilities and on C~ty
property. The committee found that some of the commissions are used for departmental
programs, and some of the commissions are applied against the price of soft chunks and
favonte chanties. We can all think of a number of concerns with a move to a s~ngle
contract, including how this will limit our choice of different soft drinks, how th~s will
affect the price of soft drinks from the machines, and how this will impact those "flower
funds" and charities presently supported by the commissions from these machines. Let
me add that we have almost 200 machines on C~ty property, and we are concerned that
the existing 36 separate contracts w~th these vendors may not be as beneficxal to the City
and to C~ty members as they m~ght be. These machines also generate almost $400,000
per year ~n sales, and these cash sales are handled entirely w~thout audit or control.
I have been impressed w~th the t~me that the members of the committee spent researching
these concerns, and the committee has developed a package that resolves many of these
~ssues. The committee has recommended that we bid the consolidated vending contract
for soft dnnks, and that the revenues from concessions should hold the member programs
and departmental programs harmless. We will establish member committees - made up
of members from your department - to decide how the funds generated from the
machines in your department are spent. This can include keeping your soft dnnk prices
low, funding a flower or card fund, or a chanty that you and your colleagues choose. We
beheve that the amount of money available to your programs will xncrease through the
consohdated RFP process, and that th~s will ~ndeed be a good thing for both members
and the City.
We also hope to generate additional money for the General Fund, but th~s would only
happen if the revenues exceed the amount that we currently receive, so that funding for
the present uses hsted above are protected.
We have posted the Committee's presentations on the Intranet Web site
(sftdnnk~vbgov com), and you may access these by chck~ng on the link (s) below.
In addition, the member committee co-chairs, Ron Kuhlman (437-4793) and Pete
Hangen (427-4209), are available to answer your questions.
Now let me also be clear about the down side of this proposal. We do hope to be able to
offer different sizes of soft drinks, so that you have affordable choices, but many of the
new machines have changed to offer only the 20oz.slzed soft dnnks. This may not be an
issue for you, but it may be for some members. Also, the vending companies typically
do offer water, juice, soft drtnks, and a variety of choices, but you would not have the
choice between d~fferent manufacturers, such as between Coke and Pepsi.
This is an issue potentially affecting many of our members, and while this is not one of
the larger issues that we will face, it can be ~rritating to lose the choice for soft dnnks if
you have no input. If you have comment, either In support of or in opposition to the
single beverage vending contract, please let me know. There are at least two easy ways
to respond:
1. The best way to register your feelings on this issue is online, by e-mailing your
comments to sftdrink~vbgov.com.
2. Or if you prefer, send or bring your written comments to Steve Thompson, Chief
Financial Officer, in my office (Building One, Room 220, in the Municipal
Center).
City Council will consider this issue again on August 5, 2003, and your comments should
be submitted no later than July 25 to be included in the agenda material.
Thank you in advance for your thoughts. If you have a preference on this Issue, after
learning about the above options, we are interested in heanng from you. Your input does
make a difference, and I hope that you will take the time to express yourself.
With Pride in our City,
James K. Spore
C~ty Manager
Special Edit'on, July 8, 2003
Vol 5, No 19
Member Input Needed on Soft Drink Contract
Dear Members
We have an upcomtng ~ssue that may affect many C~ty Members, and I would hke to take a moment to
outline the issue and to tnmte your response
As you may know, and at our request, a Member comrmttee has been studying the use of a consohdated
beverage vending contract Under such a contract, vendors b~d for the C~ty's business for all beverage
vending machtnes located tn C~ty facthttes and on C~ty property. The comrmttee found that some of the
cornrmss~ons are used for departmental programs, and some of the comrmssmns are apphed against the
price of soft dnnks and favorite charmes We can all think of a number of concerns xmth a move to a
stngle contract, tncludmg how tbas will larat our chome of different soft drinks, how tlms will affect the
price of soft drinks from the maciunes, and how thts will Lmpact those "flower funds" and chanttes
presently supported by the cornrmss~ons from these machines Let me add that we have almost 200
machines on City property, and we are concerned that the extsttng 36 separate contracts w-~th these
vendors may not be as beneficaal to the C~ty and to Members as they rmght be These maclmnes also
generate almost $400,000 per year tn sales, and these cash sales are handled enurely wzthout audit or
control
I have been impressed w~th the nme the Members of the cornrmttee spent researching these concerns,
and the commattee has developed a package that resolves many of these ~ssues. The comrmttee has
recommended that we b~d the consohdated vending contract for soft drinks, and that the revenues from
concessions should hold the Member programs and departmental programs harmless We will estabhsh
Member comrmttees - made up of Members from your department - to decade how the funds generated
from the machines tn your department are spent Thts can tnclude keeptng your soft dnnk prices low,
funchng a flower or card fund, or a chanty that you and your coworkers choose We beheve that the
amount of money available to your programs wdl tncrease through the consohdated RFP process, and
that tbas will tndeed be a good thing for both Members and the C~ty.
We also hope to generate addiuonal money for the General Fund, but tbas would only happen if the
revenues exceed the amount that we currently receive, so that funchng for the present uses hsted above
are protected We have posted the Commtttee's presentatton on the Intemet Web s~te at
htrp //beachnet/departments/catymgr/SoftDnnk061003%20 fries / frame htm and
http//beachnet/departments/cltymgr/SoftDnnkO62403%20 ffle~/fram¢ hma In additton, the Member
commattee co-charts, Ron Kuhlman (437-4793) and Pete Hangen (427-4209) are available to answer your
quesuons
Let me also be dear about the downside of thts proposal We hope to be able to offer chfferent s~zes of
soft drtnks so you have affordable choices, but many of the new machines have changed to offer only
the 20oz. sized soft drinks. This may not be an tssue for you, but tt may be for some Members Also, the
vending companies typtcally do offer water, luice, soft dnnks and a variety of choices, but you would not
have the chotce between different manufacturers, such as between Coke and Pepsz
This ts an zssue potenually affecting many of our Members, and while th~s ts not one of the larger issues
that we wdl face, tt can be matatmg to lose the choice for soft drinks tf you have no input If you have
comment, e~ther m support of or m opposmon to the single beverage venclmg contract, please let me
know There are at least two easy ways to respond
I The best way to subrmt your comments on this ~ssue as online at sftdnnk~vbgov com.
Or xf you prefer, send or bring your written comments to Steve Thompson, Chief Fmanctal
Officer, Building One, Room 220, tn the Mumcxpal Center.
Cxty Council will consider this xssue again on August 5, 2003, so your comments should be submitted
no later than July 25 to be included tn the agenda material.
Thank you tn advance for your thoughts. If you have a preference on this xssue, after learning about the
above opuons, we are interested tn hearing from you Your tnput does make a difference, and I hope
that you will take the nme to express yourself
Wxth Pride tn Our Cxty,
Jim Spore
C~ty Manager
Member Update ts d~stnbuted on the m~d-month and also may be augmented by "Special EdRtons "The deadhne for subm~sstons ts
the 10m day of the month Send ttems wa GroupW~se to d~m~ckle¥~.vbqov corn or contact Donna M~ckley, Member Communications
Coordinator, Human Resources, Building 18, 427-8376 Thank you
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS
AS OF 7/25/03
I think it is a great ldea-however-I like coke (diet to be specffic). Others are passionate
about pepsl...lf both products could be offered, then I don't see a problem...
I agree on consohdatang, I do not dnnk soft dnnks very often, so I would like to see
100% jmce, water, and milk.
Thank you for the oppormmty to submit my comments. In my expenence with vending
machines, employees preferred to keep the cost of the dnnks as low as possible. I thank a
flower fund or however you use the funds is great. However, every office does not have
a vendang machane but uses those available wathout reaping any benefits. Therefore, I
feel at would be best to keep the cost of the drinks as low as possible.
I thank ats very amportant to make sure a variety of choaces is continued. There as no
reason to have to make an exclusave choice between Coke or Pepsi. Nor should there be
Where I am there ~s a Coke machine nght next to a Peps~ machane. There as no reason
that shouldn't contanue. Even if it means two contracts. Two is still much more
reasonable than 36 separate contracts. Plus the ongoing competition between the vendors
can ancrease the "marketing ancentives and anitaatives" from both vendors.
Vendang machines generally only offer one daet soda choace. Dependang on who you go
with- Diet Pepsa or Diet Coke. I th~nk the vendor we choose should be more flexible in
offenng more d~et dnnk choices, ~.e., Daet Mountain Dew, D~et Dr. Pepper, etc.
Go with the contract. Best pnce wins. I like Pepsa, but I can dnnk Coke. We have several
machines on the floor. Folks from PU and PW use them (bldg 2). I don't know where
the profits go. Your proposal sounds fmr.
As a non-soda drinker, I would stall like to offer my input, as ~t relates to budget.
Consolidating anto one contract makes the most busaness sense and provides
accountability. As for charitable contributions, I am sure my department gets proceeds,
but don't know for sure. I thank a commattee of representauves would make fmr
d~stnbutaons, probably more eqmtable than is happemng now. Got For It!! but thanks
for askang!
I beheve that the contract will be a better money maklng for most departments. I have
been dnnkang Dr. Pepper over here for more than 30 years. I would not like the thought
of losang the choose I now have. The 20 oz drinks would be great. Having a chmce of
water, fruit jmce or soft drinks would be a nice change also.
It is great that a Commattee has reve~wed this assue and made recommendations. My
D~ws~on has several machines, and I have been concerned for the past few months about
the use of the funds. I support everythang you are doing, but thank we should have strict
accountability on the use of the funds, and not let employees use the funds at their
discretion.
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 1
I think that it would just be better to have a contract that provides the product at a reduced
cost and the vendor keeps the profits. The City could receive revenue based on the
number of machines on City property, like a host fee. This would keep everyone
"honest."
10.
I work for the fire department and for many years we have researched and sought to find
the best machine choices to fit each fire station. We stock the machines with the dnnks
of choice based on who works in the building. We do not set abosorbant prices. I am
tired of the city putting their fingers in the middle of the way we nm our buildings. This
should be a choice made by each jobsite and not someone trying to achieve an award by
makang a recommendation to save the city money.
I would not dare walk into your home and tell you what you will stock in your
refrigerator much less what you will pay. The fire station is my home and I spend 24
hours and shot there on duty. Stop telling me how I am going to hve my 24 hours.
I will make a promise to boycot the machine, if contracted by the city, and I will make a
effort to start an internal dnnk program utilizing the current refrigerators in the building.
I will set the prices lower than the dnnks machines placed by the city contract in order to
assist with the boycott. This will be a honor system but we will still reap the benefits
internally and not local government.
11.
Our current vendor ~s a local entrepreneur. I'd hate to see him replaced by an out-of-state
corporation. Our snack machine is handled by the same vendor, so we'd probably lose
that too. We have chosen low pnces rather than handling any kickback money. We do
not have staff time to handle this money or keep another set of accounts. I do not want to
pay more and I do not want to subsidize other budget umts' flower funds just because we
were not using th~s method of funding our own. Also, sales will drop if the price is raised
from 50 cents a can. Only Coke is likely to make enough off us to justify a machine, and
then only if prices don't rise. We've have several vendors desert us for lack of sales, and
even Coke is borderline. If sales drop, the new vendor will probably want to pull his
machine out , only this time we will be left with no alternative. Having observed
something similar with a hospital vendor recently, I am not optimistic about being well
treated by a monopoly. Thank you for the oppommlty to give feedback.
12. I enjoy having a choice of different beverages but if I had to choose one or another, I
would prefer Coke products.
13.
We currently have both Coke and Pepsi products in our machine. We tell the vendor
what we want and he provides it to us. We do not have a great amount of sales especially
in the winter, so we have been
versus making money off the
lower sales and I would hate
Oceanfront Library, we could
dropped by vendors due to this fact. We picked low pnces
machine. If the pnces were raised, we would have even
to see us lose our machines all together. When I was at
not even get a vendor to put ~n a machine because we did
not have the sales. If we did, they did not stay long or come back to refill the machines.
A contract may be great at a large complex like a rec center or at the Municipal Center,
but it will really hurt the small locations who are lucky to have a reliable vendor for small
sales. I would also hate to see all Peps1 products or all Coke products because we sell an
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 2
equal amount of both so half of our personnel will be upset if we have to go with one or
the other.
14.
Please do not alter the way things are operating now. These individual contracts allow a
greater select~on of product with the monies generated going towards the individual
departments needs. We do not need the C~ty
Government now deciding who gets what, what product we must purchase, and who we
have to purchase from. If at IS not broken, why try to fix it? Is there a hidden agenda to
this? Do you have the manpower and resources to track sales from each machine and
coordinate the d~spersment of the funds to each c~ty department? I think that the
competitive way that each department selects whmh company supphes them works well.
I know that the company that services our machines is always there for us and hstens to
our concerns and problems, and they always have a smile for us and a kind word.
15. Could you please include the provision of recychng bins for soda bottles/cans in the
RFP? Or could you please ~nclude a concerted effort to get recychng bins installed and
put to use at all C~ty installations? I work at Pembroke 6 and I don't know of any
recycling bins an the entire complex. I strongly believe the City should set the example
for responsible citizenship toward the earth and recycle as much as possible. Thank you
for this opportunity to provide input.
16. Why can't it just be left alone??? Do we now have to forfeit our chmce of soft dnnks
along with working an extended day or giving up part of a lunch hour? What's next???
17. I personally would like a chome of sizes and nutritious dnnks as well, such as water, real
juice and some dnnks low in sugar with no artificial sweetener. Thank you.
18. Pepsi!!
19. Coke
20. Coke
21.
I have long enjoyed the selection of soft drinks the we have at the police headquarters
building. Along with the choice of pepsi or coke products , we also have the choice
between a 12oz can or 20 oz bottle. As for my self I much prefer Pepsi in a 12oz can.
There are several employees ~n my office and we all use the soft drink machines and we
all like the freedom of choice. The money generated from these machines fund a
christmas party for the entire building to attend. I would be greatly disappointed to see
our freedom of choice gone ................ If it aint broke, dont fix it. Leave ~t the way ~t
22. I prefer Coke over Pepsi. Thank you.
23. This 1s like not have a choice of medical insurance or telhng me I must buy my own
clothes but can only wear pink. O.K. those are big issues, granted, but so is having a
choice of what one wants to drink. I don't like Pepsi nor will I buy 20oz bottles..it may
be more money for whatever but I'll be wasting half a drink...not cost effective for me.
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 3
And what happens to the "little guy" who needs to stay in business-some are going to be
hurting badly. I really w~sh you would take all these issues into consideration. Frankly,
the idea is not palatable.
24. I would like to see Pepsi as the chmce soft drink, and also to have a chmce between the
16 oz cans and the 20 oz bottles. If only one can be furnished, then the 16 oz cans would
be the better chmce as they stay colder and a lot of people do not want the large bottles.
Thank you for giving us the chance to respond with our preferred choice.
25. I like the current system for these reasons:
· We have the FREEDOM of choice. With one company PepsffCoke we wdl not.
· I don't like to see a monopoly operating in the city where the employees are thexr
source of revenue.
· Currently 36 vendors get a p~ece of the pie. This is great for the small vendors. If
you don't like something in a machxne, current vendors will supply different ~tems
for your machines. A monopoly company will not. The current system allows the
departments to spend their commission money on their employees (holidays
parties) or a project of their choice. (The new proposal also will and that is good)
· The school board did the monopoly soft drink vendor to raise budget money. That
money comes from their employees and students. I do not see listed where
the Ron and Pete researched the VB Schools vendor contract? What are their pros
and cons?
· The city should not sign a contract to raise budget money. Look what Sentara, a
monopoly xn healthcare In Hampton Roads has done!
· What marketing does the city need from Coke or Pepsi? Do we advertise for
Microsoft? We use their products daily to conduct city business daily.
· If the system works why change it! If some accountability is needed, correct that
issue. Don't take away the employees choice of Pepsi or Coke products. Moral
will suffer.
26.
I support the City's efforts to consolidate the many vending machines under one
contract. I applaud the C~ty's efforts ~n trying to find alternative sources of funding. I
th~nk the City should be doxng everything possible to increase revenues within legal
hmits. If I don't like what the soft dnnk machine is offenng, I don't have to buy
anything. That's the way ~t is now, has been and will always be. I am free to make
choices what I eat and drink, where I buy them and how much I pay. To my knowledge,
however, I have never been able to say where the net profits of my money went after ~t
was spent. Thank you for allowing me this unique oppormmty. Go for it!
27. We have 2 soda machines at the Virginia Beach Visitor Center they are both coke
machines and the money generated from these machines goes back ~nto our budget. We
also have a snack machine and this money goes to our Relay for Life Team (American
Cancer Society). They are 2 different vendors I think the one contract on the Soda
Machines ~s a good idea and we will be happy to paxtxc~pate ~n the program.
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 4
28. If we have to choose between Coke and Pepsi, I vote for Coke. I will NOT buy Peps~
products and will stop purchasang from the vending machines if the only choice we have
as Pepsi. thanks for letting me say that!
29.1 am in favor of baddlng the contract, there are issues that will need to be worked out, but
can be part ofb~dding process.
30. Dear Sars,
I am all for puttang in the vendang machines that the committee as suggesting. Although
I rarely buy from the vending machines I thank that if it will benlfit the employees wath
small programs then I am all for it. There are a milhon httle things that this money can be
spent on that the budget does not address. The idea of a card fund or a birthday cake, now
and then, is great for employee sprat. If the results are positive and actually do benefit the
employees then ~t will be something that will be used. If the money suggested does not
actually end up ~n these funds and we see it going to other things then we will all just
boycott the machines and bnng our own drinks from places like Costco, Sams and BJ's. I
for one appreciate actually being asked for input. Although many t~mes my trust an the
system has been slammed down I try to remmn positive that deep down inside we are all
working toward the same goal.
31.
In the 22 years I've worked for the city any money made at the fire station machines
went to the Vol. or the station katty to pay for coffee and newspaper.. We have used it to
help a family at Christmas. The price at our station is 35 cents and its 12 oz cans.. I feel
if we go to a sole vendor the price will go to high. and people will just bnng them from
home.. We all wall lose out.
32.
Let me get this straight. Your trying to feed us th~s line about how all of the "funds" may
not be handled in the best way possible. What you really mean ~s the city ~s not maktng a
d~me off of this ~ssue and you see a free money line that wall cost you nothing. Coke and
Pepsi wall drop their machines, fill it up with dnnks and each month they wall send you a
check. Oh how neat. Then we, the end user, who use these funds to purchase niceties
that the c~ty just won't buy, are stuck. You've sold out the amphitheater for a name, the
beachfront for a vote, why not call ~t a hat trick and get the employees next. NO
THANKS!!
33.
If the thing is not broke why try to fix it. The first thing that will happen ts the price will
probably near double what I am paying now. Next I get your choice and not mine for
selection. Third I get what's left after Coke/Pepsi get their cut and the manager gets his
cut and then the c~ty gets thears. If you put a machine in on your bid I will buy my drinks
somewhere else and bring them an, boycottang your machine and will encourage all
employees to do the same.
34.
We have taken enough of a beating with health ~nsurance premiums thru a monopoly
company that is abandoning Va. Beach like the plague. Compression rinses that are a
joke. So called merit raises that don't keep up with the cost of hvlng let alone ment pay
for Knowledge, skills and abilities & performance, and you want us to beheve for one
second th~s does not smell of a rat. How stupid do you thank we are?
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 5
35. Leave the soft drink machine subject alone and do not change the current setup. I'll
purchase m~ne in bulk from an outside establishment. Thank you for requesting our ~nput.
36. If we're voting for drink vendors, my vote ~s for Coke.
37. It suggest that ~n weighing potential contracts, that preference ~ssues are given a similar
measure of consideration to cost savings ~ssues. For ~nstance, according to your numbers
there ~s a better than 3 to 1 ratio of Coca-Cola machines versus Pepsi Cola machines.
38. I personally want to keep variety and the smaller s~ze cans. I don't
always drink one brand. Is there any way to have more than one so we can
have variety? I hke the assortment of what is ~n the machines on our
floor and really don't want to see ~t changed. Also, the people that
servxce/fill the machines are very friendly and I would hate to go to one
contract and miss those people.
39.
It would be nice, g~ven the chmce, to be able to have our own vendors as opposed to one
servicing the whole c~ty so as to prowde more choices and to have a say as to what goes
~nto the machine. Whether we go to one vendor or get to keep our own vendors, it would
be nice to be able to use the funds within our own departments. F~re Trmning ~n
particular hosts many classes, ceremonies, and graduations and the funds from the
vending machines would certmnly off set some of the costs for these events. Thank you
for allowing us to voice our opinions.
40. Public Utilities Operations has a excellent program and staff in place already. I strongly
suggest talktng to them first along with a survey to the entire work force to get their input
s~nce they are where the funds ordinate. I disagree with transfemng any "surplus" funds
to the general fund. The money needs to stay w~th~n the department and used for what ~t
was onganally designated for. Thanks for asl~ng for my comments .....
41. The larger size will stop me (and surely some other people) from buying the
drinks. The overall revenues will not be as great as w~th 12 oz dnnks.
I'll just bring my own drinks altogether.
42. My co-workers and myself would like to see a variety of fat free foods placed in these
vending machines at a reasonable price. We have never seen so many snacks loaded w~th
fat. And no, we don't hke the 20 oz sodas.
43. H~, I think the money would be best kept for our members to use for ceremomes and
equipment needed.
I work ~n Building One and the one problem I have found wxth the vending machines is
that ~t tends to mn out of product before xt is time to refill. (Diet Coke.) Especially ~n the
summer when a lot more people are using the machines. It would be nice to get more
variety of food. The last time I looked there were 2 or 3 sleeves of pretzels. Maybe some
more low fat food would be race. Thanks
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 6
45. I am responding from the Victim W~tness D~vlsion of the Commonwealth's Attorney's
Office regarding the vending machines outside our office. Four Seasons provides the two
machines, and contributes 10% of their monthly revenue to the Virgima Beach V~ctim
Witness Assistance Fund.
This fund is used to assist victims of felony crime. The following is a short lisung of
assistance provided: new locks installed on a domestic violence victim's home, lunch for
victims reqmred to be in court all day, transportation for a v~ctIm to pink up her
children's' coats, payment of medical bills, purchase of groceries, payment of utility bills,
etc.
S~nce the arrangement with Four Seasons began, our fund has doubled! Without their
contribution we could only assist half the number of needy victims.
Four Seasons has provided excellent service. Hawng the machines just outside the door
is so convenient for victims and witnesses waiting- sometimes for hours. The company
provides both Coke and Peps~ products. We can also request products and have it In the
machine the next week. We rarely have a problem with the machine, but on the few
occasions we have, Four Seasons has responded the same day. Thxs arrangement has been
extremely beneficial to the public coming to court, the employees in th~s area of the
courthouse, and most of all it has assisted our citizens dunng cnsls. The whole staff of
Vmtim Witness would very much regret losing the support and service prowded by Four
Seasons.
46.
I rarely purchase soft drinks from the machines in the DSS building because the variety is
so limited at this time and we have three machines all of which have two or three of the
same brand dnnks in each. Also, the diet varieties of each brand should be available, if
you're going to offer Sprite, then include Diet Sprite. If there are going to be multiple
machines In one building there should be a larger select~on. For those of us who are
health conscious it should be top priority to have spnng water, no caffeine and a variety
of juices or non-carbonated beverages. I hope this IS helpful Vlck~e Taylor- DSS
47.
I'm glad the city ~s offenng us a choice when it comes to the contract. I personally have
not had any issues w~th the vending machines that offer soft drinks except that it eats my
money and does not g~ve me the product from time to t~me. I believe since Coke has
been around longer and is known worldwide that would probably be the best way to go.
Personally, I like the taste of Pepsi but Coke offers better variety such as Sprite, Dr.
Pepper, etc.
48. I think that's it's a good idea to have only one vendor. My personal choice ~s pepsi, but
I'm sure there will be a variety. Thanks for asking for our input! Have a great day!
49. I believe that ~ncreasIng the size of soft dnnks to 20oz will cause the sales to decrease.
Also not having a choice of what drinks or brand will present a problem with the groups
that control their machines.
50. I am in support of the Beverage vending contract. Based on the information provided I
am in favor of the single vendor contract. However, the sodas should be sold at a
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 7
break even cost. Funds should not go to the general fund, nor should they go to the
various floral-type funds. Selling the soda at cost would provide low cost refreshments to
employees who can no longer leave the job site due to the reduced lunch time. I beheve
thxs would be a positive step to lessen the impact of the change in lunch t~me. Not all
members are ~n favor of being forced to support the floral-type funds. Members should
be allowed to donate to these causes on a case-by-case bas~s rather than inadvertently
subsidizing them through thexr dnnk purchases. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on this proposal.
51.
The current system has worked well why make a change just to change. There ~s the
freedom of choice w~th beverages (Coca Cola & Pepsi) and for those who don't buy 20
oz. dnnks, there ~s the regular 12 oz. s~ze. We have a good choice in our machines. It
works great. W~th one vendor, you're creating a monopoly. This is not good for the
employees or for the small businesses. If you don't hke something ~n a machine, current
vendors wall supply d~fferent ~tems for the machines. A monopoly company will
not. Currently, departments are able to spend their commission money on their employees
(hohday parties) or a project of their thrace. (The new proposal seems to afford the same
choice which is good.) If the system works why change ~t! Correct the accountabihty
tssue. Leave the rest alone. Don't take away the employeess' chome of Pepsi or Coca
Cola products. Morale wall suffer as xt has w~th another ~ssue (lunch).
52. Dear Str or Madam, Generally, in any contract of th~s nature, I would always encourage
choice of brands. Although there are valid concerns and a positive side to the all-in-one
contract, I beheve competition--rather than a monopoly of sorts-qs the best route to take.
Thank you.
53. We have had no problems w~th the system as 1s. Why change a good thing and add work
for others. Keep it as ~s; each user of the machines makes their own choices and
d~sburses the revenue to the best use.
54
The General D~strict Court was unaware of the committee reviewing the vending
machine issues, but ~t sounds hke a great idea. We have been receiving a percentage of
the profits from vending machines for as long as I have been here (at least 16 years) and
we are currently rece~vlng a 5% profit of the vending machines located in the basement
(next to the cafeteria) of Bmldlng 10 that are managed by Ray Cabanas. We have used
these monies for our "morale fund" and prod for flowers and cards in the event of a b~rth,
illness or death of an employee or thexr immediate family, etc. S~nce Mr. Cabanas took
over the machines, our monthly amount received, in most cases, has been less than half of
what we used to take ~n. I am very glad that the C~ty will be overseeing these machines.
In any event, I just want to make sure that we will still get the profits
of the vending machxnes at our place of business s~nce we are not C~ty
agency, although we collect mdlions of dollars a year for the City. We
very much rely on these funds for morale and would hate to have to go back
to the "pass the hat" way of collecting money for morale purposes. Thank
you for your consideration ~n th~s matter.
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 8
55. I feel having more choices is preferable to a single vendor and only their brand of
beverages.
56.
whats the deal The city gov. has become very greedy with the curent management and
council. This is about money to the city and over time they will get It all. Who is they?
By By Flower fund.
57. To whom it may concern,
As a long time employee of the City of Virginia Beach, I feel that a contract for
vendmg services an Vlrgima Beach Pubhc buddings only serves the City of Vlrgtma
Beach, not the employees of Virginia Beach. I for one will not purchase soft drinks that
are at a cost of $1.25 or more, and are of selections made by other than city employees.
Thanks
58.
Thank You for the opportunity to have ~nput on this issue. I have confidence that the
contract issue will be resolved in a manner that gnves the city better control over the
vending service revenues and I personally do not have a concern over the loss of choice
between Pepsi and Coke products although I do prefer the latter. Since the issue of the
products and vending service is being reviewed, I would ask that consideration be given
to providing a choice of grape or orange (or both) in the lower price range canned dnnks
if canned drinks are going to continue to be offered. Thank You.
59. The staff of the Trmnlng Division has discussed th~s issue and provide the following
comment: We are in favor of a universal contract to get the best quality at lowest price.
We would however like to keep the funds for flowers for various situations that may
arise.
60.
While I believe that a consolidated contract may provide and facilitate a more lucrative
money stream, the impact of the monetary benefit on employee moral is significant. To
nickel and dime (no pun intended)the few options city employees can use to boost
morale, seems petty. I believe all funds generated by the vending services should be
directed toward boosting employee morale. I think we have had enough morale
busting news in recent days and now need to lift the spirits of the hard working and
dedicated.
61. I want to thank you for letting me share some input on this issue. I have worked in this
Ctty for approximately 20 years. I have given all I'm going to g~ve back to the city. I will
boy-cot the dnnk machine and encourage others to do the same. I guess the city will start
charging rent on my office chair next.
62. Coke
63. Pepsi
64. I am m favor of the s~ngle vendor contract as long as the sodas are sold at cost. Instead of
making a profit to be used elsewhere, the people using the vending machines should get
the immediate benefit of cheaper costs. In addition to sodas, we should offer food. With
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 9
the new policy on unpmd lunches, th~s would help make it more convenient for those who
can't leave the work place to get lunch.
65.
Regarding the soft drmk concession contracts .... Them are a lot of "little guys" out there
trytng to scratch out a living, some of them are currently supplyang us w~th dnnks and
snacks. Why can't we just leave well enough alone and allow these small nusinesses to
continue doing their jobs and making a hying? My family has been in the vending
business in the past and st has been the overall concensus that a small company or in th~s
case several small companies, do a much better job serving their customers, whether it's
putting a well liked soda in the machIng, or refunding money lost in the machine. If the
c~ty decided to go w~th a s~ngle contract, we will then be at their mercy as to what
products are sold. (Very few large vending compames will sell both Coke and Pepsi
products, so right off the bat some employees will be unhappy. We as a mty have much
b~gger problems to be concerned w~th. I th~nk we need to leave this issue along, and if it
proves to be a problem, deal with ~t on a location to location basis.
66.
Some fire stauons already have drink machines in them and the money made off the sale
of the drinks is used to pay for our condiments, newspaper and coffee supphes that the
c~ty DOES NOT pay for. We use these machines to help offset our costs of living ~n the
fire house for 24 hrs. If we are forced to remove our machine (purchased by US) I will
NOT use ANY machine that is put in our station or any other place that one is placed ~n.
