OCTOBER 25, 2005 AGENDACITY COUNCIL
MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At -Large
VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside -District 4
HARRYE. DIEZEL Kempsville - District 2
ROBERT M. DYER, Centerville - District I
REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3
RICHARD A. MADDOX, Beach - District 6
JIM REEVE, Princess Anne - District 7
PETER W. SCHMIDT, At -Large
RONA. VILLANUEVA, At -Large
ROSEMARY WILSON, At -Large
JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5
CITY MANAGER - JAMES K. SPORE
CITYATTORNEY- LESLIEL. LILLEY
CITY CLERK - R UTH HODGES SMITH, MMC
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
25 October 2005
I. CITY MANAGER BRIEFING - Conference Room -
1. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Chief Gregory Cade, Fire Department
CITY HALL BUILDING
2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005
PHONE: (757) 427-4303
FAX (757) 426-5669
E-MAIL: Ctycncl@vbgov.com
2. LYNNHAVEN RIVER RESTORATION STUDY — No Discharge Zone Designation
Bill Johnston, Department of Public Works Engineering Division
11. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
III. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS
IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room -
A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
1:00PAL II
3-00PIVL
V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:OOPM
A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
B. INVOCATION: Reverend William Dyson
Pastor, Mount Zion AME 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 October 11, 2005
G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. SENTARA HEALTH CARE — Princess Anne Park
2. AMEND CAPITAL BUDGET FY 2005-2006
a. City Projects Fund Balance - $11,399,700
b. School Reversion Funds - $ 7,640,838
I. CONSENT AGENDA
J. ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance to AMEND § 5-71 of the City Code re sterilization of impounded animals to
comply with State Code (Deferred Indefinitely September 13, 2005).
2. Ordinance REQUESTING Modification of the Town Center Phase II Development
Agreement re increased purchase price of the parking garage on Block 10.
3. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments into City property:
a. SENTARA HEALTHCARE for easements over and across City property at Princess
Anne Park. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE)
b. WILLIAM H. McCUTCHEON for a proposed floating dock, ramp, boatlift, pier
and wood piles at 557 Virginia Dare Drive, Lake Wesley. (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH)
c. MALCOLM L. NUNN, JR. to maintain an existing pier, lift, float and
construct to maintain mooring piles and float addition at 561 Virginia Dare Drive, Lake
Wesley. (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH)
4. Ordinances to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) to the Fire Department's FY 2005-2006 Operating Budget re a deployment
related to hurricanes:
a. Hurricane Katrina - $1,000,000
b. Hurricane Ophelia- $ 250,000
5. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $10,440,838 in FY 2004-2005 Virginia Beach School
Reversion Funds to the FY 2005-2006 Schools Operating Budget and FY 2005-2006
Capital Improvement Program (CIP):
31
7
a. Operation and maintenance equipment and replacement vehicles
for landscape services
b. Instructional technology re cyclical replacement and
infrastructure
c. Bus, service, and fleet vehicle replacements, custodial
equipment and storage
d. School plant supplies and services
e. Human Resources/payroll system replacement
f. Data management for K-12 Enterprise Grade Book
g. Ocean Lakes High School addition
$ 200,000
$2,600,000
$2,321,000
$1,032,716
$ 800,000
$1,487,122
$2,000,000
Ordinances to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE funds from the Virginia Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) to the Police Department's FY 2005-2006 Operating Budget:
a. Conduct lectures re the consequences of driving under the influence (DUI) $15,000
b. Conduct surveys re seatbelt usage by high school students $12,600
Ordinance to TRANSFER $500,000 from FY 2005-2006 Operating Budget Reserve for
Contingencies to establish a dedicated reserve for BRAC-related expenses and services.
K. PLANNING
►F1
M
Ordinances re AICUZ, noise, traffic and JLUS:
a. AMEND and REORDAIN the CZO REPEALING Section 221.1 and ADD anew
Article 18 to establish City Council Policy re discretionary development applications
and sound attenuation requirements in buildings and structures in certain AICUZ
b. AMEND and REORDAIN the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance
(City Code Appendix I), re sound attenuation requirements in certain buildings and
structures and required disclosures in residential real estate transactions
c. AMEND the Official Zoning Map to designate and incorporate the NAS Oceana —
NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area
d. AMEND the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress
Interfacility Traffic Area Map
e. AMEND the Comprehensive Plan by revising Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, the Appendix,
and the Princess Anne Corridor Plan to incorporate provisions of AICUZ, JLUS,
and the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL
Application of PASTOR GAVINO BERNALES for a Conditional Use Permit for a
church at 3476 Holland Road, Unit 3458. (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL)
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL
Application of RONALD E. MODLINGER, M.D. for a Modification of Conditions to
revise the design of the building at 3296 Dam Neck Road (approved by City Council on
August 24, 2004). (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL)
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL
Applications of S & J, L.L.C. at 3762 Shore Drive: (DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE)
a. Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business to
Conditional B-4 Resort Commercial with a Shore Drive Overlay District to develop
18 multi -family dwellings with retail.
b. Conditional Use Permit for multi -family dwellings.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL
5. Application of DEEP BLUE MARINE, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for boat
sales and service at 3716 Shore Drive. (DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
L.
APPOINTMENTS
BEACHES and WATERWAYS COMMISSION
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR HISTORIC SITES
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE — PPEA
WETLANDS BOARD (Alternates)
M.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
N.
NEW BUSINESS
O.
ADJOURNMENT
If you are physically disabled or visually impaired
and need assistance at this meeting,
please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303
Hearing impaired, call: VIRGINIA RELAY at 1-800-828-1120
Agenda 10/20/05 slb
www.vbgov.com
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend Section 5-71 of the City Code Pertaining to Disposition
of Impounded Animals
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background: The Virginia Code provides that every new owner of a dog or cat
adopted from a releasing agency shall cause the animal to be sterilized by a
licensed veterinarian within thirty (30) days of the adoption if the animal is
sexually mature at that time or, if it is not sexually mature at the time it is
adopted, within thirty (30) days after the animal reaches six months of age.
The City Code currently provides for animals adopted from the Bureau of Animal
Control to be spayed or neutered by the bureau prior to adoption. This provision
was accomplished through a cooperative agreement with the Virginia Beach
SPCA to provide veterinarian services, the costs of which were paid by the
adopting owner. The service agreement with the SPCA was recently terminated.
Since that agreement was terminated, the City Code should be revised to comply
with the provisions of the State Code, which allows a thirty (30) day period for the
owner to have the animal sterilized.
■ Considerations: This amendment incorporates the provisions of Virginia Code
§ 3.1-796.126:1, which allows an animal adopted from the Animal Control Bureau
to be spayed or neutered within thirty (30) days of the adoption if the animal is
sexually mature at that time or, if it is not sexually mature at the time it is
adopted, within thirty (30) days after the animal reaches six months of age.
■ Public Information: This Ordinance will be advertised in the same manner as
other agenda items.
■ Recommendations: Adoption
■ Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Police
City Manager. IL,,., .C-)6hly'4
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 5-71 OF THE CITY
2 CODE, PERTAINING TO THE DISPOSITION OF
3 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS
4
5 Section Amended: City Code Section 5-71
6
7 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
8 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
9
10 That Section 5-71 of the City Code is hereby amended and
11 reordained, to read as follows:
12 Sec. 5-71. Same --Disposition of unredeemed impounded animals.
13 If a dog or cat impounded under this article is not
14 claimed by its owner or caretaker within five (5) days or within
15 ten (10) days if the dog or cat has a collar, tag, license tattoo,
16
or other
form
of
identification, it shall
be disposed
of
in
17
accordance
with
the
provisions of section 3.1-796.96
of the
Code
of
18 Virginia. In the event any person proposes to adopt such dog or
19 cat, pursuant to such section, he shall pay a fee of twenty-five
20 dollars ($25.00) for dogs; twenty dollars ($20.00) for cats; and
21 fifteen dollars ($15.00) for all other animals to cover the cost of
22 transfer, seizure and veterinary care for the animal. The person
23
desiring
to
adopt
the animal
shall sign an
adoption
contract
24
agreeing
to
abide
by the rules
and regulations
of the
bureau of
25
animal control. Any unaltered
animal
must be spayed
or neutered by
26
the bureau of animal control
prior
to adoption for
an additional
27
fifty
dollar
($50.00)
fee
to cover
the cost of the procedure or
28
within
thirty
(30) days
of
the adoption.
29 Animal Control may extend the mandatory sterilization
30 date by thirty days upon the presentation of a written report from
31 a veterinarian stating that the life or health of the adopted
32 animal may be jeopardized by sterilization. In cases involving
33 extenuatinq circumstances, the veterinarian and the Animal Control
34 Bureau may negotiate the terms of an extension of the date by which
35 the animal must be sterilized.
36 Such person shall obtain a proper license for the animal
37 pursuant to Article III of this chapter within ten (10) days of
38 such adoption.
39
40 COMMENT
41
42 This amendment incorporates the provisions of Virginia § 3.1-796.126:1, which allows an
43 animal adopted from the Animal Control Bureau to be spayed or neutered up to 30 days after adoption
44 or receive an extension if a veterinarian states that the life or health of the adopted animal may be
45 jeopardized.
46
47
48 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
49 Virginia, on the day of
Approved As to Content:
Po ce Department/
Animal Control
2005.
Approved As To Legal
Sufficiency:
City tto ney Office
CA9726
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Proposed\5-71 SPCA Animal Control Ord
R-5
October 4, 2005
IWB;0
M' p
4�uzz_ �5j
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Modification of Town Center Phase II Development Agreement relating to
Block 10
MEETING DATE: October 26, 2005
■ Background: The Virginia Beach Development Authority and Town Center
Associates, L.L.C. ("Developer") are parties to a development agreement
(the "Phase II Development Agreement") relating to Phase II of the Town
Center Project. The Developer is currently constructing an 851-space
public parking garage on Block 10 of the Project. The Phase II
Development Agreement requires the VBDA to purchase the Block 10
parking garage upon completion by the Developer. The Developer has
requested that the VBDA modify the Phase II Development Agreement to
increase the purchase price of the Block 10 parking garage by up to
$140,913.18 to cover the cost of an enhanced facade around the four sides
of the garage and perimeter lighting enhancements.
The obligations of the VBDA with respect to the Block 10 parking garage
are supported by the City pursuant to a Phase 11 Support Agreement, and
the City's obligations are to be funded by (i) the proceeds of the Public
Facility Revenue Bonds Series 2003A issued September 9, 2003, the debt
service on which will be paid from the revenues generated from the Central
Business District — South Tax Increment Financing Fund, and (ii) CIP 3-283.
■ Considerations: The total increased purchase price of the Block 10 garage
will not exceed the $13,625,000 ceiling set forth in the Phase II
Development Agreement. The additional costs incurred have been
validated by the Authority's construction consultant. This modification will
enhance Phase II of the Project. This item was previously discussed with
City Council.
■ Public Information: Through the normal agenda process.
■ Alternatives: Do not approve the modification.
■ Recommendations: Approval
■ Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval of Ordinance
Submitting Department/Agency: Economic Development
City Manager:
1 ORDINANCE APPROVING MODIFICATION TO
2 PHASE II PROJECT DOCUMENTS FOR
3 BLOCK 10 OF THE TOWN CENTER PROJECT
4
5 WHEREAS, on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach (the
6 "City") and the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the
7 "Authority"), the City Manager and City staff have engaged in
8 extensive negotiations with representatives of Armada/Hoffler
9 Development Company, L.L.C., and its affiliates, regarding the
10 development of a Central Business District Project known as "The
11 Town Center of Virginia Beach" (the "Project");
12 WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 2766A adopted June 3, 2003,
13 after finding that Phase II of the Project will stimulate the
14
City's
economy, increase public
revenues,
enhance
public amenities,
15
further
the City's development
objectives
for the
Central Business
16
District
and
provide
necessary components to further
the goals
17
contained
in
the City's
"Guidelines for Evaluation of
Investment
18 Partnerships for Economic Development", the City Council (a)
19 approved development documents for Phase II of the Project (the
20 "Phase II Project Documents"), (b) requested that the Authority
21 approve and execute the Phase II Project Documents, and (c)
22 authorized the City Manager to execute a Support Agreement between
23 the City and the Authority supporting the Authority's obligations
24 contained in the Phase II Project Documents;
25 WHEREAS, Phase II of the Project includes Block 10, a
26 structure comprised of a 851-space public parking garage (the
27 "Block 10 Parking Garage"), 42,350 square feet of ground floor
28 commercial space and 342 luxury apartments;
29 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Phase II Project Documents, Town
30 Center Associates, L.L.C. ("Developer") is obligated to construct
31 the Block 10 Parking Garage and the Authority is obligated to
32 purchase the Block 10 Parking Garage from the Developer upon its
33 completion and upon completion of other Phase II construction
34 obligations;
35 WHEREAS, the Developer incurred additional costs of
36 construction of Block 10 for certain improvements and enhancements
37 that the Authority requested Developer make within the Block 10
38 Parking Garage, including fagade and perimeter lighting
39 enhancements;
40 WHEREAS, to facilitate the Developer's construction of
41
Phase II of the
Project, the
Developer has requested that the
42
Authority modify
the Phase II
Project Documents (the "Block 10
43
Modification") to
provide that the
acquisition cost of the Block 10
44
Parking Garage be
increased by
up to $140,913.18 (the "Block 10
45
Acquisition Cost
Increase") to
account for the improvements and
46
enhancements made
by the Developer
to
the
Block 10 Parking
Garage;
47
WHEREAS,
the obligations
of
the
Authority with
respect
48 to the Block 10 Parking Garage are supported by the City pursuant
49 to a Phase II Support Agreement;
50 WHEREAS, the Block 10 Parking Garage acquisition cost
51 shall be funded from (i) the proceeds of the Public Facilities
52 Revenue Bonds Series 2003A issued September 9, 2003, the debt
53 service on which will be paid from the revenues generated from the
04,
54 Central Business District - South Tax Increment Financing Fund, and
55 (ii) CIP 3-283;
56 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Block
57 10 Modification is desirable as it allows the Developer to enhance
58 Phase II of the Project and make certain desired improvements to
59 Block 10 of the Project; and
60 WHEREAS, the City Council hereby approves the Block 10
61 Modification and desires that the Authority pursue the preparation
62 of supplemental Phase II Project Documents to evidence the Block 10
63 Modification.
64 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
65 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA;
66 1. In connection with the Virginia Beach Development
67 Authority's (the "Authority's") purchase of the public parking
68 garage to be constructed on Block 10 of the Town Center Project
69 (the "Block 10 Parking Garage") pursuant to the development
70 documents for Phase II of the Town Center Project (the "Phase II
71 Project Documents"), the City Council approves the modification
72 (the "Block 10 Modification") of the Phase II Project Documents to
73 provide that the acquisition cost of the Block 10 Parking Garage be
74 increased by up to $140,913.18 (the "Block 10 Acquisition Cost
75 Increase") for improvements and enhancements to the Block 10
76 Parking Garage, including facade and perimeter lighting
77 enhancements. The City Council finds that the Block 10
78 Modification is both a necessary and desirable modification to the
79 Authority's obligations with respect to Block 10 of Phase II of the
3
80 mixed -use commercial development project known as "The Town Center
81 of Virginia Beach"
82 2. The City Council recommends that the Authority adopt
83 a resolution (a) approving the Block 10 Modification, (b)
84 authorizing the City Manager and the City Attorney, on behalf of
85 the Authority, to proceed with the preparation of supplemental
86 Phase II Project Documents necessary and appropriate to implement
87 the Block 10 Modification (the "Modification Documents"), and (c)
88
authorizing
the
appropriate
officers of
the Authority
to execute
89
and deliver
the
Modification
Documents
to which it is
a party so
90 long as such Modification Documents are consistent with the
91 provisions herein and are acceptable to the City Manager and the
92 City Attorney.
93 3. On behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, the City
94 Manager and the City Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to
95 proceed with the preparation of the Modification Documents.
96 4. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to
97 execute and deliver any Modification Documents to which the City is
98
a necessary party
so long as
such Modification Documents
are
99
consistent with the
provisions
herein and are acceptable to
the
100 City Manager and the City Attorney.
101
Adopted
by the
Council
of
the City
of Virginia Beach,
102
Virginia, on
the
day
of
October,
2005.
4
APPROVED TO CONTENT:
Department of Economic
Development
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
CA-9699
F:\Data\ATY\Ordin\NONCODE\Early 04 - ORDIN\BlocklOGarage.doc
R-2
October 4, 2005
r �..
�� ••��y,..„jai
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Easements at Princess Anne Park for Sentara Healthcare's Princess Anne
Health Campus
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background:
An ordinance is being submitted to authorize easements over and across a
portion of City property known as Princess Anne Park to Sentara Healthcare.
■ Considerations:
The attached ordinance authorizes easements over and across Princess Anne
Park to Sentara Healthcare for the construction and use of parking spaces and
for a restricted access from Princess Anne Road for emergency vehicles. The
Conditional Use Permit for the development of a health campus at the southeast
corner of Princess Anne Road and Concert Drive, as well as the First
Amendment to the Development Agreement for that project, approved by City
Council on March 8, 2005, specifies a master plan that includes a controlled
access from Princess Anne Road. That access is for emergency vehicles
destined for the emergency center located on the campus. A portion of the
access is located along and within the western edge of Princess Anne Park (the
wooded area at the southwest corner of Princess Anne Road and Dam Neck
Road).
The master plan also includes parking spaces located along and within that
western edge of the park, accessed by the roadway system within the health
campus. The parking spaces are for the benefit of those visiting the facilities of
the health campus, but will also be available to the public visiting the park. The
attached ordinance also provides for a perpetual easement to the City over the
health campus for the purpose of allowing the City and those the City permits to
use parking spaces on the campus. The terms, conditions and criteria governing
the easements are provided in the Deed of Easement.
The easement, as requested, will not remove any trees from the existing
Princess Anne Park site. Sentara Healthcare has agreed to share parking for
park users, replace and/or build new fence as needed adjacent to the ambulance
access road, provide new planting to buffer the road from the park and provide
new walkway paving within the park to connect with the new development
walkways and parking lots.
■ Recommendations:
The ordinance authorizes easements consistent with the master plan approved
by the City Council on March 8, 2005, as a condition of the Use Permit for the
health campus and as specified in the First Amendment to the Development
Agreement for this project, approved by City Council on the same date.
Approval of the ordinance is, therefore, recommended.
■ Attachments:
Ordinance
Deed of Easement
Recommended Action: Approval of ordinance.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
City Manager:,
v' �
1
2
3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE
4 EASEMENTS OVER AND ACROSS A
5 PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY
6 KNOWN AS PRINCESS ANNE PARK
7 TO SENTARA HEALTHCARE
8
9 WHEREAS, Sentara Healthcare ("Sentara") is the owner of
10 certain land (the "Sentara Property") located in the City of
11 Virginia Beach, Virginia adjacent to Princess Anne Park;
12
WHEREAS,
Sentara
is developing a
health campus
pursuant to
13
that certain
master
development plan
on file with
the City's
14
Planning
Department, and portions of such
development
require
15
easements
over portions of City property,
as shown on
the site
16 plan attached hereto;
17 WHEREAS, Sentara desires to construct and maintain (i) a
18
vehicular entrance to the Sentara
Property
off Princess Anne
19
Road, restricted for ambulance and
other
emergency vehicles,
20
over and across "Easement Area #1"
shown on
Exhibit A attached
21
hereto, and (ii) parking
spaces and
drive lanes over
and across
22
"Easement Area #2" shown
on Exhibit
B attached hereto
("Easement
23 Area #1" and "Easement Area #2" are collectively referred to as
24 the "Easement Areas");
25
WHEREAS,
the City
desires to utilize parking spaces located
26
on the Sentara
Property
for visitors to Princess Anne Park; and
27
WHEREAS,
the City
wishes to create perpetual easements over
28
the Easement
Areas
for the benefit of Sentara for the
29 improvements described above, and Sentara wishes to create a
30 perpetual easement over the Sentara Property for the benefit of
31 the City to provide the right of the City to utilize the parking
32 spaces located on the Sentara Property.