67. Will not use this service. We provide softdnnks as part of the staples program @ Station
21.
68. Is there any possiblbhty you could just ferg~t abawt it? Unless we are looking at getting
~nto naming rights on VB bmldxngs, parking lots, landfills, schools, libraries, police
stations etc. I th~nk you are selling out.
69. NO THANKS TO A MONOPOLY ON THE SODA SALES! The c~ty administrative
staff cannot be trusted to manage anymore of the employee financial matters. Each time
they are involved in any matter that ~nvolves our money we loose. The only way I would
support a contract would be if it was used to judge an annual cost of hwng increase for
employees. You can raise our salaries the same percentage that the soda prices increase
each year for a cost of hving ~ncrease.
70.
Thank you first for the opportunity to voice my op~mon on th~s subject. I have been a city
employee for 25 yrs and almost every station I have worked at the machines have been
stocked and supplied by the members working at that station. Little money is made due to
the fact the price was kept low for obvious reasons. The money that was made was used
to buy items the city does not supply coffee, sugar and the list goes on. No one I know or
have talked to is going to support or buy into this latest money makang venture the city is
looking at. We will stock our refrig w~th affordable drinks and the venders will pull the
machines out of every fire Station due to lack of money and support. The soda machines
will probably be a good spot to dry our big salvage covers after fires.
71. This concept of replacing the private and volunteer owned soda machines seems to be
interference w~th pnvate/pubhc commerce. The City should not be ~n the soda bus~ness
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 10
any more then the roofing or furniture business. The City does not need problems with
soda machines that do not work, are empty, or the favoritism necessary to choose
between Pepsi, Coke and others for the right to shelf space. This is a bad move ~n so
many regards. The money is not worth lt. The possible legal and Pubhc Relations
problems will be a nightmare. The C~ty Rescue Squads and Volunteer F~re Companies
which own several machines are selling dnnks for as little as 35 cents a can and using the
profits to fund activities. Are they now going to receive extra funds to make up for this
loss? The City prides itself of being the BIG volunteer city, now is going to take their
soda machines away, shame on us. Before the City hires consultants to look into things
like this and spend MY tax dollars why not do what you are doing now first: Ask the
stakeholders. From what I am told we could have saved $25,000 and that's a lot of soda.
72.
It is a bad idea to have our only option on drink size to be a 20 oz. dnnk. I could never
dnnk a 20 oz. dnnk; half of it would be wasted and my money would be wasted. A 20
oz. drink as the only choice would also mean more calories and sugar than many of us
would care to consume, which is inconsistent with the healthy hfestyle choices the city
supports. This is a convenient way for the soft dnnk companies to push more of their
product. We e~ther need to be able to choose between a 12 and 20 oz dnnk, or if them ~s
to be no choice, offer only a 12 oz. drink.
73. I'd have to say I'm opposed to being limited to only one soft dnnk manufacturer. I can
understand the cost savings from consohdat~ng the vending machine contracts, however
people are very polanzed about their soft dnnk brands and th~s should be accommodated.
74. Thank you for asking for ~nput on the proposed RFP. I don't use the vending
machines and am open to a change ff ~t would benefit the C~ty.
75. To Whom It May Concem( Steve Thompson, Ron Kuhlman, Pete Hangen),
As the P&R Coordinator at the Princess Anne Recreation Center I have had considerable
success m our current contract with Atlantm Domlmon Distributing Co., hawng ~mt~ated
the original contract prior to the center's opening m 1994. Since that t~me, due to our
success, all 5 other recreation centers have since contracted their vending services with
Atlantic Dominion. Currently, we have 4 years left on our 3rd contract w~th Atlantic
Dominion.
In the note to members ~t stated that "cash sales are handled entirely WlthOUt audit or
control." I would like to ensure you that P&R audited their vending account annually and
kept every receipt from each and every purchase, as well as keeping an active ledger. In
addition, we have strict gmdehnes for which we were responsible to purchase items.
As far as a consohdated beverage vending contract... I have the following concerns:
a. Currently Atlantic Dominion provides service for both our beverage and
snack/food vending machines. Once this consohdated beverage contract ~s
~mplemented, we will have 2 separate vendors servicing our center machines, 1
for drinks and 1 for food. We'll need 2 separate vending petty cash bags for
refunds. The new drank contractor will need to coordinate the Area Treatment
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 11
(decoranve mm mound the machines), as well provide 2 change machines, 1 ~n
the snack room, and a second by the pool/locker room entrance, for xndlviduals to
make change for the lockers. The Area Treatment and change machines are
currently overseen by Atlantm Dominion, but don't expect them to continue these
services ff they have the beverage portxon of their current contract removed from
them.
b. Drinks are where companies make money, as drink products are not perishable,
whereas food products are. We currently receive a 31% commission from
Atlantic Domimon. We will have to reduce our commission to at least 1/3 the
current amount, to continue to have the food portion (much more expensive and
not nearly as profitable for companies) to service the food pomon by itself.
Parents and youth depend on sandwmhes, p~zza and more substantial food, not
just snacks, for their day care. Over the past 3 years Pnncess Anne has averaged
approximately $22,000 per year in vending profits, for which are now deposited
~n the General Fund.
c. SERVICE - Currently Atlantic Dominon services our vending machine dmly
dunng the school year and twice a day dunng the summer months. In addition,
should a machine break, they repair the machine w~thln 24 hours. My biggest
concern ~s in this area of service, as the public has come to depend on these
machines for more than occasslonal snacks, and our center's (and the City's)
reputation ~s at stake. I have seen how Coke has handled the vending contract at
our City Parks and am a b~t dismayed. These machines are continually empty and
no additional provisions seem to take place when large events are at the park, as
the machines will empty quickly and are not re-filled.
d. Sales will be reduced, due to the reduction of beverage choices. Them are
many lndiwduals who will only buy a Peps~ or will only buy a Coke. We will
only be able to target 50% of these individuals, for whichever contracter we go
with. Currently, we are able to satisfy all customers with variety.
e. Currently, we offer 20 oz. and 12 oz. drinks. Some folks don't want to drank (or
have their child dnnk) a large bottle of soft drink.
f. Atlantic Domlmon has been a great partner, sponsoring many Department
programs, as well as 2 staff luncheons for the staff at Princess Anne.
g. Lastly, no additional machines will be able to be accomodated, as space and
electrical capacity are currently maximized. Therefore, placing more machines
(more product) to reduce product replemshment is not an alternative. I am sure
many of these topms have been d~scussed, however wanted to ensure my
comments were submitted, due to the possible effects on customer service at
Pnncess Anne, and all recreation centers. I appmmate the opportunity to express
my concerns and hope they can be successfully satisfied and a City-w~de contract
initiated.
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 12
76.
As a recent receiver of a soda and snack vending machine (before a City contract was
made public) it seems to me that if the City bids out a vending contract that is taking all
the choices away. When I ordered our machines, I went to various companies and got
their prices. We decided on a company that was servicing the Recreation Center fight
next door and chose the option of no commission in order to keep the price down. We
also were able to pick our sodas and we were able to get both Pepsi and Coke products.
Since these individual vending choices have no affect upon the City directly, what is the
harm? Now, if the City wishes to control how the various officles spend any profit they
share then that could be done without bidding a City contract. I've read all the negative
things if we were to have a City contract but I haven't read or heard any positive things
mentioned. I would like to add however, since we are a new building, that consideration
be given in construction plans for new buildings to have a dedicated line and space for
vending machines. We did not have such in the new Princes Anne Area Library.
77. To whom it may concern: I think the soft drink contract idea is great!
78. I would like to suggest the following since the city is promoting health here are some
healthy choices: Aquafina Water (tested to be the most pure bottled water on the market)
Non-Aspartame Diet dnnks such as Arizona Diet Green Tea (Aspartame is toxic).Juices -
V8 Splash Diet (Berry Blast, Tropical) no Aspartame V8 - regular tomato (low sodium)
79.
I hope you will be able to keep the Coke products. I know this is just a single request, but
I'm sure others are putting in their bid for their favorites, too. I also hope prices are not
increased in order to fund chanties. If the committee's goal is to have beverage machines
available to employees, then making the price affordable should be the main objective.
Available, affordable alternatives
80.
I hke the ~dea of combining the dnnk/food contract into one. I would also like to vote to
have Pepsi products. Where does the profit from the vending machines on the 2nd floor
of the Operations Building go now?
81. I would like to plead to the City Officials to let the "stakeholders" decide which is best
for their needs We at the Fire Training Center have come to rely on these funds for
bottled water, sunshine fund, coffee, coffee supphes, christmas parties and petty cash. It
cost the CITY $1,000 in bottled water costs for our division last year. We could have
easily handled that from within our funds. Please let us have this last bit of "say-so" for
our divisions! Thank you for your consideration !!!
82.
Soft Drink contract response: I am a supervisor at the Pnncess Anne Recreation Center
where hundreds of campers, youth, adults and seniors utilize our snack bar on a dally
basis. Our current vendor-Atlantic Dominion Distributing Co. provides a wide vanety of
products. We have had a very successful relationship with Atlantic Dominion. Drinks
include soft dnnks (both Coke and Pepsi products), coffee, hot chocolate, juices, sports
drinks, and water. Dnnks come in 11.5ozs to 20 ozs bottles/cans. Other products include
snacks, packaged foods (pizzas, sandwiches, etc) candy and ice cream. Many youth are
given money from their parents to buy the packaged foods to have as their lunch or
dinner. Atlantic Dominion has been very active in changing machines to provide
products the public has requested. Our visitors and participants enjoy the variety of
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 13
manufactured products and appreciate the numerous options to quench their thirst and
hunger. Our C~tlzens have become accustomed to being prowded a choice of beverages
and snacks. Some participants wdl only dnnk Peps1 or Coke, as our machines currently
contain both products we are able to provide something for everyone's tastes. I do not
know the statistics of Coke dnnkers to Pepsi dnnkers, but I do know many ~ndividuals
who will only dnnk one of the products. Therefore offering only one product will affect
sales. A consohdated drink contract would not allow for this variety and a separate
vendor would be needed to provide snacks. I wonder who will provide the snack
machines without the benefit of dnnk machine profits. The snack machines require more
maintenance than the dnnk machines (canned, bottled dnnks do not spoil) the snack
machines must be kept refrigerated, clean and stocked with fresh food. In companson, the
drink machine provides a vendor with easy profit.
83. In the Member Update it was stated funds generated from machines could include"
keeping a flower and card fund". Although staff members enjoy the snack machines, our
Machines at the recreation centers are installed to provide a service to the community
with ALL profits from the snack area returned to the partimpants through center
programs following strict purchasing guidehnes. Funds generated through vending sales
are audited annually.
Our current vendor provides two change machines. These machines hold $500 ~n change
each. One machine is located ~n the snack bar and one ~s located outside the centers
locker rooms. The machine located outside the locker rooms prowdes no profit to the
vendor; ~t is an amenity the vendor g~ves the center and partm~pants. Paxtlc~pants use the
change machine to get change to use in the mens and womens locker rooms. This ties up
$1000 of the vendor's money every year. Atlantic Dominion provides prompt service in
refilling, maintenance and care for these machines.
In addition our current vendor, at his or her own expense, has designed and installed
attractive cabinetry to surround the machines to create an attractive area for customers to
purchase 1terns and to eat. This cabinetry is d~sassembled and the snack area ~s
completely cleaned by the vendor each year dunng maintenance week. The machines are
then placed back ~n order and the machine cabinetry reassembled.
Because of the constant use of the machines and range of ages using the snack bar we
often encounter machine problems, whether lack of change, food and drink or machine
malfunction. Our current vendor provides daily servicing of the machines and ~s qmck to
respond to calls of needed service. In addition they prowde a bank of funds to be used to
~mmed~ately reimburse a pamcipant or ws~tor when thexr money ~s lost ~n the machine.
Will a consohdated vendor prowde us w~th th~s prompt serwce, bank funds and
individualized care? Our current Vendor has serviced our center since it's opening in
1994, sponsored several department events and has proven to be rehable and
consc~enuous.
I would like to thank you for offenng th~s opportunity to members to express their
feelings in regards to the study of a consolidated beverage contract. I hope my comments
will assist you ~n your efforts to provide the best service to ws~tors and c~t~zens of
Virgima Beach.
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 14
84. As a Coke dnnker, my vote goes for the vendor who provides Coke and Coke products.
Dear Steve Thompson and members of city council,
I want to thank you for hstenlng to my comments at the public hearing and giving all
city employees the oppommity to respond to this proposal. While it is not a significant
issue an the annals of the city, it does directly impact those employees who utihze the
soda vending machines. I am one of those employees. The following is my prospective
on this issue.
I do not support the proposed RFP for a single contract vendor. I believe that the existing
vendxng services and employee vending programs provide for the needs of our employees
in the realm of vending machine dnnks. The proposal by staff to raise additional revenue
one soda at a time seems to be an extreme measure. While our current 1.32 billion dollar
annual city budget needs addmonal revenue to fund new projects and under funded
programs, it seems harsh and pointed to propose raising these funds from our own
employees. Rinsing revenue is a dilemma that faces many of our elected leaders on a
national, state and local level. At every level our elected officials are hesitant to vote to
increase taxes, fees or assessments on our citizens for fear of being label a hberal tax and
spend polit~man. In this case, you are being asked to rinse the employee taxes, fees and
assessments on a soda vending machine product. Do we not value our employees9 Or
do we just value their money? Why s~ngle out 6,400 employees for a fee ~ncrease?
The proposal hm~ts the choice of product, increases the costs in individual machines and
allows one vender a monopoly on city soda vending services. Currently the employees
choose the type of product and vendors that service some of our facilities. Allowing one
vender an exclusive contract is not the ideal SltUanon and leaves little recourse ~f the
service is less than satisfactory. These issue cause doubt about the success of this
proposal. If the employees do not support the proposal, the projected revenue will not
matenahze and may impact current programs.
As I told some of the members of council, this is not an issue that is critical to the future
of our community. As I was the only speaker at the pubhc hearing, I appreciate your
heanng my concrens. If the other employees choose not to respond on the record than I
would accept the proposal as written. However, I have been told that the Sheriff's
department has come forward to oppose this proposal also. When an entire department
opposes a revenue issue, it speaks volumes. I support the sheriff and his objection to this
proposal. I am pleased that all employees have been asked for input before a dems~on is
rendered. I expect we will hear from others who also oppose this proposal. The results
will be ~nterestlng to see. By sohclt~ng input from all employees and not just a staff
selected committee, we have taken a major step forward ~n council, staff and employee
relations.
Having expressed my views on this issue, I respectfully request that the members of city
council vote in opposition to the RPF and demonstrate the council's continued
commitment and support of the employees.
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 15
85.
86.
87
88.
89
Dear Council Members: I am writing to ask that you reconsider the change of soda
vending in the city. Please allow the employee to manage their own soft drink
purchasing. Anything less, may send a message of city profiteenng at the expense of the
employee.
What effect, if any, will th~s have on the current departmental practice of selling soft
drinks and snacks to rinse money for the Relay for Life (or other worthy cause)? Many
departments have designated indivaduals who bnng in canned dnnks and assorted snack
items and sell them on s~te, using a breakroom as a staging area, at a cheaper price than
any of the machines ~n operation (usually $.50 - for a drink or a snack). Revenue
generated in th~s fashmn was not reflected in your calculations - and a hope that the
~mpending centralization of the vending machine contracts will not affect th~s practtce in
any way - or else it really has the potential to be perceived as a negative action on the part
of management to further suppress the freedom of the members, in addition, continmng
this practice will prowde the posslbihty of additional beverage and snack selections not
possible under the proposed s~ngle vendor scenario. Thanks.
H1 there, I don't understand why it has to be "e~ther/or". In a city this s~ze, why can't
there be two contracts, Coke & Pepsi, and then departments/dlvistons can choose which
one they prefer? Just wondenng (a Coca-Cola type)
I work at automotive services.We have done our own drink and nab machines for over 25
years we put the drinks and nabs we want keep prices at a fmr price and everybody is
happy w~th thas arrangement. If a new company comes an puts what they want and at the
prices they want to charge a lot of the people here will probably not buy their items and
sales will drop.We count on these machines for our snacks and dnnks during the
workday and especially when we work dunng alpha conditions. When no other sources
are open.
The Pubhc Works Operataons Management and Highway Operations Divisions represent
over 250 C~ty of Virgima Beach employees worlang at various locations including
Landstown - Dam Neck Yard, Dredge Operations on Bells Rd, Mosquito Control in
Pungo, and Beach Operations on 15th Street. After our committee meeting on July 15,
2003, the Pubhc Works Floral Fund committee, made up of members from each of these
departments, offers the following statements/questions regardang the Soft Drink
consolidataon RFP:
What will happen w~th the existxng funds ~n any of the Floral Fund Accounts?
If money ts returned to the PW Department, will the money be malntmned by the
Public Works Director's office, or will the moneys that have been spent by
Operat~ons/Haghways be returned to Operat~ons/Hxghways to fund the floral or
card account?
Can you carry any money over from year to year, or will the process be s~mflar to
the budget process - you don't use it, you lose it?
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 16
Will employees have any decisions regarding the choices In the machines (can the
items be varied from week to week)?
The basic consensus is to leave things the way they are. Since our committee has
established by-laws including checks and balances for auditing the treasurer's books, we
do not see the need to combine the money and use a consolidated vendor. We feel this
would drastically reduce the amount of commission received from machine sales.
90. Why can only one contract with one vendor be considered? Why eliminate either Coke
or Pepsi products, if two contracts can provide both. It would ehmiate 34 contracts, and
all members would stall have a preferred choice.
91. I think the brand of dnnks (Pepsi or Coke) should be the members choice. I know you
can't please everyone but at least then we would know it was the majority vote and I am
more than walling to pay more for a Pepsi vs. a Coke.
92.
Previously I have expressed concern over the clty wide beverage vending contract. I
continue to have the same concerns. The recreation centers currently are under contract
with Atlantic Dominion and the service received has been very good as well as the
relationship developed between the parties. The Great Neck Recreation Center currently
has three drink machines ( 2 bottles and l can), two snack machines, one ice cream
machine, one hot food machine and one hot drink machine. The customers we serve often
depend on these machines for lunch. ^ city wade beverage vendor will not be interested
in providing snacks. We all know the profits are an the beverages. Therefore the
recreation centers would have two separate vendors to deal with. Currently dunng the
summer months and large special events we receive dally service from the vending
company due to heavy patron usage. I question the service we would receive from a
larger provider and if they would be as attentive to our patrons needs. Will they provide
daily service? Will they issue refunds in a t~mely manner?How will refunds be handled?
Will they provide preventative maintenance on the machines? Will change machines be
provided? How will complaints from patrons be handled? What will the response time be
for malfunctions? Will organizations that lease city facilities be subject to utilizing the
same vendor? The Member Update indicated that there was no audit or control over the
existing funds received from vendors. That is not tree and should be clarified. It sounds
as af there has been misuse of funds and if that 1s the case there are existing policies in
place to address those issues. To make a blanket statement to all employees suggesting
misuse of funds as inappropriate. It appears to me that service and customer service will
be sacrificed for revenue. All revenue received through the recreation centers as deposited
as revenue for each recreation center and used for programs that serve our citizens. I
question whether the relationship with our current vendor will remain as strong as it
currently is. This will also result in an increase in price for food vending because the
current vendor will no longer be able to offset the lack of food profits with beverage
profits. I sincerely hope the issues are shared with all Involved before a decision is made.
93. I have recently read the issue concerning soft drink contracts. I am with the EMS
Tralmng Center and we do not have any type of vending machines. The closest place to
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 17
get a drink is the 7 Eleven two blocks away. This is a problem because the majority of
our classes are done at mght and safety became a concern when students left class on a
break and drove or walked to the 7 Eleven. We average 150- 350 students a week
through our facility. We had a soda vending machine when we first moved to our facility
but due to the large number of students we had in classes the machine was always
runmng out of drinks. So we got nd of the machine. We now supply a large box of a
variety of snacks and put dnnks ~n a refrigerator. This was done more for the convenience
of the students not to make money. S~nce our students are all volunteers so we try to
keep the cost as low as possible. Snacks and sodas cost 50 cents. The money that is
generated from the soda and snacks is used to send cards to rescue squad members or
flowers as necessary. Many times crews will come into our center while on duty and we
g~ve them dnnks or snacks ff they have not had a chance to eat. Any extra money ~s also
used to provide snacks at the hospitals for rescue squad members or a meal ~f courses are
all day. It will be a shame if we have to stop these httle extras that we do for the
volunteers. Our traxmng center wall be combimng with fire training in a few months,
because of the changes that may happen w~th the vending machine contracts, we have not
addressed how we are gmng to deal w~th profits made off of the machines.
CONSOLIDATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE SURVEY RESULTS AS OF 7/25/03 18
K. PLANNING
.
THE FOLLOWING PLANNING ITEMS WERE ACTED UPON BY CITY COUNCIL
AT THEIR REGULAR FORMAL SESSION PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING ON
TWENTY-FOURTH DAY OF JUNE 2003; HOWEVER, DUE TO A PUBLISHING
ERROR, ADVERTISING OCCURRED ONLY ONCE IN THE BEACON.
THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 24TH WAS
DECLARED NULL AND VOID. THESE ITEMS WERE PUBLISHED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIRGINIA STATE CODE ON JULY 20 AND 27, 2003,
AND ARE SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL ACTION AT THEIR REGULAR
SESSION PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2003:
a.
Apphcation of TRACY REDBURN re expansion ora nonconforming use to construct
a garage for the one story structure at 615 Twenty-Sixth Street.
DISTRICT 6- BEACH
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
DENIAL
ALLOW WITHDRAWAL
Application of KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. re &sconttnuance,
closure and abandonment of a portion of Denn Lane on the north side of Southern
Boulevard, west of Jersey Avenue, to create a consolidated paxcel of approximately 5.5
acres.
DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
APPROVAL
APPROVED/CONDITIONED
C.
Application of RACHAEL A. SPRINGER for a Conditional Use Permtt re a
residential kennel for up to seven (7) dogs at 5544 Hatteras Road.
DISTRICT 2 - K_EMPSVILLE
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
APPROVAL
APPROVED/CONDITIONED
d.
Application of MOSE MAST - VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE CO. for a
Condtttonal Use Permtt re a bulk storage yard to store raw materials and finished
marble products in Oceana West Corporate Park at 506 Viking Drive.
DISTRICT 6- BEACH
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
APPROVAL
APPROVED/CONDITIONED
Apphcat~on of GRAND SLAM USA for a Con&tional Use Permtt re a commercial
recreational facility to operate three (3) indoor batting cages, instructional and
practice facilities, glove repair and a retail business at 3636 Virgima Beach
Boulevard, Suite 107.
DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
APPROVAL
APPROVED/CONDITIONED
.
g.
·
Application of WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST for a Con&ttonal
Use Permtt re a bulk storage for pallets, recyclable cardboard materials and
seasonal sales areas at 1149 Nimmo Parkway.
DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
APPROVAL
APPROVED/CONDITIONED
ho
Applications of JOSEPH G. PIPER to subdivide the existing lot into three (3) lots,
with two (2) flag lots, at 2332 Seaboard Road re:
DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE
(1) Vartance to 3~ 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance
(2)
Change of Zoning Distrtct Classification. from AG-2 Agricultural Dismct to
R-15 Residential District
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
DENIAL
ALLOW WITHDRAWAL
Application of TRITON PCS/SUNCOM for a Mod~cation to the Green Run Land
Use Plan re a wireless communication tower on the east s~de of Independence
Boulevard, southeast of Nesbitt Drive, within an existing Virginia Power substation are~
DISTRICT 3- ROSE HALL
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
APPROVAL
APPROVED/CONDITIONED
Ordinance to AMEND § 5.6 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance re the width of
sidewalks with a minimum of sixty (60) inches (rather than 48").
Recommendation
Action of City Council: June 24, 2003:
APPROVAL
APPROVED
Application of the City of Virginia Beach for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment
of an alley in Block 72, (bordered by Atlantic Avenue, 30th and 31st Streets and Pacific Avenue)
beginmng at Laskin Road.
(DISTRICT 6- BEACH)
Recommendation'
APPROVE
·
THE BEACON
SUNDAY, JULY 2C, 2CC3
THE BEACON
SUNDAY, JOLY 27, 2003
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
V,~gm,a Geach C~ty Council wd! meet in the Chamber et C.ty Hall
M.,n~c,pat Cente. 2401 Coulthouse Drive Tuesday August 5, 2003,
at 6 Or' p m The followmg apphcabons will be heard
BEACH DISTRICt 6
lrac~ Redburn Aophcat~on Expansion el a Noncontormmg Use at 615
26Lb Slreet
2
Mesa Mast Virgm~a Beach Marble Co Apphcabon Condmonal Use
Permit for a bulk storage yard at 506 Wk~ng Drive
KEMPSVlLLE - DISTRICT 2
3
Kempsw;le BuCdmg Materials. Inc Apphcat~on D~scontmuance cio
sure and abandonment of a port,on of Denn Lane on the north s~de of
Southern Bo¢evard
4
Rachael A Spnnger Apphcat~on Conditional Use Permit for a res~den
rial kennel at 5544 Hatteras Road
LYNNHAVEN DISTRICT 5
5
Grand Slam USA Apphcatlon Conditional Use Permit for a cornier
c~al recreational facility other than those of an outdoor nature {base
ball/softball) at 3636 Wrgmla Beacht)oulevard
ROSE HALL- D'STRICT 3
6
Triton PCS/SunCom Apphcat~on Mod~flcabon to the Green Run Land
Use Plan for a w~reless commumcabon tower on the east side of Inde
pendence Boulevard
PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7
7
Wal Mart Real Estate Business Trust ApphcatJon Conditional Use
Permit for a bulk storage facd~ty at 1149 NImmo Parkway
8
Joseph G P~per Application Change of Zoning D~stnct Classification
from AG 2 Agricultural to R 15 Residential at 2332 Seaboard Road
9
Deos~ons of Administrative Officers ,n regard to certain elements of
the Subd~ws~on Ordmance Subd~ws~on for Joseph G P~per. at 2332
Seaboard Road
&MENDMEN]
tO
O,dmancc to amend Section 5 6 of the Subd~vmlon Ordmance regard
mg the w,dth o~ s~dewalks Deferred by the Plannmg Commission on
Jun~ 13 2001
BEACH DISTRICT 6
Ccy el ~rg~n~a Beach D~scontmuance closure and abandonment of a
t~,entv (20~ foot wide atlev m Block 72 between Atlantic Avenue and
Paoflc Avenue
NOTE Items ) :LO were heard by the C~ty Council on June 24 2003
how~er due to an madvertent failure by the Beacon to pubhsh the
legall) required not,ce once p~r week for two successive weeks, Items
1 10 mUSt be reheard by tile C~ty Council. which wilt do so at the above
tune and place The C~tv Council may but ms not required to take the
santo a¢l~on on each appl~¢atlul, as rt d~d on June 24 2003
lnteres, ed cmzens are ,~¥1ted to attend
Ruth Hodge~ Sn,,tl~ MMC
C~ty C~erk
I' ~ u a~e ph)sIgail; disabled or v~,dall¥ impaired ai~d need ass,s
td ce :t tt~S r,~eehhg uh.a-..¢ ¢,~1~ t ~e CITY CLERK S OFFICE at
42" 13 'q He~,,ngmq).hru,] <.aY IDDonI~42743051TDD
p'~ ~ic D~¢e fo, the Deafl
B~_ACON JUL~ 20 2/)02 AND )liLY 27 2002 ln48'-79
NOT)CE OF PUBLIC HEARING
¥~rg~nla Beach City Council wdl meet m the Chamber at City HaP
MumcLoal Center 240~. Courthouse Drive, Tuesday August 5 2003,
at 6 O0 p m The foHowmg apphcat,o~s w~ll be heard
BEACH DISTRICT 6
1
Tracy Redbum Application Expanslonof a Nonconforming Use at 615
26th Street
2
Ivlose Mast ¥1r~mla Beach Marble Co Appl~cabon Cond,tmonal Use
PermK for a bulk storage yard at 506 Vik~n8 Drive
KEMPSVILLE DISTRICT 2
3
Kempsvllle BuHdmg Matenals Inc Apphcatmon D~scontmuance cio
sure and abandonment of a porbon of Oenn Lane on the no, th s~de of
Southern Boulevard
4
Rachael A Spnnger Apphcat~on Cond~bonal Use Permit for a residen-
tial kennel at 5544 Hatteras Road
LYNNHAVEN DISTRICT 5
5
Grand Slam USA Apphcat~on Condrbonal Use Perrmt for a cornier-
c~al recreational fac~hty other than those of an outdoor nature (base-
ball/softball) at 3636 V~ln~a Beach Boulevard
ROSE HALL DISTRICT 3
6
Triton PCS/SunCom Apphcabon Mod#~catlon to the Green Run Land
Use Plan for a v~reless commun~:abon t:o~ver on the east s~de of Inde-
pendence Boulevard
PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT 7
7
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust Apphcabon Cond~bonal Use
Perm~ for a bulk storage facdmty at 1149 N~mmo Parkway
8
Joseph G P~per Application Change of Zoning O[st.qct Classlflcatton
f~¢m AG-2 Agricultural to R ~5 Residential at 2332 Seaboard Road
9
Decisions of Admm~stTatrve Off.~cers in re~ard to certain elements of
the Subdlv~sion Ordinance Subdlws~on for Joseph G Piper, at 2332
Seaboard Road
AMENDMENT
10
Ordinance to amend Section 5 6 of the Subdivision Ordinance regard
mg the wldtl~ of sldev, alk~ Deferred {:~ the Planning Commission on
June :L3 200i
BEACH DISTRICT 6
C~y of v~gmla Beach Drscontmuance closure and abandonment of a
twenty (20)4oot w~de alley m Block 72 between A{lantlc Avenue and
Pacific Avenue
NOTE Items ~. 10 were heard by the Qty Council on June 24 2003
however, due to ar; madve~.ent failure by the Beacon to publish the
legally required not~ce once per week for two s,~ccess~ve weeks Items
3 10 mus~ be reheard hv the C~ty Councd, which will do so at the above
t~me and place Tl~e C~?y Council may bu~ ~s not regu~-ed tc take ~he
same action on each apphcaOon as ~t d~d on June 24 2003
Interested c,t~zens are mwted to a~tend
~Uth Hedges S ~ch M;v'.
Ch / C,erl,
~f you are ohys~¢ally d,sabied or wsuallv ,repaired and need as$~.~
lance at th~s meetmg please call the CITY CLERK S OFPCE at
427 4303 Heanng ~mpa~red r'all TDD only 4274305 tTDD Te'e
phomc Day,ce for the Deaf)
BEACON JdLY 20 2002 AND JULY 27 2002 ]nz~S07-9
FOrM NO P S lB
City of Virginia Beach
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
DATE: July 3, 2003
TO:
FROM:
Leslie L. Lilley
William M. Macali
DEPT: City Attomey
DEPT: City Attomey
Inadvertent Failure to Publish Notices
You have asked me to determine the legal effect of the Virginian-Pilot's inadvertent failure
to publish the second of two legal notices of public hearings for planning agenda items scheduled
on the City Council's June 24 agenda. The notices were to be published on June 8th and June 15th,
but only the June 8th notice actually appeared.
Under applicable decisions of the Virginia Supreme Court, the City Council's actions are void
ab tnttto. Cay of Alexandrza v. Potomac Greens Associates Partnership, 245 Va. 371 (1993). Each
item which was required to be advertised once per week for two successive weeks must be
readvertised twice, since more than one week has already elapsed since the first publication appeared
on June 8th.
WMM
Enclosure
Ma, p L-6
T
Redburn
Gpin 2418-80-8071
Item V-L. 1.
- 46-
PLANNING
ITEM # 51349
Upon motion by Vtce Mayor Jones, seconded by Councdman Maddox, City Counctl ALLOWED
WITHDRAWAL of the apphcation of TRA CYREDB URN re ,expanston ora nonconforming use to construct
a garage for the one story structure at 615 Twenty-&xth Street
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF TRACY REDBURN FOR THE
EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE
Ordinance upon Applicatton of Tracy Redburn for the .Expanston of a
Nonconforming Use onproperty located at 615 2t~h Street (GP1N2418808071).
DISTRICT 6- BEA CH
Vottng 11-0 (By ConsenO
Council Members Vottng Aye'
Harry E Dtezel, Margaret L Eure, Vtce Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S
McClanan, R~chard A Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jtm Reeve, Peter
W Schmtdt, Ron A Vtllanueva, Rosemary Wtlson and James L. Wood
Council Members Vottng Nay
None
Counctl Members Absent'
None
June 24, 2003
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
I I I II
ITEM: Tracy Redburn, Expansion of a Nonconforming Use
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
Background:
An Ordinance upon Applicabon of Tracy Redburn for the Expansion of a
Nonconforming Use on property located at 615 26th Street (GPIN 2418808071)
DISTRICT 6 - BEACH
Considerations:
The subject structure, located on the porbon of the lot closest to Holly Road, is
one of two dwelling units located on one parcel zoned R-5S Residential Single-
Family D~strict. The ex~sting two dwelling un~ts were constructed ~n the 1950s on
three lots, each w~th d~mensions of approximately 20 feet w~de and 145 feet long.
The subject structure is nonconforming because this distnct does not allow more
than one single-family dwelling on an indiwdual parcel. The applicant desires to
construct a 16 foot by 30 foot garage (480 square feet) to the east side of the
nonconforming one story structure, which measures approximately 17 feet by 24
(408 square feet), resulting ~n a garage larger than the dwelling.
While the lot is s~zed well above the minimum requirements for the R5-S District,
under the current configuration, it would be ~mpossible for the existing units to be
built under today's standards without a subdivision variance creating two
substandard lots As such, expansion of one of the un~ts, with a garage that is
larger than the dwelling unit, ~s not recommended for approval as mt prolongs the
exmstence of this nonconforming s~tuatmon that should be d~scouraged rather than
enhanced. Over t~me, structures throughout this neighborhood of smmilar design
and quahty have been removed. Many of the lots where these nonconforming
structures existed have been redeveloped in conformity with the Zoning
Ordmnance.
Recommendations:
Pursuant to Section 105(e) of the City Zoning Ordinance, a nonconforming
structure may be enlarged only ~f the C~ty Council finds that the proposed
structure, as enlarged, w~ll be "equally appropnate or more appropriate to the
district than is the existing nonconformity." Staff concludes that the proposed
enlargement Is not reasonable, because ~t will have a detrimental impact on the
surrounding area, and will not be as appropriate to the district as the ex,st,rig
non-conforming use. Approval of the request would create more of non-
conformity than currently exists on the site.
Tracy Redburn
Page 2 of 2
The applicant has requested w~thdrawal of this ~tem. It ~s the ~ntent of the
applicant to subdlwde the lot to place each currently non-conforming structure on
a separate lot, thus negating the need for th~s application.
Attachments:
Staff Review
D~sclosure Statement
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends w~thdrawal of the application
Submitting ¥.
Department/Agenc · Planning Departmen
City Manager: ~-~0.~.~ LQ
TRACY REDBURN
June 24, 2003
General Information:
REQUEST:
ADDRESS'
Change to a Non-Conforming Use. The structure ~s one of two
dwelling un~ts located on one parcel zoned R-5S Res~denbal
S~ngle-Fam~ly D~strict. The structure is nonconforming because this
d~stnct does not allow more than one single-family dwelhng on an
individual parcel.
615 26th Street
Map L-6
,/' '~ ~3 6
T Redburn
Gpm 2~18-80-8071
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
24188080710000
6- BEACH
Change to a Non-Conforming Use
TRACY REDBURN
Page 1
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
11,875 square feet
Carolyn A.K. Smith
Major Issues:
Ensuring that the proposed addition and alterabon to the nonconforming structure ~s
no more detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and ~s as appropriate to the
district as the ex~sting structure
Land Use, Zoning, and
Site Characteristics:
Existin_~ Land Use and Zoning
The property has two ex~st~ng s~ngle-
family dwellings on ~t that were
constructed over 40 years ago. The
property is currently zoned R-5S
Res~denbal S~ngle-Family D~strict. Th~s
d~stnct allows only single-family dwelling
units. All other dwelling types are
prohibited. The photo at nght shows the
dwelling on the rear porbon of the lot, which ~s the subject of thIs request.
Surrounding Land Use,and Zonin.~
North:
South:
East:
West:
· Holly Road, vacant parcel that provides driveway
access to th~s site / R-5S Residential Single-
Famdy D~stnct
· 26th Street, s~ngle family dwelhngs / R-5S
Residential Single-Family D~stnct
· S~ngle-family dwelling / R-5S Res~denbal S~ngle-
Famdy D~stnct
· S~ngle-family dwelling / R-5S Residential S~ngle-
Famdy D~stnct
Change to a Non-Conforming Use '~,~T~
TRACY REDBURN~.~.
Page 2 ', .......
Zoning and Land Use Statistics
Under the rules of the R-5S DIstrict, this property could be developed with one (1)
smgle-famdy dwelling. While the lot area could accommodate subdivision ~nto two
parcels, the amount of lot w~dth at the right-of-way ~s deficient by 25 feet, thereby not
meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Zoning History
No other s~milar requests in the vic~mty have been proposed w~thm the last 20 years.
Typically, structures of slmdar design and quality have been removed. Lots where
these nonconforming structures ex~st have been redeveloped and conformity with the
City Zomng Ordinance has been met.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The site ~s ~n an AICUZ area of 70-75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana
Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics
The s~te ~s somewhat wooded and located ~n the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There
are no s~gn~ficant natural resources on th~s s~te
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
City water and sewer currently serve th~s property.
Public Safety
Police:
Fire and
Rescue:
Adequate - no additional comments.
Budding permits must be obtained for all construction related to
th~s project. All fire protecbon requirements wdl be ascertained
dunng the building permit review process. A Certificate of
Occupancy must be obtained prior to occupancy
Change to a Non-Conforming Use
TRACY REDBURNpage 3
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates th~s area as Suburban Residential / Medium
and High Density. This is an area that is planned for residential uses at or above 3 5
dwelling units to the acre
Summary of Proposal
The applicant is
proposing to add a 16
foot by 30 foot garage
(480 square feet) to the
east side of the
nonconforming one story
structure that is located
on the northern port~on of
the site. The ex~st~ng
two dwelling un~ts were
constructed in the 1950s
on three lots, each with
d~mensions of
approximately 20 feet
w~de and 145 feet long
A new driveway, with
access along Holly
Road, is also proposed.
This drive will utilize a
portion of Lot 18 to the
north. The applicant has
prowded a deed that lists
h~m as one of the owners
of that lot. A porbon of
the ex~sbng concrete
drive is also currently
located on Lot 18.
No encroachments into
setbacks are beIng
requested nor are they
needed w~th this
proposal
PART OF LOT t8
,
Proposed
x 30'
garage
WO0~ P:~IVACY
FENCE OF
OTHERS
ENCROACHES
ON LOT 6
Existinp
one-story
block I~iuilding
~p~ !~ , ~! ~ ,
' CONC WA' K'
26TH STREET
on
No 1650
,
mHYStCAL
Change to a Non-Conforming Use
T RACY RED BURN
Page
Evaluation of Request
While the lot is sized well above the m~n~mum requirements for the R5-S District, under
the current configuratIon, ~t would be ~mpossible for the ex~sting un~ts to be budt under
today's standards without a subd~wsion variance. As such, expansion of one of the
units w~th a garage that is nearly the size of the dwelling unit ~s not recommended for
approval as it prolongs the existence of this nonconforming s~tuat~on that should be
discouraged rather than enhanced. Over hme, structures throughout this neighborhood
of similar design and quality have been removed. Many of the lots where these
nonconforming structures existed have been redeveloped ~n conformity with the Zoning
Ordinance.
Staff concludes that the proposed enlargement is not reasonable, because it will have a
detrimental impact on the surrounding area as ~t could encourage other owners of
nonconforming properties to follow suit The expansion will not be as appropriate to the
district as the ex~st~ng non-conforming use. The request, therefore, is not acceptable as
submitted.
Change to a Non-Conforming Use
TRACY REDBURN
Page 5 .......
(F)
Existin !
one-st¢iry
block t uiiding
3 i 4
C.S.
PART OF LOT 18
O'
N83'45'OO'E
--t 6~-9'i ~ : p,N Proposed
~ ,,:. I 6' x 30'
~ garage addil on
wOo~ PRIVACY
~ , ~'ENCE OF
--, I
' OTHERS
' $ ENCROACHES
i ON LOT 6
0
17.3'
PIN
(F) ~
5 6 7
CONC. ° LNKC
PORCH
-- -- L 75.00'~_
26TH STREET s~3'~'oo'w
(~C'R/W)
(,.-)
,,
150.00'
PIN
PHYSICAL SURV~
- --
Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~'~'~
TRACYREDBURN "'
Page6
Change to a Non-Conforming Use
TRACY REDBURN
Page 7
I-2
ZONING HISTORY
1. 07/01/74 - STREET CLOSURE (Denn Lane) APPROVED
2. 12/12/83- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (outside storage) APPROVED
3. 08/14/01 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (auto sales/repair) APPROVED
Item VOL.2.
- 48 -
PLANNING
ITEM # 51350 (Continued)
Voting. 10-0 (By Consent)
Counctl Members Vottng Aye
Harry E Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Reba S McClanan, Rtchard A Maddox,
Mayor Meyera E Oberndo~ Jtm Reeve, Peter VE. Schmtdt, Ron A Vdlanueva,
Rosemary Wilson and James L.
Counctl Members Voting Nay
None
Counctl Members Abstaining
Vtce Mayor Louts R. Jones
Counctl Members Absent
None
Vice Mayor Jones ABSTAINED on Item L 2 (KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MA TERIALS, INC , as hts property
ts adjacent to the apphcatton.
June 24, 2003
Item V-L.Z
- 47-
PLANNING
ITEM # 51350
Upon motton by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Maddox, Ctty Council ADOPTED an
Or&nance upon apphcatton of KEMPSVILLE B UILDING MA TERIALS, INC. re &scontlnuance, closure
and abandonment of a portton of Denn Lane
Or&nance upon apphcatton of Kempsvtlle Bud&ng Materials, Inc for the
&scont~nuance, closure and abandonment of a portton of Denn Lane located
on the north side of Southern Boulevard, 250 feet west of Jersey Avenue
DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE
The followtng con&ttons shah be requtred:
The City Attorney's Office shah make the final determinatton regar&ng
ownership of the underlymgfee. The purchase price to be patd to the Ctty
shall be determined accor&ng to the "Pohcy Regar&ng Purchase of City's
Interest tn Streets Pursuant to Street Closures, "approved by City Council
Copies of the pohcy are available tn the Planntng Department.
The apphcant shah resubdivtde the property and vacate tnternal lot hnes
to tncorporate the closed area tnto the adjotning parcels The plat shah be
submitted and approved for recordatton prtor to final street closure
approval.
The apphcant shall verify that no prtvate utihties exist wtthin the rtght-of-
way proposed for closure Prehmtnary comments from Domtnton Virgtma
Power and Vtrgtnta Natural Gas tn&cate that there are none of their
facihttes wtthtn the rtght-of-way proposed for closure. Prelimtnary
comments from HRSD m&cate that there are facthttes in the surroun&ng
area and the apphcant must verify any easement requirements prlor to
submtttal of the final plat
4 Closure of the right-of-way shah be contingent upon comphance wtth the
above stated con&ttons wtthm 365 days of approval by City CounctL If the
con&ttons noted above are not accomplished and the final plat ss not
approved wtthtn one year of the City Counctl vote to close the right-of-way,
this approval shall be considered null and votd
June 24, 2003
ITEM:
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
Kempsville Building Materials, Inc.- Closure of a Portion of Denn Lane
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
· Background:
Application of Kempsville Building Materials, Inc for the discontinuance, closure
and abandonment of a portion of Denn Lane located on the north side of
Southern Boulevard, 250 feet west of Jersey Avenue. DISTRICT 2 -
KEMPSVILLE
The purpose of th~s request is to ~ncorporate the property into the surrounding
s~te.
Considerations:
The subject site and the surrounding area have been zoned for light industrial
use since the early 1960s. A street closure of a portion of Denn Lane directly
north of the subject s~te was approved in 1974 for the same applicant, Kempsville
Building Materials. The port~on of Denn Lane requested for closure is currently
paved and used as an access to the surrounding warehouse/storage facil~bes for
Kempsvdle Building Materials.
The Viewers Committee determined that the closure of th~s portion of Denn Lane
is acceptable and will not result in a public inconvenience. The applicant plans to
incorporate the right-of-way into the surrounding property, vacating all internal
property lines within the site to create a consolidated parcel of approximately 5.5
acres. This consohdation is a posibve step toward the redevelopment envisioned
for th~s area under the strategic growth concept being stud~ed with the
Comprehensive Plan update. The Viewers Committee recommends approval of
this street closure.
The Planning Commission placed th~s ~tem on the consent agenda because the
proposed closure would allow consolidabon of adjacent properties for
development. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition.
Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to
approve this request with the following conditions:
Kempswlle Budding Materials
Page 2 of 2
.
The City Attorney's Office shall make the final determination regarding
ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the C~ty
shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's
Interest m Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by C~ty Council.
Copies of the policy are avadable ~n the Planning Department.
.
The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to
~ncorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat shall be
submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure
approval.
.
The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist w~thin the right-of-
way proposed for closure. Prehm~nary comments from Dominion Virginia
Power and V~rginia Natural Gas indicate that there are none of their
facilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary
comments from HRSD indicate that there are facilities in the surrounding
area and the apphcant must verify any easement requirements prior to
submittal of the final plat.
.
Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon comphance w~th the
above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the
condibons noted above are not accomplished and the final plat ~s not
approved w~th~n one year of the City Councd vote to close the right-of-way
th~s approval shall be considered null and void.
· Attachments:
Staff Review
D~sclosure Statement
Ordinance
Planning Commission M~nutes
Locabon Map
Recommended Action: Planmng Commission recommends approval Staff recommends
approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~L~
City Manager~
May 14, 2003
General Information:
APPLICATION
NUMBER: D07-212-STC-2003
REQUEST: Street Closure
ADDRESS:
Portion of Denn Lane, located on the north side of Southern
Boulevard, 250 feet west of Jersey Avenue
~ ~ Kern Buildin
Ma No~ 'co
T-!
Materials
~ oC~
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
2 - KEMPSVILLE
!
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
KEMPSVILLE BU! LDING MATERIALS, INC. / # 6
Page I
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
PURPOSE:
6,000 square feet
Barbara Duke
To close a portion of Denn Lane and incorporate the property into the
surrounding site.
Land Use, Zoning, and
Site Characteristics:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
The portion of Denn Lane requested for
closure is currently paved and used as
an access to the surrounding
warehouse/storage facilities for
Kempswlle Building Materials.
Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq
North:
South:
East:
West:
· Warehouse and auto-related uses / I-1 Light
Industrial District
· Southern Boulevard
· Warehouse use / I-1 Light Industrial District
· Warehouse use / I-1 Light Industrial District
Zonin,q History
The subject site and the surrounding area have been zoned for light industrial use s~nce
the early 1960s. A street closure of a portion of Denn Lane directly north of the subject
site was approved in 1974 for the same applicant, Kempsville Building Materials.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
There are no public water or sewer facihties within the right-of-way proposed for closure.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. ! # 6
Page 2
Public Works
There are no public drainage structures within the right-of-way proposed for closure.
Public Safety
Police:
Fire and
Rescue:
No Comments.
No Comments.
Private Utilities
Dominion Virginia Power and Virginia Natural Gas have no objection to the proposed
street closure. Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) has facilities in the
surrounding area and will need to be contacted by the applicant to determine if any
easements are required.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as an area that is developed with a
variety of light industrial and commercial uses. This area is currently being studied with
the update of the Comprehensive Plan and has been identified as a strategic growth
area dunng recent Comprehensive Plan public workshops. Many of the properties in
this area have long-term potential to be transformed from a land use pattern that is
predominantly Iow ~ntensity commercial and industrial to one that achieves a compatible
mix of urban land uses and higher econom ~c investment than exists today. Parcel
consolidation is encouraged in this area as a means to increase redevelopment
potential.
Evaluation of Request
The Viewers Committee has reviewed the proposed street closure and has determined
that the closure of this port~on of Denn Lan e ~s acceptable and will not result in a public
inconvenience. The applicant plans to incorporate the right-of-way into the surrounding
property and to vacate all internal property lines within the s~te to create a consolidated
parcel of approximately 5.5 acres. This consolidation is a positive step toward the
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. / # 6
Page 3
redevelopment envisioned for this area under the strategic growth concept being
studied with the Comprehensive Plan update. The Viewers Committee recommends
approval of this street closure with the following conditions.
Conditions
,
2.
.
.
The City Attorney's Office shall make the final determination regarding ownership
of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be
determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in
Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the
policy are available in the Planning Department.
The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to
incorporate the, closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat shall be submitted
and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval.
The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way
proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from Dominion Virginia Power and
Virginia Natural Gas indicate that there are none of their facilities within the right-
of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from HRSD indicate that
there are facilities in the surrounding area and the applicant must verify any
easement requirements prior to submittal of the final plat.
Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above
stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions
noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one
year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be
considered null and void.
NOTE:
Further conditions may be required during the
administration of applicable City Ordinances.
·
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. / # 6
Page 4
Z
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
ii i' Iii I~ ' ~' ' ~1 i ' i' '1' ' ii 1'1' 'i i i i i i J i i i1 i '1 i i 1'1"" i ~ i
Applicant's Name:._. Kemp.svi!!~. Building Materials, Imcorporated
LisLAll Current
Property Owners: Kempsville Building Materials, Incorporeted
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below:
(Attach list if necessary)
_ ~co. tt H. Gandy.. P. resident~_ Bobby G-.,,i~.ohn.s, ,O.T!,t,, ?.ice Presidemt.
Brenda C. 9n~te~. vice President
If theproperty owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED
ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in th~ organization below=. (Attach list
if necessary)
t-1 .Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership,~ firm, 0r other
unmcorporated organization.
ff ~e ppph'ca~t is not the cu~enf ow~r of the property, cof~plete, the Applicant~Disclosure.
section~below:
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list alt officers o~the Corporation below:.
(Attach list if necessary)
Scott.,M~._..G. aD.~dy, .PresiSent~l' ..5obb7 G. Johnson, Vice Pr-eside=t,
arenda C. Onley, V~iae Presiden~
If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED
ORGANIZATION, list all mernber~ or partners in the organization below: (Attach list
if necessary)
!"1 Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other
unincorporated organization.
tCERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true
and g~cul~te. .,/~
Signature / '" Prln~ Nam~ ........
........... ~. ................ , ,
Street Closure Application
Page 8 of 15
modi§ed. 10 '6.2002
,
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC./# 6
Page 7
Item//6
Kempsville Building Materials, Inc.
Application of Kempsville Building Matenals, Inc. for
the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a
portion of Denn Lane
North side of Southern Boulevard
District 2
Kempsville
May 14, 2003
CONSENT
Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item//6, Kernspville Building Materials. An
application of Kempsville Building Materials, Inc. for the discontinuance, closure and
abandonment of a portion of Denn Lane located on the north s~de of Southern Boulevard.
This is in the Kempsville District and has four conditions.
Joel Weaver: Hi. Joel Weaver, attorney for Kempsville Building Materials, Inc.
Dorothy Wood: You read the conditions sir?
Joel Weaver: Yes I have.
Dorothy Wood: Is there any opposition to Kernpsville Building Materials for an
application for a discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of'Denn Lane?
Hearing none, Mr. Din?
William Din: This is a closure of Denn Lane. Our Comprehensive Plan encourages
consolidatmn of properties in th~s area so that the potential can be increased and this will
go along way m doing that. This public road actually is an entrance way right now to
Kempsville Building Materials and the viewers did not see any detriment in closing this
road to the City. There are no utilities in this area. So, it was a very posttive step in
redevelopment envision for this area. As a result, the Planning Commissioners do not
have any objection putting ~t on consent agenda.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Din. Thank you Mr. Weaver.
Joel Weaver: Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: Mr. Ripley, I would move that we approve this item on the consent
agenda, Item #6 with four conditions.
Ronald Pupley: So a motion to approve th~s 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.
F~-hibit 'A' Showing Right-of-Way to be Closed
--
2/tN9~¥',~[ ................. ~ .................. .". ......
~ ..... "'-'i'~,~'''' '~" j' '~ .... ~'~"i .......... 'i- i-- ,i~'~i-~ ~" -'-'~'"--: ............ '~' "--""-'"'-k~.
! I ! ~ I I I t I I t I ~
b--~--. 4k TM
~:~ ~l~J~l~l~i~l~t~t~l~ ~t~t ~ I~
it t ~'~'~!i l l, i I ii ! I ~1 t b----X---.~
i,~i i , ~ I I I ] I i L
i:~. ~ [ ~-I ~ I ~..l al ~-~I'~,~l. I ~ I ~ [ ~ ['~ I ~ ['~'I~ ~ "'~'
~ i : " I '- i I . : I I I
t ~ ~--~--- ~[
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC./# 6
Page 6
-T
28
29
3O
31
32
35
I4
15
t6
-- I 89"45'15"
34
33 ~
.~ 42
I
315.58' TO
---WI TCHD~
I~.OAD
/~/w To s£
VACA T~D
I
t
{ 47
I
250' TO
'y.__...
A VE7~,UE
EASTERLY ~ OF
D£NN LANE TO
BE CLOSED
o o.o
S 89'48'15" W~ 615.5g'
WES TERL Y ~ OF J DEl,IN LANE TO
BE CLOSED ·
40
SOUTHERN BOULEVARD
· " VAR. WID774 R.,/w ,,.,
Planning Commission Agenda {~]~
May 14, 2003 ;;;~' k>t '~
KEMPSVlLLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. / # 6 t:~
Page 5
ORDINANCE NO.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND
DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN
STREET KNOWN AS DENN LANE AS SHOWN ON
THAT CERTAIN PLAT ENTITLED "R/W CLOSURE
EXHIBIT OF THE EASTERLY 25' PORTION OF DENN
LANE ADJACENT TO LOT 42, BLOCK 48, EUCLID
PLACE AND THE WESTERLY 25' PORTION OF DENN
LANE ADJACENT TO LOT 33, BLOCK 49, EUCLID
PLACE FOR KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MATERIALS,
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" A COPY OF WHICH IS
ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT A.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2003, Kempsville Bmld~ng Materials, Inc. apphed to the
Council of the C~ty of V~rgm~a Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described street d~scont~nued,
closed, and vacated, and
WHEREAS, ~t ~s the judgment of the Council that smd street be discontinued, closed,
and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or before August 4, 2004;
NOW, THEREFORE,
SECTION I
BE IT ORDAINED by the Counml of the City of Virginia Beach, V~rgima, that the
hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, subject to certmn conditions being
met on or before August 4, 2004.
All that certain p~ece or parcel of land s~tuate, 13nng and being ~n the
C~ty of V~rg~nia Beach, Vlrg~ma, designated and described as
"WESTERN ½ OF DENN LANE TO BE CLOSED" and "EASTERN
26 GPIN: (1467-84-5350, 1467-84-4898 and 1467-84-1392)
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
V2 OF DENN LANE TO BE CLOSED" shown as the cross-hatched
area on that certain plat entitled: "R/W CLOSURE EXHIBIT OF
THE EASTERLY 25' PORTION OF DENN LANE ADJACENT TO
LOT 42, BLOCK 48, EUCLID PLACE AND THE WESTERLY 25'
PORTION OF DENN LANE ADJACENT TO LOT 33, BLOCK 49,
EUCLID PLACE FOR KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MATERIALS,
VIRIGNIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", Scale: 1'=30', dated April 02,
2003, prepared by Kellam-Gerwitz Eng~neenng, Inc., a copy of which
~s attached hereto as Exhibit A.
SECTION II
The following conditions must be met on or before August 4, 2004:
1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership
of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be prod to the City shall be detenmned according to the
"Pohcy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest ~n Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by
City Council. Copies of said policy are available in the Planning Department.
2. The applicant shall resubdiv~de the property and vacate internal lot lines to
incorporate the closed area ~nto the adjoining parcels. The resubdivision plat shall be subrmtted and
approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval.
3. The apphcant shall verify that no private utilities exist w~thin the right-of-way
proposed for closure. Prehrmnary comments from the utility companies ~ndicate that there are no
private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do ex~st, the
applicant shall provide easements satisfactory to the utility companies.
4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above
stated conditions w~thin 365 days of approval by City Council. If all conditions noted above are not
in compliance and the final plat ~s not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the
street, th~s approval will be considered null and void.
SECTION III
1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before August 4, 2004, th~s
Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City Councd.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
2. If all conditions are met on or before August 4, 2004, the date of final closure
is the date the street closure ordinance ~s recorded by the City Attorney.
SECTION IV
1. A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed ~n the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of the C~ty of V~rginia Beach, Virginia, and ~ndexed ~n the name of the CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor."
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on th~s ~ day
of ,2003.
CA-8738
July 30, 2003
C XDocuments and Setungs\bduke~Local Setungs\Temp\CA8738 ord2 FRM
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
' - ~an~Department
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
City Attorney
THIS EXHIBIT IS BASED ON DOCUMENTS
OF RECORD AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
A BOUNDARY SURVEY NOR A
SUBDIVISION OF LAND. A FIELD SURVEY
HAS NOT BEEN PERFORMED.
2. THIS EXHIBIT IS INTENDED TO DEPICT
THE PROPOSED R/W TO BE CLOSED
ABOUT THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON
AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR ANY OTHER
THAN GENERAL REFERENCE.
28
29
30
31
32
, 35
GRAPHIC SCALE
15 0 15 30 60
FEET
lINCH= 30 FEET
I
~.s[ TO BE
~.-- VACA TED
(TYP)
33 ' ' 42
34
50.00'
I
315.58' TO
I~OAD
EXHIBIT A
s 89'48'15"w//615.58' Z
WESTERLY ~ OF /
DENN LANE TO
BE CLOSED
R/W TO BE
VA CA TED
I
I
I
I
I
250' ,TO
A VENiUE
41
12
MB. 4, P. 63
SCALE: 1' -- 30'
R/W CLOSURE ~XHIBIT OF
The easterly 25' port, on of Denn Lane adjacent to Lot 42,
Block 48, Euchd P/ace and the westerly 25' portmn of' Denn
Lane adjacent to Lot 33, Block 49, Euchd Place
FOR
KEMPSVILI. E BUILDING MATERIALS
VIRGINIA BEACH VIRGINIA
EASTERLY ~ OF
DENN LANE TO
BE CLOSED
13
SOUTHERN BOULEVARD
,-, VAR. WIDTH R/W ,.,
(MB. 4, P. 63)
02 APRIL, 2003
14
15
16
4O
VO2085_rwEXH dwg
TMF/wcg
~T.T..~T~ - GERWIT'Z
ENGINEERING INC.
ENGINEERIH O-SUR~"iI NG-- pLANNIN O
500 CENTRAL DRIV~
SUITE 113
VIRGIMA BEACI'I,VIRGINtA 234*54.
(?ST)~4o-oe~s
Map C-7
Rachael S
-12
G-pin 1467-12-8236
ZONING HISTORY
1. 11-9-70- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (apartments)- Granted
Item V-L. 3.
- 50 -
PLANNING
ITEM # 51351 (Continued)
Voting: 9-2
Councd Members Vottng Aye'
Harry E Dtezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R Jones, Richard A
Maddox, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf Jtm Reeve, Peter W. Schmtdt, Ron A
Vdlanueva and Rosemary Wilson
Councd Members Vottng Nay'
Reba S. McClanan and James L Wood
Council Members Absent
None
June 24, 2003
Item V-L.3.
- 49 -
PLANNING
ITEM # 51351
Rachael Springer, 5544 Hatteras Road, Phone. 333-2 752, represented her applicatton and dtstrtbuted a
letter of support from Dr Cynthta L. Branch, her dogs' vetertnartan, a petitton and a schematic of the
planting bed
Upon motton by Councilman Dtezel, seconded by Councdman Schmidt, City Councd ADOPTED an
Or&nance upon apphcatton of RACHAEL A. SPRINGER for a Conchttonal Use Permtt.