33 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
34 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
35 1. That the City Council approves the granting of (i) a
36 perpetual, exclusive easement (the "Ambulance Easement") for the
37 benefit of the Sentara Property over and across "Easement Area
38 #1" shown on Exhibit A attached hereto for the purpose of
39 providing a restricted vehicular access to the Sentara Property
40 for ambulances and other emergency vehicles, and (ii) a
41 perpetual, non-exclusive easement (the "Drive Lane/Parking
42 Easement") for the benefit of the Sentara Property over and
43 across "Easement Area #2" shown on Exhibit B attached hereto for
44
the purpose of providing
Sentara the
right
to construct,
use and
45
maintain parking spaces
and drive
lanes
serving the
Sentara
46 Property.
47
2. That
the City
is
authorized to
accept
the
perpetual,
48
non-exclusive
easement
for
the benefit
of the
City
over and
49 across the Sentara Property for the purpose of providing the
50
right
of the
City and its
permittees to utilize the parking
51
spaces
located
on the Sentara
Property.
52
3.
That the easements
are expressly subject
to those
53
terms,
conditions and criteria
contained in the Deed of
Easement
54 between the City of Virginia Beach and Sentara Healthcare (the
55 "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by
56 reference.
57 4. That the City Manager or his authorized designee is
58 hereby authorized to execute the Agreement and any other
59 documents necessary and appropriate in connection with the
60 easements, so long as such documents are acceptable to the City
61 Manager and the City Attorney.
62 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
63 Virginia, on the day of _ , 2005.
• A
THIS ORDINANCE REQUIRES AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THREE -FOURTHS OF
ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ELECTED TO COUNCIL.
APPROVE SS TO CONTENTS
PLANNIN EPARTMENT
APPRqYED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFAkIENCY, AND FORM
ORNEY
'S, 670
F:\Data\ATY\OID\REAL ESTATE\Commercial Projects\Sentara\ORD.doc
R-1
October 4, 2005
R R
43 65.23
N8
P
i-
$
•1g?
t r�
/
�^tis
—m o
c� o
m r
o A o > Z +
i C)mm
K: m�
ru
z
w ^
to�y`ti
w ❑ � � k i �
C O x •�• rNSP / ���9
Y o - N ona / s spay
ii NNN 4. $�yN
,0 G w9 o$mn y �a
N /
„3 • � 3`�'ed dai +�i� Bui �
'O Family Fitgas f Cer-%
medical Office Suilding
52 alp G-V a Sow” P':t
p' Medical Office Building �� g
0 Hospital(120-150 Bed)
,x�4wJ 5< s Slsoe<a R3'J 3aa.r � �k71 ��AAK}hX:
{ Medical Office Building
_ tC,OiYt GSF twxlc: -9.aS SP:�a. s�;:•.;;,y: :IM•Ef+ACES'
(a Restaurants
Of central i t iftf Pant `
2005 Proposed
Site Plan
Carrpstasir wtan
i Prirmeess Ann6.Commons
�44aith Campus
�; f iprginia. Beach f�
j ear 1. {
go
SENTARA.HEALTHCARE.
*1
-tea
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT is made as of the _ day of , 2005, by and
between SENTARA HEALTHCARE, a Virginia corporation, a rg antor and grantee for purposes
of indexing, and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the
Commonwealth of Virginia (the "City"), a rg antor and grantee for purposes of indexing.
RECITALS
R-1. Sentara is the owner of that certain parcel of land (the "Sentara Parcel") located
in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, known as Parcel 2A on that certain subdivision plat (the
"Subdivision Plat") entitled "Plat Showing Subdivision of Princess Anne Park Parcel 2 and
Parcel 4, Map Book 275, Pages 55-68 and a Portion of Recreation Drive (Closed) for the City of
Virginia Beach" prepared by Waid Kidd, Jr., dated September 19, 2002, and recorded in the
Clerk's Office for the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach as Instrument Number
200212203084143.
R-2. The City is the owner of that certain parcel (the "City Parcel") of land located in
the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, known as Parcel 2B on the Subdivision Plat. The Sentara
Parcel and the City Parcel are collectively referred to as the "Parcels".
R-3. Sentara will be developing a health campus pursuant to that certain master
development plan on file with the City's Planning Department. Portions of such development
require easements on the City Parcel in the areas designated as `Basement Area #1" and
"Easement Area #2", and being more particularly depicted on Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached
hereto. (`Basement Area 41" and "Easement Area #2" shall hereinafter be referred to
collectively as the `Basement Areas".) In addition, such development includes construction of
certain improvements on the Easement Areas.
R-4. The City wishes to create a perpetual, exclusive easement (the "Ambulance
Easement") for the benefit of the Sentara Parcel, through, over and across Easement Area #1 for
purpose of providing a restricted access, emergency ambulance entrance to the Sentara Parcel off
of Princess Anne Road.
R-5. The City wishes to create a perpetual, non-exclusive easement (the "Drive
Lane/Parking Easement") for the benefit of the Sentara Parcel, through, over and across the
Easement Areas for the purpose of providing Sentara the right to construct, use and maintain
parking spaces and drive lanes serving the Sentara Parcel in the Easement Areas.
R-6. Sentara wishes to create a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for the benefit of the
City Parcel, through, over and across the Sentara Parcel for the purpose of providing the right of
the City and the City Parcel Permittees (as defined below) to utilize the parking spaces located
on the Sentara Parcel as more particularly set forth herein.
1-644764.5 This instrument prepared by and return to:
10/06/2005
Erin T. Stubbe, Esq.
Willcox & Savage, P.C.
222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1500
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing, and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Ambulance Easement. The City hereby grants to Sentara, for the benefit of the
Sentara Parcel, the exclusive right, privilege and easement through, over and across Easement
Area #1 for the purposes of proving a restricted access, emergency ambulance entrance to the
Sentara Parcel off of Princess Anne Road. Use of the Ambulance Easement shall be limited to
City emergency service vehicles, ambulances and any other emergency service vehicles
authorized by Sentara (or its successor as the owner of the majority of the acreage of the Sentara
Parcel) for purposes of providing emergency access to the medical facilities to be located on the
Sentara Parcel.
2. Drive Lane/Parking Easement. The City hereby grants to Sentara, for the benefit
of the Sentara Parcel, the owners of the Sentara Parcel, and the tenants and occupants of the
building(s) now or hereafter constructed on the Sentara Parcel and their respective subtenants,
licensees, concessionaires, invitees, contractors, agents, employees and customers (collectively,
the "Sentara Permittees"), in common with any and all persons lawfully entitled to use the same,
the non-exclusive right, privilege and easement through, over and across the Easement Areas for
the purpose of providing pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress and parking areas for the
Sentara Parcel, as well as the right, privilege and easement to construct, use and maintain parking
spaces and drive lanes in, the Easement Areas.
Parking Easement.
(a) Sentara hereby grants to the City for the benefit of the City Parcel and the
visitors (the "City Parcel Permittees") to the public park (the "Public Park") located on the City
Parcel, in common with any and all persons lawfully entitled to use the same, the non-exclusive
right, privilege and easement through, over and across the drive lanes and parking areas located
on the Sentara Parcel from time to time for the purpose of providing additional parking for the
Public Park during peak usage hours of the Public Park on evenings and weekends in any surplus
parking spaces available on the Sentara Parcel in. the vicinity of Easement Area #2, including a
right of pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress to and from such parking spaces.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, Sentara and the City hereby acknowledge
and agree that the Parking Easement set forth herein shall be used by the City and the City Parcel
Permittees as additional, peak hours parking only and shall not serve as the primary parking area
for the Public Park, it being understood and agreed that the City shall maintain adequate parking
on the City Parcel to serve as primary parking for the Public Park. Furthermore, such Parking
Easement only applies to any surplus parking spaces available from time to time on the Sentara.
Parcel in the vicinity of Easement Area #2. Use of the Parking Easement shall also be subject to
such reasonable rules and regulations for the Princess Anne Health Campus as Sentara may
establish from time to time, including prohibiting Public Park parking in certain areas, or during
certain hours (or restricting such parking to designated areas or hours) if necessary in order to
insure adequate parking is available for the facilities located on the Sentara Parcel.
2
1-644764.5
10/06/2005
4. Maintenance of Easement Areas. Sentara (or its successors as the owner of the
Sentara Parcel) shall, at its sole cost and expense, construct, maintain, repair and replace the
roadway and parking improvements in the Easement Areas and keep the same in good condition
and in compliance with the applicable regulations.
5. No Impairment. The parties further agree that each beneficiary of the non-
exclusive easements granted and created by this instrument shall use such rights with due regard
to the rights of others in their use of such non-exclusive easements. They shall not use such non
exclusive easements in any way that would impair the rights of others to use the easements.
6. No Consent. No consent, approval or agreement of any agents, employees,
contractors, licensees, invitees, tenants or subtenants of the parties or their successors and assigns
in title shall be required at any time for the termination, change, modification or amendment of
the easements granted hereby, it being the intent hereof that any rights, privileges or benefit of
any agents, employees, contractors, licensees, invitees, tenants or subtenants shall be depended
upon and derived from the easements granted hereby in favor of the parties and their successors
and assigns as owner(s) of the Parcels.
7. Perpetual Easements. The easements created herein, and the benefits and
obligations attached hereto, shall create mutual and reciprocal servitudes upon each of the
affected Parcels as described herein, running with the land, and which shall be perpetual, unless
otherwise stated herein, and shall bind the parties hereto and their respective successors
(including, without limitation, successors in title) and assigns.
8. Notices. All notices, requests or other communications under this Deed of
Easement shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly given upon delivery to the following
applicable addresses either (i) in person or by reputable overnight or other private courier (with
receipt therefor); (ii) by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested; or (iii) by facsimile
transmittal, provided that the notice shall also be sent, either by certified mail, return receipt
requested, or by Federal Express or other reputable overnight courier service within one (1)
business day after such facsimile transmittal, as follows:
As to the City: City of Virginia Beach
Attn: James C. Lawson
Department of Public Works -Real Estate Division
2405 Courthouse Drive, Room 300
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456
Fax #: 757-427-4456
Copy to: Office of the City Attorney
Attn: Carol Hahn
2412 North Landing Road
Municipal Center
Building 20, First Floor
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462
1-644764.5
10/06/2005
Fax #: 757-563-1167
As to Sentara: Sentara Healthcare
Attn: Donald V. Jellig
Vice President
6015 Poplar Hall Drive, Suite 306
Norfolk, Virginia 23502
Fax M 757-455-7756
Copy to: Stephen R. Davis, Esq.
Willcox & Savage, P.C.
222 Central Park Avenue
Suite 1500
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462
Fax #: 757-628-5659
9. Miscellaneous.
(a) No person shall, as a result of this Deed of Easement, acquire any right,
title or interest in any portion of any property belonging to another except for such rights as are
created expressly by this Deed of Easement, and nothing in this Deed of Easement shall be
construed as creating any rights in or for the benefit of the general public.
(b) If any provision of this Deed of Easement shall be determined to be void
or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, then such determination shall not affect
any other provisions of this Deed of Easement, all of which other provisions shall remain in full
force and effect. If any provision of this Deed of Easement is capable of two constructions, one
of which would render the provision void and the other of which would render the provision
valid, then the provision shall have the meaning that renders it valid.
(c) Article headings, captions and other similar designations are for
convenience and reference only, and in no way define or limit the scope and content of this Deed
of Easement or affect its provisions.
(d) This Deed of Easement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
(e) There shall be no merger of any easement or other estate created by this
Deed of Easement with the fee estate in any real property by reason of the fact that the same
person may acquire or hold (i) such easement or other estate created by this Deed of Easement or
any interest in such easement or estate and (ii) the fee estate in the real property subject to such
easement or any interest in such fee estate, and no such merger shall occur unless and until all
persons, including any mortgagees, having any interest in (i) the easement or other estate in
question, and (ii) the fee estate in the real property so affected, shall join in a written instrument
effecting such merger and shall duly record the same.
4
1-644764.5
10/06/2005
10. Counterparts. This Deed of Easement may be executed in two or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute
one and the same instrument.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
SENTARA:
SENTARA HEALTHCARE,
a Virginia corporation
By: (SEAL)
Donald V. Jellig
Vice President
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2005,
by Donald V. Jellig, as Vice President of Sentara Healthcare, a Virginia corporation, on behalf of
the corporation.
Notary Public
My Commission expires
CITY:
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
By: (seal)
City Manager/Authorized
Designee of City Manager
ATTEST:
Ruth Hodges Smith
5
1-644764.5
10/06/2005
City Clerk
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2005, by , City Manager/Authorized City Manager of
the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on its behalf. He/she is personally known to me.
Notary Public
My Commission expires
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2005,
by , City Clerk of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia,
on its behalf. She is personally known to me.
My Commission expires
Approved as to Content:
Real Estate Agent
6
1-644764.5
10/06/2005
Notary Public
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
L�J
16
I�
OR
5 e
y y
waa�
g
V°'
c
a, F
C
N.
m
��❑�
m
x
65.23
f
G
O
O
� /
�;1
c0 0
o o O
�m �
P cn O
00 C/1 m
cn m o (d
moo
A li O Co
�
o ? m r
Q D D
I Dfm(l n K: \
m v
Z y
y = a /
d
b
OfxJ C3,
a G r-
n �
b v 1 6s
C
aZ %
N
O /
e��Nu� yz
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Encroachments requested into City Property known as Lake Wesley
located at the rear of 557 Virginia Dare Drive, from the adjacent
property owner, William H. McCutcheon, Jr.
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background:
Mr. McCutcheon requested permission to construct and maintain
temporary encroachments for a proposed floating dock, ramp, boatlift, pier
and wood piles into city property known as Lake Wesley located at the rear
of 557 Virginia Dare Drive.
■ Considerations:
City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has
recommended approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in
the agreement.
There are similar encroachments in Lake Wesley, which is where Mr.
McCutcheon has requested to encroach.
■ Public Information:
Advertisement of City Council Agenda
■ Alternatives:
Approve the encroachments as presented, deny the encroachments, or add
conditions as desired by Council.
■ Recommendations:
Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
■ Attachments:
Ordinance, Location Map, Agreement, Plat and Pictures.
Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance.
Submitting Department/Algenc ublic Works/real Estate
City Manager:(' L�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Requested by Department of Public Works
AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY
ENCROACHMENTS INTO A PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY
KNOWN AS LAKE WESLEY BY WILLIAM H.
MCCUTCHEON, JR., HIS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND
SUCCESSORS IN TITLE
WHEREAS, William H. McCutcheon, Jr. desires to construct and maintain temporary
encroachments for a proposed floating dock, ramp, boatlift, pier and wood piles into the City's
property known as Lake Wesley and located at the rear of 557 Virginia Dare Drive,
WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments upon the City's property
subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
16 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
17
18
19
20
21
22
That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in § § 15.2-2009 and
15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, William H. McCutcheon, Jr., his heirs, assigns
and successors in title are authorized to construct: and maintain temporary encroachments for a
proposed floating dock, ramp, boatlift, pier and wood piles in the City's property as shown on
the maps marked: Exhibits "A" and "B" and entitled: "ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT OF LOT
20 CROATAN BEACH M.B. 37, P. 11 FOR JOE McCUTCHEON 557 VIRGINIA DARE
23 DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451," Rev. June 30, 2005 and prepared by Kellam Gerwitz,
24 copies of which are on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made
25 for a more particular description; and
26 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly subject
27 to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia
28 Beach and William H. McCutcheon, Jr. (the "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and
29 incorporated by reference; and
30 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee is
31 hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and
32 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time
33 as William H. McCutcheon, Jr. and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the
34 Agreement.
35 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day
36 of , 2005.
37
38 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS
39 : rr K C,6)a)s"
40 /REAL ESTATE iC- —
41
42 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
43 SUFFICIENCY AND FORM
44
45 CITY ATTORNEY
_�
46 CA-9687
47 PREPARED:9/2/05
48 X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\McCutcheon - Pier 557 VA Dare Dr. - RMOrdinance Encroachment.Frm.doc
49 F;IDataIATYIOIDIREAL ESTATEIEncroachmentslPW OrdinanceslCA9687 McCutcheon.doc
PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES
UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(C) (4)
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 22nd day of August, 2005, by and between the CITY
OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and WILLIAM
H. MCCUTCHEON, JR., HIS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee",
even though more than one.
WITNESSETH:
That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of
land designated and described as Lot 20 as shown on "RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF
CROATAN BEACH" and recorded in Map Book 37, Page 11 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being further designated and described as 557
Virginia Dare Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451;
WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain temporary
encroachments for a proposed floating dock, ramp, boatlift, pier and wood piles, "Temporary
Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach;
WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is
necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of existing City property known as Lake
Wesley at the rear of 557 Virginia Dare Drive, "The Encroachment Area"; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary
Encroachment within The Encroachment Area.
GPIN: 2427-20-6108
2426-29-8670
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits
accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in
hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the
Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and
maintaining the Temporary Encroachment.
It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be
constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and
the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is
more particularly described as follows, to wit:
A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as
shown on those certain plats entitled: "ENCROACHMENT
EXHIBIT OF LOT 20 CROATAN BEACH M.B. 37, P. 11 FOR
JOE McCUTCHEON 557 VIRGINIA DARE DRIVE VIRGINIA
BEACH, VA 23451," Rev. June 30, 2005 and prepared by Kellam
Gerwitz., which plats are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and `B"
and to which reference is made for a more particular description.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment
herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30)
days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The
Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such
removal.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and
hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses
and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an
action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment.
2
It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall
be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of
any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor
to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the
Grantee.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain
the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit
from the Office of Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The
Encroachment Area.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a permit, the
Grantee must post a bond or other security, in accordance with their engineer's cost estimate, to
the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and
keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed
necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured
or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability
insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance
policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days
written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of
the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or
contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment.
t3
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit for
review and approval, a survey of The Encroachment Area, certified by a registered professional
engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachment
sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or
the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of
such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge
the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the
collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary
Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The
Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so
occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time
ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One
Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is
allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner
provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, William H. McCutcheon, Jr., the said Grantee has caused this
Agreement to be executed by his signature. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused
this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be
hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk.
11
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
By
City Manager/Authorized
Designee of the City Manager
City Clerk
William H. McCutcheon, Jr.
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2005, by
DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER.
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
BEACH.
CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED
Notary Public
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2005, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
0
STATE OF
CITY/COUNTY OFVjr41 n i &_�_ck to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this n day of
(LUIC�Lki;E+, 2005, by William H. McCutcheon, Jr.
My Commission Expires:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS
SIGNATURE
t'to )V64 Fh_ Cr '.
DEPARTMENT
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFIECIENCY AND FORM
X:\Projects\EncroachmentMpplicants\McCutcheon - Pier 557 VA Dare Dr. - RMAgreement Encroachment.Frml.doc
on
EXHIBIT "A"
OF CHANNEL
N /F
ORDON R. DANGELO N/F
'IN: 2426-29-4761 BRUCE C. GOTTWALD &
MB 160, PG 18 FLOYD D. GOTTWALD JR-----------
(ACROSS WATER) EDGE OF NAV GATI------ - __GPIN: 2426-29-5830
MB 160, PC 18
-"""-------------- " CHANNEL (ACROSS WATER)
N� EC_ BB -- (UNDEVELOPED)
---FLOOD-)
ENCROACHMENT SEE DETAIL
- T LAKE WESLEY
: - JI I e
co
N
Ito
N
0�0
N /F
s e
MALCOLM L. NUNN JR.
GPIN: 2426-29-8530-
MB 37 PG 11
J
a-
..
wj-.
cn N 32'46'10" E 53.50' Z
p
I
w
w
w
2911.5 SQ. FT.
Z
4.1E
w h w
' 0.067 ACRES �;,
o o
(n
N 35'37'55--
E
-,00.12'
_
m
w
JOE McCUTCHEON
11.00'
GPIN: 2426-29-8698
_
MB 126, PG 53
0
o N 32'46'10" E
0o
-
z
-26.16'
15.34'
0
:'
557
TO BE SOLD
VIRGINIA DARE DRIVE
N v
N3.57'
AFTER CONSTRUCTIO
rn
�
v
2426-29-8670
p
Z vZ
WW
�
O
o a
W
N F
W o (A
p
r
MARJORIE B. ANDoCi
W W w
W. SHEPHERD DREWRY JR
w
2426-29-9747
m
o
MB 160, PG 18
�I
O
(1 LOT TO NE)
S 32'46'10" W
GRAPHIC SCALE L0
20 0 10 20 40 80 tt ]
FEET ail`, - -S 32'46'10" W 100.00' Qsll
'I INCH = 40 FEET VIRGINIA DARE DRIVE
PROJECT ¢#2005612 REV. JUNE 30, 2005
LOCATION: ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT LAKE WESLEY OF �L
LAM
RUDEE INLET, ATLANTIC OCEAN LOT 20
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA CROATAN BEACH ERWITZ
M.B. 37. P. 11
AGENT: FOR
KELLAM-GERWITZ JOE McCUTCHEON ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNiING
500 CENTRAL DRIVE, SUITE 113 557 VIRGINIA DARE DRl\/r 500 CENTRAL DRIVE- SUITE 113. VIRGINIA BEACH, VA23454
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23454 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451 (757)340-0828 - FAX(757)340-t603
0=
EXHIBIT "B"
II
O O
PROPOSED 12" WOOD
16.5' PILES (TYP)
t 19.5'
O O
40.0'
0
o PROPOSED FLOATING DOCK
36.0'
a
Q
PROPOSED 12" GUIDE Of
PILES (TYP) I o
w
(N
O
a
0
PROPOSED 8" WOOD PILES I 0::
a
y- v . ✓ �,
ROBERTS. KELLAM a
I/AL�
GRAPHIC SCALE
5 0 2.5 5 10 20
FEET
1 INCH = 10 FEET
3ROJECT ##2005612
OCATION:
AKE WESLEY
UDEE INLET, ATLANTIC OCEAN
/IRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
+G NT:
ELLAM-CERWITZ
,00 CENTRAL DRIVE, SUITE 113
9RG!v11A REACH. VIRGINIA 93•^,51
0
N
4.0'
0
0
M
12.0'
4.0' —
REV. JUNE 30, 2005
ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT OF
LOT 20 CROATAN BEACH NIB.