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF RACHAEL A. SPRINGER FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL KENNEL Z060331106
BE IT HEREB Y ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
Ordtnance upon dpphcation of Rachael A Springer for a Condtttonal Use
Permit for a restdenttal kennel on property located at 5544 Hatteras Road
(GPIN 1467128236) DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE
The following conchttons shall be required
1. No more than seven adult dogs (over six months of age) shall be kept on the
property at any ttme No breedtng, groomtng, or boardtng of any other
dogs for monetary or non-monetary purposes shall be permitted
2. A mtmmum three-foot planttng bed shall be installed adjacent to the
natural area on the northwest stde of the property The bed shall be
conststent with Chesapeake Bay Preservatton Area (CBPA) Planting Bed
drawing avadable at the Planning Department's Development Services
Center
3. Dog htter shall be ptcked up and &sposed of on a daily basts
4 The Conchttonal Use Permit shah be reviewed on an annual basts
Thts Ordmance shall be effective tn accordance with Sectton 107 09 of the Zoning Ordmance
Adopted by the Council of the City of Vtrgtma Beach, Vtrgmta, on the Twenty-fourth of June,
Thousand Three
Two
June 24, 2003
ITEM'
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
Rachael A. Springer- Conditional Use Permit (Residential Kennel)
5544 Hatteras Road
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
· Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Rachael A. Springer for a Conditional Use
Permit for a resIdential kennel on property located at 5544 Hatteras Road (GPIN
1467128236) DISTRICT 2- KEMPSVILLE
The purpose of th~s request is to keep up to seven dogs as pets at the applicant's
residential property. The City Zoning Ordinance allows only four dogs without a
Conditional Use Permit.
Considerations:
The subject property ~s used as a residenbal dwelling and is zoned R-7.5
Residential D~stnct. The apphcant currently has three dogs ~n her home and
would like to own up to four more. The dogs are pets and are not kept for any
commercial purpose. The dogs are a variety of breeds and range ~n size from
small to large The three addibonal dogs would be small to medium size.
The applicant has previously had four dogs on the property. No compla,nts
related to the dogs have been reported to the Police Department or Animal
Control. The applicant has submitted a petition indicating she has the support of
her neighbors.
Staff recommends approval. There was no opposition at the hearing. Two emads
voicing oppos~bon to the request were received prior to the hearing.
Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 6 - 4 to
approve th~s request w~th the following cond~bons'
o
No more than seven adult dogs (over six months of age) shall be kept on
the property at any time. No breeding, grooming, or board,rig of any other
dogs for monetary or non-monetary purposes shall be permitted.
Rachael Springer
Page 2 of 2
2. A minimum three-foot planbng bed shall be installed adjacent to the
natural area on the northwest s~de of the property. The bed shall be
consistent with Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (CBPA) Planting Bed
drawing available at the Planning Department's Development Services
Center.
3. Dog litter shall be picked up and disposed of on a daily basis.
4. The Conditional Use Permit shall be rewewed on an annual basis.
· Attachments:
Staff Review
D~sclosure Statement
Planning Commission M~nutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~~ ~
City Manager~~ t/~"~~'~,
RACHAEL A. SPRINGER/# 3
May 14, 2003
General Information:
APPLICATION
NUMBER: C07 - 211 - CUP - 2003
REQUEST: Cond~bonal Use Permit for a residential kennel
ADDRESS: 5544 Hatteras Road
$cole
Rachael S
Gpin 1467-12-8236
GPIN:
14671282360000
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
RACHAEL A. SPRINGER / # 3
Page 1
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
PURPOSE:
2 - KEMPSVILLE
16,831 square feet
Ashby Moss
To keep up to seven dogs as pets at the applicant's residential
property. The City Zoning Ordinance allows only four dogs without a
Condibonal Use Permit.
Major Issues:
· Degree of noise associated with the dogs and its impact on neighboring
property owners.
· Proper disposal of dog litter and "Bayscaping" to prevent runoff to tributary of
Elizabeth River and Chesapeake Bay.
Land Use, Zoning, and Site
C h a racte ri sti cs:
Existinq Land Use and Zoning
The subject property is used as a
res~denbal dwelling and ~s zoned R-7.5
Residential District.
Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning
The subject property is located within a
residenbal neighborhood zoned R-7.5
Residential District. Single-famdy homes
are also found behind the subject s~te to the east, but zoning for these lots which front
Princess Anne Road is R-10 Residenbal District. A drainage ditch separates the
property from a vacant parcel on the northwest side. The d~tch leads d~rectly to the
Elizabeth River.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
RACHAEL A. SPRINGER / # 3
Page 2
Zoning History
The only zoning activity in the immediate wcmity is a Conditional Use Permit for
apartments approved in 1970 for the apartment complex east of the s~te across
Pnncess Anne Road.
Another Conditional Use Permit for a residential kennel was approved on a 22,500
square foot property in the Wellington Woods neighborhood off of Great Neck Road for
up to seven dogs on March 14, 2000. One of the conditions on this Use Permit required
an annual review; if no complaints were received, administrative approval would be
granted. To date, the Zoning Office has received no further complaints on this property.
This property was also located adjacent to a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. The
applicant was required to create a landscape bed designed for maximum filtration of
pollutants as a condition of the Use Permit.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The site is ~n an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
The residence is currently served by C~ty water and sewer.
Transportation
No additional tnps would be generated w~th the proposed use.
Public Safety
Police:
Fire and
Rescue:
Neither the Police Department nor Animal Control has had
prior complaints for the subject property.
Adequate- no further comments.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for Iow-dens~ty residential land use at
or below 3.5 dwelling un~ts per acre.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
RACHAEL A. SPRINGER / # 3
Page 3
Summary of Proposal
Proposal
The applicant currently has three dogs in her home and would like to own up
to four more. The dogs are strictly pets and are not kept for any commercial
purpose.
· The dogs are a variety of breeds and range in s~ze from small to large. The
three additional dogs are small to medium s~ze.
· No complaints related to the dogs have been received on th~s property.
The applicant has submitted a petition w~th signatures from 18 households on
Hatteras Road, Iroquois Road, and Princess Anne Road supporting her
Cond~bonal Use Permit request.
Site Desiqn
· The applicant's property is 16,831 square feet, which is slightly larger than the
typical lots along Hatteras Road.
· The rear yard ~s completely enclosed with a six-foot wood privacy fence.
On the northwest side, the property abuts a drainage ditch that leads'd~rectly
to the Elizabeth R~ver. While much of the sloped area adjacent to the d~tch is
in a natural state, one of the recommended condibons is to create a
landscape bed adjacent to th~s area specifically designed for maximum
pollutant removal.
Evaluation of Request
The applicant's request for a Cond~bonal Use Permit for seven dogs ~s acceptable. The
applicant hves on a relabvely large lot that ~s fenced in. Although the property ~s
adjacent to a tributary of the Ehzabeth River, which ultimately leads to the Chesapeake
Bay, a properly designed landscape bed and proper d~sposal of dog htter will mitigate
runoff to the Bay. The apphcant has previously had four dogs on the property, and no
complaints related to the dogs have been reported to the Police Department or Animal
Control. The applicant has submitted a petition indicating she has the support of her
neighbors.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
RACHAEL A. SPRINGER I # 3
Page 4
Therefore, this application is recommended for approval subject to the condibons listed
below:
Conditions
.
No more than seven adult dogs (over six months of age) shall be kept on the
property at any time No breeding, grooming, or boarding of any other dogs for
monetary or non-monetary purposes shall be permitted
.
A minimum three-foot planting bed shall be ~nstalled adjacent to the natural area
on the northwest side of the property. The bed shall be consistent with
Chesapeake Bay Preservabon Area (CBPA) Planting Bed drawing available at
the Planning Department's Development Services Center.
3. Dog litter shall be p~cked up and disposed of on a dady basis.
NO TE:
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
RACHAEL A. SPRINGER I # 3
Page 5
0
HiLL
Pti NCE RD.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
RACHAEL A. SPRINGER I # 3
Page 6
c dS
· · · · · · · · · ·
_.
~I~ l
~1~ 17,_
~ l~ I~:
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
RACHAEL A. SPRINGER / # 3
Page 7
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
RACHAEL A. SPRINGER / # 3
Page 8
DIECLOSURE STATEME
Applicant's Name.'~~,'~
List All Current
Property Owners:
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
if the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below:
(Attach hst if necessary)
If the apphcant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED
ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners ~n the organization below: (Attach l/st
if necessary)
[~. heck here ~f the NOT a firm, other
applicant
IS
corporation,
partnership,
or
umncorporated organization.
ff the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Property Owner
Disclosure section below:
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
If the property owner ;s a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporabon below:
(Attach list if necessary)
If the property owner ~s a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED
ORGANIZATION, list alt members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list
/f necessary)
[[~heck here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other
umncorporated orgamzabon.
CERTIFICATION I certify that the information contained herein is true
and accurate.
Signature ' - t Print Name -- '
i I I I ,l,l,ll, , I, 1 ...... I,1 ,, 1,1,1,,,1 i,11, I i, ,11 , i,,1, I :1,1,1,1,1
Conditional Use Permit Apphcat~on
Page 8 of 12
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
RACHAEL A. SPRINGER / # 3
Page 9
Rachael Spnnger
Cond~tlonal Use Permit for a res~dentlal kennel
5544 Hatteras Road
Dastnct 2
Kempsville
May 14, 2003
REGULAR
Robert Miller: The next ~tem is Rachael Spnnger.
Rachael Spnnger: F~rst of all, I must apologize for having to step out. When I did, my
nerves were shot. I'm not accustomed to asking a group of people that I don't even know
for something that I desperately want.
Robert Miller: Are you Rachael Springer?
Rachael Spnnger: I am Rachael Spnnger.
Ronald Ripley: Well, just relax and don't worry about ~t. We're Just a group of regular
people. I can tell you. Go ahead.
Rachael Spnnger: Okay. What I am askang for ~s not a kennel, so to speak. I do own
three dogs at present. One of them is a Cavaher Kang Charles and I would hke to own
one of every color of these dogs. And, they only come in four colors. I brought a
Cavaher book w~th me to show you a pmture. They do not get any larger than 14 pounds.
These dogs are my house pets. They are not nmmng loose ~n the yard. They go out in
the morning to go potty. They go out ~n the aftemoon and they go out in the evening.
These dogs live in our bedroom at night. And, I just wanted to show you a pmture so that
you would see the s~ze of a full-grown dog. I have no ~ntent~ons of ever putting these
dogs ~nto a kennel ~n the backyard. I do own a large dog. She's a Rotwelller Labrador
mix. And, she hves ~n my house. She's a rescued dog and she hves ~n my house.
Ronald Rlpley: Do you want to pass that around?
Rachael Spnnger: Yes, I would like to. I have hved ~n my neighborhood ~n the same
house s~nce 1976, a total of 27 years. And, my dogs do go to obedience school and I'm
hoping to get my Cavahers ~nto therapy for nursing homes. Here are the p~ctures.
Ronald Rapley: You said you w~sh to get what into a nursing home?
Rachael Spnnger: I'm Interested ~n getting these dogs into therapy dogs ~n nursing
homes.
Robert Miller: I thought you smd you were going to get the dogs ~nto therapy.
Item #3
Rachael Spnnger
Page 2
Rachael Spnnger: That's the point of them going to obedience school ~s so that I can
because I've called several nursing homes and vis~ted them and asked them what I need
and they smd I have to take the dogs to obedience school. Which way do I start?
Ronald Ripley: It doesn't matter. Start down there as fine. Do you have more to say? I
thxnk we have a question. Dot Wood has a question.
Dorothy Wood: I think 1ts admirable Mrs. Spnnger that you came and asked for an
apphcataon or asked for th~s wathout having been forced to by the Caty. And, I thank you
for that. I want to ask you two thangs. How much do these dogs bark?
Rachael Spnnger: Very httle.
Dorothy Wood: I know a lot of httle dogs bark a lot.
Rachael Spnnger: Right. Yes. But these dogs and ~f you see the book they're just real
companion dogs. And, my barks ~n the house because he plays w~th the Rotweiller but
other than that they're not nippy httle dogs lake the poodles are.
Dorothy Wood: One other question. I know s~nce you're going to have lots of dogs, are
you doang th~s to breed the dog?
Rachael Spnnger: No.
Dorothy Wood: So they w~ll be spayed or neutered.
Rachael Spnnger: I don't know if they will be spayed or not. The httle boy that I have is
a year old and he's been xn a show before. And, as long as I use tum for show I cannot
have h~m fixed. But, my ~rls that I have are fixed. L~ke I smd, I've got a Rotwefller
m~xed and I have a cocker spaniel that's nine years old. She's also rescued. And, she's
fixed. But, I have put my name on a hst at the SPCA ~f anyone comes up w~th one of
these dogs that I would hke to rescue ~t and that's why I've asked for seven. Because,
hke I smd, I have three dogs at home now and they come ~n four colors. So by rights, I
would only have three more dogs.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you ma'am.
Ronald Pupley: Any other questions? Okay, thank you.
W~lllam D~n: Ron?
Ronald Pupley: Yes?
Wllham D~n: You say you have a Rotweiller also?
Item #3
Rachael Spnnger
Page 3
Rachael Spnnger: She's a Rotwefller Lab mix.
Wllham Din: Okay. So, that's ~n addition to these dogs that we see nght?
Rachael Springer: Yes. I only have three dogs at home. I have the Rotwefller Lab mix
that came from the animal control. And, I have a Cocker Spaniel that someone had asked
me if I would take and she's been in four homes and I smd I would take her. So, we've
had her about eight years.
Wllham Din: So your desire is to get four more dogs. What kind?
Rachael Spnnger: It's called a Cavaher I<hng Charles. They're a httle b~t smaller than a
Cocker Spamel but they basmally look like a Cocker Spamel.
Dorothy Wood: Very pretty dogs.
Ronald Rlpley: Bob Miller has a question also.
Robert Miller: Have you read the conditions?
Rachael Spnnger: Yes I have.
Robert Miller: And do you understand them?
Rachael Spnnger: Yes I do. In fact, my husband has already started on the ditch in the
backyard.
Robert Miller: So you're agreeable to the conditions as they're worded?
Rachael Spnnger: Yes.
Ronald Pupley: Well, there's opposlt~on?
Robert Miller: I have no s~gnamres. Nobody signed up.
Ronald Rapley: I thought we had oppos~tlon.
Rachael Spnnger: Ashby had given me two that had called ~n papers.
Ronald Ripley: Okay. We had several letters. Okay. Any other questions? Yes, Kathy
Kats~as.
Kathy Kats~as: I thought we were going to add a condition.
Rachael Spnnger: Yes
Item #3
Rachael Spnnger
Page 4
Kathy Katslas: An annual review?
Rachael Spnnger: And that will be fine.
Kathy Katsias. Okay.
Rachael Springer: That's not a problem. It will give me a chance to show off my dogs.
Ronald Rlpley: Okay. Any other comments? Questions of the applicant? Thank you
Ms. Springer.
Rachael Spnnger: Thank you.
Ronald Rapley: Okay. I'll open it up for discussion.
Robert Miller: I think since the dogs are going to therapy I can make a motion for
support. I make a motion that we approve item #3.
Dorothy Wood: I'll second your motion Mr. Miller.
Ronald Rapley: Does that include adding the new condition?
Robert Miller: With the addition of the annual review. Yes.
Ronald Pdpley: We have a motion by Mr. Miller and a second by Dot Wood. Gene?
Eugene Crabtree: May I make one comment before we vote?
Ronald Rapley: Sure.
Eugene Crabtree: I'm a little uneasy with setting a precedent for seven dogs in a
household in a residential area. I cannot sit here and rest comfortable that I would want
seven dogs in my neighborhood in a residential neighborhood even if they spent a
minimum time outside and all of that. There is considerable and I've owned dogs all my
life of all sizes everything from a Chihuahua to a German Shepard. I'm afraid we're
going to set a precedence that we're going to have to live with at a later date. Therefore,
I can't support this application.
Ronald Rapley: Thank you Gene Any other comments? Wall Din.
William Din: I think, as much as I love dogs also, I don't know if I'm going to be able to
support this either. My objection also is seven dogs is quite a few dogs especially if they
are In the house. I think it intends to be a little bit too much from a precedent standpoint
also. I agree with Gene. I probably won't be able to support.
Item #3
Rachael Spnnger
Page 5
Ronald Pupley: Does anybody else wish to comment anytlung? Charlie.
Charhe Salle': I just make the comment that I'm going to support the motion and that I
tlunk what makes the difference for me ~s that we have the annual review and I think if
there is going to be a problem we will d~scover and be able to deal with it at that point.
Ronald Ripley: Okay. Joe Strange.
Joseph Strange: Yeah. I think if I was going to support an apphcatlon hke this that this
might be one of them but I'm going to have to vote w~th Will and Gene here because I
just seen too many times when we get into discussion of these things that we always go
back and have we done this before? And, that always plays and has a big beanng on
what we do in the future. So, even though I read what I read ~n the book. They seem like
nice temperament dogs and a lot of cases the neighbors m~ght not even know they were
there. But, I'll be voting agmnst ~t.
Ronald Rtpley: Okay. I want to make a comment too. The apphcatlon that ~s referred to
in here, the previous application that happened over ~n the Great Neck area, I was
opposed to that when it came up for the reasons that I th~nk I'm heanng here. But, then
I'm heanng this mormng that we've never had any real problems w~th that and they do
administrative reviews on ~t. I tlunk by adding that one condition is about the only reason
why I can support lt. It's land of half-hearted but I'm going to vote for lt. Any other
comments?
Kathy Kats~as: I concur with you. With the annual review, I feel comfortable in support
th~s apphcat~on.
Ronald R~pley: Let's call for the question?
AYE 6 NAY 4 ABS 0 ABSENT 1
ANDERSON AYE
CRABTREE NAY
DIN NAY
HORSLEY
KATSIAS AYE
KNIGHT NAY
MILLER AYE
RIPLEY AYE
SALLE' AYE
STRANGE NAY
WOOD AYE
ABSENT
Ronald R~pley' We have a vote of 6-4 and the motion cames.
Map /-7
h/~p Not %0 $o~ie
Va Beach Marble Co.
045
o~o
Crpin 1497-50-7390 - 1720
ZONING HISTORY
This area was established as an industrial park ~n the late 1970's.
- 51 -
Item V-L. 4.
PLANNING
ITEM # 51352
Upon motton by Vtce Mayor Jones, seconded by Counctlman Maddox, City Council ADOPTED an
Or&nance upon apphcatton of MOSE MAST- VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE CO. fora Con&tional Use
Permtt re a bulk storage yard
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICA TION OF MOSE MAST- VIR G1NIA BEACH
MARBLE CO FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Z060331107
BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY I7-IE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
Or&nance upon Apphcatton of Mose Mast- Vtrginta Beach Marble Co. for a
Con&tional Use Permtt for a bulk storage yard on property located at 506
Vtkmg Drtve (GPIN 1497507390) DISTRICT 6- BEACH
The following con&tions shall be required'
1 A sohdfence at least stxfeet tn height and Category VI landscaptng shall
be prov~ded along the enttre pertmeter of the bulk storage area, except for
necessary ~n gress/egress
2 The locatton of the access gate for the storage area shall be shown on the
final stte plan.
3. Constructton of the bulk storage yard shall be completed wtthin 90 days of
Condittonal Use Permit approval The .......... ' ............... ' ........ ~ .... '- -
"-- -'--"b ......... ~ .... ' ..... ~ ~ ..... ' ...... ' ...... of
Thts Ordtnance shall be effecttve tn accordance with Sectton 107 09 of the Zontng Ordtnance
Adopted by the Council of the Ctty of Vtrgtnia Beach, Vtrginia, on the Twenty-fourth of June, Two
Thousand Three
Vottng 11-0 (By ConsenO
Council Members Voting Aye.
Harry E. Dtezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louts R Jones, Reba S.
McClanan, Rtchard A Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter
W Schmtdt, Ron A Villanueva, Rosemary Wtlson and James L Wood
Counctl Members Voting Nay
None
Counctl Members Absent.
None
June 24, 2003
ITEM:
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
II
Mose Mast- Virginia Beach Marble Co. - Conditional Use Permit
506 Viking Drive
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
· Background:
An Ordinance upon Apphcation of Mose Mast- V~rginia Beach Marble Co. for a
Condibonal Use Permit for a bulk storage yard on property located at 506 Viking
Dnve (GPIN 1497507390) DISTRICT 6-BEACH
The purpose of this request ~s to establish a bulk storage yard to store raw
matenals as well as fimshed marble products
Considerations:
The site ~s part of an industnal park known as Oceana West Corporate Park
developed in the late 1970's Prior to that, the s~te was zoned for agricultural
use. There have been no other Conditional Use Permits requested ~n the
surrounding area for bulk storage.
There is a declaration of restrictive covenants recorded on this site between the
owner and the V~rginia Beach Development Authority. Based on the restncbve
covenant, the apphcant was required to obtain permission from the Development
Authority for the outside storage The YBDA staff has approved the bulk storage
yard as shown on the s~te plan submitted w~th this Conditional Use Permit
apphcat~on
The apphcant ~s requesbng approval for an outside fenced storage area
approximately 10,000 square feet ~n size to be located at the rear of the building.
The storage area will not be visible from Viking Drive. The s~te wdl be surrounded
by a s~x-foot fence. The s~te plan shows th~s fence as chain link; however, a sol~d
fence is required by the zoning ordinance to screen bulk storage yards. A
condlbon has been added at the end of this report to require a solid fence in lieu
of tr~e chain ~n~, fence ShOWn on the site p an.
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because ~t is
compabble with the surrounding uses Staff recommended approval. There was
no opposibon to the proposal
Mose Mast
Page 2 of 2
· Recommendations:
The Planmng Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to
approve this request with the following conditions'
I o
A solid fence at least s~x feet ~n height and Category VI landscaping shall
be provided along the entire perimeter of the bulk storage area, except for
necessary ingress/egress.
2 The location of the access gate for the storage area shall be shown on the
final s~te plan
.
Construction of the bulk storage yard shall be completed w~thin 90 days of
Condibonal Use Permit approval. The semi-trailers currently stored in the
parking area on the site shall be removed within 30 days of complebon of
the bulk storage yard.
· Attachments:
Staff Rewew
D~sclosure Statement
Planmng Commission M~nutes
Locabon Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval
approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Planmng Department .__~
City Manager: <~ ~'-'~
Planning Commission recommends
May 14, 2003
General Information:
APPLICATION
NUMBER: 107-212-C U P-2003
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a bulk storage yard
ADDRESS: 506 Viking Drive
Map I-7
t'4op Not. ~o Sc~e
Va Beach Marble Co.
o~s \
Crp:n 1497-50-7390 - 1720
GPIN-
14975073901720
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
MOSE MAST - VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15
Page 1
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
6 - BEACH
SITE SIZE:
1 684 acres
STAFF
PLANNER:
Barbara Duke
PURPOSE-
To establish a bulk storage yard to store raw materials as well as
finished marble products
As requested by the applicant, who could not attend the hearing, the Planning
Commission at the April 9, 2003 public hearing deferred this item.
Major Issues:
· Degree to which the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area.
Land Use, Zoning, and
Site Characteristics:
Existinq Land Use and Zoning
There ~s a one story 9,500 square foot
brick and frame budding with paved
parking on the site and the site is zoned
I-1 Industrial District.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
North:
South-
East:
West:
· Industrial buildings /I-1 Industrial D~strict
· Industrial buildings / I-1 Industrial D~strict
· 300 foot wide canal, on east side of canal are
industrial buildings / I-1 Industrial District
· Post Office /I-1 Industrial District
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
MOSE MAST- VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15
Page 2
Zoning History
The site is part of an industrial park known as Oceana West Corporate Park developed
~n the late 1970's. Prior to that, the site was zoned for agricultural use. There have
been no other Conditional Use Permits requested ~n the surrounding area for bulk
storage.
There ~s a declaration of restrictive covenants recorded on th~s site between the owner
and the V~rgmia Beach Development Authority. Based on the restricbve covenant, the
applicant was required to obtain permission from the Development Authority for the
outside storage. The VBDA staff has approved the bulk storage yard as shown on the
s~te plan submitted with this Conditional Use Permit application.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The s~te ~s in an AICUZ of greater than 75dB Ldn and is in Accident Potential Zone II
surrounding NAS Oceana.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
C~ty water and sewer currently serve the building on the site.
Transportation
No traffic ~mpact beyond what exists is anticipated with the proposed Conditional Use
Permit.
Public Safety
Police: Not reviewed
Fire and
Rescue:
Adequate - no further comments.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as a planned industrial/office park.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
MOSE MAST - VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15
Page 3
Summary of Proposal
Proposal
The applicant ~s requesbng approval for an outside fenced storage area
approximately 10,000 square feet in size to be located at the rear of the
budding. The storage area will not be visible from Viking Drive. The storage
area will be used to store raw materials as well as fln~shed marble products.
The subject site is located within the Oceana West Industrial Park, and as
such, is governed by restrictive covenants enforced by the Virginia Beach
Development Authority (VBDA). The apphcant has obtained approval from
VBDA staff for this storage area.
The storage area ~s located w~thin a large drainage easement adjacent to
Canal #2. The applicant was required to obtain an encroachment agreement
from the City for the storage yard and fenced area within the easement. The
applicant has received approval from City Councd for the encroachment.
The canal to the east of the site is considered a water feature under the
protecbon of the Chesapeake Bay Preservabon Act. The storage yard ~s
encroaching into the landward 50 feet of the required 100 foot buffer adjacent
to the canal. This encroachment does not need approval from the CBPA
Board, but the apphcant will be required to meet CBPA ordinance
requirements for this encroachment dunng detailed site plan review.-
Site Desiqn
· The site plan shows a 10,000 square foot, gravel storage area at the rear of
the building. The s~te will be surrounded by a s~x-foot fence. The s~te plan
shows this fence as chain link; however, a solid fence is required by the
zoning ordinance to screen bulk storage yards. A condibon has been added
at the end of th~s report to require a solid fence in lieu of the chain link fence
shown on the s~te plan.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Access
Currently, the applicant is storing items ~n semi-trailers within the parking lot
on the subject site. The storage yard wdl prowde an area to store ~tems so
that the parking lot can be used for ~ts intended purpose.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
MOSE MAST- VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15
Page 4
It is not clear on the site plan how access to the storage area will be provided.
A condition addressing this has been added at the end of th~s report.
Landscape and Open Space
· The site plan shows a 10 foot landscape buffer with Category One plantings
on the south side of the storage area, adjacent to the parking area. The
zoning ordinance requires the entire perimeter of the storage area to be
planted. A condibon addressing this has been added at the end of this report.
Evaluation of Request
The request for a bulk storage yard is acceptable. However, the site plan submitted is
deficient in required screening and landscaping. The staff has recommended conditions
to address th~s. In addition, the applicant is currently using sem~-trailers to store
materials ~n the parking lot on this s~te The applicant has been notified that th~s ~s in
violation of the City Zoning Ordinance. Outside storage requires a Conditional Use
Permit and the area is not screened and is impeding required parking areas.
It is recommended that the Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage be approved with
the following condibons.
Conditions
I .
.
.
A solid fence at least six feet in height and Category VI landscaping shall be
provided along the entire perimeter of the bulk storage area, except for
necessary ~ngress/egress.
The location of the access gate for the storage area shall be shown on the final
s~te plan.
Construction of the bulk storage yard shall be completed within 90 days of
Conditional Use Permit approval. The semi-trailers currently stored in the
parking area on the s~te shall be removed w~thin 30 days of completion of the
bulk storage yard
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
MOSE MAST - VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15
Page 5
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
MOSE MAST- VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15
Page 6
z
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
MOSE MAST - VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15
Page 7
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
MOSE MAST- VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15
Page 8
APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 4
CONDITIONAL USE PE ,RMIT' ~
, CITY OF-VIRGINIA,BF.&CH
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
List All Current
PROPERTY OWh~R DISCLOSURI~
If the prol~rry owner ~ a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corpo~on l:~low- (Attach lrrt ~fnecessary)
If the pmI~',ty owner I$a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION. hst
all members or partner~ in the organizatton below (Attach l, st ~fnecexsary)
[~Ch~ck here if the property owner is NOT a corporauon, partnershrp, firm, or other unincorporated
organtzaUon
If the applunmt ~ not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant D~closure sectton below:
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the apphcant is a CORPORATION, hst all officers of the CorporaUon below- (Attach hst ti:necessary)
~ose .rvx a~ ~ .......
If the appheant is a PARTNERSHIP. FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, hst all
ra~abe~ or partners tn the organizatmn ~1o~ (Anach l~t ffneces~ary)
Check Item ~f the apphcant ia NOT a corporatton, parmerstup, firm, or other unincorporated orgamzatmn
CERTIFICATION I certify that the informatwn contained herein is true and accurate.
Signature
Pnnt Name
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
MOSE MAST- VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15
Page 9
Mose Mast- Varglnia Beach Marble
Conditaonal Use Penmt
506 Vakang Drive
Dasmct 6
Beach
May 14, 2003
CONSENT
Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #15, Mose Mast - Vargania Beach Marble
Company. It's an ordinance upon appllcataon of Mose Mast- Vlrgama Beach Marble
Company for a Use Permit for bulk storage yard on property located at 506 Viking Dnve
and there are three condatlons.
Mose Mast: I'm Mose Mast. I'm represemlng Vargima Beach Marble and I agree wath
the conditions as set forth.
Dorothy Wood: Have you read the three condations?
Mose Mast: Yes I have.
Dorothy Wood: The new one that you just got today?
Mose Mast: Yes I have.
Dorothy Wood: And you do agree?
Mose Mast: Yes.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any opposatlon to Item #15, Mose Mast - Varginla
Beach Marble, an apphcataon for bulk-storage? Heanng none, Mr. Kmght?
Barry Knight: I don't thank that was mine.
Ronald Rapley: I'll take lt.
Dorothy Wood: Okay
Ronald Rapley: Thas was an atem that has been on the agenda a couple of months. I thank
we had continued it one tame. I think the sign wasn't there or something like that and
basically at's just an outside storage is not contained and I th~nk that's essentmlly the
purpose ofthas Use Permat, so at's very sample and straight forward. The applicant has
agreed to the condataons to contain at and surround at with fencing and landscaping, etc,
so, ~ts pretty routine and that's the nature of lt.
Item # 15
Mose Mast- V~rg~ma Beach Marble
Page 2
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Ripley. Thank you Mr. Mast. Mr. Pdpley, I would move
that we approve th~s ~tem on the consent agenda, Item #15 w~th three conditions.
Ronald R_tpley: So a motion to approve th~s ~tem 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 Pdpley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes.
~ ~ Grand Slam USA
Not to Scale
Gp~n 1487-54-9708
ZONING HISTORY
1. 11-27-01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (motor vehicle rental)- Granted
2. 1-11-88 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (auto sales & service)-Granted
3. 11-10-86 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (auto sales & service)- Granted
4. 6-10-85 - CHANGE OF ZONING (I-2 Industrial District to B-2 Community
Business District) - Granted
5. 7-2-84 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (day care)- Granted
Item V-L. 5.
PLANNING
- 53 -
ITEM # 51353 (Continued)
Voting' 9-1 (By ConsenO
Council Members Voting Aye.
Harry E. Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E.
Oberndo~ Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson
and James L Wood
Counctl Members Vottng Nay:
Reba S McClanan
Council Members Abstaining:
Vice Mayor Louis R Jones
Councd Members Absent
None
Vtce Mayor Jones ABSTAINED on Item L 5 (GRAND SLAM USA), as hts funeral home property ts
adjacent to that of the apphcatton
June 24, 2003
Item V-L. 5.
PLANNING
ITEM # 51353
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Maddox, City Council ADOPTED an
Ordinance upon apphcatton of GRAND SLAM USA for a Conchttonal Use Permtt.
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF GRAND SLAM USA FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Z060331108
BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
Ordinance upon Apphcatton of Grand Slam USA for a Condittonal Use Permit
for a commerctal recreattonal facthty other than those of an outdoor nature
(baseball/softball) on property located at 3636 Vtrgtnta Beach Boulevard, Suite
107 (GPIN 1487549708). DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHA VEN
The following condtttons shall be requtred.
o
o
A Certificate of Occupancy shah be obtained from the Buil&ng
Offictal before the tssuance of any business hcense or buildtng
permtt associated wtth the request
No storage or repair of recreational equtpment shall be
permttted outside the butldtng
No addittonal stte hghttng shah be tnstalled beyond that needed
for stte secumty, all of whtch shah be shielded away from aH
adjotntng properttes
Thts Ordtnance shall be effecttve tn accordance with Sectton 107 09 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Adopted by the Council of the Ctty of Vtrgtnta Beach, Vtrgtnta, on the Twenty-fourth of June,
Thousand Three
Two
June 24, 2003
ITEM:
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
Grand Slam USA- Conditional Use Permit (Commercial Recreation)
3636 Virginia Beach Boulevard (Suite 107)
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
[] Background'
An Ordinance upon Application of Grand Slam USA for a Conditional Use Permit
for a commercial recreabonal facility other than those of an outdoor nature
(baseball/softball) on property located at 3636 V~rginia Beach Boulevard, Suite
107 (GPIN 1487549708). DISTRICT 5-LYNNHAVEN
The purpose of th~s request is to operate three (3) indoor batting cages,
instructional and practice facilities, glove repair and a retail bus~ness related to
the games of softball and baseball within an existing shopping center.
Considerations:
There ~s an ex~sting shopping center and an asphalt parking lot on the site The
site is totally ~mpervlous. The applicant ~s proposing to occupy 7,000 square feet
of the building for indoor batting cages, ~nstructional and practice facilities, glove
repair and retail sales related to the games of softball and baseball within an
ex~sbng shopping center
The retad, restroom and office space will comprise approximately 4,800 square
feet of the unit. According to the applicabon, the retail component accounts for
approximately 8.5 percent of the revenue generated by the business.
There is adequate parking available w~thin the existing parking lot to
accommodate this proposed use. Although the applicant planned no structural
modifications to the ~ntenor of the building, further rewew by the Fire Department
and Permits and Inspecbons may necessitate alterations ~n order to comply with
applicable fire and hand~cap requirements and the Uniform Statewide Building
Code.
The Planning Commission placed th~s ~tem on the consent agenda because the
use is compabble w~th the surrounding area. Staff recommended approval.
There was no opposibon to the proposal.
Grand Slam
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 conditions:
1. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Official
before the issuance of any business license or building permit associated
with the request.
2. No storage or repair of recreational equipment shall be permitted outside
the building.
3. No additional site lighting shall be installed beyond that needed for site
security, all of which shall be shielded away from all adjoining properties.
· Attachments:
Staff Rewew
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission M~nutes
Locabon Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen~--~,~
City Manager:~ ~-- , ~bY~
GRAND SLAM USA/# 7
May 14, 2003
General Information:
APPLICATION
N UMBER: GO 7-215-C U P-2003
REQUEST: Condibonal Use Permit for a recreational facility of an indoor nature.
ADDRESS: 3636 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Suite 107
Map G-7 Grand Slam USA
HoC No'r, ~o $cole
G~n 1487-54-9708
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT'
14875497080000
5 - LYNNHAVEN
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
GRAND SLAM USA / # 7
Page 1
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
PURPOSE:
Shopping center- 2.991 acres -- specific unit of shopping center
subject to this request is 7,000 square feet
Carolyn A.K. Smith
To operate three (3) indoor batbng cages, instrucbonal and practice
facdities, glove repair and a retail business related to the games of
softball and baseball w~th~n an existing shopping center.
Major Issues:
Degree to which the proposal ~s compatible with the existing businesses
within the shopping center as well as the surrounding area.
Land Use, Zoning, and
Site Characteristics:
Existin,q Land Use and Zoninq
The existing two (2) story shopping center
is on a 2.992 acre site and is zoned B-2
Community Bus~ness District. There is
also a one (1) story brick building on the
s~te.
Uses within the shopping center include
furniture sales and rental, a restaurant,
and two (2) retail businesses.
Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning
North:
South:
East:
· Malibu Palms Dnve
· Multi-family dwellings / A-24 Apartment District
· Restaurants and Virginia Beach Boulevard / B-2
Community Bus~ness District
· Funeral home / B -2 Community Bus~ness D~strict
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
GRAND SLAM USA I # 7
Page 2
West:
North Rosemont Road
Auto rental, mulb-famdy dwellings / B-2
Community Business District, A-24 Apartment
District
Zonin.q History
Several Conditional Use Permits have been granted in the wcinity, and with the
exception of a day care facility, all have been auto related. A Change of Zoning was
approved by City Council in 1985 on a parcel to the south, across Virginia Beach
Boulevard.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The site ~s in an AICUZ of less than 65Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
City water and sewer currently serve the building on the s~te; however, sewer pump
analysis may need to be submitted to ensure that flows can be accommodated.
Transportation
Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic
Volume Capacity
Ex~stmg Land Use z_ 1,233 ADT
V~rg~ma Beach Boulevard 57,000 ADT ~ 34,940 ADT ~
proposed Land Use 3_ 285 ADT
Average Da~ly Trips
as defined by general retad
as defined by specialty "retail"
V~rginia Beach Boulevard in the wcinity of this site is an eight (8) lane divided urban
arterial and is designated on the Master Transportation Plan as such. There are no
plans to upgrade th~s facihty at th~s bme.
Public Safety
Police: Adequate
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
GRAND SLAM USA I # 7
Page 3
Fire and
Rescue:
Adequate - Further review by the Fire Department and Permits
and Inspections may necessitate alterations to the interior of
the building ~n order to comply w~th applicable fire and
handicap requirements and the Uniform Statewide Building
Code.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan policies for the Little Neck Planning Area generally support
commercial uses that are appropriately located and do not disrupt or adversely affect
adjacent neighborhoods. ThIs proposed indoor recreabon and retail use, in an existing
commercial building, is compatible with the adjacent commercial uses.
Summary of Proposal
Proposal
There is an existing shopping center and an asphalt parking lot on the site.
The site is totally impervious
The applicant is proposing to occupy 7,000 square feet of the building for
~ndoor batting cages, instructional and practice facilities, glove repair and
retail sales related to the games of softball and baseball within an ex~sting
shopping center.
No alterations to the exisbng structure are planned. Hanging nets are
proposed to "field" balls w~thin the three (3) batting cages. The instructional
and practice component of the facility provides an area for youths and adults
to practice their hitting, pitching and catching skills.
The retail, restroom and office space will comprise approximately 4,800
square feet of the unit. According to the application, the retail component
accounts for approximately 8 ½ percent of the revenue generated by the
bus~ness.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
GRAND SLAM USA I # 7
Page 4
Evaluation of Request
The apphcant is proposing to occupy 7,000 square feet of the building for ~ndoor batting
cages, instructional and practice facilities, glove repair and retad sales related to the
games of softball and baseball within an exisbng shopping center. The retail, office and
restroom facilities will occupy 4,800 square feet. There ~s adequate parking avadable
within the existing parking lot to accommodate this proposed use. The applicant
indicates that no structural changes to the building are needed for the operation.
Further review, however, by the Fire Department and Permits and Inspections may
necessitate alterations in order to comply with applicable fire and handicap
requirements and the Un~form Statewide Building Code. The request for a Conditional
Use Permit for a recreational facility of an ~ndoor nature is recommended for approval
subject to the conditions listed below.
Conditions
1. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Official before the
issuance of any business license or building permit assoc,ated with the request.
2. No storage or repair of recreational equipment shall be permitted outside the
build,ng.
3. No additional site lighting shall be installed beyond that needed for site security,
all of which shall be shielded away from all adjoining properties.
NOTE:
Further conditions may be required during the
administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan
submitted with this conditional use permit may require
rew'sion 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.
ii I II I
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
GRAND SLAM USA I # 7
Page 5
Id~l./BU PALMS f:)~f¥£ (so'J~/m
s----'""--~lkittYj4~T' ]II~N~I~ ~
2- STORY [ °J I
AIPtU~T
IrL&dl I,,~L J.w.4
BOUL£VARD mmu~[r .
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
GRAND SLAM USA / # 7
Page 6
,
Planning ~ommission Age~da
May 14,
~ND SLAM USA /
Page
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
GRAND SLAM USA / # 7
Page 8
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
--
' T I II I I JI I I II I
Applicant's Name'
List AIl Current /~/~/~ £~. Property Owners:
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporabon below:
(Attach list Jf necessary) ~'-/~7~ ~ ~.~d'y -- ~E57~,~_/~¥ ,. -~
If the applicant ~s a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED
ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below. (Attach list
if necessary)
r-i Check here ~f the apphcant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other
unincorporated organization.
If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Property Owner
Disclosure sect/on below:
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 ~s a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED
ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners ~n the organization below: (Attach list
rf necessary)
I"1 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
~/~/~~~a nd accurate.
Si~t~r~ '
/, k.~.,:, ,,,, , ....... .:,, ,,
,
Conditional Use Permit Apphcabon
~a~e 8 of ~ 2
Print Name
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
GRAND SLAM USA / # 7
Page 9
Item #7
Grand Slam USA
Conditional Use Permit
3636 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Suite 107
District 5
Lynnhaven
May 14, 2003
CONSENT
Dorothy Wood: The next ~tem is Item//7, Grand Slam USA. It's an ordinance upon
application of Grand Slam USA for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial
recreational facility other than those of an outdoor nature. This is on Vlrgnma Beach
Boulevard in the Lynnhaven District and it has three conditions. Yes sir?
Joe Ramsey: Joe Ramsey, President of Grand Slam and we agree with the conditions.
Dorothy Wood: Is there any opposition to Item #7, Grand Slam USA for a Conditional
Use Penmt for a recreational facility? Heanng none, Barry would you please comment
on number seven?
Barry Kmght: Yes. It looks hke the purpose of this is to operate three indoor batting
cages in a shopping center. And we evaluated the request. It looks like the applicant
wanted to occupy 7,000 square foot of indoor batting cages and instructional practice
faclhties. There's also adequate parking available in the existing parking lot to
accommodate ttus. And it looks like it will be a compatible use The Commission feels
this xs an adequate use of the property so we recommended approval.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Mr. Rlpley, I would move that we approve this item on the
consent agenda, Item//7 with three conditions.
Ronald Pdpley: 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 Rlpley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes.
Map K-12
Mo Not to Scole
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust
8-2
8-2
AG-2
8-2
Crpin 2414-25-~ 765
ZONING HISTORY
1. Rezoning (Residence Suburban, Agricultural, bmited Commercial and
General Commercial to bmited Commercial)- Approved 11-12-63
Conditional Use Permit (Racetrack) Approved 1-13-64
Conditional Use Permit (Automobde Service Establishment)- Approved
12-5-00
2. Rezoning (B-2 Bus~ness to Condibonal A-12 Apartment)- Approved 12-
11-01
Item V-L. 6.
- 55 -
PLANNING
ITEM # 51354 (Continued)
Vottng I 1-0 (By ConsenO
Counctl Members Vottng Aye
Harry E Diezel, Margaret L Eure, Vice Mayor Louts R. Jones, Reba S
McClanan, RtchardA Maddox, Mayor Meyera E Oberndor~, Jtm Reeve, Peter
W Schmidt, Ron A. Vdlanueva, Rosemary Wdson and James L. Wood
Counctl Members Voting Nay'
None
Council Members Absent
None
June 24, 2003
Item V-L. 6.
- 54 -
PLANNING
ITEM # 51354
Upon motton by Vtce Mayor Jones, seconded by Councdman Maddox, Ctty Counctl ADOPTED an
Or&nance upon Apphcatton of WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TR UST for a Conditional Use
Permtt
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF WAL-MART REAL ESTATE
BUSINESS TRUST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A BULK
STORAGE FACILITY ONPROPERTY Z060331109
BE IT HEREBY' ORDAINED BY' THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
Ordtnance upon Apphcatton of Wal-Mart Real Estate Bustness Trust for a
Condittonal Use Permtt for a bulk storage factlity on property located at 1149
Ntmmo Parkway (GPIN # 2414-25-6765) DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE
The followtng condittons shah be required
1 The seasonal sales areas and thepallet and recyclable cardboard storage
area shah be located on the site as depicted on the submttted stte plan
titled "WAL-MART SUPERCENTER, RED MILL COMMONS, SITE
LA YOUT", dated 02/25/03, and prepared by Ktmley-Horn and Assoctates
2. The seasonal sales areas shah be dehneated by a decorative wrought tron
fence, not less than stx (6)feet tn height, wtth Category Ishrubs planted on
the outside of the fence The applicant shall obtain a variance from the
Board of Zoning Appeals for the use of this tn lieu of the Category VI
fenctng requirement
The palette and recyclable cardboard storage area shah be screened as
deptcted on the submttted stte plan tttled "WAL-MART SUPERCENTER,
RED MILL COMMONS, SITE LAYOUT", dated 02/25/03, and prepared
by Ktmley-Horn and Assoctates. The apphcant shall obtain a vartance from
the Board of Zontng Appeals for the use of thts in heu of the Category VI
screentng requtrement.
The apphcant shall dehneate on-stte a crosswalk from the buildtng/
garden center area to the seasonal sales areas Staff wzll asstst the
apphcant with the adequate wtdth and locattons
Thts Or&nance shah be effective tn accordance wtth Sectton 107 09 of the Zomng Ordtnance
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virgtnia Beach, Vtrgmta, on the Twenty-fourth of June,
Thousand Three
Two
June 24, 2003
ITEM:
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
II
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust- Conditional Use Permit (bulk
storage)
1149 Nimmo Parkway
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
· Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust for a
Condibonal Use Permit for a bulk storage facility on property located at 1149
Nimmo Parkway (GPIN # 2414-25-6765). DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE
The purpose of this request ~s to obtain a conditional use permit for bulk storage
of pallets and recyclable cardboard materials, and for several seasonal sales
areas.
Considerations:
The site ~s developed w~th the Red Mill Commons Shopping Center, which
contains a variety of retail and restaurant uses. The site is zoned B-2 Community
Business District.
The site ~s currently developed w~th a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The submitted site
plan depicts three specific areas proposed for the seasonal sales areas. The
seasonal sales areas are proposed ~n the following Iocabons:
o In an area of 3,600 square feet on the east s~de of the building. The
area currently is occupIed by 19 parking spaces;
o In an area of 2,800 square feet located between the existing Garden
Center and the eastern entrance to the budding, and
o In an area of 550 square feet directly adjacent to the Tire and Lube
Express.
The s~te plan depicts the pallet and recyclable cardboard storage area on the
western s~de of the building. It ~s proposed to be screened with an eight-foot wall
of the same building materials as the store.
Seasonal sales includes ~tems such as plants, pabo furniture, grills, recreational
~tems and chddren play ~tems hke swing sets and jungle gyms. The applicant has
agreed to screen the proposed areas with matenals that are complementary to
the surrounding development. Variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals w~ll
Wal-Mart
Page 2 of 2
be required for certain aspects of the screening. This is detailed ~n Conditions 3
and 4, recommended below.
Staff recommended approval There was no opposibon to the proposal.
· Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to approve
this request with the following cond~bons:
1. The seasonal sales areas and the pallet and recyclable cardboard storage
area shall be located on the site as depicted on the submitted site plan titled
'~/VAL-MART SUPERCENTER, RED MILL COMMONS, SITE LAYOUT",
dated 02/25/03, and prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates.
,
The seasonal sales areas shall be delineated by a decorabve wrought iron
fence, not less than six (6) foot in height, with Category I shrubs planted on
the outside of the fence. The apphcant shall obtain a variance from the Board
of Zoning Appeals for the use of this ~n heu of the Category VI fencing
requirement.
.
The palette and recyclable cardboard storage area shall be screened as
depicted on the submitted site plan titled "WAL-MART SUPERCENTER, RED
MILL COMMONS, SITE LAYOUT", dated 02/25/03, and prepared by K~mley-
Horn and Associates. The applicant shall obtain a variance from the Board of
Zoning Appeals for the use of this in lieu of the Category VI screening
requirement
The applicant shall delineate on site a crosswalk from the building / garden
center area to the seasonal sales areas. Staff w~ll assist the applicant w~th the
adequate w~dth and locations
· Attachments:
Staff Review
D~sclosure Statement
Planning Commission M~nutes
Locabon Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
CityS u b mitti n g Department/Age,c/y: ~Depa rtm e n~~------ Manager:(~~. _.(~v~ ~_,
May 14, 2003
General Information:
APPLICATION
NUMBER: K12-211 -CU P-2002
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage
ADDRESS:
1149 Nimmo Parkway, the south side of Nimmo Parkway, 800 feet
east of Newstead Drive
Map K-12
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust
8-2
Glnn 2~14-25-6765
GPIN:
24142567650000
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18
Page 1
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
PURPOSE:
APPLICATION
HISTORY:
#7 - PRINCESS ANNE
18.508 acres
FaIth Chnstie
To obtain a conditional use permit for bulk storage of pallets and
recyclable cardboard matenals, and for several seasonal sales areas
This request was deferred at the April 9 hearing at the request of the
applicant.
Major Issues:
· Compliance w~th the City ZonIng Ordinance.
· Compatibility with the surrounding commercial and residential areas.
· Consistency w~th the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the
Courthouse / Sandbridge Planning Area.
· Consistency w~th the Retail Design Guidelines.
Land Use, Zoning, and
Site Characteristics:
Existinq Land Use and Zoninq
The site is developed with the Red Mill
Commons Shopping Center, which
contains a variety of retail and
restaurant uses The s~te ~s zoned B-2
Community Bus~ness District.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18
Page 2
Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq
North:
South:
East:
West:
· Several out-parcels of the Red Mill Commons
Shopping Center / B-2 Community Business
District
· N~mmo Parkway
· Across N~mmo Parkway is the Red Mdl Farms
subdivision / R-7.5 Residential District
· Undeveloped parcel/B-2 Community Bus~ness
District
· Princess Anne Road and Elson Green Avenue
· Undeveloped parcel/B-2 Community Business
District (Rezoning to Conditional A-18 Apartment
D~stnct pending)
· Newstead Drive
· Across Newstead Drive ~s the Red Mill Farms
subdivision and a Church / R-20 Res~denbal
District
Zoning History
The site is part of a larger tract of land that was rezoned from Residence Suburban,
Agricultural, Limited Commercial and General Commercial to Limited Commercial in
November 1963. In January 1964, a Conditional Use Permit was approved on the site
for a NASCAR racetrack similar to the Charlotte Speedway in North Carolina.
Development of the s~te began in 2000 with the construction of the Wal-Mart
Supercenter. A Condibonal Use Permit for an automotive service establishment for the
Wal-Mart (Tire Lube Express) was approved in November 2000. The following
conditions were attached:
1. No outside storage of parts or repair of vehicles is permitted.
2. No outside display or storage of tires is permitted.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The site is In an AICUZ of 65 to 70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST I # 18
Page 3
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
City water and sewer are available to the site.
Transportation
Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP):
Nimmo Parkway in front of this site ~s a four-lane major collector road. It ~s depicted
on the MTP as a 100 foot wide divided right-of-way.
Traffic Calculations:
Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic
Volume Capacity
The proposed use should not
N~mmo Parkway 17,300ADT ~ 6,600 ADT ~
result ~n any add~bonal tnps
Average Dady Trips
Permits and Inspections
There are a number of containerized cargo containers along the rear of the s~te used for
storage. The City Zoning Ordinance, under Section 203 (d), prohibits the use of semi-
traders for commercial or industrial storage except on bona fide construcbon s~tes. The
Zoning Administrator determined that the cargo containers were sem~-trailers thus
falling under the provisions of Section 203 (d) of the zomng ordinance. The applicant
was notified of the Zoning Administrator's determination. The applicant appealed that
determination to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals heard the
applicant's appeal on May 7, 2003. The Board determined that the containers are not
semi-trailers, and are not a violation of Secbon 203(d) of the City Zoning Ordinance.
Thus, they are not subiect to this use permit. This information regarding the cargo
containers ~s prowded for information only.
The Permits and Inspections Division of the Department of Planning, however, has
required a building permit for the nineteen (19) sh~ppmg containers, as allowed in
Section 3104 (Temporary Structures) of the Virginia Uniform Statew~de Building Code
The requirements noted below under Fire would also have to be addressed for any type
of storage container allowed under the City Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18
Page 4
Public Safety
Police:
Fire and
Rescue:
The applicant is encouraged to contact and work w~th 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 s~te.
Any type of storage container allowed under the City Zoning
Ordinance and used for storing hazardous, flammable or
combustible materials shall be marked according to NFPA 704.
Hazardous materials shall be segregated and incompatible
materials shall not be stored in the same storage container.
Any type of storage container allowed under the City Zoning
Ordinance and its contents shall be inspected during the
routine annual fire ~nspection to verify proper storage and
markings of any hazardous materials regulated by the Virginia
Statewide Fire Prevention Code.
Any type of storage container allowed under the C~ty Zoning
Ordinance and used for storage shall be spaced no less than
five (5) feet apart to prevent the transfer of fire from one
storage container to another.
The Virginia Statew~de F~re Prevention Code, F-2103.3,
requires that outside storage of items shall not be closer than
fifteen (15) feet to any lot line and any other building on the
site.
Private fire hydrants shall be maintained annually as ~dentified
in N.F.P.A. 25.
Comprehensive Plan
· The Comprehensive Plan Map designates th~s area as suitable for retail, service,
office and other compatible uses within commercial centers serving the
surrounding neighborhoods and communities. This site is ~dent~fled in the
Comprehenswe Plan as Opportunity S~te 1.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST I # 18
Page 5
Summary of Proposal
Proposal
The applicant proposes to use certain designated areas on the site for the
display and storage of seasonal items, for storage of pallets, and for the
storage of recyclable cardboard materials.
Site Design
The site is currently developed with a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The submitted
site plan depicts three specific areas proposed for the seasonal sales areas.
The seasonal sales areas are proposed ~n the following Iocabons:
In an area of 3,600 square feet on the east side of the building. The
area currently is occupied by 19 parking spaces;
In an area of 2,800 square feet located between the existing Garden
Center and the eastern entrance to the building; and
In an area of 550 square feet d~rectly adjacent to the Tire and Lube
Express.
The s~te plan depicts the pallet and recyclable cardboard storage area on the
western side of the building It ~s proposed to be screened w,th an eight-foot
wall of the same building materials as the store.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Access
· Ex~sting vehicle c~rculation and pedestrian access w~ll be affected by the
proposal.
Architectural Design
· There are no building additions proposed with the application; however,
screening walls are depicted on the site plan.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST I # 18
Page 6
Landscape and Open Space Design
Sufficient landscaping and open space exists within the shopping center.
The screening proposed around the seasonal sales areas is deficient.
Evaluation of Request
The request for a Conditional Use Permit for Bulk Storage is acceptable with respect to
the proposed seasonal sales areas and the pallet and recyclable cardboard storage
area, subject to the conditions hsted below. Seasonal sales includes items such as
plants, patio furniture, grills, recreational items and children play items like swing sets
and jungle gyms. The applicant has agreed to screen the proposed areas with materials
that are complementary to the surrounding development. Variances from the Board of
Zomng Appeals wdl be required for certain aspects of the screening. Th~s is detailed ~n
Conditions 3 and 4, recommended below.
The Conditional Use Permit request for seasonal sales areas and a pallet and
recyclable cardboard storage area is acceptable subject to the following conditions.
Conditions
.
.
.
The seasonal sales areas and the pallet and recyclable cardboard storage area
shall be located on the s~te as depicted on the submitted site plan titled "WAL-
MART SUPERCENTER, RED MILL COMMONS, SITE LAYOUT", dated
02/25/03, and prepared by K~mley-Horn and Associates.
The seasonal sales areas shall be delineated by a decorabve wrought iron fence,
not less than six (6) foot in height, with Category I shrubs planted on the outside
of the fence. The applicant shall obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning
Appeals for the use of th~s in lieu of the Category VI fencing requirement.
The palette and recyclable cardboard storage area shall be screened as depicted
on the submitted site plan titled "WAL-MART SUPERCENTER, RED MILL
COMMONS, SITE LAYOUT", dated 02/25/03, and prepared by Kimley-Horn and
Associates. The applicant shall obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning
Appeals for the use of th~s in lieu of the Category VI screening requirement.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18
Page 7
4=. The applicant shall dehneate on site a crosswalk from the building / garden
center area to the seasonal sales areas. Staff will assist the applicant with the
adequate w~dth and locations.
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
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18
Page 8
iiij .. i I_. _
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18
Page 9
i
I - -*1 , I
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18
Page 10
Applicant's Name:
List Ail Current
Property Ow'aers:
APPLICATION' PA GE 4 OF 4
CONDITIONAL USE .PEt MIT
CITY OF VIRGI~A BEACH _
~ i , __ ,ill _ ii _ i
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
~a!-~lart Real t~sta~e ~us£ness Txust
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
If the property owner is a CORPORATION, it~ al! offic~'zm 0fthc Corporation Ix:Iow' (,{rrac/~ hs: ~fnecessary)
If the Froperry owner m a PARTKERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, hst
ali m~mbers or panner~
1~ Che~k here ffth~ prop~ry own~ is NOT .~ corporation, ?ariml~rship, fi,Tn, or other unincorpo~ed
If the applicant i~ not the current owner of the property, complet~ the Applicant Disclosure section below:
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
Iftb¢ ~pphcam ~ a CORPORATION, list alt effi:~rs of the Corporauon below:. (2aach hst fneces~a~9
If me applicant i~ a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or o~her UNL~CORPORATED ORGANIZATION, its: ,,d[
members or p~'t'~-,~ m ',.~e organization below: (.4tt,~ch It.vt fnec~sary)
, [~J Ch~k he~ fi.the apphcmt m NOT a corperat',on, pirtner~h;p, fi:m, or other uumca~om~d or~on.
i
CER~TION: I cer~ that the informe~n conta~ed Aerein ~ ~ue ~d sccurate.
......
i ~' S~
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18
Page 11
Exhibit A
Officer list
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust
Lee Scott-- Sole Managing Trustee
Paul Carter- President ,
Jay Fitzsimmons-- Senior Vice President and Treasurer
James W. Walker, Jr. Senior Vice President
Eric Zorn
Senior Vice President
Robert K. Rhoads -- Secretary.
David Bullington- Vice President-- Tax
Anthony' Fuller--
Vice President
Martin Gilbert--
Vice President & Assistant Secretary
Allison Garrett
Vice President & Assistant Secretary
Eric Zorn--
Vice President
Don Ethcridge --
Controller
Robert Bedard --
Assistant Vice President & Assistant Secretary
Jim Bennett --
Assistant Vice President
J. Robert Bray --
Assistant Vice President & Assistant Secretary
Kimberly K. Lane
Assistant Vice President & Assistant Secretary
S. Richard Lev~n
Assistant Vice president & Assistant Secretary
?cdocx#4.~282 re~.r,e~1 $/TJOJ
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18
Page 12
Barry Sharmahan Assistant V~ce President & Assistant Secretary
George Bacso--
Assistant Secretary
Angela Beehler --
Assistant Secretary
Debbie Cawood
Assistant Secretary
Arm Elliot
Assistant Secretao'
Anthony George
Assistant Secretaw
Chris Glass
Assistant Secreta~'
Scott Greear --
Assistant Secretary
Wanda Hams
Assistant Secretary
Jim Harris
Assistant Secretary
Sonnie Hilger
Assistant Secretary
Greg Higson--
Assistant Secretary
Michael Kerstmg -- Assistant Secretary
Adele Lucas--
Assistant Secretary
Carl Muller
Assistant Secretau
Karen Roberts --
Assistant Secretary
Brandt Rydell
Assistant Secretary
Kun Saylors--
Assistant Secretary
Jotm Thompson--
Assistant Secretar.'
Michael Tomlin--
Assistant Secretary
P cdoc. ri~4'2$2 re e ~ ed
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18
Page 13
Latriece Watkins Assistant Secretaw
Elizabeth Branigan --
ASSIStallt2 Treasurer
Michael Cook-
Assistant Treasurer
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18
Page 14
Item #18
Wal-Mart Real Estate Bus~ness Trust
Conditional Use Permit
1149 N~mmo Parkway
D~stnct 7
Pnncess Anne
May 14, 2003
REGULAR
Robert Miller: The next ~tem ~s Item #18, Wal-Mart Real Estate Bus~ness Trust.