37, P. I I FOR JOE McCUTCHEON
557 VIRGINIA DARE DRIVE
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451
U
n
n
OJL__-IL-o
o
—1 F J
N II
II
II
II
o
II
II
^J
II
II
FO-1
4.0'
(— -- 7 F
u
u
PROPOSED BOAT LIFT
TO BE INSTALLED PER
MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS
0
N
4.0'
PROPOSED PIER
(SEE SHEET 4 FOR
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS)
EmSTI G WALL
7ELLAM
O
ERWITZ
ENGWEERING -SURVEYING - PLANNING
,00 CE NTRAI DRIVE SUI I F I I 1 - V IRGINI:\ 11E:\CI1, VA'14) 1
S,s l \/P� OAj�C Ne -
D P -PK0I'D05L D b10cKli:21*'l -
SSA. �IJ4 ��QG7 ��_
N
Db L V- / P; EIZ L oL,44 Al i 5 m v
557-1 VA. DRi2E DR .
Nc,i k bog L o c-.c,-4e- a +o 46 " 5
Ss-. VP, D ft Ce ib )?
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Encroachments requested into City Property known as Lake Wesley
located at the rear of 561 Virginia Dare Drive, from the adjacent property
owner, Malcolm L. Nunn, Jr.
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background:
Mr. Nunn requested permission to maintain temporary encroachments for
an existing pier, lift and float and to construct and maintain proposed
mooring piles and float addition into City Property known as Lake Wesley
located at the rear of 561 Virginia Dare Drive.
■ Considerations:
City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has
recommended approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in
the agreement.
There are similar encroachments in Lake Wesley, which is where Mr. Nunn
has requested to encroach.
■ Public Information:
Advertisement of City Council Agenda
■ Alternatives:
Approve the encroachments as presented, deny the encroachments, or add
conditions as desired by Council.
■ Recommendations:
Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
■ Attachments:
Ordinance, Location Map, Agreement, Plat and Pictures.
Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance.
Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/real Estate
City Manager:, -;7,�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Requested by Department of Public Works
AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE
TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO
A PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY
KNOWN AS LAKE WESLEY BY
MALCOLM L. NUNN, JR, HIS HEIRS,
ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE
WHEREAS, Malcolm L. Nunn, Jr. desires to maintain an existing pier, lift and float and
to construct and maintain proposed mooring piles and float addition into the City's property
known as Lake Wesley and located at the rear of 561 Virginia Dare Drive.
WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments upon the City's property
subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in § § 15.2-2009 and
15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Malcolm L. Nunn, Jr., his heirs, assigns and
successors in title are authorized to maintain existing pier, lift and float and to construct and
maintain proposed mooring piles and float addition in the City's property as shown on the map
marked Exhibit "A" and entitled: "EXISTING PIER, LIFT AND FLOAT AND PROPOSED
MOORING PILES AND FLOAT ADDITION FOR MALCOLM L. NUNN, JR. LOT 19,
RESUB. OF PART OF CROATAN BEACH BEACH DISTRICT VIRGINIA BEACH, VA,"
dated June 27, 2005 and prepared by Waterfront Consulting, Inc., a copy of which is on file in
the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular
description; and
28 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly subject
29 to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia
30 Beach and Malcolm L. Nunn, Jr. (the "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated
31 by reference; and
32 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee is
33 hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and
34 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time
35 as Malcolm L. Nunn, Jr. and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the
36 Agreement.
37 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the
38 of , 2005.
39
40 _APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS
(
41 `� jIJMS C ��-
42 W/REAL ESTATE nAg
43
44 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
45 SUFFICIENCY AND FORM
46
47 CITY AT RNEY
48 CA-9688
49 PREPARED:8/3/05
50 X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\Nunn - Pier, etc Virginia DAre 561 - RB\Ordinance EncroachmentYrm.doc
51 F:IData1ATY10IDIREAL ESTATEIEncroachmentsJPW OrdinanceslCA9688 Nunn.doc
day
PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES
UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(C) (4)
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 31 st day of August, 2005, by and between the
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and
MALCOLM L. NUNN, JR., HIS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE,
"Grantee", even though more than one.
WITNESSETH:
That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of
land designated and described as Lot 19 as shown on "RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF
CROATAN BEACH" (Map Book 37, Page 11), and being further designated and described as
561 Virginia Dare Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451;
WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to maintain temporary encroachments
for existing pier, lift and float and to construct and maintain proposed mooring piles and float
addition, "Temporary Encroachment', in the City of Virginia Beach;
WHEREAS, in constructing and/or maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it
is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of existing City property known as Lake
Wesley at the rear of 561 Virginia Dare Drive, "The Encroachment Area"; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary
Encroachment within The Encroachment Area.
GPIN: 2427-20-6108
2426-29-8530
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits
accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in
hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the
Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and
maintaining the Temporary Encroachment.
It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be
constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and
the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is
more particularly described as follows, to wit:
A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as
shown on that certain plat entitled: "EXISTING PIER, LIFT AND
FLOAT AND PROPOSED MOORING PILES AND FLOAT
ADDITION FOR MALCOLM L. NUNN, JR. LOT 19, RESUB.
OF PART OF CROATAN BEACH BEACH DISTRICT
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA," dated June 27, 2005 and prepared by
Waterfront Consulting, Inc., which plat is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular
description.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment
herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30)
days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The
Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such
removal.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and
hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses
and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an
action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment.
2
It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall
be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of
any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor
to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the
Grantee.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain
the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit
from the Office of Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The
Encroachment Area.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a permit, the
Grantee must post a bond or other security, in accordance with their engineer's cost estimate, to
the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and
keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed
necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured
or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability
insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance
policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days
written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of
the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or
contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment.
3
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit for
review and approval, a survey of The Encroachment Area, certified by a registered professional
engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachment
sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or
the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of
such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge
the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the
collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary
Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The
Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so
occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time
ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One
Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is
allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner
provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Malcolm L. Nunn, Jr., the said Grantee has caused
this Agreement to be executed by his signature. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has
caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its
seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk.
0
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
By
City Manager/Authorized
Designee of the City Manager
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2005, by
DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER.
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
BEACH.
CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED
Notary Public
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2005, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
F�
STATE OF
CITY/C-6bNTY OF Jv L�% , to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -? IS-t—day of
L6 2005, by Malcolm L. Nunn, Jr.
a
My Commission Expires: qj_.' ()9
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS
SIGNATURE Q-V'J
DEPARTMENT
N tary Public
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFIECIENCY AND FORM
1L. r uJL A
X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\Nunn - Pier, etc Virginia DAre 561- RB\Agreement Encroachment.Frmt.doc
on
L A K E W E S L
\P� pG _ _ _ — — — EASTERN LIMIT OF CITY
���� S�' - — — — — — CHANNEL AS PER CITY
<:9 MAPPING AND SURVEYS
PROPOSED
MOORING PILES MLW WIDTH OF LAKE
WESLEY AT SITE 275't
EXISTING !
PIER LIFT CONSTRUCT AND INSTALL
AND FLOAT ro FLOAT AS PER THE
Y71-rrr-fvTr 32' MANUFACTURER'S SPEC'S
00 PROPOSED
FLOAT ADDITION
_..-..-..-.. - R PER
1" MB. 37 P. 11
- ML W
EX. co
NC. _ w, '.lViH
W
LOT 18
2426- 29- 7471
PLAN VIEW
SCALE 1 " = 40'
GPIN: 2426-29-8530-0000
WATERFRONT
CONSULTING, INC
1112 JENSEN DRIVE, STE. 206
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451
PHONE: (757) 425-8244
FAX: (757) 216-6687
o z
o co Cn
o U
N U c,.,
Q LOT 19 cr
o � �
co
Ln
z o
2-STY-RES
# 561 LOT 20
2426-29-8670
N 32*46'10" E 100.00'
VIRGINIA DARE DRIVE
(FORMERLY SECOTAN ROAD)
(50' R/W)
EXISTING PIER, LIFT AND FLOAT
AND PROPOSED MOORING PILES
AND FLOAT ADDITION
FOR
MALCOLM L. NUNN, JR.
LOT 19, RESUB. OF PART OF CROATAN BEACH
BEACH DISTRICT VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
(M. B. 37 PG. 7 1) DATE: JUNE 27, 2005 1 OF 1
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate $1,000,000 from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to the Fire Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget for a
Deployment Related to Hurricane Katrina
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background:
The City of Virginia Beach is the sponsoring agency for Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Urban
Search and Rescue Team ("VA-TF2"). The Fire Department serves as the administrator of
VA-TF2. VA-TF2 was activated on August 28, 2005, to provide search and rescue support
in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. VA-TF2 was assigned to support rescue efforts in the
southern portions of Mississippi. The team was demobilized on September 5, 2005, and
returned home. Upon activation and deployment, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency ("FEMA") provides funding to reimburse participants for equipment, supplies and
overtime supporting this event.
■ Considerations:
As the sponsoring agency, the City of Virginia Beach is responsible for administrative and
fiscal management of the team and its assets. Consistent with previous deployments,
FEMA had authorized the reimbursement of all eligible expenses related to activation,
mobilization, deployment and demobilization of the Team. Though FEMA authorized well
over one million dollars of reimbursement prior to the hurricane, costs associated with this
deployment were only approximately $1,000,000, given the time spent in the gulf coast
region.
■ Public Information:
Public Information will be handled through the normal process.
■ Recommendations:
Accept and appropriate $1,000,000 to cover expenses of VA-TF2 for Hurricane Katrina
deployment.
■ Attachments: Ordinance
FEMA Assistance Award Documents (2)
Recommended Action: Approve and appropriate $1,000,000.
Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department
City Manage . L�— `Z5� W* 7,
1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE
2 $1,000,000 FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
3 MANAGEMENT AGENCY TO THE FIRE
4 DEPARTMENT'S FY 2005-06 OPERATING BUDGET
5 FOR A DEPLOYMENT RELATED TO HURRICANE
6 KATRINA
7
8 WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
9 issued an alert order for members of the FEMA Virginia Task-
10 Force 2 Urban Search and Rescue Team for deployment related to
11 Hurricane Katrina and has approved $1,000,000 in reimbursement
12 costs for expenses related to the Hurricane Katrina deployment.
13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
14 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
15 That $1,000,000 in federal funds is hereby accepted from
16 the Federal Emergency Management Agency and appropriated to the
17 Fire Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget, for costs
18 associated with the deployment of members of the urban search
19
and rescue team, with
federal revenue increased
accordingly.
20
Accepted by the
Council of the City of
Virginia Beach,
21
Virginia on the
day of ,
2005.
Approved as to Content
Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency
,,, E-) "a,
Management Services City Attorney ' Office
CA9778
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\FEMA Hurricane Katrina ORD
R-2
October 12, 2005
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
0 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ❑ GRANT
3. INSTRUMENT NUMBER 4. AMENDMENT NUMBER
EMW-2003-CA-0111 I Mo15
7. RECIPIENT NAME AND ADDRESS
firginia Beach Fire Department
Lttn: Mark Piland
lattalion Chief
>pecial operations, Municipal Center
.408 Courthouse Drive, Building #21
rirginia Beach VA 23456-9065
9. RECIPIENT PROJECT MANAGER
Mark Piland 757-219-2020
11. ASSISTANCE ARRANGEMENT
12. PAYMENT METHOD
0 COST REIMBURSEMENT
0 TREASURY CHECK
❑ COST SHARING
REIMBURSEMENT
❑ FIXED PRICE
❑ ADVANCE CHECK
❑ OTHER
❑ LETTER OF CREDIT
14. ASSISTANCE AMOUNT
PREVIOUS AMOUNT
AMOUNT THIS ACTION
TOTAL AMOUNT
16. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
$2,558,857.53
$1,906,010.00
$4,464,867.53
2- TYPE OF ACTION
❑ AWARD 0 AMENDMENT
5. EFFECTIVE DATE 6. CONTROL NUMBER
See Block 21 1 NN00456Y2005T
8. ISSUING/ADMINISTRATION OFFICE
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Financial & Acquisition Management Div
Grants Management Branch
500 C Street, S.W., Room 350
Washington DC 20472
Specialist: Cynthia Perry, 202-646-4640
10. FEMA PROJECT OFFICE
Wanda Casey, 202-646-4013
13. PAYMENT OFFICE
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Accounting Services Division
Disbursement & Receivables Branch
500 C Street, S.W., Room 723
Washington DC 20472
15. ACCOUNTING & APPROPRIATION DATA
See Continuation Page
The purpose of this amendment is to provide funding to the US&R Task Forces that deployed in support of Hurricane.
Katrina. These US&R Task Forces were requested by the State for assistance in a life-saving mission under ESF-9.
The total amount obligated under this agreement is hereby increased by $1,906,030.00 from $2,558,857.53 to
$4,464,867.53.
All other terms and conditions remain in effect.
End of Amendment M015
17. RECIPIENT RE UIREM T
RECIPIENT 1S REQUIRED TO SIGN AND RETURN THREE (3) COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT TO THE ISSUING/ADMIN OFFICE IN BLOCK 8.
❑ RECIPIENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT.
18. RECIPIENT (Type name and title) 19. ASSISTANCE OFFICER (Type name and title)
/' IN d
�C.., Sylvia A. Carroll
( r ,. Assistance Officer
20. SWTURE OF R§ejIE DATE 21 SIGN URE OF ASSISTANCE OFFICER DATE
FFM rm4 . . APR 85 REPLACES E ITION OF J . WHICH IS OBSOL.ETF.
CONTINUATION PAGE
A.1 PRICE/COST SCHEDULE
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF QTY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT
NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES PRICE
1 1.00 $1,906,010.00 $1,906,010.00
CA-TF1, CA-TF4, CA-TF7, FL-TF2, IN-TF1,
MA-TF1, MD
FUNDING/REQ NO: 1: $1,906,010.00 NN00456Y2005T
GRAND TOTAL --- $1,906,010.00
ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA:
ACRN APPROPRIATION REQUISITION NUMBER AMOUNT
1 2005-06-1604DR-9044--4101-D NN00456Y2005T P $1,906,010.00
`LL r4�J
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate $250,000 from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to the Fire Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget for a
Deployment Related to Hurricane Ophelia
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background:
The City of Virginia Beach is the sponsoring agency for Virginia Task Force 2, Urban Search
and Rescue Team ("VA-TF2"). The Fire Department serves as the administrator of VA-TF2.
VA-TF2 was activated on September 13, 2005 and pre -positioned here in Virginia Beach to
facilitate rapid response to areas along the mid -Atlantic seaboard threatened by Hurricane
Ophelia. Hurricane Ophelia eventually changed course and only brushed the coast,
inflicting minor damage that did not require the use of Federal Emergency Management
Agency ("FEMA") assets. The team was rapidly demobilized on September 16, 2005. Upon
activation and deployment, FEMA provides funding to reimburse participants for equipment,
supplies and overtime supporting this event.
■ Considerations:
As the sponsoring agency, the City of Virginia Beach is responsible for administrative and
fiscal management of the team and its assets. Consistent with previous deployments,
FEMA had authorized the reimbursement of all eligible expenses related to activation,
mobilization, deployment and demobilization of the Team. Though FEMA authorized over
one million dollars of reimbursement prior to the hurricane, costs associated with this
activation were only approximately $250,000, given that the team remained in Virginia
Beach.
■ Public Information:
Public Information will be handled through the normal process.
■ Recommendations:
Accept and appropriate $ 250,000 to cover expenses of VA-TF2 for Hurricane Ophelia
deployment.
■ Attachments: Ordinance
FEMA Assistance Award Documents (2)
Recommended Action: Approve and appropriate $250,000.
Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department
City Manager: S __ , r
1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE
2 $250,000 FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
3 MANAGEMENT AGENCY TO THE FIRE
4 DEPARTMENT'S FY 2005-06 OPERATING BUDGET
5 FOR A DEPLOYMENT RELATED TO HURRICANE
6 OPHELIA
7
8 WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
9 issued an alert order for members of the FEMA Virginia Task-
10 Force 2 Urban Search and Rescue Team for deployment related to
11 Hurricane Ophelia and has approved $250,000 in reimbursement
12 costs for expenses related to the Hurricane Ophelia deployment.
13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
14 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
15 That $250,000 in federal funds is hereby accepted from the
16 Federal Emergency Management Agency and appropriated to the Fire
17 Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget, for costs associated
18 with the deployment of members of the urban search and rescue
19 team, with federal revenue increased accordingly.
20 Accepted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
21 Virginia on the day of
Approved as to Content:
"OL
Management Services
2005.
Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency:
Al9�
' L //'�A
City Attorne s Office
CA9777
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\FEMA Hurricane Ophelia ORD
R-2
October 12, 2005
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
1. ASSISTANCE INSTRUMENT
0 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ❑ GRANT
3. INSTRUMENT NUMBER 4. AMENDMENT NUMBER
EMW-2003-CA-0111 M016
7. RECIPIENT NAME AND ADDRESS
Virginia Beach Fire Department,
Attn: Mark Piland
Special Operations, Municipal Center
2408 Courthouse Drive, Building #21
Virginia Beach VA 23456-9065
9. RECIPIENT PROJECT MANAGER
Mark Piland, 757-219-2020
11. ASSISTANCE ARRANGEMENT
12. PAYMENT METHOD
0 COST REIMBURSEMENT
0 TREASURY CHECK
❑ COST SHARING
REIMBURSEMENT
❑ FIXED PRICE
❑ ADVANCE CHECK
❑ OTHER
❑ LETTER OF CREDIT
14. ASSISTANCE AMOUNT
PREVIOUS AMOUNT
$4,464,867.53
AMOUNT THIS ACTION . $1, 056, 010.00
TOTAL AMOUNT
16. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
$5,520,877.53
2_ TYPE OF ACTION
❑ AWARD 0 AMENDMENT
5. EFFECTIVE DATE 16. CONTROL NUMBER
See Block 21 NN00519Y2005T
8. ISSUING/ADMINISTRATION OFFICE
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Financial & Acquisition Management Div
Grants Management Branch
500 C Street, S.W., Room 334
Washington DC 20472
Specialist: Arlene Ramsey, 202-646-4531
10. FEMA PROJECT OFFICER
Wanda Casey, 202-646-4013
13 .PAYMENT OFFICE
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Disaster Finance Center
P.O. Box 800
Building 708
Berryville VA 22611-0800
15_ ACCOUNTING &APPROPRIATION DATA
See Continuation Page
This amendment M016, provides funding to VA-TF2 for support to the Hurricane Ophelia response effort.
CFDA No, 97.025 applies.
The total amount hereby obligated is increased by $1,056,010.00 from $4,464,861.53 to $5,520,877.53.
All other terms and conditions remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
END OF AMENDMENT M016.
17. RECIPIENT REQUIREMENT
FRI RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO SIGN AND RETURN THREE (3) COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT TO THE ISSUING/ADMIN OFFICE IN BLOCK 8.
❑ RECIPIENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT.
18. RECIPIENT (Type name and title) 19. ASSISTANCE OFFICER (Type name and title)
20. SIG TURE OF RE IE DATE
/d y o5`
FEM orm 4961, AP s I I REPLACES E'
1 Richard W. Goodman
Assistance Officer
JUL 84;
CONTINUATION PAGE
A.1 PRICE/COST SCHEDULE
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF QTY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT
NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES PRICE
1 1.00 $1, 056, 010 . 00 $1, 056, 010.00
Hurricane Ophelia US&R Task Forces and
IST Members
FUNDING/REQ NO: 1: $1,056,010.00 NN00519Y2005T
GIE2AND TOTAL --- $1, 056, 010.00
ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA:
ACRN. APPROPRIATION
REQUISITION NUMBER AMOUNT
1 2005-06-3254EM-9044--4101-D NN00519Y2005T P'.. $1,056,010.00
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Appropriate $10,440,838 in FY 2004-05 Virginia Beach
School Reversion Funds to the FY 2005-06 Schools Operating Budget
and FY 2005-06 Capital Improvement Program
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background: On September 20, 2005, the School Board was presented with a
summary of the unaudited financial statement for FY 2004-05. The unaudited financial
statements include $10,440,838 of school reversion funds available for appropriation.
The reversion funds are the result of $4,614,210 in additional revenue and $5,826,628
in expenditures savings.
On October 4, 2005, the School Board adopted a resolution recommending
amendments to the FY 2005-06 School Operating Budget and the FY 2005-06 Capital
Improvement Program in the total amount of $10,440,838.
Additional school reversion funds may become available as a result of the annual
City/Schools Revenue Sharing Formula true -up. The School Board may request City
Council action for these additional funds at a later date.
■ Considerations: The School Board requests City Council to re-establish CIP#1-
237, School Human Resources/Payroll System, to fund Phase II of the Human
Resources Payroll System. The School Board also requests City Council approval of
the allocation of $10,440,838 in FY 2004-05 reversion funds as follows:
o $200,000 to the Operations and Maintenance Category of the School
Operating Budget for equipment and replacement vehicles for School
Landscape Services
o $2,600,000 to the School Instructional Technology Fund of the School
Operating Budget to fund the cyclical replacement of instructional
technology (infrastructure and ,equipment)
o $2,321,000 to CIP # 1-011, Equipment and Vehicle Replacement, for
school bus replacements, replacement of service and fleet vehicles,
custodial equipment, and storage for testing materials
o $1,032,716 to CIP # 1-211, School Operating Budget Support, for school
plant materials and services
o $800,000 to re-establish CIP # 1-237, School Human Resources/Payroll
System, for Phase II of the Human Resources Payroll System
o $1,487,122 to CIP #1-195, Student Data Management System, for K-12
Enterprise Grade Book
o $2,000,000 to CIP #1-020, Ocean Lakes High School Addition to replace
pay -go funds transferred to the FY 2005-06 Schools Operating Budget by
City Council ordinance on October 11, 2005.
■ Public Information: The resolutions requesting these appropriations were
approved by the School Board at its October 4, 2005 public meeting. Information will be
disseminated to the public through the normal Council agenda process involving the
advertisement of City Council agenda. A public hearing notice was published in the
Beacon on October 16, 2005. A public hearing will be held on October 25, 2005, as
required to amend the FY 2005-06 Capital Improvement Program.
■ Recommendations: It is recommended that the City Council adopt this
ordinance.
■ Attachments: School Board Resolution dated October 4, 2005
Ordinance
Recommended Action:
Submitting Department/Agency: School Board Resolution
City Manager: le, _�q�
1 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE
2 $10,440,838 IN FY 2004-05 VIRGINIA
3 BEACH SCHOOL REVERSION FUNDS TO
4 THE FY 2005-06 SCHOOLS OPERATING
5 BUDGET AND FY 2005-06 CAPITAL
6 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
7
8 WHEREAS, a total amount of $10,440,838 in FY 2004-05
9 Virginia Beach Public School reversion funds are available for
10 appropriation; and
11 WHEREAS, by resolution dated October 4, 2005, the
12 School Board formally requested the City Council to approve the
13 appropriation of school reversion funds to the FY 2005-06
14 Capital Budget and FY 2005-06 School Operating Budget.
15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
16 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
17 1. That CIP Project # 1-237, "'School Human
18 Resources/Payroll System", is hereby re-established;
19 2. That $10,440,838 in school reversion funds are hereby
20 appropriated from the General Fund to the FY 2005-06 Capital
21 Budget and FY 2005-06 School Operating Budget in the amounts and
22 for the purposes set forth below:
23 (a) $200,000 to the Operations and Maintenance
24 Category of the School Operating Budget for equipment and
25 replacement vehicles for School Landscape Services;
26 (b) $2,600,000 to the School Instructional Technology
27 Fund of the School Operating Budget to fund the cyclical
28 replacement of instructional technology infrastructure and
29 equipment;
30 (c) $2,321,000 to CIP #1-011, "Equipment and Vehicle
31 Replacement," for school bus replacements and replacement of
32 service and fleet vehicles, custodial equipment, and storage for
33 testing materials;
34 (d) $1,032,716 to CIP #1-211, "Operating Budget
35 Support," for school plant supplies and services;
36 (e) $800,000 to C;IP #1-237, "School Human
37 Resources/Payroll System," for Phase II of the Human Resources
38 Payroll System;
39 (g) $1,487,122 to C:IP # 1-195, "Student Data
40 Management System" for K-12 Enterprise Grade Book;
41 (h) $2,000,000 to CIP # 1-020, "Ocean Lakes High
42 School Addition," to replace funds transferred to the Schools
43 Operating Budget by ordinance dated October 11, 2005.
44 3. That estimated revenue from use of the FY 2004-05 Fund
45 Balance of the General Fund is increased by $10,440,838.
46 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
47 Virginia on the day of , 2005.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
Management Services
City Attorney's Office
CA9764
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Schools Reversion Funds ORD
R-2
October 12, 2005
#/IRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
1 1 Board Agenda
Subject: Resolution Regarding FY 2004/05 Reversion Funds Item Number: 12C
Section: Action Date: October 4, 2005
Cabinet Member: Mrs. Victoria L. Lewis
Prepared by: Mrs. Victoria L. Lewis
Presenter(s): Mrs. Victoria L Lewis Chief Financial Officer
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the School Board approve the recommended uses of the projected reversion.
Background Summary:
Source:
FY 2005-06 Unaudited Financial Statement
Budget Impact:
Strategic Plan Reference:
SCHOOLBOARD
Daniel D. Edwards
Chairman
District 1 - Centerville
1513 Beachview Drive
VA Beach, VA 23464
495-3551 (h) • 717-0259 (cell)
Sandra Smith -Jones
Vice Chairman
District 2 — Kempsville
705 Rock Creek Court
VA Beach, VA 23462
490-8167(h)
Rita Sweet Bellitto
At -Large
P.O. Box 64909
VA Beach, VA 23467
418.0960(h)
Jane S. Brooks
District 6 - Beach
721 Hilltop Road
VA Beach, VA 23454
425.1597 (h)
Emma L. "Em" Davis
District 5 - Lynnhaven
1125 Michaelwood Drive
VA Beach, VA 23452
340.8911 (h)
Edward F. Fissinger, Sr.
At -Large
412 Becton Place
VA Beach, VA 23452
486-4567(h)
Dan R.Lowe
District 4 - Bayside
4617 Red Coat Road
VA Beach, VA 23455
490-3681 (h)
Michael W. Stewart
District 3 - Rose Hall
105 Brentwood Court
VA Beach, VA 23452
498-4303 (h) • 445-4637 (w)
Arthur T. Tate
At -Large
1709 Ladysmith Mews
VA Beach, VA 23455
460-5451(h)
Carolyn D. Weems
At -Large
1420 Claudia Drive
VA Beach, VA 23455
464-6674(h)
Lois S. Williams, Ph.D.
District 7 — Princess Anne
2532 Las Corrales Court
VA Beach, VA 23456
816-6107 (cell) • 961.3734 (w)
INTERIM
SUPERINTENDENT
Sheila S. Magula, Ed.D.
2512 George Mason Drive
VA Beach, VA 23456
263.1007
IRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
RESOLUTION REGARDING FY 2004/05 REVERSION FUNDS
WHEREAS, On September 20, 2005 the School Board was presented with a summary of the un-audited financial statement
for FY 2004/05 realizing $4,614,210 in additional revenue and $5,826.628 in expenditure savings resulting in total reversion
funds of $10,440,838; and
WHEREAS, the Administration recommends the following uses for the $10,440,838 million:
• $ 660,000 to CIP 1-01 1 for the replacement of service and fleet vehicles
• $ 800,000 to CIP 1-237 for Phase II of the HR/PR system
• $1,487,122 to CIP 1-195 for K-12 Enterprise Grade Book
• $ 2,600,000 to Fund 108 Instructional Technology for the instructional technology replacement cycle
• $ 1,032,716 to CIP 1-21 1 for School Plant
• $ 1,500,000 to CIP 1 -0 11 for bus replacements —funding in the Operating Budget for bus replacements to be used
as a reserve for rising fuel prices
• $2,000,000 to Fund 495, CIP project 1-020 Ocean Lakes High School, concurrent with a $2,000,000 adjustment in
the allocation of the FY 05/06 Revenue Sharing Funds such that FY 05/06 PAYGO is reduced by $2,000,000 in CIP
1-020 Ocean Lakes High School, and Fund 115, School Operating Budget is increased $1,899,641 and Fund 114,
Food Services is increased $100,359. The additional allocation in the operating and food services funds will be used
to increase the health insurance subsidy effective January I, 2006 to $4,430 (currently budgeted at $4,100 ) in order
to reduce the disparity with the city health insurance subsidy (currently set at $4,585 effective January I, 2006)
• $ 200,000 to Fund 115 School Operating Budget, Operations and Maintenance category for equipment and
replacement vehicles for School Landscape Services
• $ 75,000 to CIP 1 -0 11 for custodial equipment
• $ 86,000 to CIP 1 -0 11 for storage for testing materials
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Board approves the recommended uses of the FY 2004/05 reversion as presented by the
Administration; and be it further
RESOLVED: That a request be made of City Council to appropriate $7,547,122 of these funds by October 11, 2005 in
order to facilitate the following:
• $ 660,000 to CIP 1-01 1 for the replacement of service and fleet vehicles
• $ 800,000 to CIP 1-237 for Phase II of the HR/PR system
• $1,487,122 to CIP 1-195 for K-12 Enterprise Grade Book
• $2,600,000 to Fund 108 Instructional Technology for the instructional technology replacement cycle
• $2,000,000 to Fund 495, CIP project 1-020 Ocean Lakes High School, concurrent with a $2,000,000 adjustment in
the allocation of the FY 05/06 Revenue Sharing Funds such that FY 05/06 PAYGO is reduced by $2,000,000 in CIP
1-020 Ocean Lakes High School, and Fund 115, School Operating Budget is increased $1,899,641 and Fund 114,
Food Services is increased $100,359. The additional allocation in the operating and food services funds will be used
to increase the health insurance subsidy effective January 1, 2006 to $4,430 (currently budgeted at $4,100 ) in order
to reduce the disparity with the city health insurance subsidy (currently set at $4,585 effective January I, 2006)
RESOLVED: That the remaining $2,893,716 be requested for re -appropriation by City Council as soon thereafter as
possible; and be it further
RESOLVED: That a copy of this resolution be spread across the official minutes of this Board, and the Clerk of the Board is
directed to deliver a copy of this resolution to the Mayor, each member of City Council, the City Manager, and the City
Clerk.
Adopted by the School Board of the City of Virginia Beach this�4th dayofOctober,
,22005
SEAL DanieCEAW*1fPOrS A TRUE
AND CORRECTCOPY
Attestu J F lx.&40L. u-o(,vi
Dianne P. Alexander, Clerk of the Board
ark. School Board of the
City of V1rgir lia. ,
School Administration Building • 2512 George Mason Drive • P.O. Box 6038 • Virginia Beach, VA 23456-0038
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Amendment to the FY 2005-06 Capital Budget:
Supplemental Appropriation of $7,640,838 in School
Reversion Funds to School Capital Projects
On Tuesday, October 25, 2005, the Council of the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia, will hold a Public Hearing on a
proposed amendment to the FY 2005-2006 Capital Budget.
The amendment proposes a supplemental appropriation of
$7,640,838 in Virginia Beach School Reversion Funds to
the following School capital projects: Equipment and
Vehicle Replacement; School Operating Budget Support;
School Human Resources/Payroll System; Student Data
Management System; and Ocean Lakes High School
Addition. A copy of the proposed ordinance, which details
the amounts of the appropriation for each project, is on file
in the City Clerk's Office.
The Public Hearing will be conducted at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber on the second floor, City Hall Building,
Municipal Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Individuals
desiring to provide oral or written comments may do so by
contacting the City Clerk's office at 427-4303. If you are
physically disabled or visually impaired and need
assistance at this meeting, please call 427-4303. Hearing
impaired, call Virginia Relay at 1-800-828-1120.
Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC
City Clerk
Note:
1. Advertisement to appear in the Beacon on Sunday,
October 16, 2005. Deadline Tuesday, Oct. 11.
r' in" �.
z • r
.; t ? r
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate $15,000 from the Virginia Department of Motor
Vehicles to the Police Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget to Conduct Lectures
to Demonstrate the Consequences of Driving Under the Influence
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background: The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") has awarded the City
a DUI Education grant. The grant funding will enable the Police Department's Selective
Enforcement Team to conduct lectures twice a month from now until September 30, 2006, to
demonstrate the consequences of driving under the influence. These presentations will include
statistics, photos, and a question -and -answer session. Officers, on paid overtime, will also be
looking for intoxicated drivers during the hours that most impaired drivers are on the roadways.
This grant provides $15,000 of DMV funding and requires a $3,750 match. The Police
Department has identified $3,750 of overtime funds to provide the required matching funds.
■ Considerations: These funds will be used to educate citizens in Virginia Beach about
DUI laws and the consequences of driving under the influence.
■ Public Information: Public information will be provided through the normal Council
Agenda process.
■ Recommendations: Accept and appropriate the grant award of $15,000 from the DMV.
■ Attachments: Ordinance and Grant Award Letter
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Police Department
City Manager. IL Wl-,
7v
1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE $15,000
2 FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
3 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S FY 2005-06
4 OPERATING BUDGET TO CONDUCT LECTURES TO
5 DEMONSTRATE THE CONSEQUENCES OF DRIVING UNDER
6 THE INFLUENCE
7
8
9 WHEREAS, The Police Department has identified $3,750 in
10 matching funds to support this grant.
11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
12 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
13 That $15,000 is hereby accepted from the Virginia Department
14 of Motor Vehicles and appropriated to the Police Department's FY
15 2005-06 Operating Budget to provide funding for lectures
16 demonstrating the consequences of driving under the influence, with
17 state revenue increased accordingly.
18 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
19 Virginia, on the day of , 2005.
Requires an affirmative Vote by a majority of the members of
the City Council.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
-.8 "l ��l L
Management Services
CA9776
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\DUI Ed. Grant ORD
R-2
October 12, 2005
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
J
City Attorney' Office
70MMM®NWEA1LTH of VIRG11NIA
Office of the Governor
Pierce R. Homer P.O. Box 1475
Secretary of Transportation Richmond, Virginia 23218
September 12, 2005
Mr. Raymond Eisenberg, Captain
Virginia Beach City
2509 Princess Anne Road
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
Dear Mr. Eisenberg:
(804) 786-8032
Fax:(804) 786-6683
M: (800) 828-1120
Safety has been and will continue to be a high priority in Virginia's overall transportation
system. Governor Mark R. Warner and I are committed to ensuring that safety is the highest priority in
the development of the Commonwealth's multi -modal transportation system.
I am pleased to inform you the highway safety project proposal(s) listed below have been
approved for federal fiscal year 2006 pass -through grant funding.
Project Title
Teen Seat Belt Usage
DUI Education
Amount Approved
$12,600
$15,000
The availability of funds under this grant is contingent upon two conditions: (1) the project
manager and the person responsible for the voucher/financial management of your grant must attend a
grantee workshop and (2) the release of federal funds to the Commonwealth. The enclosed
information provides the dates and locations regarding this mandatory training.
The approved project application(s) and the memorandum of conditions from James Bradford,
Jr., DMV Assistant Commissioner of Transportation, will be provided to your project director during
the training session. As the recipient of a FY06 grant award, it is important that you read and follow
this information carefully. If you should have any questions regarding the conditions, please contact
the project monitor assigned to your grant.
I hope that your project will have a positive impact on highway safety for all Virginians.
Thank you for your interest in improving highway safety.
Sincerely,
Pierce R. Homer
Enclosure
r Et �sY�� g+1i
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate $12,600 from the Virginia Department of Motor
Vehicles to the Police Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget to Conduct Surveys
on Seatbelt Usage Within High Schools
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background: The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") has awarded the City
a Teen Seat -Belt Usage grant in the amount of $12,600. The grant will enable the Police
Department's Selective Enforcement Team to conduct surveys throughout Virginia Beach until
September 30, 2006, to gather statistics on seatbelt usage. School resource officers will
present these statistics as part of an in-depth presentation to high school students regarding
seatbelt laws and the consequences of not using seatbelts. Officers, on paid overtime, will then
be tasked with enforcing seatbelt laws around high schools after the presentation has taken
place.
This grant provides $12,600 of DMV funding and requires a $3,150 match. The Police
Department has identified $3,150 of overtime money as matching funds.
■ Considerations: These funds will be used to educate students in Virginia Beach about
seatbelt laws and the consequences of not using seatbelts.
■ Public Information: Public information will be provided through the normal Council
Agenda process.
■ Recommendations: Accept and appropriate the grant award of $12,600 from the DMV.
■ Attachments: Ordinance and Grant Award Letter
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agenc Police Department
City Manager. %'11-t
1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE $12,600
2 FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
3 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S FY 2005-06
4 OPERATING BUDGET TO CONDUCT SURVEYS ON
5 SEATBELT USAGE WITHIN HIGH SCHOOLS
6 WHEREAS, The Police Department has identified $3,150 in
7 matching funds to support this grant.
8 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
9 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
10 That $12,600 is hereby accepted from the Virginia Department
11 of Motor Vehicles and appropriated to the Police Department's FY
12 2005-06 Operating Budget to provide funding to conduct surveys on
13 seatbelt usage within high schools, with state revenue increased
14 accordingly.
15 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
16 Virginia, on the day of , 2005.
Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of
the City Council.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
-L� /
3 a.b
Fe�
Management Services A City Attorney's ffice
CA9775
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Teen Seat Belt ORD
R-3
October 14, 2005
m
ff
UY
Office of the Governor
Pierce R. Homer P.O. Box 1475
Secretary of Transportation Richmond, Virginia 23218
September 12, 2005
Mr. Raymond Eisenberg, Captain
Virginia Beach City
2509 Princess Anne Road
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
Dear Mr. Eisenberg:
(804) 786-8032
Fax:(804) 786-6683
M:(800) 828-1120
Safety has been and will continue to be a high priority in Virginia's overall transportation
system. Governor Mark R. Warner and I are committed to ensuring that safety is the highest priority in
the development of the Commonwealth's multi -modal transportation system.
I am pleased to inform you the highway safety project proposal(s) listed below have been
approved for federal fiscal year 2006 pass -through grant funding.
Project Title
Teen Seat Belt Usage
DUI Education
Amount Approved
$12,600
$15,000
The availability of funds under this grant is contingent upon two conditions: (1) the rp oject
manager and the person responsible for the voucher/financial management of your grant must attend a
grantee workshop and (2) the release of federal funds to the Commonwealth. The enclosed
information provides the dates and locations regarding this mandatory training.
The approved project application(s) and the memorandum of conditions from James Bradford,
Jr., DMV Assistant Commissioner of Transportation, will be provided to your project director during
the training session. As the recipient of a FY06 grant award, it is important that you read and follow
this information carefully. If you should have any questions regarding the conditions, please contact
the project monitor assigned to your grant.
I hope that your project will have a positive impact on highway safety for all Virginians.
Thank you for your interest in improving highway safety.
Sincerely,
Pierce R. Homer
Enclosure
i4 �c�f
i� T.J
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Transfer $500,000 Within the FY 2005-06 Operating
Budget to Establish a Reserve for BRAC-Related Expenses
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background: On August 24, 2005, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission (`BRAG') recommended the realignment of Naval Air Station
Oceana by relocating the Master Jet Base to Cecil Field, Florida, if the
Commonwealth of Virginia and the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake fail
to enact and enforce legislation to prevent further encroachment of NAS Oceana
by the end of March 2006.
The City will incur significant expenses as it gathers information needed to make
an informed decision as to the best course of action to pursue. These expenses
could not have been foreseen at the time the FY 2005-06 budget was adopted.
■ Considerations: The City will incur expenses related to BRAC for legal and
professional services, media and public relations expenses, printing, postage,
and other related expenses and services.