Ronald Pdpley: Counsel, at this point there's no opposition. Be as brief as you like.
Andy Keeney: Alrlght. I'll make some complementary comments.
Robert Miller: You may stay after we leave and speak as long as you w~sh.
Ronald Pdpley: If you're going to make complementary comments about us, we'll hsten
to that.
Andy Keeney: My name as Andy Keeney. I'm with the law firm of Kaufrnan & Canoles
~n thmr Chesapeake office. And, I spent many an hour before the Chesapeake Planmng
Commission. In fact, I leave here and spend another 3-4 hours in Chesapeake. And, you
run a fine meeting. Thas is the first time that I've had the oppormmty to appear before
you, and I very much look forward to the opportumty again. I w~ll be brief because I owe
that to you. You've been gracious to myself, to my chent Wal-Mart for a number of
months. Our apphcation for a Conditmnal Use Permat has been pending, and ~t has been
deferred. It all started over a Not~ce of Violation because of the storage contmners in the
parking lot. Aand those pallets keep stackmg up. And, you empty the cardboard boxes
and they stack up. And, they've been selhng and ~t takes up some parkang spaces. In
v~ew of th~s bulk storage, I smd the best th~ng to do ~s come before you and skip this
address as a Conditional Use Permit. Let's screen ~t. Let's protect lt. Let's cover. Let's
do the right thing. And, just before we were to come before you at the last meeting, staff
dec~ded that the storage contmners were sem~-trmlers. And, they d~dn't have axles. They
d~dn't have brakes. They d~dn't have a hcense plate. And, the BZA said for many an
hour and hstened to the defimtlon of storage trmler versus contmner, and they smd "we
disagree w~th the Zoning Adm~mstrator." Please go before the Planmng Commission.
Please go before C~ty Council. I'm not here today though to talk about storage
contmners. Wal-Mart ~s workang very, very d~hgently ~n the best ~nterest of the C~ty.
And, we hope by t~me th~s gets before Council, I'll be able to tell Council what the plan
is. My goal ~s to have zero storage contmners much sooner rather later. It's not a land
use ~ssue, but I'll let you know a little b~t of the h~story. It's a b~g ~ssue for the C~ty
because these storage contmners are on school property and park property. Everywhere
you turn around. And, Wal-Mart Is going to solve the problem by removing storage
containers. You got my word on that. Just a question of trying to find 20,000 square feet
Item # 18
Wal-Mart Real Estate Bus~ness Trust
Page 2
of leaseable space overmght, and ~t takes a httle long to move ti'ns locomotive. What
we're proposing today ~s not ~n the package. The elevations. I could say close your eyes
for ten seconds, but we've all been here for a long time, and somebody m~ght not open
them up. But when you th~nk about ~t, and you take a look at those elevauons you don't
see the pallets. You don't see the recycle cardboard, and that is because the proposal
before you all ~s to go ahead and properly screen lt. A wall that would go ahead and
match the exterior wall of the Red Mill Shopping Center Wal-Mart, which would take
care of these pallets and th~s cardboard. W~th respect to the seasonal sale and the parking
spaces, those would be attractive and they would be screened w~th fencing and
landscaping. We do need, assuming ~f Council g~ves us a Condinonal Use Permit, we do
need to go back and get a vanance because the fence doesn't follow the rules. But, I ask
you please to gnve us the opportunity to go ahead and pretty up the site. Let's go ahead
and store the pallets behind fenmng walls as we propose. Take care of the cardboard, and
take care of the sales and some of the parking spaces, and trust me please, because when I
come again, and I haven't resolved that storage contmner ~ssue, please rem~nd me. It's
not a land use issue. The question before you is solely whether or not Wal-Mart deserves
a Conditional Use Permit, and I s~ncerely beheve they do because they do have storage,
and what they're going to do ~s just ~mprove the environment. The developer of the
shopping center does not take any opposition, and although I heard there was s~gmficant
opposition we all know that there is nobody else in the audience. I have reviewed the
conditions as revised, and conditions 3, 4, 5 & 6 are readily acceptable. Thank you agmn
for a fine meeting, and I stand by for any questions that you m~ght have.
Ronald Pdpley: Questions? Jan Anderson.
Janice Anderson: You're going to wall ~n part and then part of it is.lust going to be
screened ~n by a fence? Is that correct?
Andy Keeney: That's correct. The seasonal sales when ~t becomes parking spaces would
be a fence. The cardboard and the pallets would be walled ~n.
Jamce Anderson: Okay. That would be walled ~n.
Andy Keeney: That's correct.
Eugene Crabtree: Am I correct then the storage containers ~n the back, that's along that
back there, are going to and, as soon as Wal-Mart can find the appropriate place to put all
that material, those are going to be removed?
Andy Keeney: That's my commitment to you. Yes s~r. Under the ongunal plan we've
planned a wall and fencing and you would have never seen them. And, that would have
been the speech a week ago. But, I'm telhng you today that Wal-Mart wants to do more
and more business ~n th~s fine C~ty. They want to hopefully have more stores here. And,
they reahze that storage contmners are not acceptable, so we're working hard to take care
of~t.
Item #18
Wal-Mart Real Estate Busaness Trust
Page 3
Ronald R~pley: Does anyone else have any comments? Well, I know I was comxng here
to hear about you fuss about at too that. When we got here, we understood that's been
worked through BZA, and apparently they're trying to work w~th the Caty now
Andy Keeney: Very, very hard.
Ronald Rapley: One of the th~ngs that I know that I've seen on thas Commassaon, and no
disrespect to you or any other counsel, representation has been. Managers mm around
and do other things. You're not out there all the t~me. So, I don't know what you can do
to make sure whatever arrangements you work out with the City as making sure that at's
commumcated to the managers that run those stores. And, those managers change too.
The next th~ng you know as I need some more storage. And they do this and they do that.
Andy Keeney: Very good point.
Ronald Pdpley: We have at at, and I won't mentaon any names, but we had it wath other
operators, and I know af I ran my busaness out of an office, and if I needed storage, and I
stuck, what do we call at now, a stupping contaaner, Ms. Lasley, would be down my neck
real quack, and I flunk that's kand of where we're going here.
Andy Keeney: The store manager's name is Jim Wilbum. He sat wath me for five and
half hours untal the case was determined by the BZA. And, he definately got the message.
From my perspectave ff I can add to condition and we got finalazed and resolved before
Councal, I antend too. Because then that's something that staffcan look back and rely.
You get all these statements and comments from applacants, lawyers, pros and cons, and I
always feel that more proffers you can get or the more cond~nons you can get that better
you can hold people accountable. You'll learn that when I tell you that somethang is
going to happen, at wall happen. And, it's m process now. It's not a question ofaf, ~t's a
questaon of when.
Ronald Pdpley: You got a fine store out there. You know riding down Pnncess Anne
Road and looking over and seeang all those contaaners, at's just amazing how bad that
looks.
Andy Keeney: If the Home Depot as ever built, ~f the rear wall would never be seen but
we shouldn't be plannang a bus~ness, a land use based on or ff or when Home Depot is
gmng to be there. So, at's under control and I know that by the tame this gets before
Councal, there will be a lease ~n place. It just a matter of fast we can find 20,000 square
feet.
Ronald Rapley: And, you've seen th~s revas~on on the number of conditions, 3, 4, 5 & 6.
Andy Keeney: Yes sir. Acceptable.
Ronald Rapley: They deleted number one, two and seven.
Item # 18
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust
Page 4
Andy Keeney: That's correct.
Ronald Rapley: Okay. Alnght. Are there any other comments? Mr. Miller?
Robert Miller: I'll make a motion to approve it.
Ronald Ripley: A motion to approve by Bob Miller.
Robert Miller: Conditions 3, 4, 5 & 6.
Kay Wilson: There will be four conditions.
Robert Miller: Four conditions.
Ronald Ripley: And, we have a second by Gene Crabtree. Any discussion.
Robert Miller: I just need to say that you have been highly recommended to me before
by Dorothy Kowalski in Chesapeake as being very, very responsible, so we know your
word is excellent, and we'll mm you in to Dorothy and the rest of them if you don't hold
up on your word.
Andy Keeney: Well, thank you sir. Thank you very much.
Ronald Pdpley: Okay, I think we're ready to vote then.
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 Rapley: By a vote of 9-0, the motion passes. And, I think that's it for the day
Mr. Scott, do you have anything else to come before us?
Robert Scott: I have nothing else
Ronald Pdpley: Thank you Meeting is adjourned
IVl~p No~, '~o Stole
Glnn 2404-54-7746
ZONING HISTORY
1. 2-26-90 - REZONING (AG-2 Acjricultural to R-10 Residential) Granted
2a. 8-'1'1-92- SUBDIVISION VARIANCE (Lill~pond Lane) Granted
2b. 8-'1'1-92 - SUBDIVISION VARIANCE (Huckleberry Trail) Denied
3. 6-25-90- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (church) Granted
3-28-88 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (church) Den~ed
3-'10-86 - REZONING (AG-2 Agricultural to R-3 Residential) Granted
4. 8-'10-99 - REZONING (AG-I&2 Acjricultural and R-20 Residential to
cond~bonal R-~0 Residential) Granted
8-'10-99 - SUBDIVISION VARIANCE - Granted
5. 6-9-80 - REZONING (AG-~ &2 Agricultural to R-5 Residential) Granted
Item V-L. 7.
- 56-
PLANNING
ITEM # 51355
Upon motion by Vtce Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Maddox, Ctty Council ALLOWED
WITHDRAWAL of apphcattons of JOSEPH G. PIPER to subdtvtde the extstmg lot into three (3) lots, wtth
two (2)flag lots, at 2332 Seaboard Road with a Variance to ~ 4 4(b) of the Sub&vision Ordinance and a
Change of Zoning District Classification from A G-2 Agricultural District to R-15 Restdenttal Dtstrtct
AND,
Dectstons of Admintstrattve Officers tn regard to certatn elements of the
Subdivtsion Ordinance, Subchvtsion for Joseph G Ptper. Property ts located
at 2332 Seaboard Road (GP1N240454 7746). DISTRICT 7- PRINCESSANNE
ORDINANCE UPONAPPLICA TION OF JOSEPH G PIPER FOR A CHANGE
OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FR OM A G-2 A GRICUL TURAL
DISTRICT TO R-15
Ordinance upon Application of Joseph G. Piper for a Change of Zoning
Dzstrtct Classification from AG-2 Agrtcultural Dtstrict to R-15
Restdential District on property located at 2332 Seaboard Road (GPIN
2404547746) DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE
Votmg I 1-0 (By ConsenO
Counctl Members Voting Aye'
Harry E. Dtezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louts R. Jones, Reba S
McClanan, Rtchard A Maddox, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorfl, Jtm Reeve, Peter
W Schmtdt, Ron A Vtllanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L Wood
Council Members Vottng Nay'
None
Counctl Members Absent'
None
June 24, 2003
ITEM:
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
II I I I II I I II II
Joseph G. Piper- Change of Zoning District Classification and
Subdivision Variance
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
· Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Joseph G. Piper for a Change of Zoninq
D~stnct Classification from AG-2 Agricultural District to R-15 Residential District
on property located at 2332 Seaboard Road (GPIN 2404547746). DISTRICT 7 -
PRINCESS ANNE
Decisions of Administrative Officers ~n regard to certain elements of the
Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Joseph G. Piper. Property ~s located at
2332 Seaboard Road (GPIN 2404547746). DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE
The purpose of the requests is to subdivide the ex~sbng lot into three lots, two of
which would be flag lots. The ex~sting house and accessory structures are -
proposed to remain.
Considerations:
The property is currently developed with one single-family dwelling constructed in
1960 and is zoned AG-2 Agricultural District.
The apphcant proposes to subdivide the area of the existing parcel located
around the ex~sting house by creating a new lot ~n front of and behind the exisbng
house. The front parcel would conform to the Subdivision Ordinance regulabons,
but the middle (existing house) and rear lots would be flag lots.
The preliminary plat shows a total of three lots stacked behind each other. The
middle and rear lots are flag lots with a stem of 15 feet providing frontage on
Seaboard Road.
The existing detached garage is 1,200 square feet, which is well over the 500
square foot s~ze hm~t for detached structures ~n the R-15 Residential Zoning
D~stnct. Therefore, unless the garage is removed or attached to the house, this
structure will become nonconforming.
Joseph Piper
Page 2 of 2
There is really no undue hardship created by applying the rules of the
Subdivision Ordinance that would jusbfy support of a subdiws~on variance. The
property ~s not an unusual shape, nor does it contain any natural or physical
features that create any kind of hardship. This is not a unique s~tuation. There
are other properties on the west side of Seaboard, not to mention throughout the
enbre City, that have a large amount of area but a limited amount of street
frontage, and as a result, cannot be subdivided to the maximum density. This lot
was created just 13 years ago with the intent to reorient smaller lots to
Huckleberry Trad and create larger lots on Seaboard Road. Another factor to be
considered is that with Seaboard Road about to undergo a major widening, the
farther the houses can be from the road, the better. The exisbng lot and building
configurabon accomplishes this. Finally, if approved, the proposal will have a
detrimental impact on the neighbonng properties, particularly the neighbonng
property to the north.
Staff recommended denial. There was opposition to the proposals.
· Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to deny
the requests.
Since the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant has submitted a request
to the Planning Department regarding the d~spos~bon of these two requests. The
applicant desires w~thdraw the requests. The applicant will rewse the plan to
reflect a subdivision that will conform to R-10 zoning and will submit the
appropriate zoning change application to the Planning Commission to allow such
a subdivision
· Attachments:
Staff Review
D~sclosure Statement
Planning Commission M~nutes
Locabon Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends w~thdrawal of the ~tems per the applicant's request.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen~l~.~
City Manager~~~'~ )L .~~ ~H~,,~r'-~ '
JOSEPH G. PIPER/# 1 & 2
May 14, 2003
General Information:
APPLICATION J12 - 210 - REZ- 2003
NUMBER: J12 - 210 - SVR- 2003
REQUEST:
1. Chanqe.. of Zomnq District Classification from AG-2 Agricultural
District to R-15 Residential District;
2. Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision
Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the
requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance
ADDRESS:
2332 Seaboard Road
Glnn 2404-54-7746
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
JOSEPH G. PIPER I # 1 & 2
Page 1
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
PURPOSE:
24045477460000
7 - PRINCESS ANNE
1.58 acres
Ashby Moss
To subdivide the existing lot into three lots, two of which would be flag
lots. The existing house and accessory structures are proposed to
remain.
Major Issues:
Compatibility of density with surrounding residential development.
· Creabon of a nonconforming structure with the change of zoning.
· Presence of a hardship jusbfy~ng the variances to the requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
· Maintaining an orderly development pattern during changes m Seaboard
Road.
Land Use, Zoning, and Site
Characteristics:
Existinq Land Use and Zoning
The property ~s currently developed with one
single-family dwelling constructed in 1960
and is zoned AG-2 Agricultural Distr~ct.
Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq
North:
South:
· Single-family dwelling built in 1993 / AG-2
Agricultural District
· Four single-family dwelhngs fronbng Huckleberry
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2
Page 2
East:
West:
Trail (part of Southgate neighborhood) / R-10
Residential District
· Single-family dwellings (part of Southgate
neighborhood) / R-10 Residential D~strict
· Across Seaboard Road, church / R-20 Residential
District;
· Large lot single-family homes fronting Seaboard
Road / AG-2 Agricultural D~stnct
Zoning and Land Use Statistics
With Existing
Zoning:
With
Proposed
Zoning:
One singe family home and other permitted agricultural
uses,
Three s~ngle-family homes.
Zoninq History
The Southgate neighborhood east of the
subject site was rezoned from AG-1 and
AG-2 Agricultural to R-5 Residential
(now R-10) in 1980. The subject
property was part of a group of parcels
that were resubdivided in 1990. The
group of parcels included the subject
site, the four lots ~mmediately south of
the subject site, and the adjacent
property just north of the subject s~te.
Previously, four parcels fronted
Seaboard Road in a similar fashion to
the remaining parcels on the east s~de
of Seaboard north and south of this
area. A larger parcel was situated
behind (east of) the four Seaboard lots
and fronted on Huckleberry Trail.
Just prior to the resubdMsion in 1990,
NOR TH
s,-,, ~,. ~ [ ~,
1990 Subdivision of Subject and Surrounding
Parcels
· ,
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2
Page 3
the area of the four smaller lots fronting Huckleberry Trail was approved for a rezoning
from AGo2 Agricultural to R-10 Residenbal on February 26, 1990.
A Subdivision Variance request to not install sidewalks in two areas south of the subject
site was acted upon on August 11, 1992. The developer was required to install
sidewalks on Huckleberry Trail, but was not required to ~nstall a s~dewalk on Lillipond
Lane leading to the neighborhood park.
The most recent zoning activity in the area occurred in 1999 with the rezoning of the
Princess Anne Woods property. The zoning for this property, located on the west side
of Seaboard Road, was changed from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to R-10 Residenbal.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The s,te is ~n an AICUZ of 65-70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana.
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
There is a 12-inch water main and an 8-inch gravity sanitary sewer ~n Seaboard Road
The lots must connect to City water and sewer. Plans and bonds are required for
extension of a water line and for construction of an extension of the sewer system. A
sewer and pump station analysis for Stat,on 612 ~s required to ensure the proposed
flows can be accommodated.
Transportation
Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP):
Seaboard Road in the wcin~ty of this applicabon is a two-lane undiwded residential
dead end street. The MTP designates the secbon of Seaboard Road between
Nimmo (formerly Ferrell) Parkway and Princess Anne Road as a 125-foot right-of-
way. The plan also states that connecbon to Nimmo Parkway will allewate demand
on Princess Anne Road and help reduce traffic through the City's Historic Distr~ct.
CIP Project #2-107 ~ncludes plans to ~mprove th~s secbon of Seaboard Road to a
three-lane undivided facility and connect it to Nimmo Parkway. Construction ~s
currently estimated to beg~n in 2006.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2
Page 4
Traffic Calculations:
Street Present Volume' Present Generated Traffic
Name Capacity .
240 ADT ~ (b/w northern end of Ex~sbng Land Use :'- 10
Seabaord street and Ch~ldenc Road) 6,200 ADT ADT
Level of
Road 1,500 ADT (b/w Chdder~c Road
Serwce C Proposed Land Use 3_ 30
and Pnncess Anne Road) ADT
-
Average Dady Tr~ps
as defined by one s~ngle-famdy home
as defined by three s~ngle-famdy homes
Public Safety
Police: No comments.
Fire and
Rescue:
The residential structures must be within 200 feet of an all
weather road surface for emergency vehicle access. The road
width must be at least 18 feet, and a cul-de-sac or
hammerhead must be provided to facilitate maneuvering large
vehicles.
A fire hydrant must be within 500 feet of any residential
structure.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recommends Iow-density single-family residential land use
with a density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre or less.
Site Plan / Preliminary Plat:
Existing Lot: The exisbng lot ~s rectangular in shape and contains 1.58 acres. The lot
was part of a resubdivis~on that took place ~n 1990. The properties to the north and
south of the subject lot were also part of that resubdiv~sion
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2
Page 5
Akin AR IAt'FNIT TC) THF RFAR AND SIDF PROPERTY LINES OF
Existing Site Survey
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2
Page 6
Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide the property into three lots,
two of which would be flag lots.
Item Required Lot 5A LotSB Lot 5C
Lot Width in feet (for
proposed R-15 District) 100 152 15' 15*
Lot Area ~n square feet (for
proposed R-15 District) 15,000 20,064 23,272 25,277
*Variance required
LOT &
, J
SEABOARD
ROAD (VAR. R/W)
,i
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2
Page 7
Summary of Proposal
Proposal
· The applicant proposes to subdivide the area of the exisbng parcel located around
the exisbng house by creating a new lot in front of and behind the house. The front
parcel would conform to the Subdivision Ordinance regulations, but the middle and
rear lots would be flag lots.
Site Desi,qn
· The preliminary plat shows a total of three lots stacked behind each other. The
middle and rear lots are flag lots with a stem of 15 feet providing frontage on
Seaboard Road.
The ex~sbng detached garage is 1,200 square feet, which is well over the 500
square foot size limit for detached structures in the R-15 Residential Zoning District.
Therefore, unless the garage ~s removed or attached to the house, th~s structure will
become nonconforming.
Because right-of-way was dedicated when this property was resubdivided in 1990,
no additional right-of-way is necessary from the subject property for the current
design of the Seaboard Road improvements.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Access
All three lots would be required to
share a single driveway. The Traffic
Engineering D~wsion of Public Works
has commented that no additional
access points can be approved for
Seaboard Road. Once Seaboard
Road becomes a collector facihty,
access management must be
exercised to preserve the capacity of
this roadway as a collector and to
prowde for traffic safety by minimizing
the number of conflict points presented
by entrances
The Fire Department has expressed
concern with providing access for
emergency vehicles to the structures.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2
Page 8
A driveway with a minimum width of 18 feet or more is necessary, along with an
adequately sized turnaround area. The driveway must be constructed of an all
weather surface.
Architectural Design
· The existing house is a one-story ranch style house with a large, detached two-car
garage.
· The prehm~nary plat ~ndicates the new houses would be two-story dwellings with
2,500 square feet and a brick face.
Landscape and Open Space
· Approximately the rear quarter of the s~te ~s heawly wooded and in a natural state.
Evaluation of Request
The applicant's requests for a Change of Zoning from AG-2 Agricultural to R-15
Residential and a Subdivision Variance are not acceptable. While the proposed density
is compabble with the adjacent Southgate neighborhood, the proposed flag lot
orientabon will set a standard for d~sorderly development along Seaboard Road.
Staff evaluation of a Subdivision Variance ~s based on several factors, including the
degree of compliance with C~ty ordinances and regulations, consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, and adherence to good accepted land use and development
practices and theory. Personal hardship does not enter into the Staff's evaluation.
Above all, Staff's evaluation is based on Secbon 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance,
which addresses variances to the ordinance.
Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states:
No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that:
A. Strict apphcation of the ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Bo
The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood w~ll not be
adversely affected.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2
Page 9
Co
Do
Eo
The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make
reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be
adopted as an amendment to the ordinance.
The hardship is created by the physical character of the property,
including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary s~tuat~on
or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property
~mmed~ately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-inflicted hardship shall not
be considered as grounds for the ~ssuance of a variance.
The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which
the property is located at the time the vanance is authonzed whenever
such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated
by reference in this ordinance.
The apphcant's proposal fails to meet the criteria represented in items A through E
above. There ~s really no undue hardship created by applying the rules of the
Subdivision Ordinance. The property ~s not an unusual shape, nor does ~t contain any
natural or physical features that create any kind of hardship. This ~s not a unique
s~tuation. There are other properties on the west side of Seaboard, not to mention
throughout the entire City, that have a large amount of area but a limited amount of
street frontage, and as a result, cannot be subdivided to the maximum density. This lot
was created just 13 years ago w~th the ~ntent to reorient smaller lots to Huckleberry Trail
and create larger lots on Seaboard Road. Another factor to be considered is that with
Seaboard Road about to undergo a major w~den~ng, the farther the houses can be from
the road, the better. The existing lot and building configuration accomphshes th~s.
F~nally, ~f approved, the proposal will have a detrimental ~mpact on the neighboring
properties, particularly the neighboring property to the north.
Based on the reasons stated above, Staff recommends den~al of the apphcant's
requests.
If, however, the applications are approved, the following conditions are recommended
for the Subdiwsion Variance.
Conditions
1. Only one access point shall be permitted on Seaboard Road. A one-foot no
ingress/egress easement is required along the frontage of the parcel except at
the one permitted entrance.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2
Page 10
,
A private road shall be constructed to serve all three lots. The road shall be a
minimum of 18-feet wide and shall be constructed of an all weather surface
approved by the F~re Marshall. A turnaround area shall be provided to
accommodate large emergency vehicles. Private reciprocal cross access
easements shall be prowded to accommodate the shared driveway. A
maintenance agreement shall also be provided for the shared private driveway.
3. No variances to minimum required setbacks shall be permitted.
4. The existing garage shall either be razed or connected to the primary dwelling.
.
The shed in the rear yard shall be removed or moved so that it ~s at least ten feet
from the rear and side yards.
NOTE:
! iii
Upon granting of a Subdivision Variance, a final subdivision
plat must be submitted to the Development Services Center
for approval and recordation.
Further conditions may be required during the
administration of applicable Cit~ Ordinances.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2
Page 11
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2
Page 12
Applicant's Name:
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)
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~heck here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other
unincorporated organization.
ff the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure
section below:
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the property owner 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~l~heck 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.
~nat~re " / Print Name ' ' ' '
Rezoning Apphcahon
Page 8 of 12
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2
Page 13
Applicant's Name:
List All Current
Property Owners:
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
if the apphcant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporabon below:
(Attach hst if necessary)
If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED
ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach l~st
if nece'ssary)
I]~Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other
unincorporated orgamzatmn.
If the applicant is not the 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 tf necessary)
If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED
ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners ~n the organization below: (Attach list
if necessary)
I~Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other
unincorporated organizabon
CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true
and accurate.
/."4"' -
Sign, atude // Print Name
Subdivision Variance Apphcatlon
Page 9 of 13
Modified 10 16 2002
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2
Page 14
Joseph G. P~per
Change of Zomng Classification and
Decisions of Admlmstratlve Officers m regard to certain
elements of the Subdivas~on Ordinance
2332 Seaboard Road
D~stnct 7
Pnncess Anne
May 14, 2003
REGULAR
Ronald Rapley: This takes us to the regular agenda. These are ~tems that are to be heard
and there's opposition, as we understand ~t for each one of these ~tems so we need to
formally hear these ~tems. So, Mr. Miller would you call the first ~tem.
Robert Miller: The first items are Items #1 & 2, Joseph G. Piper.
Joseph Piper: Good afternoon.
Ronald Pdpley: Good aftemoon.
Joseph P~per: Joseph G. P~per. You are all famlhar w~th the property as it lays out. I
would lake to first start offby saying that originally when I first started lookang at this
property, we're lookang at subdividing ~t into four lots with a City approved roadway
w~th a cul-de-sac. I approached my next-door neighbor on Lot 6 who ~s not willing to put
our lots together to do the cul-de-sac. So, lookang ~nto it further found that the fourth lot
was basacally not going to cover the construction cost and engmeenng cost to put m a
road and subdivide the lot. That's why I backed off to the three lots that you see now that
have the flag lots, two non-conforming lots w~th the one conforming ~n front. The two
non-conformang lots would have 15 foot road frontage which talking wah the Caty
Planning Department request that be a one common drive which I do not have a problem
with. I have talked to a neighbor who has requested that be a certain d~stance from the
property line Much I do not have a problem with offsetting that 5-10 foot, whatever you
all would deem necessary to put that m. The lots are requesting to rezone to R-15, whmh
is 15,000 square foot, much greater than the 10,000 square foot of adjmmng lots from
South Gate. When we looked at th~s we d~d not want to try to ~ncrease the density an that
area and not try to take away any value from the emst~ng houses and properties adjacent.
The lots will actually have 20,000 square foot approximately some greater than 20,000
square foot. Which probably exceeds the R-15 square footage and we thank that we're
definitely keep the houses further away from the lots to help decrease any loss of value to
surrounding properties. The concerns and I know there as opposition and some concerns
from neighbors about safety and road width, which has been addressed in the condat~ons.
I believe ~t ~s number two. We are to add a 15-foot wade driveway that would lend ~tself
to the fire trucks and that as the width. I really do not have a problem wath the depth or
the s~ze of that road constmctmn. It does concern me as to how much that would cost
and along with that the turnaround that may be reqmred. How wide that would need to
Item # 1 & 2
Joseph G. Piper
Page 2
be? Other than that, we would definitely try to make it as safe as possible and definitely
within the d~stance of any fire hydrants or anything that the City ordinance reqmres. I
think the only other concerns, which I believe maybe the most bearing would be the
precedence for other division of property in the area. That isn't true. There are some
other area lots m that area that have s~ze and could be divided and may create precedence.
However, I th~nk the R-15 condition could be applied to those to not devalue their
adjacent property as ~t done in this division. That would eliminate others from trying to
congest their properties even more or further. I think those were some of the oppositions
that I heard to date. I thxnk that ~s basically the only th~ng that ~s in opposition to.
Anything else I looked at ~s the lots themselves. They are defimtely wide enough that we
can adjust or move a house location anywhere on that property that would lend xtself to
any concerns that the neighbors would have. And, I believe that is all I have at th~s time
Any questions?
Ronald Rlpley: Do we have any questions? Dot Wood has a question.
Dorothy Wood: Mr. P~per, what do you consider your hardship? I notice that the staff
does not see a hardship s~nce ~t's a rectangular lot.
Joseph P~per: Right, rectangular in shape.
Dorothy Wood: And you owned it for 13 years? Is that correct?
Joseph Piper: I've owned lt. I bought it in December 96, so that would be seven years.
At the time that I bought ~t and thank you for bnnglng that up, I forgot to mention, it was
not our Intent to subd~wde the lot. And, we were not aware of the connections to N~mmo
Parkway or the widening of Seaboard Road. Those are, I know not really recognized in
the ordinance as a hardship but to me ~t was basmally a hardship now that I wanted to
build a new house and wanted to subd~wde the lot to conform to the adjacent propemes
of South Gate. So, the only hardship is really from when I purchased it, I was not aware
of the ex~sting conditions. The lot in its shape I did not have any preconceived notions at
the t~me to subdivide ~t in the future. So, that was not of my concern.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you.
Joseph P~per: I guess that's
Dorothy Wood: Thank you.
Ronald Rlpley: Mr Din, did you have a question?
Wllham Din: No.
Ronald Rlpley: I thought I saw someone? Charhe9
Charhe Salle': I had the same question that Dot asked.
Item #1 & 2
Joseph G. Piper
Page 3
Ronald Rapley: I have a question. Do you know of any other flag lots on this road?
Joseph Piper: There ~s a flag lot right across the street.
Ronald Ripley: What is the required frontage of that?
Joseph P~per: I'm sorry.
Ronald Ripley: Am I looking at that right?
Joseph Piper: I have to go back to the plan.
Ronald Ripley: It's a flag shaped lot.
Joseph Piper: Pdght.
Ronald Rapley: That's more than enough frontage in s~ze.