This ordinance will authorize the transfer of $500,000 from the FY 2005-06
Operating Budget Reserve for Contingencies to establish a Reserve for BRAC-
Related Expenses.
■ Public Information: Public information will be disseminated through the normal
Council agenda process.
■ Alternatives: Process BRAC-Related Expenses through the regular Reserve for
Contingencies without establishing a dedicated reserve.
■ Recommendations: Adopt the ordinance to amend the FY 2005-06 Operating
Budget by transferring $500,000 from the Reserve for Contingencies to a newly
established Reserve for BRAC-Related Expenses.
■ Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Management Services-9ra'�4"
City Manager: �L .
1 AN ORDINANCE TO TRANSFER $500,000 WITHIN
2 THE FY 2005-06 OPERATING BUDGET TO
3 ESTABLISH A RESERVE FOR BRAC-RELATED
4 EXPENSES
5 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
6 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
7 That $500,000 is hereby transferred from within the FY
8 2005-06 Operating Budget Reserve for Contingencies to establish a
9 dedicated Reserve for Contingencies—BRAC-Related Expenses, for
10 legal and other professional services, media and public relations
11 expenses, printing, postage, and other related expenses and
12 services, as needed.
13 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
14 Virginia, on the day of , 2005.
Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of City
Council.
Approved As to Content: Approved As To Legal
Sufficiency:
'�� on�� a �
Management Services
CA9779
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\BRAC Reserve ORD
R-5
October 14, 2005
City Attorney' Office
a�
4L,
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — Amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance (repeal
Section 221.1 and add new Article 18, Sections 1800 through 1807)
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background:
An Ordinance to amend and reordain the City Zoning Ordinance (Appendix A) by
repealing Section 221.1, pertaining to specific standards for conditional uses
within certain Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) and by adding a
new Article 18 thereto, consisting of Sections 1800 through 1806, establishing
the policy of the City Council pertaining to discretionary development applications
and sound attenuation requirements in buildings and structures in certain Air
Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ).
■ Considerations:
In 2004 and 2005, the Cities of Virginia Beach, Norfolk and Chesapeake joined
with the Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to craft a
regional Joint Land Use Study (JLUS). The JLUS was adopted by the Virginia
Beach City Council in May of 2005. One recommendation of the JLUS was that
the City adopt an ordinance applying to all noise zones greater than 65 dB DNL
to help prevent encroachment. These new regulations are established by Article
18 and named the "Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Overlay
District."
The AICUZ Overlay District applies only to discretionary development
applications for uses that are not compatible with the Noise Zones and Accident
Potential Zones. The ordinance makes it clear that where an application in not
compatible, but is the only reasonable use, the City Council shall approve the
proposed use at the least density or intensity that is reasonable. The ordinance
does not deal with the condemnation of property in Accident Potential Zone 1. It
applies only to future applications in noise zones greater than 65dB DNL for
rezonings, conditional use permits and other discretionary applications to the City
Council where the proposed use or structure would result in an increase in
occupancy load. The proposed JLUS Overlay District is in keeping with the
recommendations of the Joint Land Use Study adopted by City Council in May of
2005.
City of Virginia Beach
Page 2of2
There were speakers in support of the amendments and speakers that
expressed concerns.
Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to
approve these amendments as revised by the City Attorney's Office prior to the
public hearing. Note: the revised amendments recommended for approval are
attached.
■ Attachments:
Staff Review
Revised Amendments
Planning Commission Minutes
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
City Manager:l� .�
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AMENDMENT TO CITY ZONING ORDINANCE
1) REPEAL SECTION- 221.1
2) ADD NEW ARTICLE 18, SECTIONS
1800 THROUGH 1807
Agenda Item #8
October 12, 2005 Public Hearing
REQUEST:
An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain the City Zoning Ordinance (Appendix A) by
repealing Section 221.1, pertaining to specific standards for conditional uses within
certain Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) and by adding a new Article 18
thereto, consisting of Sections 1800 through 1807, establishing the policy of the City
Council pertaining to discretionary development applications and sound attenuation
requirements in buildings and structures in certain Air Installations Compatible Use
Zones (AICUZ).
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
In 2004 and 2005, the Cities of Virginia Beach, Norfolk and Chesapeake joined with the
Navy and the Hampton /Roads Planning District Commission to craft a regional Joint
Land Use Study (JLUS). The JLUS was adopted by the Virginia Beach City Council in
May of 2005. One recommendation of the JLUS was that the City adopt an ordinance
applying to all noise zones greater than 65 DB DNL to help prevent encroachment.
These new regulations are established by Article 18 and named the "Air Installations
Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Overlay District." The AICUZ Overlay District applies
only to discretionary development applications for uses that are not compatible with the
Noise Zones and Accident Potential Zones. The ordinance makes it clear that where an
application in not compatible, but is the only reasonable use, the City Council shall
approve the proposed use at the least density or intensity that is reasonable. The
ordinance does not deal with the condemnation of property in Accident Potential Zone
1. It applies only to future applications for rezonings, conditional use permits, the
enlargement of nonconforming uses where the total occupancy load would increase and
street closures that increase occupancy load.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH- AICUZ OVERLAY: ORDINANCE
Agenda Item # 8
Page 1
Lines 45 through 81 delete Section 221.1, the standards for conditional use permits
located within the Airport Noise Zones and Accident Potential Zones, which were
adopted in 1994. The amendment creates a new Article 18, Special Regulations in Air
Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ). The new Article will be called the AICUZ
Overlay District. The purpose and intent, of the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance is articulated
in Section 1801. Section 1802 lists the findings of the City Council underlying the AICUZ
Overlay Ordinance.
Section 1803 on applicability, indicates that the AICUZ Overlay District will apply only to
discretionary development applications in the Accident Potential Zones and in the 70 —
75 and >75 dB DNL Noise Zones. It also clarifies the type of applications that will be
impacted by the AICUZ Overlay District. In addition, Section 1803 contains the tables
that designate whether or not a use is compatible or not compatible in the Accident
Potential Zones and in the 70 — 75 and >75 Noise Zones.
Section 1805 provides that sound attenuation measures be incorporated into uses and
structures in Noise Zones 65 —70, 70 — 75 and >75 dB DNL where required by the
Virginia Statewide Building Code. This Code has required sound attenuation in
residential structures and was recently amended to require sound attenuation in
Assembly, Business, Educational, Institutional and Mercantile Use Groups.
Item #11 on this agenda establishes the Interfacility Traffic Area within the Princess
Anne/Transition Area. The Interfacility Traffic Area is located between NAS Ocean and
NALF Fentress and is subject to a high volume of military jet traffic. Section 1806 of the
AICUZ Overlay District limits the maximum allowed density in the Interfacility Traffic
Area to one dwelling unit per 5 acres of developable land in the 70 — 75 dB DNL Noise
Zone and to one dwelling unit per 15 acres in the >75 dB DNL Noise Zone. These
maximum densities are subject to the provisions of Section 405, the Alternative
Residential Development in Agricultural Districts.
Section 1807 contains reservation of powers and severability clauses.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed JLUS Overlay District is in keeping with the recommendations of the Joint
Land Use Study adopted by City Council in May of 2005 and approval is
recommended.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH- AICUZ OVE
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN THE CITY
2 ZONING ORDINANCE (APPENDIX A) BY REPEALING
3 SECTION 221.1, PERTAINING TO SPECIFIC
4 STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USES WITHIN
5 CERTAIN AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE
6 ZONES (AICUZ) AND BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE 18
7 THERETO, CONSISTING OF SECTIONS 1800 THROUGH
8 1807, ESTABLISHING THE POLICY OF THE CITY
9 COUNCIL PERTAINING TO DISCRETIONARY
10 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND SOUND
11 ATTENUATION REQUIREMENTS IN BUILDINGS AND
12 STRUCTURES IN CERTAIN AIR INSTALLATIONS
13 COMPATIBLE USE ZONES (AICUZ)
14
15
16 Section Repealed: City Zoning Ordinance
17 §221.1
18
19 Sections Added: City Zoning Ordinance H
20 1800, 1801, 1802, 180-3, 1804, 1805, 1806 and
21 1807
22
23
24 Whereas, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare
25 and good zoning practice so require;
26 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
27 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
28 That the City Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and
29 reordained by the repeal of Section 221.1, pertaining to
30 specific standards for conditional uses within certain Air
31 Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) and by the addition
32 of a new Article 18 thereto, pertaining to regulations
33 applicable to property in certain Air Installations Compatible
34 Use Zones (AICUZ), which shall read as follows:
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
ARTICLE 2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES APPLICABLE
TO ALL DISTRICTS
C. CONDITIONAL USES AND STRUCTURES.
Sec. 221.1. Sreeifre standards fereertain eenditienal uses
1eeated within al rpert newse--andaireraft
aeeident petential zenes. (Repealed].
--- - -- -- -- ---- - - - - - - -- -rye^
•=-=--•�� �o.e�_._.:�-,e�.:.o�. -moo - - o - - - o�G �- - - - -�=-
2
Aires Z CharC ete st
Te .7e,..t
2' SL�2"QGTT�
Petential Zene
� (eleitr zene) An area extending
e ttw trd fr-e;}c-rhe thresheld of an
aeti re runway whieh pessesse Ta high
pet-e-'=ti a l f e r a ee i deems-
APZ -1 An urea eXtending eutward € rem —a
elea�
GZ Clear zene (all in neise ?e
A-1-/greater than 75 dB Aire:aft aeeident petential—zen
Irein �n -e .ere?ene-greater than 7S dB Ldn
APB-I-/9 7S dBLd�n Aire :aft aee-identpetenialzeneT
ee is e z e n e79 7S dBLdn
APB -!!/greater than 7ram-dB Ares€tree-ident pet-enti-al zene11,
Ldn ne se Zene-greater than 7S dB-Ldrn
2 PZ 11/70 7S dB Ldn -€�T T
�e�=a-e-ee-rde}� -��-e� l e�-�z e�rT-
e r sezene 79 T dB Ldn
refs t i- + 1> tir haraeterrsti e-
-Y rmr �-
r +- ibl
Y(a) Gempatible with aeeusstieal treatffienta
fer reef�eeili zgs/ exterierYuris 39
STTG, deers/ windews 2S STG.
Y(b) Gempat i b l e with -a eeu s-t i elz-eatments
f e r reef e e dings/e3Ete==er- walls 44
ST-Cdeer-s / windews 33 GTG .
Y (e) Gempatible-with a e eae t i^ltreutmen a
f e r = ee f/ ee i l i ng / e3eteiaie r-walla 49
STD eers/-windews- 8 STD
iN piece - - - r , t i b ..
p TEc
(1) Airera€t aeeident petential z-en_s apply enly te militar1'
„fief
3
Use
G
!�>7s
dB Ldn
1,1
11/70
TJ
dB n
>75
d-B
Idn
70 75
dB Ldn
6S %G
dB Td
C%U-'Y.Id
Auditoriums,
i
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y (b)
TAT
assembly, unend
binge .,J^ h -. l l .,
'
Eniid
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y(b)
Y4a+
eare eenters
Gh rehes
ehape-le
N
N
N
N
N
is
Y (b)
Y(a)
Clubs,
N
N
_
N
N
N
Y(e)
Y(b)
Y(a)
prrvate—er
-.thiet,
univers;t,
Cenvaieseeyes
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
r,,mm r,,;
N
-Y
-Y
-Y
3F
-Y
y
y
al
L.,t; , i,ar;,.,v;,
establishments
N
N
N
N
N
Y(e)
T(b)
Y(a)
faanuf t,
.e€erage—and
F-amiiyear-ehefaes
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y(b)
Y-�a+
Fr-,t rn t., _ a
sererit, h. uses
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y(b)
Y(a)
Greup
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y(b)
Y4-a4-
He Res €e r aged,
disabled
handieapped
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y(b)
Y(a)
v,.spita &
sanitariums
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y(b)
Y(a)
gel s—&: filet e l s
N
N
N
N
N
Y4e-�
Y(b)
reereat , - l
F - l ; t ,
es
Fraternal
�''r'aternal l- �J
N
N
N
N
N
Y (e)
Y (b)
TV4-a4-
s
—ledges
-,
Maternity hemes
N
N
N
N
N
N
T� (b)
T
Y-- a,T
bi Meles he _ rL.,
N
N
N
N
N
N
T -(br
TTa
M,,se,,ms -n art
,e1�
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y (b)
Y
M..,-.aster; a an ,-7
eenvents
N
N
N
N
N
N
�T
Y(a)T
Multiple € mill
`dw r wr�-lT4+199
N
N
N
N
N
N
()
Y(a)
Nurses' hemes &
similar he,,-,.--
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y(b)
Y(a)
8eer
reereat , - l
F- l i t i
ee
eampgre:unds
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
ftRusieShells
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
faeilities
Passenger
terminals
N
-Y
-Y
-Y
-Y
-Y
-Y
-Y
preeessing
Private l�J .
N
i*�Ti
£�TF
N
y F�
-Y (yam)
Y4-��
}
Private s�.�
�N
N
N
N
N
N
NV/^
Y(b)
TTa+
Stellate
N
N
N
N
N
+ \e/
+ \b/
Y(a)
e
Shelter€er far
N
N
N
N
N
N
°')
m
Theaters €6r live
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y (#)
Y(a)
preduetien
70
)
Permitted TY—i mt
71 (
72
bisEms+ alad veS-t--: gh _
of this seetien- shall netaffeet any uses
73 permit ersen by right er any _.__st_--
74 rigors of any persear-underemisting law. N_th_r J
75 in th\"'is seetien shall be eenstrued te— ffeet the
76 pr= =-siears
of any reeerded easement entered inte
77 between the
United
79 ewner er eeedpant of preperty leeated within an
80 airera t a-eeident petential zene—ems an a±rpeict
81ea1ere—
ml
55
84 COMMENT
85 The provisions of this Section are superseded by those contained in new Article 18
86 which, among other things, establishes restrictions on conditional uses in Accident
87 Potential Zones (APZs) and Noise Zones 70- 7 5 dB DNL and >75 dB DNL.
88
89
90 . . . .
91
92 ARTICLE 18. Special Regulations in Air Installations
93 Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ)
94
95 Sec. 1800. Title.
96 This Article shall be known as the Air Installations
97 Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Overlay Ordinance of the City of
98 Virginia Beach.
100 Sec. 1801. Purpose and intent.
101 The purpose of this Article is to regulate, in a manner
102 consistent with the rights of individual property owners and the
103 recruirements of military operations at Naval Air Station (NAS
104 Oceana, development of uses and structures that are incompatible
105 with military operations; to sustain the economic health of the
106 City and Hampton Roads Region; to protect and preserve the
107 public health, safetv and welfare from the adverse impacts
108
associated
with
high levels of noise from
flight operations at
109
NAS Oceana
and
the potential for aircraft
accidents associated
110 with proximity to airport operations; and to maintain the
0
ill overall quality of life of those who live, work and recreate in
112 the City of Virginia Beach.
113
114 The section sets forth the purpose and intent of the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance.
115
116
117 Sec. 1802. Findings.
118
The
City Council
hereby
finds
that:
119
(a)
Naval Air
Station
(NAS)
Oceana was first established
120 as an auxiliary airfield in 194:3 and was designated as a major
121 Navv let air base in the 1950s. It is now one of the largest
122 Navy air bases in the country and is the Master Jet Base for the
123
Navy's Atlantic
Fleet. NAS
Oceana is a
vital
component in
the
124
architecture of
the Defense
Department's
joint
service method
of
125 operational planning and execution and in the newly -emerging
126 inter -agency approach to meeting homeland defense requirements;
127 (b) NAS Oceana is the single largest employer in the City
128 of Virginia Beach. In 2003, it had a gross annual payroll of
129 over $750 million and spent another $400 million for goods and
130 services. In that year, over 12,000 personnel, comprised of
131 nearly 9,800 military and over 2,500 civilian employees, were
132 employed there. Most of those employees live within the
133
community,
infusing
additional benefits into the local
economy,
134
primarily
through
spending and spousal employment
salaries.
7
135 When considering the personal impact of the military in the
136 community, the economic benefit exceeds $1 billion annually;
137 (c) There are more than 30,000 acres of land in areas
138 within the 70-75 dB DNL or >75 dB DNL Noise Zones.
139 Approximately 4,200 acres of this land is encumbered by
140 easements or restrictive covenants that limit the uses of the
141 land to those that are not incompatible with flight operations
142 arising out of NAS Oceana;
143 (d) Encroachment by incompatible land uses has occurred
144 since the installation's inception, and includes the type of
145 high -density, residential and commercial development that now
146 threatens the viability of the station's mission;
147 (e) In August 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure
148 (BRAC) Commission added to the list of installations to be
149 closed or realigned the recommendation to realign
150 NAS Oceana by relocating the Atlantic Fleet's East Coast Master
151 Jet Base to Cecil Field in Jacksonville, Florida if, among other
152 things, the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake fail to
153 enact and enforce legislation to prevent further encroachment of
154 NAS Oceana by the end of March 2006 by adopting zoning
155 ordinances that require the governing bodies to follow Air
156 Installations Compatibility Use Zone (AICUZ) guidelines in
157 deciding discretionary development applications for property in
1.1
158 Noise Level 70 dB Day Night Average Noise Level (DNL) or
159 greater;
160 (f) The closure or realignment of NAS Oceana would have
161 serious adverse economic consequences to the City and the
162 region; and
163 (g) In 2004 and 2005, the City of Virginia Beach, along
164 with the cities of Norfolk and Chesapeake, joined with the Navy
165 and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to craft a
166 regional Joint Land Use Study (JLUS). Among the recommendations
167 of the JLUS was that the City adopt an ordinance applicable in
168 all noise zones greater than 65 dB DNL to help prevent
169 encroachment at NAS Oceana. The JLUS was accepted by resolution
170 of the City Council in May of 2005 and the City Council directed
171 that appropriate ordinances implementing the recommendations of
172 the JLUS be brought forward for its consideration.
173
174
175
176 COMMENT
177
178 The section sets forth the findings of the City Council underlying the AICUZ Overlay
179 Ordinance.
180
181
182 Sec. 1803. Applicability.
183 (a) Area of applicability. Except as provided in Section
184 1805, the provisions of this Article shall apply to
0
185 discretionary development applications for any property located
186 within an Accident Potential Zone (APZ) or Noise Zone 70-75 dB
187 DNL or >75 dB DNL, as shown on the official zoning map, that
188 have not been approved or denied by the City Council as of the
189 date of adoption of this Article. For purposes of this Article,
190 discretionary development applications shall include
191 applications for:
192 1. Rezonings, including conditional zonings;
193 2. Conditional use permits for new uses or
194 structures, or for alterations or enlargements of
195 existing conditional uses where the occupancy
196 load would increase;
197
3. Conversions or enlargements of nonconforming uses
198
or structures, except where the application
199
contemplates the construction of a new building
200
or structure or expansion of an existing use or
201
structure where the total occupancy load would
202
not increase; and
203
4. Street closures where the application
204
contemplates the construction of a new building
205
or structure or the expansion of a use or
206
structure where the total occupancy load is
207
increased.
10
208 COMMENT
209
210 The section provides that the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance applies to discretionary
211 development applications (i.e., those requiring approval of the City Council) for property in
212 Accident Potential Zones (APZs) and in the 70-75 and >75 dB DNL Noise Zones. Applications for
213 conditional use permits and conversions or enlargements of nonconforming structures in which the
214 proposed use or structure would not result in an increase in occupancy load are exempted from the
215 provisions of the section, although they, as all other types of discretionary development application,
216 would remain subject to the City Council's legislative discretion to grant or deny them under
217 general principles of zoning law.
218
219 Sec. 1804. Discretionary development applications; City Council
220 policy.
221
222 (a) Except as provided in Section 1806, it shall be the
223 policy of the City Council that no application included within
224 the provisions of Section 1803 shall be approved unless the uses
225 and structures it contemplates are designated as compatible"
226 under Table 1 below and, if applicable, Table 2 unless the City
227 Council finds that no reasonable use designated as compatible
228 under the applicable Table or Tables can be made of the
229 property. In such cases, the City Council shall, subject to the
230 provisions of Section 1806(a), approve the proposed use of
231 property at the least density or intensity of development that
232 is reasonable.
233 (b) The following tables show the uses designated as
234 Compatible (Y) and those designated as Not Compatible (N) in
235 each listed Noise Zone (Table 1) or Accident Potential Zone
236 (Table 2). The designation of any use as Compatible shall not
11
237 be construed to allow such use in any zoninq district in which
238 it is not permitted as either a principal or conditional use.
239
TABLE 1 - AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN NOISE ZONES
Land Use
Land Use Compatibility
LAND USE NAME
70-75 dB DNL
>75 dB DNL
Residential and Related
Single-family dwellings
N
N
Semidetached dwellings
N
N
Attached dwellings/townhouses
N
N
Duplexes
N
N
Multiple -family dwellings
N
N
Dormitories and other group quarters
N
N
Mobile home parks
N
N
Hotels and motels
N
N
Other residential uses
N
N
Manufacturing
Food & kindred products; manufacturing
Y
Y
Textile mill products; manufacturing
Y
Y
Apparel and other finished products;
Y
Y
products made from fabrics, leather and
similar materials; manufacturing
Lumber and wood products (except
furniture); manufacturing
Y
Y
Furniture and fixtures; manufacturing
Y
Y
Paper and allied products; manufacturing
Y
Y
Printing, publishing, and allied
industries
Y
Y
Chemicals and allied products;
manufacturing
Y
Y
Petroleum refining and related
industries
Y
Y
Rubber and misc. plastic products;
Y
Y
manufacturing
Stone, clay and glass products;
manufacturing
Y
Y
Primary metal products; manufacturing
Y
Y
Fabricated metal products; manufacturing
Y
Y
12
TABLE 1 - AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN NOISE ZONES
Land Use
Land Use Compatibility
LAND USE NAME
70-75 dB DNL
>75 dB DNL
Manufacturing (cont'd)
Professional scientific, and controlling
Y
Y
instruments; photographic and optical
goods; watches and clocks
Miscellaneous manufacturing
Y
Y
Transportation, communication and
utilities.`,
Railroad, rapid rail transit, and street
Y
Y
railway transportation
Motor vehicle transportation
Y
Y
Aircraft transportation
Y
Y
Marine craft transportation
Y
Y
Highway and street right-of-way
Y
Y
Automobile parking
Y
Y
Communication
Y
Y
Utilities
Y
y
Other transportation, communication and
Y
Y
utilities
Trade
Wholesale trade
Y
Y
Retail trade - building materials,
Y
Y
hardware and farm equipment
Retail trade - general merchandise
Y
y
Retail trade - food
Y
Y
Retail trade - automotive, marine craft,
Y
Y
aircraft and accessories
Retail trade - apparel and accessories
Y
Y
Services
Retail trade - furniture, home,
furnishings and equipment
Y
y
Retail trade - eating and drinking
Y
Y
establishments
Other retail trade
y
y
Finance, insurance and real estate
Y
Y
services
13
TABLE 1 - AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN NOISE ZONES
Services (cont-d)
Personal services
y
y
Cemeteries
y
y
Business services
y
y
Warehousing and storage
y
y
Repair Services
y
y
Professional services
y
y
Hospitals, other medical fac.
y
N
Nursing Homes
N
N
Contract construction services
y
y
Government Services
y
y
Educational services
y
N
Miscellaneous
y
y
Cultural, entertainment and recreational
Cultural activities (& churches)
y
N
Nature exhibits
N
N
Public assembly halls
N
N
Auditoriums, concert halls
y
N
Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters
N
N
Outdoor sports arenas, spectator sports
y
N
Other outdoor recreational facilities
y
y
Indoor recreational facilities
y
y
Campgrounds
y
N
Parks
y
N
Other cultural, entertainment and
y
N
recreation
Resource Production and Extraction
Agriculture (except live stock)
y
y
Livestock farming
y
N
Animal breeding
y
N
Agriculture related activities
y
y
Forestry Activities
y
y
Fishing Activities
y
y
Mining Activities
y
y
Other resource production or extraction
y
y
240
241
14
TABLE 2-AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES
LAND USE NAME
CLEAR ZONE
APZ-I
APZ-II
Residential
Single-family
N
N
Y
dwellings
Semidetached dwellings
N
N
N
Attached
N
N
N
dwellings/townhouses
Multiple -family
N
N
N
dwellings
Dormitories and other
N
N
N
group quarters
Hotels and motels
N
N
N
Mobile home parks
N
N
N
Other residential
N
N
N
Manufacturing
Food & kindred
N
N
Y
products;
manufacturing
Textile mill
N
N
Y
products;
manufacturing
Apparel and other
N
N
N
finished products;
products made from
fabrics, leather and
similar materials;
manufacturing
Lumber and wood
N
Y
Y
products (except
furniture);
manufacturing
Furniture and
N
Y
Y
fixtures;
manufacturing
Paper and allied
N
Y
Y
products;
manufacturing
Printing,
N
Y
Y
publishing, and allied
industries
15
TABLE 2-AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES
LAND USE NAME
CLEAR ZONE
APZ-I
APZ-II
Manufacturing (con t , d)
Chemicals and allied
N
N
N
products;
manufacturing
Petroleum refining
N
N
N
and related industries
Rubber and misc.
N
N
N
plastic products;
manufacturing
Stone, clay and
N
N
Y
glass products;
manufacturing
Primary metal
N
N
Y
products;
manufacturing
Fabricated metal
N
N
Y
products;
manufacturing
Professional
N
N
N
scientific, &
controlling
instrument;
photographic and
optical goods; watches
& clocks
Miscellaneous
N
Y
Y
manufacturing
Transportation,
communication and
utilities
Railroad, rapid rail
N
Y
Y
transit, and street
railway transportation
Motor vehicle
N
Y
Y
transportation
Aircraft
N
Y
Y
transportation
Marine craft
N
Y
Y
transportation
16
TABLE 2-AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES
LAND USE NAME
CLEAR ZONE
APZ-I
APZ-II
Transportation,
communication and
utilities (cont'd)
Auto parking
N
Y
Y
Communication
N
Y
Y
Utilities
N
Y
Y
Solid waste disposal
N
N
N
(Landfills,
incineration, etc.)
Other transport,
N
Y
Y
comm. and utilities
Trade
Wholesale trade
N
Y
Y
Retail trade -
building materials,
N
Y
Y
hardware and farm
equipment
Retail trade -
general merchandise
N
N
Y
Retail trade - food
N
N
Y
Retail trade -
automotive, marine
craft, aircraft and
N
Y
Y
accessories
Retail trade -
apparel and
accessories
N
N
Y
Retail trade -
furniture, home,
furnishings and
equipment
N
N
Y
Retail trade -
eating and drinking
N
N
N
establishments
Other retail trade
N
N
Y
Services
Finance, insurance
N
N
Y
and real estate
services
17
TABLE 2-AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES
LAND USE NAME
CLEAR ZONE
APZ-I
APZ-II
Trade (con t' d)
Personal services
N
N
Y
Cemeteries
N
Y
Y
Business services
N
N
Y
(credit reporting;
mail, stenographic,
reproduction;
advertising)
Warehousing and
storage services
N
Y
Y
Repair Services
N
Y
Y
Professional
services
N
N
Y
Hospitals, nursing
N
N
N
homes
Other medical
facilities
N
N
N
Contract
construction services
N
Y
Y
Government Services
N
N
Y
Educational services
N
N
N
Miscellaneous
N
N
Y
Cultural,
entertainment and
recreational
Cultural activities
N
N
N
Nature exhibits
N
Y
Y
Public assembly
N
N
N
Auditoriums, concert
N
N_
N_
halls
Outdoor music shells,
N
N
N
amphitheaters
Outdoor sports arenas,
N
N
N_
spectator sports
Indoor recreational
N
Y
Y
facilities
Campgrounds
N
N
N
Parks
N
Y
Y
W?
TABLE 2-AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES
LAND USE NAME
CLEAR ZONE
APZ-I
APZ-II
Cultural,
entertainment and
recreational (cont,d)
Other cultural,
entertainment and
recreation
N
Y
Y
Agriculture (except
Y
Y
Y
live stock
Resource production
and extraction
Livestock farming and
N
Y
Y
breeding
Agriculture related
N
Y
Y
activities
Forestry Activities 11
N
Y
Y
Fishing Activities 12
N
Y
Y
Mining Activities
N
Y
Y
Other resource
production or
extraction
N
Y
Other
Undeveloped Land
Water Areas
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
19
242 COMMENT
243
244 The section sets forth the policy of the City Council that, unless a parcel of property has no
245 reasonable use that is designated as compatible under Table 1 and, if applicable, Table 2, the City
246 Council shall not approve any discretionary development application for that parcel of property
247 that the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance applies to discretionary development applications (i.e., those
248 requiring approval of the City Council) for property in Accident Potential Zones (APZs) and in the
249 70-75 and >75 dB DNL Noise Zones.
250
251 Lines 229-232 make it clear that in cases in which a use proposed by an application is NOT
252 Compatible, but is the only reasonable use, the City Council shall approve the proposed use at the
253 least density or intensity that is reasonable. As an example, if an application contemplates the
254 development of 100 single-family dwellings (which are designated as Not Compatible in 70-75 and
255 >75 dB DNL Noise Zones), the City Council may approve the application with fewer dwelling units
256 density even if there is no reasonable use of the property other than single-family dwellings if it finds
257 that a lesser number of dwelling units would constitute a reasonable use of the property. It is also
258 important to note that, as stated in Section 1806(a), the City Council may exercise its zoning powers
259 to the fullest extent, such that it may deny an application for any valid reason, even if that reason
260 does not involve AICUZ-related considerations.
261
262 The section also contains the tables that designate whether or not a use is Compatible (Y) or
263 Not Compatible (N) in APZs and Noise Zones 70-75 dB DNL and >75 dB DNL.
264
265 Sec. 1805. Sound attenuation.
266 Sound attenuation measures shall be incorporated in anv use
267
or structure located
in Noise
Zones
65-70
dB DNL, 70-75
dB
DNL
268
or >75 dB DNL in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
the
269 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code.
270 COMMENT
271 The section provides that sound attenuation measures are required to be incorporated in
272 uses and structures in Noise Zones 65-70, 70-75 and >75 dB DNL, if required by the Virginia
273 Uniform Statewide Building Code. The Code, which was recently amended to incorporate
274 legislation enacted by the 2005 General Assembly, requires sound attenuation in Assembly,
275 Business, Educational, Institutional and Mercantile Use Groups, as defined in the International
276 Building Code. Sound attenuation in residential structures is already required under the Code.
277
278
279
20
280 Sec. 1806. Allowable residential density in Interfacility
281 Traffic Area
282
283 (a) Subject to the provisions of Section 405 (Alternative
284 Residential Development in Aqricultural Districts), single-
285
family residential
development
in Agricultural Districts shall
286
be permitted as a
conditional
use at the following densitv in
287 that portion of the Princess Anne/Transition Area designated as
288 "Interfacility Traffic Area" on the official zoning map.
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
Noise Zone Maximum Permitted Density (Single -
Family Dwellings)
70-75 dB DNL: One (1) per five (5) acres of
developable land
>75 dB DNL: One (1) per fifteen (15) acres of
developable land
(b) where a tract of land is located within more than one Noise
299 Zone, lots shall be situated, to the extent practicable, on the
300 portion of the tract within the lowest Noise Zone. In such cases, the
301 portion of the tract within the lowest Noise Zone may contain the
302 entire number of dwellings allowable on the acreage of the entire
303 tract.
304 COMMENT
305 The section limits the maximum allowed density in the Interfacility Traffic Area portion of
306 the Princess Anne/Transition Area to one dwelling unit per 5 acres of developable land in the 70-75
307 dB DNL Noise Zone and to one dwelling unit per 15 acres in the >75 dB DNL Noise Zone. Those
308 maximum densities are subject to the provisions of Section 405 (Alternative Residential
309 Development in Agricultural Districts).
310
311
312 Sec. 1807. Reservation of powers; severability.
21
313 (a) Nothing in this Article shall be construed to require
314 the City Council to approve any application solely because it
315 meets the requirements of this Article, it being the intention
316 of this Article that the City Council shall be entitled to
317 exercise its authority in such applications to the fullest
318 extent allowed by law.
319 (b) The provisions of this section shall be severable, it
320 being the intention of the City Council that in the event one or
321 more of the provisions of this section shall be adjudged to be
322 invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this
323 section shall be unaffected by such adjudication.
324 COMMENT
325 The section provides that (1) the City Council shall retain, to the fullest extent, its other
326 powers over discretionary development applications, such that it may deny any application for
327 reasons not related to AICUZ considerations; and (2) the provisions of the section shall be deemed
328 severable, such that if one or more of its provisions are held to be invalid or unenforceable by a
329 court, the remaining provisions are to remain unaffected. While such language is not binding upon
330 a court, it raises a legal presumption that the invalid provision may be stricken, leaving the others
331 intact.
332
333 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
334 Virginia on the day of , 2005.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
`IAY/I(1n/yyr/wJ.SUFFICIENCY:
Planni g Department City Attorney's Office
CA-9596
OID\ordres\AICUZ Overlay Ordinance.doc
R-12
October 12, 2005
22
Page 1 of 1
Karen Lasley
From: YDogzilla@cs.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:06 AM
To: Faith Christie; Karen Lasley; Melisa A. Chimienti; Tom Pauls; Bob Scott; James Spore; Stephen J.
White; Deborah Zywna
Subject: Heads Up! - fyi
To: Old Beach Neighborhood Email List
Re: Upcoming Proposed Development Restrictions
Dear Neighbor,
With the exception of Richard Maddox, it seems that City Council is determined to save the Oceana jets at ALL
COST and Old Beach is now on the chopping block. The upcoming proposed "Joint Land Use Study ("JLUS")
Zoning Overlay" will affect property in the 70-75 noise zone, which is basically everything west of mid -block
between Baltic and Med. If you are east of Baltic in the 65-70 zone, DO NOT think you are home free! The
BRAC has concerns with 70 and above, but when their commission expires in March the Navy takes over and
their concerns start with the 65 zone. It could just be a matter of time before all of us are in the same sinking
boat!
Here's the situation - since the majority of the homes and lots in Old Beach are "nonconforming" -- meaning that
the lots are small and the homes do not sit within the current setbacks -- you will not be able to make any
additions or add an allowed unit unless everything fits into the current setbacks (called "by right" development).
What this means is that for you to exercise your property rights, you will have to tear down your existing home
and rebuild only what is allowed "by right." (If this sounds insane, it is!) Since our current setbacks are so
screwed up (which was why we were doing the Old Beach Neighborhood Zoning Overlay, a document that is now
gathering dust), this will force the 3-story box or doublebox development and we will end up looking like Shore
Drive and the North End. If your lot is 30'-40' wide, I hope you like what you have now because you will never be
able to have anything different unless you like very narrow houses!
A question I have is, "Why is City Council willing to destroy our property values and our chance to be a premier
cottage community, only to bring in louder jets?" If you think the jet noise is bad now, just wait 3-5 years. I
understand that the next generation of jets will be "earth shattering" and will make the F-18s "sound like a
whisper."
The proposed "JLUS Overlay" goes to the Planning Commission tomorrow and then to City Council on October
25th. PLEASE email all of these people ASAP and ask them to defer this issue until all of the facts on Oceana
have been gathered. Send your email to the City Clerk, Ruth Smith, at ctycncl@vbgov.com, and ask her to
distribute it to members of the Planning Commission and City Council.
Please plan to attend the City Council meeting on October 25th at 6 p.m. If you can make it to the Planning
Commission meeting tomorrow (Noon at City Council Chambers), that would be great. We will have an update at
the civic league meeting on October 24th.
After all of the work that has been done in Old Beach, it breaks my heart to know that we are going to loose our
cute little cottages and instead have 3-story "Garage Mahals."
Barbara Yates
428-8052
1 0/11 /2005
Page 1 of 1
Karen Lasley��'Gj
From: Michael O'Neil [michaelscottoneil@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:59 AM
To: Ruth H. Smith; Richard A. Maddox; Bob Scott; Tom Pauls; Planning Administration; Jeannette M.
Smith; Karen Lasley; Deborah Zywna
Cc: CMA1776@aol.com; YDogzilla@cs.com; Betsy McBride
Subject: October 12, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting - Input
Dear Planning Staff:
Please ensure this letter is given to members of the City Council and Planning Commission.
Dear Planning Commission members:
Please defer all items that would alter our current Zoning Ordinance until after the work groups formed to analyze NAS
Oceana impacts have finished their job, the independent firm has finished its analysis of the economic impacts of complying
with the BRAC demands, and especially not until citizens are allowed to provide input on this matter. It would be
unconscionable to act before all have been obtained.
Please ensure the following will be part of the analysis of the economic impact:
• Lost revenue from decreasing density at the Oceanfront, contrary to the SOM study.
• Increased expenses from lawsuits by these owners.
• Lost revenue from unrealized additional redevelopment opportunities (if we build up the Oceanfront, more areas
would be redeveloped, e.g., Virginia Beach Boulevard).
• Lost revenue from unrealized additional tourist income (more cafes and coffee shops and less T-shirt shops).
The Virginian-Pilot's City Page of October 6, 2005 stated, "No actions will be taken until the facts are weighed and citizens
have the opportunity to voice their views."
If you take action on this matter, it will be against this, and other, statements. We will never have trust in the government
when this happens.
Thank you for your consideration,
Michael O'Neil and Barbara Clark
16th Street
10/11/2005
'fu xay
f !
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — Amendment to the Airport Noise Attenuation and
Safety Ordinance
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background:
An Ordinance to amend and reordain the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety
Ordinance (City Code Appendix 1), pertaining to sound attenuation requirements
in certain buildings and structures and required disclosures in residential real
estate transactions.
■ Considerations:
This ordinance updates the City Code Appendix I, the Airport Noise Attenuation
and Safety Ordinance. In lines 45 through 51, the reference to disclosure
requirements in residential property transactions is deleted. This is not needed in
the local ordinance since the 2005 General Assembly made such requirements a
matter of state law. Section 3 updates the reference to the Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code to the International Building Code, where the use group
classifications are now found.
Section 5 on acoustical performance standards adds the use groups beyond
residential that now require noise attenuation measures. These use groups
include Assembly, Business, Educational, Institutional and Mercantile and they
were the subject of legislation enacted by the 2005 General Assembly as part of
the Uniform Statewide Building Code to be effective on November 17, 2005.
Section 7 makes it clear that the acostical performance standards do not apply
in Noise Zones of less than 65 dB D L. Section 9, on disclosure, is deleted since
the 2005 General Assembly require noise disclosures in all residential real
estate sales and leases that will be more effective and appropriate than the
remedy established by Section 9. In several sections the abbreviation for day -
night sound level is updated to read, "dB DNL."
These amendments update the Airport Noise and Safety Ordinance in keeping
with the JLUS Overlay District and new initiatives adopted by the 2005 General
Assembly pertaining to disclosure in residential sales and expanded noise
attenuation requirements. The amendments are recommended for approval.
■ Recommendations:
City of Virginia Beach
Page 2 of 2
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to
approve this request.
■ Attachments:
Staff Review
Ordinance
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency Planning Department V..O�
City Manager: 1� . 1
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AMENDMENT TO THE AIRPORT NOISE
ATTENUATION AND SAFETY ORDINANCE
Agenda Item # 9
October 12, 2005 Public Hearing
REQUEST:
An Ordinance to amend and reordain the, Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety
Ordinance (City Code Appendix 1), pertaining to sound attenuation requirements in
certain buildings and structures and required disclosures in residential real estate
transactions.
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
This ordinance updates the City Code Appendix I,
the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance. In lines 45 through 51, the
reference to disclosure requirements in residential property transactions is deleted. This
is not needed in the local ordinance since the 2005 General Assembly made such
requirements a matter of state law. Section 3 updates the reference to the Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code to the International Building Code, where the use
group classifications are now found.
Section 5 on acoustical performance standards, adds the use groups beyond residential
that now require noise attenuation measures. These use groups include Assembly,
Business, Educational, Institutional and Mercantile and they were the subject of
legislation enacted by the 2005 General Assembly as part of the Uniform Statewide
Building Code to be effective on November 17, 2005. Section 7 makes it clear that the
acoustical performance standards do not apply in Noise Zones of less than 65 dB DNL.
Section 9, on disclosure, is deleted since the 2005 General Assembly required noise
disclosures in all residential real estate sales and leases that will be more effective and
appropriate than the remedy established by Section 9. In several sections the
abbreviation for day -night sound level is updated to read, "dB DNL."
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH -AIRPORT NOISE ATTENUATION AND
RECOMMENDATION
These amendments update the Airport Noise and Safety Ordinance in keeping with the
JLUS Overlay District and new initiatives adopted by the 2005 General Assembly
pertaining to disclosure in residential sales and expanded noise attenuation
requirements. The amendments are recommended for approval.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH -AIRPORT NOISE ATTENUATION AND
1
AN ORDINANCE TO
AMEND AND
REORDAIN THE
2
AIRPORT NOISE
ATTENUATION
AND SAFETY
3
ORDINANCE (CITY CODE APPENDIX
I), PERTAINING
4
TO SOUND ATTENUATION REQUIREMENTS IN CERTAIN
5
BUILDINGS AND
STRUCTURES
AND REQUIRED
6
DISCLOSURES IN
RESIDENTIAL
REAL ESTATE
7
TRANSACTIONS
8
9
Sections Amended:
Sections 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10.