Dorothy Wood: It does have frontage.
Ronald Ripley: The variance that you're looking for is a variance on the front footage of
the lot.
Joseph Piper: Pdght. Correct.
Ronald Pdpley: And the lot that you're refernng to, I beheve ff I'm looking at it correctly
~s a large piece of land that's kind of flag in shape but ~t has more than the frontage on
you have on your property.
Joseph P~per: I was refemng to the one that ~s directly across the street from Huckleberry
Trail. But there is a special condition w~th that. It was not C~ty owned approved. I think
there was a condition that granted them access to get back to that lot.
Ronald R~pley: Any other questions? Yes. Kathy Katslas.
Kathy Katslas: Mr. Piper, do you live on Lot 5B?
Joseph Piper' Yes. I currently reside.
Kathy Katslas' And the two lots that you're planning on subdividing, are those going to
be for sale or are you planning to do the building yourself2.
Joseph Piper: Well, I was planmng on building them and selling
Kathy Katslas. Are you planmng to reconstruct then your house?
Item # 1 & 2
Joseph G. Piper
Page 4
Joseph Piper: That is correct. I was going to do 5A & 5C first and then either demolish
or move the existing dwelling and then build there.
Kathy Katslas: I understand the garage has to be moved down here in order for you to
use lt. Correct?
Joseph Piper: Raght.
Kathy Katslas: Does someone reside in the garage?
Joseph Piper: Oh, I heard at the 9:0(~ o'clock meeting. No. No one does reside in there.
Every so often a cat spends the night in there but other than that, no one stays in the
garage. It's pretty full to if you would like to come by and take a look at lt. Somebody
wouldn't want to live m there
Ronald R~pley: Any other questions? Thank you We would like to see if there 18 any
opposition and they wish to come up. Is there anybody else to speak in favor of ~t?
Robert Miller: I have opposition. Robert Grandfield.
Robert Grandfield: Good afternoon. My name is Robert Grandfield. I live at 2412
Huckleberry Trail. So, that I am a direct abutter to the third of Mr. Piper's proposed new
houses. I thought Ms. Moss gave a very excellent summary this morning, which
supplements the written materials that she submitted to the Planning Commission. And,
being mindful of the admonishing to be brief, I shall not go through those any of those
again. I would simply ask you to incorporate in your thinking all of the objections that
she raised. Basically, what this comes down to in the view of all the abutting neighbors
is an attempt to force fit a so called flag lot into a spot where it doesn't make any sense
for either the City or the existing neighborhoods. The neighbors on three sides of Mr.
Piper all object to this proposed development. I therefore ask you to vote that this be
turned down. I would like to submit to this Comnuttee a petition with eleven signatures
representing seven adjoining households aslang that you vote no on this proposal.
Ronald Rapley: Thank you very much.
Robert Grandfield: Thank you.
Robert Miller: And also speaking is Larry, is it "Stalecup"?
Larry Stalcup: Stalcup.
Wflham Din: Mr. Miller, can I ask him to point out Mr. Grandfield, can you point out
the houses that object to this?
Item # 1 & 2
Joseph G. Piper
Page 5
Robert Grandfield: Yes sir. I have to orient myself. I have to put my bl-focals on.
Okay. This house objects and this house objects. And, I believe they will be speaking
today. My house is right there. This house objects and here is my house. This house
objects and this house objects. And, Mr. Stalcup, ff I understand correctly is I think is
this house lot right here Mr. Stalcup?
Robert Miller: We'll ask him that when he gets up here.
Robert Grandfield: Does that answer your question sir?
William Din: Yes. Thank you.
Ronald Ripley: Any other questions? Thank you very much.
Robert Grandfield: Thank you.
Robert Miller: Mr. Stalcup.
Larry Stalcup: Hi My name is Larry Stalcup. I hve in the lot, I guess it's number six.
Ronald Ripley: There's a pointer nght there. Do you see that httle laser thlngO You
kind ofjust push the button.
Larry Stalcup: That's my house fight there. So, I have the most footage of border on this
property and I feel I have the most to lose or gmn from thas. And, I don't thank building a
home in the front yard and backyard ~s a good character of the neighborhood. And, ~t
will hurt the value. My biggest concern is that road, that 18 foot road that's going to go
all along the stde of my property, that combined with what the City is going to take away
of front for amprovlng Seaboard, I'm going to have traffic all around me. And, I don't
thank ~t's going to be good for my property value where the quahty ofhfe for my lads or
even the neighborhood. But that's my mmn beef,s that road right there. And, we do
have a lot of problems with drainage back there. If it rains heavy, there's going to be a
lot of water in there. We don't have C~ty drmnage. We got ditches and I know that
woods an the back is heavily wooded the timbers are going to have to be brought down. I
got a lot of concern about all of the trucks going right beside my house. In one of those
p~ctures I saw, there was a great picture showing the distance between my garage and has
garage and ~t's not that much. If that road wall be going within feet of my garage and I'm
against that. This is my house here. There's a garage right here. And this road is goang
to go right through there. And, at w~ll be Wlthan feet of my garage and that's what I'm
womed about. That's my main objections.
Ronald Pdpley: Okay. Any questions of the Commission?
Robert Mdler: Next speaker ~s Sara Ye~sler.
Item # 1 & 2
Joseph G. P~per
Page 6
Ronald R_tpley: Thank you very much.
Sara Ye~sler: Hello. I'm speaking for myself, and the Cokers. We are d~rectly betund
the lot. The Cokers have the greater part about 100 feet about 30 feet of Mr. P~per's yard
~s across the back of my property and for my husband as well. And, we come to oppose
h~s petition. The first reason ~s a safety ~ssue. The proposal of the long drive to the last
bmld~ng on the property would pose an emergency mghtmare should vehicles be
reqmred. And there is no area for them to reverse their direction. In an emergency,
multiple vehicles with multiple vehicles and 18 feet would be inadequate space for a
turnaround. The turnaround would also pose a danger to the adjacent properties ~n the
event of an emergency. The second reason ~s the evaluatmn of adjacent properties. The
proposed plan to build houses all facing Seaboard Road would place two of these houses
famng the rear of the property ~n front of them. Builchng s~zable expensive houses on
these lots with th~s configuration, these houses might have to devalued to be able to sell
them as other homes of the same value would have direct frontage. This devaluation
would affect the homes adjacent to Mr. P~per's property and possibly a sizeable area
around them. The last reason is the precedence th~s really might have in the future. If
th~s type of variance ~s granted, it could open up the oppormmty for other s~m~lar
petitions. Th~s type of configuration is not ~n keeping w~th the layout of subdivisions and
would destroy the contlnmty of the orderly way subd~wslons are constructed. Thank you.
Ronald Pupley: Thank you very much. Any questions? Thank you.
Sara Ye~sler: Thanks.
Ronald Pdpley: Anybody else speaking for or agmnst? Mr. Piper, ~f you would hke to
come up. You can address items that have been raised. It's an oppommlty to rebut.
Joseph P~per: I'll just take a couple ofm~nutes. The concerns, I guess the adjacent
neighbor on Lot 6, Larry Stalcup's property. The existing driveway of his ~s
approximately e~ght foot from the property as it stands now. And, a few years back, he
went into a variance for ins garage to be put within five feet of the property hne, which
was approved without opposition. And, the proposal for the driveway now would not be
any closer they are. The ex~st~ng dwelhngs, I don't feel will be devalmng the houses in
any way. In w~th their s~ze, I don't think ~t's going to be a problem as far as the value
and may probably ~ncrease the value of the lots around ~t. The other ~ssue ~s w~th the fire
trucks being able to mm around. I k~nd of addressed that earher. With a cul-de-sac, ff
that needs to be put in, what s~ze that would be and what pavement thmkness. That kind
of concerns me just because of the cost may go up greatly and ~t may take away from the
value of the lots themselves. The only thing that I have concerns with ~s that pavement
thickness and the lot that drive. It almost seems hke ff ~t needs to go to 18-foot w~dth and
a certmn depth it needs to have a turnaround. We're basically talking about a cul-de-sac.
And, there needs to be a cul-de-sac put ~n. It may behoove me to go back and put ~n the
four lots a C~ty approved roadway something that I may consider, ff the Planmng
Department ~s not recommending that and may look ~nto defemng that. I don't know
Item #1 & 2
Joseph G. Piper
Page 7
what that pavement tluckness is or what the turnaround width would be to account for
that fire department. But, the concerns, I think for the devalulng, I don't see any
problems with the devalue of the houses. My property value for my lot has increased
even having the R-1 O's nght next to it over the last seven years.
Ronald Ripley: Okay.
Joseph Piper: And, one other thing to consider is the rezomng from the AG2.
Ronald Pdpley: You need to wrap it up. You're out of time.
Joseph Piper: Oh, I'm sorry, just real quick.
Ronald Ripley: Go ahead.
Joseph Piper: The positive thing is that I would be eliminating AG2 to the residential
zoning in which tt would more conform to that area.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Anybody else to speak tn for or against this item?
Alnght then, I'll open it up for discussion amongst the Planning Commission. Dot, do
you have a comment?
Dorothy Wood: Thanks Mr. Pdpley. I cannot support the apphcatton because of the
neighborhood opposition. And, also I really don't think he has a hardship so I will be
voting against the application.
Ronald Rapley: Thank you very much. Any other comments? Yes, Jan.
Janlce Anderson: Thank you. I'm going to be agreeable with Dot in not supporting that
application. I don't think it has comparability with the neighborhood. The development
you're proposing is a stacked looked. It's not a normal natural development of property.
And, as noted in the staff report, it's not a unique at all. You got road frontage but you
have a lot of extra land in the back and what you're going to do ts develop tt to the max
and that is standard throughout the City. It's not a unique hardshtp.
Ronald Pdpley: Any other comments? Charhe.
Charhe Salle': I agree wtth Dot and I'm not going to support thts apphcatton and having
listened to the applicant, I haven't heard any information and to me demonstrate a
hardship that is required by the ordinance which is unique to this property and also we
have information from the Navy where they consider that the application be incompatible
with NAS Oceana operattons.
Ronald Rlpley. Okay. Does somebody wish to make a motion?
Item # 1 & 2
Joseph G. Piper
Page 8
Dorothy Wood: I'd like to make a motion that we deny the apphcation.
Ronald Pdpley: Motion to deny by Dot Wood. Do I have a second? Jan Anderson
seconded lt. 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. Next item.
Triton PCS/SunCom
D-HI
D-H
-HI
G~n 1485-39-5034
ZONING HISTORY
1. 3-11-65 - Green Run REZONING to PD-H1
Item V-L. 8.
- 58-
PLANNING
ITEM # 51356 (Continued)
Unless a watver is obtained from the Ctty of Vtrgtma Beach
Department of Communtcattons and Information Technology
(COMIT), a radio frequency emissions study (RE Study),
conducted by a qualtfied engtneer hcensed to practtce tn the
Commonwealth of Vtrginia, showtng that the tntended user(s)
wtH not tnterfere wtth any Ctty of Vtrgtnta Beach emergency
communications facilities, shah be provided prtor to stte plan
approval for the tower and all subsequent users
In the event interference wtth any Ctty emergency
commumcattons facdtttes artses from the users of thts tower, the
user(s) shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct
and elimtnate the interference If the tnterference cannot be
ehmtnated wtthin a reasonable ttme, the user shall tmme&ately
cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference
ShouM the antennae cease to be used for a period of more than
one (1) year, the apphcant shall remove the antennae and thetr
supporttng towers and related equipment
Voting 11-0 (By ConsenO
Counctl Members Vottng Aye'
Harry E Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vtce Mayor Louts R Jones, Reba S
McClanan, Rtchard A Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndo~ Jim Reeve, Peter
W. Schmtdt, Ron A Vdlanueva, Rosemary Wdson and James L Wood
Council Members Vottng Nay
None
Counctl Members Absent
None
June 24, 2003
Item V-L. 8.
-57-
PLANNING
ITEM # 51356
Upon motton by Vtce Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Maddox, Ctty Council APPRO VED Ordtnance
upon appltcation of TRITON PCS/SUNCOM for a MODIFICATION TO THE GREEN R UN LAND USE
PLAN
Or&nance upon Apphcatton of Triton PCS/SunCom for a Modoqcatton to the
Green Run Land Use Plan for a wtreless communicatton tower on property
located on the east side of Independence Boulevard, approximately 700feet
southeast of Nesbitt Drove wtthtn an extsttng Vtrgtnta Power substatton (GP1N
1485395034). DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL
The purpose of the request ts to construct a 90-foot commumcatton tower with a Domtnton Vtrgtnta Power
substation area
The tower and equtpment shelter shah be constructed as deptcted
on the submttted stte plan entitled "Trtton PCS Raw Land
Substatton, S Independence Blvd, Vtrgtnia Beach, VA 23455,"
prepared by 02 Wtreless, Inc, dated 11/15/02 However, the
tower shah be destgned to accommodate one addittonal user. A
copy of the plan has been presented to Ctty Council and is on.file
tn the Planntng Department
The tower structure destgn shah be modtfied to accommodate at
least two antenna loads at dtfferent hetghts tn order to provide
for future co-location opportumttes A revised structural report
certifytng that the tower ts capable of handhng additional
antenna load at a spec{fled height shall be provtded with the
detailed stte plan
Landscaptng shall be installed as deptcted on sheet Z8 of the
submitted stteplan tdentified tn Con&tion 1 above
The fence securing the equtpment shelter and tower shall match
the extsttngfence at the substatton No barbed wtre, razor wire,
or electrt, ficatton shall be permttted
The tower and antennae shall not exceed (mnety) 90 feet tn
hetght
The communicatton tower shah be a standard gray color In the
event that the Federal Aviatton Admtntstratton or other ltcenstng
enttty requtres that the tower bepatnted another color, the hetght
of the tower shall be reduced to a level that wtll elimtnate the
requtrement that tt be painted.
June 24, 2003
ITEM:
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
I I I
Triton PCS/SunCom - Modification to the Green Run Land Use Plan
S. Independence Boulevard, south of Nesbitt Drive
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
[] Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Triton PCS/SunCom for a Modification to the
Green Run Land Use Plan for a wireless communication tower on property
located on the east side of Independence Boulevard, approximately 700 feet
southeast of Nesbitt Drive within an existing Virginia Power substation (GPIN
1485395034). DISTRICT 3- ROSE HALL
The purpose of this request is to construct a 90-foot communication tower within
a Dominion V~rgin~a Power substabon area.
Considerations:
The applicant proposes to erect a 90-foot tall steel monopole tower for wireless
communicabons. The antennae on the tower will be flush-mounted. The
proposed tower ~s located within a Domimon Virginia Power substabon area.
Several concrete power poles ranging ~n height from 70 feet to 90 feet already
exist ~n this area, however, the applicant is unable to co-locate on the exisbng
poles because the concrete poles are not structurally adequate for mounting
antennae.
The power substabon is located east of Independence Boulevard, adjacent to an
apartment complex. The proposed tower location is 180 feet from Independence
Boulevard and 200 feet from the closest apartment building Th~s meets the
m~n~mum requIrement for d~stance from a residential structure ~n Secbon 232(b)
of the Zoning Ordinance The tower and equipment structures also meet all
other setback requirements.
The exisbng substation ~s enclosed by a ten-foot metal fence The apphcant
proposes to attach a matching fence on the northern corner of the existing
fenced area to contain the tower and associated equipment. A row of wax
myrtles w~ll be prowded around the added secbon of fence, w~th the excepbon of
the side used for ~ngress and egress.
The applicant has met the location criteria required by the C~ty Zoning Ordinance
by Iocabng the tower within a power substabon area ~n which power transmission
Triton PCS / Suncom
Page 2 of 3
towers are already present The new commun~cabon tower and associated
equipment will be unobtrusive amongst the ex~sting towers and equipment at the
substation. The tower will be equipped to accommodate one additional user
should the height and Iocabon suit another user's needs. This wdl potentially
ehm~nate the need for additional towers ,n the ~mmediate wc~n~ty.
The Planning Commission placed th~s item on the consent agenda because the
use is not intrusive and may eliminate the need for additional towers. 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:
.
The tower and equipment shelter shall be constructed as depicted
on the submitted s~te plan entitled "Tnton PCS Raw Land
Substation, S. Independence Blvd., Virginia Beach, VA 23455,"
prepared by 02 Wireless, Inc., dated 11/15/02. However, the tower
shall be designed to accommodate one additional user. A copy of
the plan has been presented to City Council and is on file ~n the
Planning Department.
.
The tower structure design shall be modified to accommodate at
least two antenna loads at d~fferent heights in order to provide for
future co-locabon opportumties. A rewsed structural report
certifying that the tower is capable of handhng additional antenna
load at a specified height shall be provided w~th the detailed site
plan.
.
Landscaping shall be installed as depicted on sheet Z8 of the
submitted s~te plan idenbfied ~n Condition I above.
.
The fence secunng the equipment shelter and tower shall match
the ex~sting fence at the substabon. No barbed w~re, razor wire, or
electrification shall be permitted.
5. The tower and antennae shall not exceed 90 feet in height.
.
The commun~cabon tower shall be a standard gray color. In the
event that the Federal Awation Administration or other licensing
entity requires that the tower be painted another color, the height of
the tower shall be reduced to a level that wdl ehminate the
requirement that ~t be painted.
.
Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach
Department of Communicabons and Information Technology
(COMIT), a radio frequency emissions study (RF Study), conducted
Triton PCS / Suncom
Page 3 of 3
by a qualified engineer licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, showing that the ~ntended user(s) will not interfere with any
C~ty of Virginia Beach emergency communicabons facilibes, shall
be provided prior to site plan approval for the tower and all
subsequent users.
o
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 operabon 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.
· Attachments:
Staff Review
D~sclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends
approval ,
City Manager:~~'- .~lrr~submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~,~
TRITON PCS / SUNCOM / # 8
May 14, 2003
General Information:
APPLICATION
NUMBER: G09 - 210 - CUP - 2002
REQUEST:
Modification to the Green Run Land Use Plan to add a w~reless
communication tower.
ADDRESS:
East side of Independence Boulevard, approximately 700 feet
southeast of Nesb~tt Drive
Triton PCS/SunCom
'D-HI
ff~---~r------~ ',,
G~n 1485-39-5034
GPIN:
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
14853950340000
3- ROSE HALL
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14. 2003
TRITON PCS / SUNCOM I # 8
Page 1
SITE SIZE.
STAFF
PLANNER:
PURPOSE:
0.977 acre
Ashby Moss
To construct a 90-foot communication tower within a Dominion Virginia
Power substation area.
Major Issues:
· Mitigation of tower visibility while providing a service Iocabon.
· Visibility and screening of associated equipment building.
Land Use, Zoning,
and Site
Characteristics:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
The proposed tower is located
w~thin a Dominion Virginia Power
substation area. Several concrete
power poles ranging ~n height from
70 feet to 90 feet already exist ~n
this area. The applicant is unable
to co-locate on the existing poles
because the concrete poles are not
structurally adequate for mounting
antennae. The substation is located on a 0.977-acre parcel owned by Dominion Power.
The property ~s in the Green Run Planned Development and is zoned PD-H1 Planned
Unit Development D~stnct. Commun~cabon towers are permitted in th~s district as long
as they are ~denbfled in the Land Use Plan. Therefore, the applicant ~s requesbng to
modify the Green Run Land Use Plan to add the communication tower at th~s location.
Surroundin,q Land Use and Zoning
North:
· Canal within 180-foot w~de drainage and utility
easement / PD-H1 Planned Unit Development
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14. 2003
TRITON PCS / SUNCOM / Ct 8
Page 2
South &
West:
East:
D~stnct
· 66-foot power easement / PD-H1 Planned Unit
Development District
· Vacant parcel adjacent to Independence Blvd. /
PD-H1 Planned Unit Development D~strict
· Apartment complex/PD-H1 Planned Unit
Development District
Zoninq History
The subject property is located in Green Run and is zoned PD-H1 Planned Unit
Development D~strict. The Green Run Land Use Plan was approved March 11, 1965.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The s~te is ~n an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as a planned community: an area
planned for a variety of cohesive, ~nterdependent uses including a range of residential
units, employment, commercial, institubonal, cultural, educabonal, open space, and
public uses.
Site Plan / Conformance with Section 232
Proposal
The applicant proposes to erect a 90-foot tall steel monopole tower for
wireless communications. Since the surrounding electric towers are made of
concrete, they are unable to support addibonal communication equipment.
Site Plan
The power substation ~s located west of Independence Boulevard, adjacent to
an apartment complex.
The existing substation ~s enclosed by a ten-foot metal fence. The apphcant
proposes to attach a matching fence on the northern corner of the ex~sbng
fenced area to contain the tower and associated equipment.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14. 2003
TRITON PCS / SUNCOM / # 8
Page 3
The proposed tower location is 180 feet from Independence Boulevard and
200 feet from the closest apartment budding. This meets the minimum
requirement for distance from a residential structure in Secbon 232(b) of the
Zoning Ordinance. The tower and equipment structures also meet all other
setback requirements.
· The antennae on the tower will be flush-mounted.
· A row of wax myrtles will be provided around the added section of fence, with
the exception of the side used for ingress and egress.
Conformance with Section 232
· A structural engineering report and a report addressing NIER (non-ionizing
electromagnetic radiation) requirements have been submitted.
· A fence and landscaping are proposed to screen the base of the tower and
the equipment shelter.
· Although this is not a standard co-locabon request, the site ~s suitable for a
communication tower since the power substation contains similar structures.
Although the relatively Iow height of the 90-foot tower limits the potential
number of future co-locators, the tower will be designed to accommodate one
additional user in the future should the need arise.
Evaluation of Request
The request for a modificabon of the Green Run Land Use Plan for a 90-foot tall
communication tower is acceptable. The apphcant has met the location criteria required
by the City Zoning Ordinance by locating the tower w~thin a power substabon area ~n
whIch power transmission towers are already present. The new communication tower
and associated equipment will be unobtrusive amongst the towers and equipment at the
substation The tower will be equipped to accommodate one addibonal user should the
height and location suit another user's needs. This will potentially eliminate the need for
add~bonal towers in the ~mmediate vicinity. Therefore, th~s request is recommended for
approval subject to the condibons listed below.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14. 2003
TRITON PCS I SUNCOM / # 8
Page 4
Conditions
I .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The tower and equipment shelter shall be constructed as depicted on the
submitted s~te plan enbtled "Triton PCS Raw Land Substation, S.
Independence Blvd., Virginia Beach, VA 23455," prepared by 02 Wireless,
Inc., dated 11/15/02. However, the tower shall be designed to
accommodate one additional user. A copy of the plan has been presented
to C~ty Council and is on file in the Planning Department
The tower structure design shall be modified to accommodate at least two
antenna loads at different heights in order to provide for future co-location
opportunities. A revised structural report certifying that the tower is
capable of handling additional antenna load at a specified height shall be
provided with the detailed site plan.
Landscaping shall be ~nstalled as depicted on sheet Z8 of the submitted
site plan idenbfied in Cond~bon 1 above.
The fence secunng the equipment shelter and tower shall match the
ex~sting fence at the substation. No barbed wire, razor wire, or
electrification shall be permitted.
The tower and antennae shall not exceed 90 feet ~n height.
The communication tower shall be a standard gray color. In the event that
the Federal Aviabon Administration or other licensing enbty requires that
the tower be painted another color, the height of the tower shall be
reduced to a level that will ehm~nate the requirement that it be painted.
Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of
Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency
emissions study (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to
practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended
user(s) will not interfere w~th any C~ty of V~rginia Beach emergency
communications facd~ties, shall be provided prior to site plan approval for
the tower and all subsequent users
In the event interference w~th any City emergency communications
facdities arises from the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all
measures reasonably necessary to correct and eliminate the interference.
If the ~nterference cannot be eliminated w~th~n a reasonable t~me, the user
shall ~mmed~ately cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14. 2003
TRITON PCS / SUNCOM I # 8
Page 5
.
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.
NO TE:
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.
I
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14. 2003
TRITON PCS / SUNCOM I # 8
Page 6
\ '%
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14. 2003
TRITON PCS / SUNCOM / # 8
Page 7
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14. 2003
TRITON PCS / SUNCOM ! # 8
Page 8
PLANTING LIST OF MATERIALS
!
J_:_.~RF..~_~-[-'H~-IC,-~T~TTII~ O~ PLANTING
COMMON NAME j I~OTANICAL NAME
"
I
LANDSCAPING PLAN
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14. 2003
TRITON PCS / SUNCOM I # 8
Page 9
I
3:
a: zI
o
~- z
o
z,
~- NEW TRITON PCS
ANTENNAS
(TYP 1 PER SECTOR)
NEW TRITON PCS
GALVANIZED STEEL
MONOPOLE
,-NEW GALVANIZED STEEL
ICE BRIDGE AND SUPPORTS
--NEW TRITON PCS
1 1'-6"x16'
EQUIPMENT SHELTER
--FENCE TO MATCH
', EXISTING FENCE
AT SUBSTATION
TOWER ELEVATION
----NEW TRITON PCS
MONOPOLE FOUNDATION
(BY OTHERS)
Planning Commission Agenda ~¢',>"~-,%~
May 14. 2003 ~'~=~ ~';"
TRITON PCS / SUNCOM / # 8 ~':-"'"~~
Page 10
Apphcan t's Name:
List All Current
Properly O~ners ,
APPLICATION ~ PAGE 4 OF 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
--
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
If the property or, ncr rs a CORPORATION, hst all officers of the Corporation belov~ (Attach hst if necessary)
T~.-C. C..~?P~ .
__CDa. A,~ /6~_. _g.fiAC. t4~ T_~ ....................................................
If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION. hst
all members or partners m the organtzat~on below, (Attach hst if necessary)
~] Check here if the property ox~mer is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated
o~amzat~on
If the applicant ts not the current owner of the properO; complete the Applicant Di.~closure section belon:
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the apphcant ~s a CORPORATION. hst all o~ficers o£the Corporation belox~ Plttach hst if necessary)
If the apphcant l~ a PARTNERSHIP. HIL',,I. or other UNINCORPORATED ORG&NIZATION, list all
members or partners m the orgamzat~on betox~ (Attar h h~t q-necessaryJ
~ Check here ~fthe apphcant t~ NOT a corporation, partncrsh;p, firm, or other umncorporated orgamzatton
CERTIFICATION I cert05' that the information contained herein is' true and accurate.
- '-
Pnnt Name
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14. 2003
TRITON PCS I SUNCOM I # 8
Page 11
PCS
About Triton PCS ~ ~vestor Relations
> Shareholder
Services
· Caree~
· Contact Us
[ About Triton PCS ]
Officers
Mi~c._hae_l_E._ Kalogris
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Steven S_kin_ner
President and Chief Operating Officer
David D. C_l_a_r_k
Execubve Vice President and Chief Financial Off, car
Daniel _E.. Hqpkins
Senior Vice President of Finance and Treasurer
Step_hen 3. Mc_Nulty
Senior Vice President of Sales and t~larketing, and President of
SunCom
G I_e_n .A._ Robi ns~on
Semor Vice president of Technology
Senior Vice President of Operations
Michael E. Kalogris
Chairman and Chief Execubve Officer
M~chael E. Kalogns ~s Chairman and Chief Execubve Officer of
Triton PCS. A founder of Tnton PCS, Hr. Kalogns has led the
company's development, establishing Tnton PCS as the first
member of the AT&T Wweless Services ]nc. network of
affihates as well as one of the leading wweless servmes
careers ~n the Southeast. Under his leadership, Tnton PCS has
set industry-leading standards for network performance,
customer servme and customer retenbon, leading to
consistent strong growth in subscribers and revenue, and
earning a reputabon as one of the fastest-growing and best-
managed w~reless compames m the count~.
Kalogns has cons~stenUy disbngu~shed h~mself as a leader ~n
the h~ghly compet~twe wweless ~ndustry, and ~s now m h~s
thmd CEO role since 1988. He prewously was the Cha~rTnan of
M~chael E. K~
Cha~mlan
Execul~ve
Steven SI
President
Operabng
[ Directors ]
Michael E. galogr~s
Cha~rman and Chief Executive Officer
Steven R. Skinner
President and Chief Operabng Officer
Robert Stokes
Sr V P, Acqu~$tbons and Development, AT&T
W~reless Services, Inc.
Scott [. Anderson
Pnnc~pal, Cedar Grove Partners, LLC
and Cedar Grove Investrryen~s, LLC
.lohn D. Beleti¢
Chewrnan and Chief Executive Officer, WebLm~
W~reles$~ ~nc
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14. 2003
TRITON PCS / SUNCOM / fl 8
Page 12
Officers
Dominion Resources, Inc.
Officer
Thos E Capps
Thomas N Chewntng
Thomas F. Farrell, II
Jay L Johnson
Duane C Radtke
Mary C Doswetl
Eva S Hardy
G. Scott Hetzer
James L. Sanderiln
W~lliam C Hall, Jr
S~mon C Hodges
Karen E Hunter
Steven A Rogers
James F Stutts
Patnc~a A W~lkerson
Virginia Electric and Power
Officer
Paul D Koonce
Thomas F Farrell, It
Jay L Johnson
Mark F. McGettnck
Gary L Sypolt
M Stuart Bolton, Jr
Dawd A Chnst~an
G. Scott Hetzer
E Paul H~lton
Thomas A. Hyman Jr4
William R Matthews
Margaret E McDerm~d
Edward J R~vas
J~mmy D. Staton
Kenneth D Barker
Malcolm G Deacon, Jr
Pamela F Faggert
Eugene S Grecheck
Leslie N Hartz
Kewn T Howell
Karen E Hunter
Craig S Ivey
Steven A Rogers
James F. Stutts
Patnc~a A Wllkerson
R~chard H. B[ount, II
Dawd A Heacock
T~tte
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Executive V~ce President
Executive V~ce President
Executive V~ce President
Senior V~ce President and Chief Adm~mstrat[ve Officer
Senior Vice President-External Affairs & Corporate Communications
Senior V~ce President and Treasurer
Senior V~ce President - Law
V~ce President - External Affairs and Corporate Communlcabons
Vice President - Financial Planning
V~ce President - Tax
V~ce President and Controller
Vice President and General Counsel
V~ce President and Corporate Secretary
Company
T~tle
Chief Executive Officer - Transmiss~on
President and Chief Executive Officer
President and Chief Execubve Officer
President and Chief Executive Officer - Generabon
President - Transmission
Senior Vice President - Financial Management
Semor Vice President - Nuclear Operations and Chief Nuclear Officer
Semor V~ce President and Treasurer
Semor Vice President
Semor Vice President- Gas D~stnbutlon and Customer Services
Semor Vice President - Nuclear Operabons
Sr V~ce Presldent-lnformabon Technology & Chief Information Officer
Semor V~ce President - Fossil and Hydro
Semor V~ce President - Electric D~stnbut~on
Vice President - Distrlbubon Planning and Analys~s
Vice President - Fossil & Hydro
- Chief Enwronmentai Officer
- Nuclear Support Services
- Nuclear Engineering
V~ce President
V~ce President
V~ce President
V~ce President
V~ce President
V~ce President
Wce President
V~ce President
- Tax
- Distnbubon Operations
(Pnnc~pal Accounting Officer)
and General Counsel
Vice President and Corporate Secretary
S~te Vice President - Surry
S~te V~ce President- North Anna
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14. 2003
TRITON PCS I SUNCOM I # 8
Page 13
Item//8
Triton PCS/Suncom
Modfficataon to the Green Run Land Use Plan
East sade of Independence Boulevard
Dastnct 3
Rose Hall
May 14, 2003
CONSENT
Dorothy Wood: Next atem is Item//8. It's Triton PCS/Suncom. And, It'S an ordinance
upon apphcatlon of Tnton PCS/Suncom for a modification to the Green Run Land Use
Plan for a w~reless commumcation tower on property located on the east side of
Independence Boulevard wath~n an existing Virglma Power substation. That ~s an the
Rose Hall subdavasaon and it has rune condataons.
Dale Fannocoha: Good afternoon. My name ~s Dale Fannocohi and I'm here representing
Suncom in this matter.
Dorothy Wood: You've read the conditions?
Dale Firmocohl: Yes ma'am.
Dorothy Wood: And do you agree?
Dale Finnocoha: Yes ma'am.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any opposition to Item #8, Tnton PCS/Suncom
Conditional Use Permit for a wareless communication tower? Hearing none. Do you
want to explain that one Mr. Knight?
Barry Knight: Okay. I'd lake to try. The Planning Commission evaluated thas request.
It's a request for a mochficatlon of Green Run Land Use Plan for a 90-foot
communlcataon tower. The apphcant has met location criteria. New commumcat~on
tower and associated equipment will be unobtrusive amongst Virgnma Power's towers
and eqmpment in there. Thas will potentially ehmanate the need for additional towers an
fi'ns area. Therefore, flus request ~s recommended for approval so we think ~t's an
appropriate use of the property.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Mr. Rapley, I would move that we approve flus atem on the
consent agenda, Item #8 wath nme condatlons.
Ronald Pdpley: 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 #8
Triton PCS/Suncom
Page 2
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
Item V-L. 9.
- 59-
PLANNING
ITEM # 51357
Upon motton by Vtce Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Maddox, Ctty Counctl ADOPTED:
Or&nance to AMEND ~ 5.6 of the Ctty's Sub&viszon Or&nance re
the width of sidewalks.
Votmg' 11-0 (By ConsenO
Councd Members Votmg Aye
Harry E Dtezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vtce Mayor Louts R Jones, Reba S
McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndo~ Jtm Reeve, Peter
W. Schmtdt, Ron A Vdlanueva, Rosemary Wdson and James L. Wood
Counctl Members Vottng Nay
None
Counctl Members Absent
None
June 24, 2003
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
~ III I I III III I III II
ITEM' City of Virginia Beach, Amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
Background:
An Ordinance to amend Section 5.6 of the Subdivision Ordinance regarding the
width of sidewalks.
Considerations:
The Public Works Specifications and Standards (PWS&S) require that the width
of a sidewalk be five feet (60 ~nches). A width of 60 inches ~s consistent with the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilibes Act (ADA). The change ~s also
consistent with the requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportabon
(VDOT). However, a difference regarding sidewalk width remains between the
PWS&S and the Subdivision Ordinance, causing confusion for developers and
staff. Thus, this amendment ~s proposed in order to resolve the confusion.
The amendments require that the width of a sidewalk be consistent with the
Department of Pubhc Works Standards and Specifications The affect of this
requirement is to change the minimum sidewalk width as specified In the
Subdiwsion Ordinance from 48 ~nches to 60 inches.
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 amendment.
Attachments:
Staff Review
Ordinance
Planning Commission Minutes
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~l_.'~---~
City Manager: (~~ ~'-, '~L'Y~
I I
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH -- SIDEWALKIWIDTH / 11
May 14, 2003
Background:
This amendment eliminates an ex~st~ng conflict between th~s section of the Subdivision
Ordinance and the Public Works Specifications and Standards The amendments
require that the w~dth of a sidewalk be consistent with the Department of Public Works
Standards and Specificabons. The affect of this requirement is to change the minimum
s~dewalk w~dth as specified ~n the Subdivision Ordinance from forty-eight (48) ~nches to
s~xty (60) inches The Department of Public Works Standards and Specifications
currently require a sixty (60) ~nch minimum s~dewalk w~dth (see next page).
This request was last deferred by the Planmng Commission on June 13, 2001.
Proposed Amendments:
An Ordinance to amend Section 5.6 of the Subdivision Ordinance regarding the width of
sidewalks
In April 1999, the Pubhc Works Specifications and Standards (PWS&S) were amended
Included ~n the amendments was a change m the requirement for sidewalk width from
four (4) feet to five (5) feet The w~dth requirement was changed in order to bring the
C~ty into comphance w~th the requirements of the Americans w~th D~sabiht~es Act (ADA).
The change is also consistent with the requirements of the V~rgin~a Department of
Transportation (VDOT) The difference between the PWS&S and the Subdivision
Ordinance causes confusion for developers and staff, and thus an amendment was
proposed in order to resolve the confusion
Evaluation:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH -- SIDEWALK WIDTH / 11
Page 1
Public Works Specifications and Standards -
6.3
Curb and gu~r will not be placed directly on clay silt or other unsukable
type matexiaL
If tim design CBR values in a subdivision are generally 10 or greater, but
some of the CBRs are less than 10, then those areas less than 10 must have
4 inches of ~ placed under th~ cu~. If any areas are thea found in
the field to be soft or not suitable, aggregate must be placed under the cm~
as descn'bed in 6.2.1 (b) above.
e)
If the pavement design is of such a depth that the aggregate base or
subbase is below the bottom of the curb, then aggregate must be phtc~
under the curb as described in 6.2.1 (b) above, ~ess of the CBR value
of the subgrade.
Mountable curb VDOT CG-3 or CG-7 are to be used when highway design
speeds are 45 mph or gtrater.
Sidewalks and Bikeways, Bike Lanes, Bike Paths
6.3.1 General
All sidewalks and concrete bike paths will be a mflfimmn of 4" thick, 5' wide for
sidewalks and 10'wide for bike paths, and wilt be constructed according to the
specifications provided in Section 504.02 (a, c, d, 0 and Section 504.03 of the
V' ._m3~. 'a _Department ofT~on Ro~l. and Bridge _Specffi~~, (1994 or
applicable sections of the latest version), as well as the started drawings included
in Appendixes A and C of this mature!: Variations from the stan~ location of
sidewalks and bike paths may be allowed or required by the Depmtment of Public
Works due to topographical or other physical features. Although a minilllum
width of 10' is required for combination sidewalk/bike paths, a minimum width of
12' is reccmnnendecL A reduced width of 8' for bike paths will be acceptable with
approval by the Director of Public Worl~
6.3.2 Construction of Bikeways Requirement
This section covers all bikeways included on the City of Virginia Beach Master
Bikeway Plan. The purposes of this section are to provide guidelines for requiring
fight-of-way and construction of bikeways during plan review. The term bikeway
includes bike paths and bike lanes, and axe used interchangeably when referring to
requirements in this manual, unless specific to the type of bikeway.
Pag~ 6- 2
Incidental Concrete Construction
2/02
Planning Commission Agenda
May 14, 2003
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH -- SIDEWALK WIDTH / 11
Page 2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO SIDEWALKS
SECTION AMENDED: ~ 5.6
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA-
That Section 5.6 of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
amended and reordained to read as follows:
Sec. 5.6. Sidewalks.
Where constructed, sidewalks shall be in ~ accordance
with the specifications and standards of the department of public
works, as approved by the council of the City of Virginia Beach and
the standards established by the Americans With Disabilities Act.
( ) ight A - ......
a Sidewalks ....... e '~O' ~,~h=o :- ,: ~ ..........
designee ~u ,,,=~. ex~sting ~,,,w~u~=,.,=,,~o shall be constructed on
both sides of arterial or collector streets. The director of
plannin~ or his designee may require additional sidewalk width to
match existing improvements.
(b) Sidewalks fo~ty-eight (4E) inches in width shall be
constructed on both sides of minor streets within subdivisions
proposed for multiple-family or co~ercial use and may be required
on one (1) or both sides of minor streets in subdivisions proposed
for industrial use, if the director of planning finds such
requirement necessary in view of desirable continuity of flow of
substantial pedestrian traffic. The director of planninq or his
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
designee may require additional sidewalk width to match existing
improvements.
(c) Sidewalks = ....... '-~ "~' : .... '-
~, shall be
constructed on one ( 1 ) side of each minor street within
subdivisions proposed for one-family, two-family or townhouse
residential use and where minimum lot width requirements as
specified in the zoning ordinance are less than one hundred (100)
feet. As an exception to this requirement, no sidewalk is required
where not more than twenty-five (25) dwelling units could be
constructed on property served by the street. This applies only if
the street could not reasonably be extended to serve more dwelling
units. The director of planning or his designee may require
additional sidewalk width to match existing improvements.
COMMENT
These amendments will allow consistency between Public Works Specifications and Standards
and the Subdivision Regulations. They will also allow conformity without having to reiterate each
specific sidewalk width for certain areas.
They will require compliance with the Americans With Disabilities AcC
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on this day of , 2003.
CA-8864
DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/subreg05.6ord. wpd
R2 - April 28, 2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS:
~lanni~ Department
APPROVED AS TO LEC~a.L SI~FFICIENCY:
Department of Law
$,6
Beach
1 5114191
4~O9~96
4~29~97
4/19/99
2. 4~28~92
5111/93
5/23195
5112193
3 5~28~96
4 5~O9~0O
5. 3/27/01
5/28/02
Street Closure
ZONING HISTORY
-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT commercial parking lot- Granted
- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT recreabonal facility - Granted
-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
-CHANGE IN NONCONF USE
-CHANGE IN NONCONF USE
-CHANGE IN NONCONF USE
-CHANGE IN NONCONF USE
-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
commercial parking lot- Granted
commercial parking lot- Granted
0ndoor recreabon)- Granted
(indoor recreation) - Granted
(indoor recreabon)- Granted
(indoor recreation) - Granted
(gas stabon) - Granted
(bank drive-through) - Granted
commercial parking lot- Granted
commercial parking lot- Granted
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
I II I I i I I IIIII I I III II I I I I
ITEM: City of Virginia Beach, Street Closure
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
Background:
Application of the City of Virginia Beach for the disconbnuance, closure and
abandonment of a twenty (20) foot w~de alley located in Block 72, beginning at a
point approximately 140 feet south of Laskin Road and running a distance of 258
feet between Atlantic Avenue and Pacific Avenue (GPIN 2428015928).
DISTRICT 6 - BEACH
Considerations:
The existing alley is used for service and deliveries to the businesses exisbng on
Block 72 The City of V~rgin~a Beach and City of Virginia Beach Development
Authority own all of the property on Block 72 (bordered by Atlantic Avenue, 30th
Street, Pacific Avenue, and 31St Street). The zoning on Block 72 is RT-2 Resort
Tourist D~stnct.
Block 72 is planned to be utilized for the parking garage and retail estabhshments
that w~ll be constructed with the 31st Street hotel development. The closure of this
alley ~s necessary for that project to proceed.
Th~s request was rewewed by the V~ewers Committee and it was determined that
the alley closure ~s consistent w~th the goals adopted for the resort area. Staff
recommended approval, subject to the attached conditions. There was
opposition to the request from the existing businesses currently located on Block
72, concerned that their ab~hty to access their businesses for deliveries and
service from the alley would be eliminated should th~s closure be approved. The
~ntent, however, ~s to conbnue to allow these businesses to use th~s alley unbl the
fall of this year, when their leases end and construcbon on the garage facility
begins.
Recommendations:
The Planning Commission unanimously passed a mobon by a recorded vote of
9-0 to approve th~s request w~th the following cond~bons:
The C~ty Attorney's Office shall make the final determination regarding
ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase pnce shall be
determined according to the "Pohcy Regarding Purchase of C~ty's
Interest ~n Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City
C~ty of Virginia Beach
Page 2 of 2
Council. Copies of the policy are avadable in the Planning Department.
2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot
hnes to incorporate the closed area ~nto the adjoining parcels. The plat
shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street
closure approval.
.
The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist w~thin the r~ght-
of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements
satisfactory to the utdity company, shall be provided
.
Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance w~th
the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City
Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the
final plat is not approved w~thin one year of the C~ty Council vote to
close the right-of-way th~s approval shall be considered null and void.
Attachments:
Ordinance
Staff Rewew
D~sclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~
City Manager:~ ~iL., ~~
ORDINANCE NO.
IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND
DISCONTINUING THAT CERTAIN ALLEY KNOWN AS
A TWENTY (20) FOOT ALLEY LOCATED IN BLOCK 72
AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAI2q PLAT ENTITLED:
"PLAT SHOWING A 20 FOOT WIDE ALLEY IN BLOCK
72 PLAT OF PROPERTY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (MB 3 PG 177) TO BE
CLOSED AND VACATED AS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-
WAY, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA"
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2003, the City of Virginia Beach apphed to the Council of
the City of V~rgm~a Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described street d~scontinued, closed,
and vacated, and
WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that smd street be discontinued, closed,
and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or before August 4, 2004,
NOW, THEREFORE,
SECTION I
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the C~ty of Virglma Beach, V~rg~ma, that the
hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, subject to certain conditions being
met on or before August 4, 2004:
All that certain p~ece or parcel of land s~mate, lying and being ~n the
City of Virg~ma Beach, V~rg~ma, designated and described as "AREA
OF RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE CLOSED" and "AREA OF STREET
CLOSURE 5,160 S.F. OR 0 119 ACRES" shown as the cross-hatched
GPIN: 2428-01-5928
area on that certain plat entitled: "PLAT SHOWING A 20 15OOT
WIDE ALLEY IN BLOCK 72, PLAT OF PROPERTY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (MB 3, PG 177)
TO BE CLOSED AND VACATED AS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-
WAY VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, CIP 9-260" Scale: 1"= 50',
dated 05/29/03, prepared by Patton, Hams, Rust & Associates, P.C., a
copy of which ~s attached hereto as Exhibit A.
SECTION
The following conditions must be met on or before August 4, 2004:
1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final detenmnation regarding ownership
of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be prod to the C~ty shall be detenmned according to the
"Policy Regarding Purchase of C~ty's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by
City Council. Cop~es of said pohcy are available ~n the Planmng Department.
2. The applicant shall resubd~wde the property and vacate internal lot hnes to
incorporate the closed area ~nto the adjoining parcels. The resubdiv~s~on plat shall be submitted and
approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval.
3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities ex~st within the right-of-way
proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no
private utihties w~thin the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, the
applicant shall provide easements satisfactory to the utility compames.
4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above
stated conditions within 365 days of approval by C~ty Council. If all conditions noted above are not
accomplished and the £mal plat is not approved within one year of the C~ty Council vote to close the
roadway, th~s approval will be considered null and void.
SECTION I11
1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before August 4, 2004, th~s
Ordinance will be deemed null and void w~thout further action by the C~ty Council.
2. If all conditions are met on or before August 4, 2004, the date of final closure
~s the date the street closure ordinance is recorded by the C~ty Attorney.
SECTION IV
3. A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed ~n the Clerk's Office of the
Circmt Court of the C~ty of Virgima Beach, Virg~ma, and ~ndexed in the name of the CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor."
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virgxma, on this ~ day of
,2003.
CA-8917
July 11,2003
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
Planm~partment
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SU~CY
C~ty Attorney
EXHIBIT A
A'rLANTIC A VENUE
(6o' R/w)
MB 3 PG 177
N 3482029 6174
E 12220659 S13'48'55"E
,~",.20,'_ 140
LOT6 ~ ~ LOT'
, --- -
LOT 7~u.~a. u. ~ ~ PLAT OF
~-~ BEACH DE~LOPMENT
~ ~ ~ COMPANY
MB 3 PG 177
LOT 8 ~ LOT 3
LOT 10
N 3481968.0092
E 12220409.0213
N13'48'55"W
PACIFIC AVENUE
(60' R/w)
DB 283 PG 534
PLAT SHOWING A
20 FOOT WIDE ALLEY IN BLOCK 72
PLAT OF PROPERTY OF VlROINIA BEACH
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
(MB 3 PO 177)
TO BE CLOSED AND VACATED AS A
PUeUC
LEGEND WRGINIA B~CH, WRGINIA
~P 9-260
INDICATES AREA OF
RIGHT-OF- WA Y TO Approved:
BE CLOSED. ~D~rector o~lonning - '
50 0 50 100
I ..... ~[ na --' J
scale feet
1"=50'
Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc
Engineers Surveyors Plonners Londscope Architects
195 Rosemont Road, Suite 101
Virgima Beech, VA 23452
T 757 497 7472
F 757 497 0250
PH
Date:
5/29/0J
Scale:
1 "--50'
Proj No
9795-1-12
-- GPIN 2428-01-5928]
Dote ~./~3
Dote. ~- ]d. d3
ALLL"KDWG JLS/PDH
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 20
July 9, 2003
General Information:
APPLICATION
NUMBER: M05-211-STC-2003
REQUEST: Street Closure
ADDRESS:
Twenty (20) foot wide alley located in Block 72, begInning at a point
approximately 140 feet south of Lask~n Road and running a distance of
258 feet between Atlantic Avenue and Pacific Avenue.
,~.a.p tM~, ~5,6 '' Beach
Not Stole
Street (. Io~u/e
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
6 - BEACH
i.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 9, 2003
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 20
Page 1
SITE SIZE:
STAFF
PLANNER:
PURPOSE'
5,160 square feet
Barbara Duke
To combine the alleyway with adjacent property and redevelop the site.
Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics:
Existinq Land Use and Zonin,q
The existing alley ~s used for service and dehveries to the businesses existing on Block
72. The C~ty of V~rg~n~a Beach and City of V~rg~nia Beach Development Authority own
all of the property on Block 72. The zoning on Block 72 ~s RT-2 Resort Tourist District.
Surroundinq Land Use and Zonin,q
North: · Laskin Road
South: · 30th Street
East: ° Atlantic Avenue
West: ° Pacific Avenue
Zoning History
Zoning actions ~n the surrounding area are noted on the zoning history map at the end
of th~s report.
Public Facilities and Services
The Department of Public Works ~s coordinating the redevelopment of this s~te.
Relocation of any public sewer, water, drainage or right-of-way structures wdl be
accomplished w~th the redevelopment of the s~te.
Public Safety
Police:
Fire and
Rescue:
No Comments.
No Comments
Planning Commission Agenda
July 9, 2003
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 20
Page 2
Private Utilities
The street closure is currently under review by Dominion Virginia Power, V~rginia
Natural Gas and Hampton Roads Sanitation District. Cond~bon 3, recommended below,
w~ll address any issues raised as a result of their review.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as the Resort Area planned for resort
uses ~nclud~ng lodging, retail, entertainment, recreabon and cultural uses.
Evaluation of Request
Th~s request was reviewed by the Viewers Committee and it was determined that the
alley closure ~s consistent w~th the goals adopted for the resort area. The alley closure
is recommended for approval with the following conditions.
Conditions
.
.
o
.
The C~ty Attorney's Office shall make the final determinabon regarding ownershIp
of the underlying fee. The purchase price shall be determined according to the
"Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest ~n Streets Pursuant to Street
Closures," approved by City Councd. Copies of the policy are available ~n the
Planning Department
The applicant shall resubd~vide the property and vacate internal lot hnes to
incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat shall be submitted
and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval.
The applicant shall verify that no private utilities ex~st within the right-of-way
proposed for closure. If private utihties do ex~st, easements satisfactory to the
utility company, shall be prowded.
Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance w~th the above
stated conditions within 365 days of approval by C~ty Councd. If the cond~bons
noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved w~th~n one
year of the C~ty Council vote to close the right-of-way th~s approval shall be
considered null and void.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 9, 2003
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 20
Page 3
INOTE:
Further conditions may be required during the
administration of applicable Cit~ Ordinances.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 9, 2003
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH I # 20
Page 4
OVO,~t NINSV'I
i · i
Planning Commission Agenda
July 9, 2003
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 20
Page 5
Planning Commission Agenda
July 9, 2003
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 20
Page 6
Z
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT~'i
' ' I i;~lll Illl Il I I I ~ ..... Ill I I fill Il I Il -' Ill:lI
Applicant's Name: .E .Dean Bi.ock, D~rector Department of Public Works
List All Current
Property Owners .City of V~r.qima Beach & VIrqinia Beach Development Authority
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
if the apphcant ~s a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below'
(Attach hst if necessary)
If the apphcant ~s a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED
ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below (Attach list
if necessary)
Check here ~f the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other
incorporated organizatIon
If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Property Owner
Disclosure section below:
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
If the property owner ~s a CORPORATION, hst all officers of the Corporabon below:
(Attach fist ~f necessary)
If the property owner ~s a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED
ORGANIZATION, hst all members or partners m the orgamzation below' (Attach list
If necessary)
[] Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other
unmcorporatect organization
CERTIFICATION ! certify that the information contained herein is true
and accurate.
Signature Print Name
Street Closure Apphcat~on
Page 8 of 15
mod fie~ 10 1-3 2¢02
Planning Commission Agenda
July 9, 2003
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 20
Page 7
Item//20
City of Virginia Beach
Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a
Twenty (20) foot wide alley in Block 72
District 6
Beach
July 9, 2003
CONSENT
Charhe Salle'. Next item is Item//20 and that's the City of Virginia Beach for a street
closure.
Plul Roehrs: Good afternoon Mr Chairman Members of the Commission, I'm Phil
Roehrs with the Department of Pubhc Works and I'm representing this application.
We've reviewed the conditions and they are acceptable.
Charlie Salle" There are four conditions. Is there any opposition to this apphcation?
And, I would move that we approve the consent agenda consisting of Item #20 with four
conditions.
Ronald Pdpley: Thank you very much. On Item//20, Stephen did you wish to make a
comment on that?
Stephen White As Mr. Roehrs noted, this is a closure of an alley that's ~n the block that
would be part of the 31st Street project at the Oceanfront That alley right now doesn't
serve but maybe a couple of businesses that are still located there But which businesses
that have leases that expire this fall. I think ~ts September or October. So, the City wall
make sure that those businesses are still served in the interim until they are relocated or
located off'this property and then the construction of the garage that will go on the site
w~ll commence. But, this closure is necessary for that project to continue.
Ronald Pdpley: Thank you Stephen. We (~o have a motion on the floor and I believe we
have a second So all in favor of the motion raise your hand. Opposed9
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 The motion cannes
Lo
APPOINTMENTS
BEACHES AND WATERWAYS COMMISSION
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION (HRPDC)
PARKS and RECREATION COMMISSION
PERFORMING ARTS THEATRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
REVIEW AND ALLOCATION COMMITTEE- COG
SHORE DRIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TIDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP HOME COMMISSION
TOWING ADVISORY BOARD
YOUTH SERVICES COORDINATING COMMITTEE
M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
N. NEW BUSINESS
1. ABSTRACT OF CIVIL CASES RESOLVED - June 2003
2. ABSTRACT OF CWIL CASES RESOLVED - July 2003
II ' I II
I I
CIVIL LAWSUITS RESOLVED DURING THE MONTH
OF JUNE, 2003
dohnme Lang Edwards v Meyera Oberndorf, ,4 M dacocks, dr, Scott W~chtendahl, R
Lamb, I>aul Lanteigne, Robert McCabe, and R~chard D Holcomb - civil rights
Charles l,V Rosen, III v City of Vtrgtnia Beach, dames K Spore and Alfred M dacocks -
civil rights.
Dorothy L Prowant v United States of America, the Cz~ of Virginia Beach, and Pungo
Strawberry Festival, Inc - negligence.
George V~ Roper, II v Ctty of Virgtnta Beach and Archer ~Vestern Contractors, Ltd -
negligence.
George M Britt v Officer T V Fowler- false arrest
City of Virgima Beach v New South Insurance Company- subrogation.
City of Virginia Beach v Tom C Smith - condemnation.
Ctty of Vtrgima Beach v Fi> & Sons Investment Corporattons- condenmation
Note: Disposition details available on request from the City Attorney's Office
CIVIL LAWSUITS RESOLVED DURING THE MONTH
OF JULY, 2003
Adams Outdoor Adverttstng v Ctty of Virginia Beach - billboard suit
City of Virginia Beach v Bernard Walker and Peerless Insurance Company - contract
litigation.
Note: Disposition details available on request from the City Attorney's Office
O. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
V
0 I
M B L
C E S L
DATE July 8, 2003 D C M R C A W
PAGE. I I J L A N R H N I
E E O A D D E M U L W
Z U N N D O E I E S
AGENDA E R E A 0 R V D V 0 0
ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L E S N X F E T A N D
i i
I BRIEFING
A I~D WING/STUMPY LAKE Cindy Curtis,
GOLF COURSES Director-
Department of
Parks and
Recreatmn
II/III/IV CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED CERTIFIED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
/VE SESSION
F MINUTES - Jul)/1, 2003 APPROVED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
G/H MAYOR'S PRESENTATION
1 RESOLUTION IN Mrs Rodney
MEMORY OF RODNEY Pocceschl,
F POCCESCHI Ch~efA M
Jacocks
I PUBLIC HEARINGS
1 EDWIN ELECTION VOTING No speakers
PRECINCT
2 EXCESS PROPERTY at 2201 East Dave Lambert,
Berne C~rcle, D~smct 4 - Bayslde Owner
J/K Ordinances to AMEND the City
Code
1-a § 10-1 changing the Providence ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Election Voting Precinct to Edwin CONSENT
Precinct
b ADD §§ 2-23, 2-91/2-451 1 re post ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
employment activities of former CONSENT
Couned Members/officers/
employees/appointees
2 Ordinance to DECLARE EXCESS ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
PROPERTY from Lake Bradford CONSENT
to Lake Joyce/AUTHORIZE
conveyance of property to Yelrah
Emit Enterprises, L.L.C.
(DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL -ACTIONS
v
0 I
M B L
C E S L
DATE July 8, 2003 D C M R C A W
PAGE: 2 I J L A N R H N I
E E 0 A D D E M U L W
Z U N N D O E I E S O
AGENDA E R E A 0 R V D V 0 0
ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L E S N X F E T A N D
i
3 Ordinances to AUTHORIZE
temporary encroachments into
portions of the City's right-of-way
a 4850/4857 Haygood Road by ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
DAVID/DONNA GATLING to CONSENT
construct/mmntaln conduit/
communication wires for Allsafe
Self Storage (DISTR2CT 4 -
BAYSIDE)
b Windsor Oaks/Independence ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Boulevards by RAYMOND CONSENT
GOTTLIEB/SANDLER
DEVELOPMENT AT TOW'NE
SQUARE to construct/maintain
irrigation/AUTHORIZE all
necessary documents (DISTRICT 3
- ROSE HALL)
c Atlannc Avenue, 30~ ADOPTED 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y
Street/Greenbelt by 31st STREET, B
L.C. to construct/malntmn roof S
overhangs/balconies/ T
balconies/domestic water main/fire A
main/awning/pavers at the Hilton I
Resort/Conference Center N
(DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) E
D
4 Resolutmn to AUTHORIZE ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Performance Contract between CONSENT
CSB/Va MH/MR/SA re funding for
services
L-1 GLENDA. PALMER for a CUP APPROVED, BY 10-0 Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
tattoo parlor (permanent make-up CONSENT B
salon) at 3617 Virginia Beach S
Boulevard T
( DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL) A
I
N
E
D
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
V
0
M B L
C E S L
DATE July 8, 2003 D C M R C A W
PAGE 3 I J L A N R H N I
E E O A D D E M U L W
Z U N N D O E ! E S O
AGENDA E R E A O R V D V O O
ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L E S N X F E T A N D
III
M APPOINTMENTS
ARTS AND HUMANITIES REAPPOINTED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
COMMITTEE 2-year terms
07/02/2003-
06/30/2005
Kathleen M
Carter
Thomas A Felton,
Jr
11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
APPOINTED
2-year terms
07/02/2003-
06/30-2005
Beamce
Amberman
Jean Rawls
BEACHES AND WATERWAYS REAPPOINTED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
3-year terms
07/01/2003-
06/30/2006
Dan H
Brocklwell
Thomas R
Pntchard
Wh~t B Sessoms,
III
S Grad), V~ccelho
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESCHEDULED B Y C O B S E N S U S
.,
HRPDC REAPPOINTED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
2-year terms
07/01/2003 -
06/30/2005
Margaret L Eure
James K Spore
MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S
PARKS AND RECREATION RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S
COMMISSION
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
V
0 I
M B L
C E S L
DATE ,July 8, 2003 D C M R C A W
PAGE 4 I J L A N R H N I
E E 0 A D D E M U L W
Z U N N D 0 E I E S 0
AGENDA E R E A O R V D V O O
ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L E S N X F E T A N D
i
PERFORMING ARTS THEATRE KESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S
ADVISORY COMMITI'EE
PUBLIC LIBBY BOARD APPOINTED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
3-year term
09/01/2003 -
08/31/2006
Mamlu P
Ablow~ch
SHORE DRIVE ADVISORY RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S
COMMI'I~EE
TOWING ADVISORY BOARD RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S
YOUTH SERVICES COUNCIL RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S
N/O- 1 NEW BUSINESS
Recess to Closed Session APPROVED at 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
6 22 PM
Certify Closed Session CERTIFIED ~ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
6 57 PM
P &I'~.ICIII~NMF. NIT tq n;R PM