10
Sections Repealed:
Sections 9
and 14
11
12
13
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
14 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
15 That the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance of
16 the City of Virginia Beach (City Code Appendix I) is hereby
17 amended and reordained, to read as follows:
18
19
APPENDIX I. AIRPORT NOISE ATTENUATION AND SAFETY
20
ORDINANCE
21
22
Sec. 1.
Title.
23
This
ordinance shall be known as
the Airport Noise
24
Attenuation and Safety Ordinance of the City
of Virginia Beach.
25
Sec. 2.
Purpose and intent.
26
(a)
The intent of city council and
the purpose of this
27
ordinance
are to:
28
(1) Protect the public health,
safety and welfare
29
from the adverse impacts associated
with excessive
30
noise from flight operations
at NAS Oceana/ALF
31 Fentress and the potential for aizcraft accidents
32 associated with proximity to airport operations; and
33 (2) Ensure that the construction of residential use
34 group buildings or portions thereof, located within
35 those areas of Virginia Beach likely to be affected by
36 aircraft noise associated with flight operations at
37 NAS Oceana/NALF Fentress provide for appropriate sound
38 reduction to minimize the impact of such noise on
39 occupants; an
41 preperty withina; rp ert neise z enema and aireaft
42 a e ei-dentpe t ential zene s a r eaware ef the asseeiated
43 neise levels and the hazards whi h may endanger the
44
45 The aeeidstieal perfermanee standards set ferth in this
46
o- - --- -- ..--
49
50
51 eperatiens.
52 (b) The designation of any parcel of land as lying in an
53 airport noise zone or in an aircraft accident potential zone, or
54 both, shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, the zoning
55 district classification of such parcel, such that any parcel of
56
land situated within an
airport noise zone or
in an aircraft
57
accident potential zone,
or both, shall also lie
in one or more
58
of the zoning districts
established pursuant to
section 102 of
59
the city zoning ordinance [Appendix A] and shall
be subject to
60
all applicable provisions
of this ordinance and the city zoning
61 ordinance.
62 COMMENT
63 The amendments delete the reference to disclosure requirements in residential property
64 transactions, as legislation adopted during the 2005 General Assembly made such requirements a
65 matter of state law and provided aggrieved persons with effective legal remedies for violation of the
66 statute. Lines 35-41 are deleted as unnecessary.
67
68
69 Sec. 3. Definitions.
70 The following words and terms used in this ordinance shall
71 have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates
72 otherwise:
73 Day -night average sound level (Ldn) (DNL). A twenty-four-
74 hour energy average sound level expressed in dBA, with a ten-
75 decibel penalty applied to noise occurring between 10:00 p.m.
76 and 7:00 a.m.
77
Permits
and
inspections division or
division of permits
and
78
inspections.
The
division of permits
and inspections of
the
79 department of planning.
80 Building official. The building code administrator of the
81 permits and inspections division.
3
82 Residential use Use group big. All buildings and struetures
83 The classification of buildings and structures as to the use and
84 occupancy thereof as set forth in Chapter 3 of the International
85 Building Code e3assied in the Virginia Uniferfa Statewide
86 Building Cede as use gr-e,(res i denti-a l-� .
87 Sound transmission class (STC) rating. A single number
88 rating characterizing the sound reduction performance of a
89 material tested in accordance with ASTM E 90-90, "Laboratory
90 Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building
91 Partitions."
92 COMMENT
93 The amendment replaces the reference to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code
94 with one to the International Building Code, in which is the actual use group classifications are
95 defined.
96
97 Sec. 4. Airport noise zones and boundaries.
98 (a) The boundaries of the airport noise zones shall be as
99 shown on the zoning map as adopted and amended by city council.
100 (b) For purposes of administering and enforcing the
101 provisions of this ordinance, there shall be four (4) airport
102 noise zones and three (3) aircraft accident potential zones:
103 Airport noise zones shall be as follows:
104 (1) Noise Zone less than 65 dB lAn DNL ;
105 (2) Noise Zone 65-70 dB 13dn DNL;
106 (3) Noise Zone 70-75 dB lAn DNL;
4
107 (4) Noise Zone greater than 75 dB IA3 DNL;
108 Aircraft accident potential zones shall be as follows:
109 (1) CZ - Clear Zone (an area extending outward from
110 the threshold of an active runway which possesses a
ill high potential for accidents);
112 (2) APZ-I - Aircraft Accident Potential Zone I (an
113 area extending outward from a clear zone which posses
114 a significant potential for accidents); and
115 (3) APZ-II - Aircraft Accident Potential Zone II (an
116 area extending outward from either a clear zone or
117 aircraft accident potential zone I which possesses a
118 measurable potential for an accident.
119 The purpose of the establishment of four (4) airport noise
120 zones and three (3) aircraft accident potential zones is to
121 distinguish between the severity of the level of noise impacts
122 so that appropriate acoustical performance standards can be
123 employed to mitigate the adverse impacts of aircraft noise and
124 to facilitate accurate identification of such zones. Each of the
125
four (4)
airport noise
zones and
three
(3) aircraft
accident
126
potential
zones shall be
designated
on the
zoning map as
adopted
127 and amended by city council.
128 COMMENT
129 The amendments update the abbreviation for day -night average sound level.
130
5
131 Sec. 5. Acoustical performance standards.
132 (a) Except as otherwise provided, any resident
133 Residential use group building or structure or portion thereof
134 constructed or placed within an airport noise zone after January
135 1, 1995, and any Assembly, Business, Educational, Institutional
136 or Mercantile Use Group building or structure or portion thereof
137 constructed after November 17, 2005 shall be constructed to
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
provide acoustical treatment measures in accordance with the
Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, sel xmo--1_.
COMMENT
The amendment adds the Assembly, Business, Educational, Institutional and Mercantile
Use Groups to the types of buildings that require sound attenuation. The effective date of the
Uniform Statewide Building Code requirements is November 17, 2005. The added use groups were
the subject of legislation enacted by the 2005 General Assembly at the request of the City.
Sec. 6. Nonconforming buildings and structures.
148 (a) Any residential use group building which lawfully
149 existed on the effective date of this ordinance and which is not
150 in conformity with any one or more of the provisions of this
151 ordinance, and any residential use group building which lawfully
152 existed on the date of adoption of any amendment to this
153 ordinance and which is not in conformity with such amendment,
154 shall be deemed nonconforming.
155 (b) Any extension, enlargement, relocation, reconstruction
156 or substantial alteration of a nonconforming residential use
157 group building shall be subject to the acoustical performance
C.
158 standards as set forth in section 5 of this ordinance unless
159 otherwise modified by the building official pursuant to seetie
160 383.2 applicable provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide
161 Building Code.
162 COMMENT
163
164 The amendment updates the reference to the Uniform Statewide Building Code and renders
165 further amendments to a specific section of the USBC unnecessary.
166
167
168 Sec. 7. Exemptions.
169 The acoustical performance standards specified in section 5
170 and —the— dis lest set t even of this
r-a in-� e
171 ordinance shall not apply to the construction of residential use
172 greup buildings or structures in any Noise Zone less than 65 dB
173 IAn DNL er buildings er szri:iettyres elaesiTred in the V; r
174 Uniferm Statewide -Building Gede—as- se--greup B (business,
175 eff i-ees) , E (edtre-atrenaetery--arri���� ; II
176 (zrra }�-c rtutrerral) ,—M (frercazr}c-rr� \cam—G—(-a-}ce-r?gti. �wc"�rerrvcrscT,—and
177 (iatil' ) .
178 COMMENT
179 The amendment provides that the sound attenuation requirements of the ordinance do not
180 apply in Noise Zones of less than 65 dB DNL.
181
182
183 Sec. 8. Appeals.
184 (a) Any determination or decision made by the building
185 official or any administrative officer in the administration or
186 enforcement of this ordinance may be appealed in writing to the
7
187 local board of building code appeals within thirty (30) days
188 from the date of such determination or decision. The appeal
189 shall be filed in the office of: the building official. In the
190 event such an appeal is filed, the local board of building code
191 appeals shall schedule at least one (1) public hearing on the
192 matter and render its decision in writing to the appellant
193 within fourteen (14) working days from the date of the public
194 hearing.
195 (b) Any party aggrieved by any decision of the local board
196
of building
code
appeals, who
was a
party to
the appeal, may
197
appeal to
the
state building
code
technical
review board.
198 Application for review shall be made to the state building code
199 technical review board within twenty-one (21) calendar days of
200 receipt of the decision of the local board of building code
201 appeals by the aggrieved party.
202 (c) Decisions of the state building code technical review
203 board shall be final if no appeal is made. An appeal from the
204 decision of the state building code technical review board may
205 be filed in the circuit court of the City of Virginia Beach in
206 accordance with ire applicable provisions of the Administrative
207 Process Act, Arti-e-le-4 ;See�e rr9 c-4=45 a-f C�apto r i.I I of
209 COMMENT
210
211 The amendment deletes unnecessary language from the section.
M
212
213 See. 9. iselesure. [Reserved]
214 ( f€met-ive Nevember 1, 1998,
215 pr-eperty-€er sale, rental er lease within anyarea:se zene er
216 a-eeident-pat-ential zeneshall Pe=o de -written dise1esure te-all-
217 prespeetive- pidrehasers,renters er lessees -that -sueh prepertye
218 within an a re ra. ft aeeident zene er an area -a f f ee t e d by a i - - - f }
219 ne-ise Sueh written netifi-eatiear-shahalse be plaeed in -all
220 sales e eat ra e s- and leases. Tlie- e rage ing e,-I - t^shall i�o-t
221 apply te—preperty seld—er!eased -selely fer = ri-u, ta=a
222 pidrpeses.
223 (b) The department of planning shall fak i , ab e
2 2 4 i n f ermat i e n eiEplainingthe -e f f e e t -e f the -des i gnat -rear -e f s u en
225 afire ra t-aee i d^tand-airp e r t ire i s e zenes and any applieable
226 buildin reEfuirements.
227 COMMENT
228 The section is deleted in light of the enactment of legislation by the 2005 General Assembly
229 that required noise disclosures in virtually all residential real estate sales and leases and provided
230 private remedies for its enforcement. Those remedies are considerably more effective, and more
231 appropriate, than the remedy set forth in this section.
232
233
234 Sec. 10. Violations.
235
(a)
A violation of any of the provisions of this
ordinance
236
shall be
a misdemeanor punishable as set forth in the
Virginia
237
Uniform
Statewide Building Code, Volume I; previded,hewever,
238
0
239 4fnis defae aner punishable by a fine e:anret t o--exeeea
240 twe hundred and fiftyellars ($2Sn 00)
241 (b) In addition to, and not in lieu of, the penalties
242 prescribed in subsection (a) hereof, the city may apply to the
243 circuit court of the City of Virginia Beach for an injunction
244 against the continuing violation of any of the provisions of
245 this ordinance and may seek any other remedy authorized by law.
246 (c) Upon notice from the permits and inspections division
247 that any construction or other activity is being conducted in
248 violation of the provisions of this ordinance, such construction
249 or other activity shall be immediately stopped. An order to stop
250 work shall be in writing and shall state the nature of the
251 violation and the conditions under which the construction or
252
other
activity
may be resumed. No
such order shall
be
effective
253
until
it shall
have been tendered
to the owner of
the
property
254 upon which the construction or other activity is conducted or
255 his agent or to any person conducting such construction or other
256 activity. Any person who shall continue an activity ordered to
257 be stopped, shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance.
258
259 Sec. 11. Severability.
260 The provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be
261
severable,
and
if any of the
provisions hereof
are adjudged to
262
be invalid
or
unenforceable,
the remaining
portion of this
10
263 ordinance shall remain in full force and effect and their
264 validity shall remain unimpaired.
265
266 Sec. 12. Vested rights.
267 The provisions of this ordinance shall not affect the
268 vested rights of any person under existing law.
269
270 Sec. 13. Administration and enforcement.
271 This ordinance shall be administered and enforced by the
272 building official and any inspector assigned to the permits and
273 inspections division, who shall exercise all authority of police
274 officers in the performance of their duties. Such authority
275 shall include, without limitation, the authority to issue
276 summonses directing the appearance before a court of competent
277 jurisdiction of any person alleged to have violated any of the
278 provisions of this ordinance.
279 See. 14. Ef€eetive—Dato
280 This —e rdinanee— shall -be ee f te—e f f e e t i v e en the first day e-f
281 January,-
282 COMMENT
283 The section is repealed, as there is no longer a reason to set forth the effective date
284 of the ordinance.
285
286
287
Adopted
by
the Council
of the City of Virginia Beach,
288
Virginia, on
the
day of
, 2005.
11
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
F�,,I0-14-05-
Planning Department
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
City Attorney's Office
12
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — amend the Official Zoning Map (designation and
incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area)
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background:
An Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning Map by the designation and
incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area.
■ Considerations:
In 2004, the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk joined with the
Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to craft a regional
Joint Land Use Study. This study, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan,
was approved in May of 2005 by the regional JLUS Policy Committee and all
participating cities. This document includes a Memorandum of Understanding
between the City of Virginia Beach and U.S. Navy that, in part, provides
guidelines for comprehensive plan adjustments to certain tracts of land in the
western portion of the Princess Anne/Transition Area identified by the Navy as
the `Interfacility Traffic Area'. The ITA is subject to a high volume of military jet
traffic between NAS Oceana and ALF Fentress and the city recognizes the
importance of incorporating appropriate planning policies for this area, consistent
with the approved JLUS provisions. This ordinance incorporates the designation
and boundaries of the Interfacility Traffic Area into the Official Zoning Map.
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to
approve this request.
■ Attachments:
Staff Review
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department U
City of Virginia Beach
Page 2 of 2
City Manage . ���
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AMENDMENT TO OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
Agenda Item # 10
October 12, 2005 Public Hearing
REQUEST:
An Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning Map by the designation and incorporation of
the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area.
In 2004, the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
and Norfolk joined with the Navy and the Hampton
Roads Planning District Commission to craft a regional Joint Land Use Study. This
study, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, was approved in May of 2005 by the
regional JLUS Policy Committee and all participating cities. This document includes a
Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Virginia Beach and U.S. Navy that,
in part, provides guidelines for comprehensive plan adjustments to certain tracts of land
in the western portion of the Princess Anne/Transition Area identified by the Navy as the
'Interfacility Traffic Area'. The ITA is subject to a high volume of military jet traffic
between NAS Oceana and ALF Fentress and the city recognizes the importance of
incorporating appropriate planning policies for this area, consistent with the approved
JLUS provisions. This ordinance incorporates the designation and boundaries of the
Interfacility Traffic Area into the Official Zoning Map.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this amendment.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH- IT
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL
2 ZONING MAP BY THE DESIGATION AND
3 INCORPORATION OF THE NAS OCEANA -
4 NALF FENTRESS INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC
5 AREA
6
7
8 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare
9 and good zoning practice so require;
10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
11 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
12 That the official zoning map of the City of Virginia Beach be,
13 and hereby is, amended to incorporate and designate the NAS Oceana
14
- NALF
Fentress Interfacility Traffic
Area, as shown
on a series of
15
sheets
marked and identified as such,
and which have
been displayed
16
before
the City Council this date and
are on file in
the Department
17 of Planning.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
COMMENT
The ordinance amends the zoning map to incorporate and designate the NAS Oceana -
NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on this
day of
CA-9737
OID\ordres\ITA Map ordin.doc
R-1
August 17, 2005
Approved as to Content:
2005.
Approved as to Legal Sufficiency:
35 wmoot-- 10'14-09-
36 Planning Department
J4 9. 61441�1--
City Attorney's Office
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — amend the Comprehensive Plan (incorporation of
the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area Map)
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background:
An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by the incorporation of the NAS
Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area Map.
■ Considerations:
In 2004, the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk joined with the
Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to craft a regional
Joint Land Use Study. This study, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan,
was approved in May of 2005 by the regional JLUS Policy Committee and all
participating cities. This document includes a Memorandum of Understanding
between the City of Virginia Beach and U.S. Navy that, in part, provides
guidelines for comprehensive plan adjustments to certain tracts of land in the
western portion of the Princess Anne/Transition Area identified by the Navy as
the 'Interfacility Traffic Area'. The ITA is subject to a high volume of military jet
traffic between NAS Oceana and ALF Fentress and the city recognizes the
importance of incorporating appropriate planning policies for this area, consistent
with the approved JLUS provisions. This ordinance incorporates the map
identifying the boundaries of the Interfacility Traffic Area into the Comprehensive
Plan.
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to
approve this request.
■ Attachments:
Staff Review
Ordinance
City of Virginia Beach
Page 2of2
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department V
City Manager: le, 0
�' �
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
Agenda Item # 11
October 12, 2005 Public Hearing
REQUEST:
An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by the incorporation of the NAS
Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area Map.
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
In 2004, the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake
and Norfolk joined with the Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
to craft a regional Joint Land Use Study. This study, adopted as part of the
Comprehensive Plan, was approved in May of 2005 by the regional JLUS Policy
Committee and all participating cities. This document includes a Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of Virginia Beach and U.S. Navy that, in part, provides
guidelines for comprehensive plan adjustments to certain tracts of land in the western
portion of the Princess Anne/Transition Area identified by the Navy as the `Interfacility
Traffic Area'. The ITA is subject to a high volume of military jet traffic between NAS
Oceana and ALF Fentress and the city recognizes the importance of incorporating
appropriate planning policies for this area, consistent with the approved JLUS
provisions. This ordinance incorporates the map identifying the boundaries of the
Interfacility Traffic Area into the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this amendment.
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE
2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY THE
3 INCORPORATION OF THE NAS OCEANA -
4 NALF FENTRESS INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC
5 AREA MAP
6
7
8 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare
9 and good zoning practice so require;
10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
11 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
12 That the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach be,
13 and hereby is, amended to incorporate that certain map entitled
14 "CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC AREA," dated August
15 2005, which map has been displayed before the City Council this
16 date and is on file in the Department of Planning.
17 COMMENT
18 The ordinance amends the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the map of the NAS Oceana —
19 NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area.
20
21 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on this
22 day of , 2005.
23
24 CA- 9739
25 OID\ordres\Comp Plan ITA Map ordin.doc
26 R-1
27 August 18, 2005
28
29
30 Approved as to Content: Approved as to Legal Suffici ncy:
31
32 or
33
34 Planning Department City Attorney's Office
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — amend the Comprehensive Plan
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background:
An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by revising Chapters 1
(Introduction and General Strategy), 2 (Strategic Growth Areas, 3 (Primary
Residential Areas), 5 (Princess Anne/Transition Area), 9 (Natural Resources and
Environmental Quality Plan), the Appendix of the Policy Document and the
Princess Anne Corridor Plan by incorporating provisions pertaining to Air
Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ), the Hampton Roads Joint Land
Use Study and the Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Overlay
Ordinance.
■ Considerations:
In 2004, the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk joined with the
Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to craft a regional
Joint Land Use Study. This study, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan,
was approved in May of 2005 by the regional JLUS Policy Committee and all
participating cities. This ordinance incorporates the specific recommendations of
the study into the Comprehensive Plan policy document.
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to
approve this request.
■ Attachments:
Staff Review
Ordinance
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
City Manager:c
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
Agenda Item # 12
October 12, 2005 Public Hearing
REQUEST:
An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by revising Chapters 1 (Introduction
and General Strategy), 2 (Strategic Growth Areas), 3 (Primary Residential Areas), 5
(Princess Anne/Transition Area), 9 (Natural Resources and Environmental Quality
Plan), the Appendix of the Policy Document and the Princess Anne Corridor Plan by
incorporating provisions pertaining to Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ),
the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study and the Air Installations Compatible Use
Zones (AICUZ) Overlay Ordinance.
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
In 2004, the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk joined with the Navy and
the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to craft a regional Joint Land Use
Study. This study, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, was approved in May of
2005 by the regional JLUS Policy Committee and all participating cities. This ordinance
incorporates the specific recommendations of the study into the Comprehensive Plan
policy document.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this amendment.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH-AICUZ COMPREHENSIVE P
1
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2
BY REVISING CHAPTERS 1 (INTRODUCTION AND
3
GENERAL STRATEGY), 2 (STRATEGIC GROWTH
4
AREAS), 3 (PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL AREA), 5
5
(PRINCESS ANNE/TRANSITION AREA), 9 (NATURAL
6
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PLAN),
7
THE APPENDIX OF THE POLICY DOCUMENT AND THE
8
PRINCESS ANNE CORRIDOR PLAN BY INCORPORATING
9
PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO AIR INSTALLATION
10
COMPATIBLE USE ZONES (AICUZ), THE HAMPTON
11
ROADS JOINT LAND USE STUDY AND THE AIR
12
INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES (AICUZ)
13
OVERLAY ORDINANCE
14
15
WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general
16 welfare and good zoning practice so require;
17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
18 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
19
That the Comprehensive Plan of the City
of
Virginia
20
Beach be, and hereby is, amended and reordained by
the
addition
21
of the underlined portions, and the deletion of
the
stricken
22
portions, of the excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan
shown on
23
that certain document entitled "EXHIBIT A -
RECOMMENDED
24 AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY DOCUMENT'S CHAPTERS
25 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 & APPENDIX AND PRINCESS ANNE CORRIDOR STUDY,"
26 dated September 9, 2005, such document being attached hereto and
27 made a part hereof.
W.*
29 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
30 Virginia, on the day of 1 2005.
CA-9740
OID/ordres/AICUZ Comp Plan Text ord.doc
R-2
September 28, 2005
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Planning Department
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
City Attorney's O fice
2
Exhibit A
Recommended Amendments to
Comprehensive Plan
Policy Document's Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 & Appendix
and
Princess Anne Corridor Study
September 9, 2005
Strikeout language indicates deletion and underline language indicates
addition. Amend the following parts of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan to
read:
Chapter 1
Introduction and General Strategy
Military presence
Page 12 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report
A strong military presence in the community
We want Virginia Beach to continue to be the proud host and home to the military. We
support the military and recognize the important contributions they make to our community.
We will work to further galvanize the strong partnership that has been a hallmark of our
relationship over the past four decades. The military presence in this region is a major
positive force that stabilizes our economy, provides numerous government and private sector
jobs, results in extensive government expenditures in the private sector, and provides an
important element in the identity for the region. The military also helps by contributing to a
reliable and well -trained local labor pool that. is an effective lure to desirable industry. A
consistent and reliable AICUZ Program provides necessary protection to potential
development in the community from jet noise and accident potential, and is an important
factor in enabling the military to remain here in force and contribute to our local economy.
Future military aircraft basing decisions may bring louder and more numerous aircraft
accentuating the importance of giving due consideration to this program during all land use
decision making. Retention and growth of the military presence in this region will be directly
reflected in the economic vitality of Virginia Beach. In 2004, the cities of Virginia Beach,
Chesapeake and Norfolk joined with the Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District
Commission to craft a regional Joint Land Use Study. This study, adopted as part of the
Comprehensive Plan, was approved in May of 2005 b t�gional JLUS Policy Committee
and all participating cities. It addresses issues related to land use compatibility and clarifies
the strategic and operational objectives of the participating jurisdictions and the Navy. It also
embodies a series of recommendations regarding policies, regulations and programs designed
to balance local government's land use planning responsibilities and the military's
operational readiness objectives.
Chapter 2
Strategic Growth Areas
SGA 6
North London Bridge Area
Page 75 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report
While AICUZ provisions impose some restrictions in the eastern portion of this Strategic
Growth Area, some properties along Potters Road, Dean Drive and Barrett Street are located
outside the more intensive AICUZ zone. These parcels, including those located in the
vicinity of the Lynnhaven Parkway/I-264 interchange and along Virginia Beach Boulevard,
are suitable for a higher intensity of mixed uses including offices, institutions and hotels w4h
limited additional retail.. ,compatible with the Joint Land Use Study.
Strategic Growth Area #6
North London Bridge Area
r
r
i
r
'
l
t,\
witp
V I'
c
x
C
0
SGA 7
Hilltop/North Oceana Area
Page 77 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report
It is recommended that future growth in the Hilltop Area be accomplished, in part, by
containing retail and commercial activities within the presently defined area. Because of the
influence of AICUZ high noise in this area, non-residential uses are recommended for this
area including office, retail; and institutional and
Strategic Growth Area #7
Hilltop/North Oceana Area
3
SGA 11
West Holland Area
Page 85 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report
The Princess Anne Corridor Plan, adopted by reference as part of this Comprehensive Plan,
recommends a mix of ,wide `ial an an intensity range of institutional, educational or
commercial uses as part of an incentive based development for the approximately 63 acre
tract of land located on the eastern corner of Dam Neck and Princess Anne Roads. €xeept as
ireeemmended in the Pfin .es AnneG,...rido,Plan, n No residential or hotel uses is are
planned for this Strategic Growth Area. The corridor plan promotes parcel consolidation and
provides design guidelines to achieve a conditional development of high quality that is
consistent with planning and design performance criteria created for this Sub -Area die€
six dwelling units o aer-e and inn nnn s e foot of _..mere. u Access to land uses
in this Sub -Area is provided by an interior f&ad traffic and pedestrian circulation s. ste that
is safe and efficient
Roads inter -se .fief) Equally, 4m order to ensure safe and efficient transportation movement
i-n to this area, no more than one direct access to this site to Dam ,. eek and from Princess
Anne Roads should be provided. Further, direct access from Dam Neck Road should be
limited to the minimum number necessary to achieve the objectives cited above is no
r-eeammende
Strategic Growth Area #11
West Holland Area
S
i*
t' 5F ! :'
b
0
Chapter 3
Primary Residential Area
Site 4
South General Booth Boulevard Corridor
Pages 103-104 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report
General Booth Boulevard is the primary road arterial serving the easternmost part of the
Courthouse/Sandbridge Planning Area, north of the Green Line. Three distinctly different
land use nodes exist along this arterial roadway: the Dam Neck Node; the Corporate
Landing Area Node; and the Nimmo Church Node.
Along this corridor and especially within these nodes there should be ne development
proposals must be consistent with the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance provisions that and should
not contributes to strip Fesi e t;.,l E)r commercial development, sprawl, or any disorderly
arrangement of uses. Of particular importance is the need for future development in this
corridor area to achieve a minimum reasonable density or intensity in order to protect and
enhance the character of existing neighborhoods to avoid any additional eommer-e a' re*��'
raoa for- the lifnited ametint
e Dam Neek eoffidor- that is outside the 100 year floodplain and A!
Such residential development should include affordable housing units.
Three ; „ff;..ie t o Stifig and ZE)FIed e .,1 feta;l p pe fty i the South General Beath
rvc�v�u
T2eule.,af C!„-r4do- and substantial inefease additional e gal retail zoning is
feeommended. Furd?e�The 42-acre tract of land in Corporate Landing Business Park
currently zoned B-2 should be changed to a more appropriate zoning classification to achieve
the land use and economic goals of this business park. Multi ti family uses beyondthese
air-eady developed or- zened f6r- should only be endefsed in the south General Bee
Boulevard eer-r-ider- if they are leeated in areas designated in this ehapter- for- sueh use and are
consistent with the e,.fide,.'s design sta.,,la In addition, a Traffic Impact Study must be
conducted for proposed developments affecting any of these specified areas.
5
NIMMo
Sorth General Booth Boulvard Corridor
Site 4
J
m
Site 4.1
Page 105 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report
A mix of retail and neighborhood serving office uses are suitable for the area along the
General Booth Boulevard Corridor. Development proposals are expected to adhere to the
General Booth Boulevard corridor site and building design standards cited in this
Comprehensive Plan. Specific attention should be given to ensuring adequate buffering of
these uses from the adjacent residential neighborhood and to utilizing the existing road stub
from this neighborhood as a method of providing access from the neighborhood to the
development, as described in the design standards.
In addition, educational, institutional, neighborhood service uses (i.e. day care centers,
medical buildings), low intensity commercial uses and associated open space areas are
suitable for the area located south of Kmart Plaza, aei4h of Edison Road. The area sou
Edison Rea , north of Gunn Hall Road and west of Upton Estates is appropriate for- single
family detaehe , neighbor -hood
ghbo-h..o an multi family residential , at densities cGl Y1VV UJVJ
greater- than 10 dwelling HfiitS PeF aere provided signifieant landseaped buffer-s afe provided
All proposals must be consistent with principles set
forth in the site and building design standards for this corridor. Proposals that improve upon
these standards should be given the highest consideration. It is preferred that the strip parcel
of undeveloped land located between Eastborne and Gunn Hall Drives should be
consolidated with other parcels to the west to form a well planned development. In this case,
much of this strip of land should serve as open space. in the event this strip of land is-
developed apaA ftem any other- pr-epefties, t ien it should aeeemmadate single fan4ly
detaehed its .,t densities eempar-able to st:t„tio .,1 e edu atiO a Of „f foU ,difi .
Developments that, in the Planning e
s opinion, go beyond the minimum design
guidelines may be considered for- slightly higher- defisi Particular attention should be
given to the transitioning of uses and integration of design into projects proposed for this
area. Such integration should be carefully designed and include extensive buffering of
proposed uses from surrounding residential areas. In addition, every effort should be made
during the site design of projects to coordinate site access between projects on both sides of
Gunn Hall Drive as far from General Booth Boulevard as possible. Development of the area
south of Gunn Hall should provide for an internal circulation route that encourages the
majority of automobile traffic to access Culver Lane. While discouraged, any access onto
General Booth Boulevard should be limited to a right -turn in / right -turn out with no median
break. Ideally, no development should occur on these parcels until all of the parcels have
been consolidated into one or two large parcels.
7
Gunn Hail/Edison Area
Site 4.1
AS
Al
a
��A
N.
General Planning Guidelines for North General Booth Boulevard Corridor
Page 116 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report
These general planning guidelines should be incorporated, where appropriate, into
developments proposed within the North General Booth Boulevard corridor:
All site and building design elements and other physical improvements, such as landscaping,
orientation and signs, lighting and other treatments should be illustrated using renderings
proffered through conditional zoning.
Where practical, stormwater management facilities should be designed for new and
redeveloped uses on a larger, more regional scale than simply site -by -site. This approach
promotes development flexibility and opportunities for multiple benefits, such as passive
recreation and wildlife enhancement. In addition, wetland benches and forebays for trapping
sediment entering ponds and lakes need to be designed into existing and proposed facilities.
A well -planned network of sidewalks and bikepaths needs to be implemented to promote safe
and attractive pedestrian mobility. In particular, the linkage between the bike path from the
Virginia Marine Science Museum to Rudee Walk and the Oceanfront Resort Area needs to
be improved in the vicinity of the Rudee Inlet Bridge. Pedestrian areas for viewing the inlet,
ocean and marinas need to be incorporated into these improvements.
Residential infi" a Any development or redevelopment should adhere to the provisions of
the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance and be of a scale and architectural design so as to
complement the physicalcharacteristics of the adjoining fesidential areas.
Views and vistas of the area's waterways should be protected and enhanced to the greatest
extent practicable. Future transportation projects should incorporate removal of overhead
power lines into project costs to improve aesthetics in the area and reduce potential for power
outages from storm event
0
North General floods Boulevard Corridor
Site 8
10
Chapter 5
Princess Anne/Transition Area
Page 142 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report
Included in the vision for the Transition Area is the concept of a rural heritage center. This
center would incorporate an equestrian component, livestock exhibits, farming
demonstrations and other activities relating to agriculture.
The City Council approved the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study on May 10, 2005.
This document includes a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Virginia
Beach and U.S. Navy that in part, provides guidelines for comprehensive plan adjustments
to certain tracts of land in the western portion of the Princess Anne/Transition Area identified
by the Navy as the `Interfacility Traffic Area'. The ITA is subject to a high volume of
military jet traffic between NAS Oceana and ALF Fentress and the city recognizes the
importance of incorporating appropriate planning policies for this area, consistent with the
approved JLUS provisions, as follows:
• Within the ITA, noise zone 75+ DNL — retain the agricultural zoningof f one
residential lot per 15 acres of developble land.
• Within the ITA, noise zone 70 to 75+ DNL — density of residential development
should not exceed one lot per five acres of developable land, depending upon the
degree to which each development proposal meets the City's defined criteria.
• Within the ITA noise zones less than 70 DNL, density of residential development
should not exceed one lot per acre of developable land, depending upon the
degree to which each development proposal meets the City's defined criteria.
11
� F CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC AREA Wt tE
August 2W5
O.
/ , w3
t pv °3 65 DB
..........
70 DR .c - i "�?f ✓V I_
65 DB°,41-.. �S`�- ��.a�oak.�... I _ ( I� / '✓.�'a�.„�
troF � �r _..'; t r tt •:i1-' ss DB "'�3 4yj d o 4
75 D8 , � I � •� - 4 � �al �
y k J
z,
75 De
c'� .. . 7s DB fir- •; / r � , de+ a _
I '
70 DR ; , -
......... __. k` i 65 DB
^....,�° C '. Tam 4.a Nonnem &a %"` ,�: �•\� `/
PmCUCetl bythe City of Virginia Beach Planning Dep ...
NOTE DISCLAIMER:
THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. ALL WARRANTIES, UCC AND OTHERWISE,
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WARRANTIES AS TO ACCURACY OF THE DATA SHOWN HERON AND
MERCHANTABILITY AND THE FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED AND ALL INCIDENTAL.
CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE
DATA SHOWN ON THIS MAP ARE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED. ANY DETERMINATION OF TOPOGRAPHY OR CONTOURS, OR
ANY DEPICTION OF PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS, PROPERTY LINES OR BOUNDARIES IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY
AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR THE DESIGN, MODIFICATION, OR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVMENTS TO REAL PROPERTY
OR FOR FLOOD PIAIN DETERMINATION.
Development potential in the Transition Area is kept purposefully low. The density Of
residential development is ealetilated at one dwelling unit E)r- less peF developable aer-e
depending uponthe degree to .hieh o eh development proposal oets the Cit y es define
u
ef!itefia—. This density minimizes the level of impact on existing public infrastructure; avoids
the need for higher level and more expensive urban improvements, conforms to the
recommendations of the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study; and, in keeping with the
intent of the Green Line, ensures that citizens in other parts of the city will not be subsidizing
capital improvements to support higher density, more urban type development in this area.
12
Page 148 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report
Carefully plan high quality neighborhoods and consider creating varying lots sizes. Except
as recommended in the Interfacility Traffic Area's noise zones at or above 70 DNL, the
maximum calculated residential density in the Transition Area is one dwelling unit per
developable acre. This Mftaximum allowable densityies should be earned based upon
quality of design and the level of conformance with all relevant design guidelines affecting
this area.
Such active adult communities that employ a complete range of services that reduce the need
for vehicle trips and city services as well as follow the Transition Area Guidelines may be
considered for dwelling densities slightly above the maximum
recommended by this plan.
Page 152 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report
Public infrastructure to support the recommended maximum density Of Oflo dwel iflg „„it pe
developable are- should be contained within the defined Transition Area boundary. No
urban level infrastructure should be extended into the Rural Service Area located south of
Indian River Road. Public facilities, such as roads, public water and sewer, among others,
that are programmed and built within the Transition Area should be sized and located in a
manner compatible with the land use policies established for this area.
13
Chapter 9
Natural Resources and Environmental Quality Plan
Noise impact policy
Page 230 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report
Goal E-6
Minimize noise impacts and air pollution from both mobile and stationary sources to the
greatest extent practicable, and continue to qualify as an Ozone attainment area.
The City of Virginia Beach is affected by noise created by surface transportation, aircraft and
stationary sources. The need to minimize these impacts will be balanced against other
required planning objectives as cited in state law. This point is especially true as it applies to
the city's Air Installations Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) program and the
recommendations cited in the 2005 Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study. In addition,
Hampton Roads is located at the eastern edge of an airshed that covers much of the Ohio
valley and the mid -Atlantic region. Accordingly, the Hampton Roads region's physical
location has contributed to its relatively low air quality problems as compared to other
metropolitan areas of its size. Projected increases in traffic congestion and a much higher
rate of growth in motor vehicle registrations as compared to population growth account for
the majority of projected air quality declines in the region in coming years. At the local
level, there are a number of actions that can be initiated as pilot projects to demonstrate a
focused approach at helping to reduce air quality declines. Collectively, these actions can
help mitigate against projected increases only slightly; however, they can begin to encourage
shifts in behaviors and activities that could significantly help improve the region's air quality
in the future, especially when connected with new technologies being developed in
transportation. Additional information concerning air quality can be found in the
Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
Add new policy E-6-8 to read:
Adhere to AICUZ and other policyprogrammatic recommendations cited in the 2005
Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study as approved by Council.
14
Appendix of Policy Document
Page A-3 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report
Agenda for Future Action
[Welete the followinglanguage:
AIGUZ ._
• :: Plan and felated
toolsimplemefftatieft ::
Page F-I of the Comprehensive Plan Policy :Report
Documents Adopted by Reference
Add the following language:
• Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study, 2005
Page G-1 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report
Maps Adopted by Reference
Add the following language to the list:
• Interfacility Traffic Area map
15
Strikeout language indicates deletion and underline language indicates
addition. Amend the following parts of the 2000 Princess Anne Corridor Plan
to read:
Page 7 of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan
Goals and Objectives of the Planning Effort
A. Goals
In response to the need for a comprehensive examination of the Corridor, a community
participation process was developed and endorsed to address a variety of issues. The
neighborhood of the lower Princess Anne Corridor has changed rapidly and significantly over the
last five to ten years, and more change is in view. The TPC golf course, continuing residential
development, and other transportation improvements are part of the sequence of change. In order
to properly address concerns about the quality and character, as well as the purpose and need for
change in the Princess Anne Corridor itself, a comprehensive planning and design approach is
mandatory. The principal goal of this study is to review current and likely future changes in the
immediate area, and to create a design and a planning framework for the corridor which
effectively addresses concerns of the residential and business community, and those who use
Princess Anne Road on a frequent basis. Out of meetings, workshops, and community input, the
following goals were developed as a beginning point, a point from which to orient the design and
planning outcome:
1. To develop a design character for the Princess Anne Corridor that is unique, identifiable, and
enjoyable.
2. To develop a roadway facility that is a prototype for similar facilities and that ensures
functionality and design integrity consistent with the adopted Master Transportation Plan and
supports corridor land use planning objectives.
3. To promote a controlled access roadway and minimize traffic disruption.
4. To protect and promote stable surrounding neighborhoods and enhance property values.
5. To include pedestrian and open spaces linking complementary public and private land uses.
6. To enhance community investment through the creation of a high -quality physical
environment— a program of public improvements that complements and prompts appropriate
private investment.
7. To advance compatible economic development objectives within the Princess Anne Corridor.
8. To create the basis for a comprehensive plan amendment that is clear and supportable.
16
B. Objectives
While goals serve as the point of orientation for decision -making, objectives serve the purpose of
defining the actual, more definitive achievements that must be made. A number of design
objectives were formulated and approved, as part of the community participation process, as a
road map of how to direct the Corridor improvements. These objectives are:
1. Provide compatible and incentive -based land use policies for developable tracts of land along
this corridor.
2. Provide useful and cost-effective corridor design guidelines that will result in:
a. Protected stable neighborhoods;
b. New site designs and buildings that complement the Municipal Center to the south and the
Higher Education Center/ Amphitheater to the north - exhibiting a blend of exceptional
beauty and function;
c. Inviting roadways that are attractively landscaped and distinctively designed;
d. Corridor improvements that respect and, where possible, showcase natural
environment, views and open space elements.
Recognition of the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study
Nearly five years after adoption of the Princess Anne Corridor Study, the Virginia Beach
City Council approved the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study,a policy document that
places far greater emphasis on the role aircraft noise zones and accident potential zones play
in the land use planning and development process. The Joint Land Use Study has particular
relevance with regard to Princess Anne Corridor's Sub -Area 1. For the most part, this Sub -
Area is affected by noise zone levels greater than 70 dB DNL and the eastern portion of this
site is located within an Accident Potential Zone. One of the key provisions of the Joint
Land Use Study is a restriction regarding the placement of additional residential units in
areas affected by noise zones greater than 70 dB DNL. The land use policy cited in the
Princess Anne Corridor Study that was adopted in July of 2000 recommended residential use
for most of Sub -Area 1. Consequently, certain revisions have been made to the land use
recommendations affecting this Sub -Area in order to align the policies of this corridor study
with the policies of the Joint Land Use Study. Further, the following goal is added as part of
this document -
a. Provide reasonable development opportunities within the Princess Anne Corridor
consistent with the provisions outlined in the approved Hampton Roads Joint Land Use
Study.
17
Page 9 of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan
Existing Conditions
2. Constraints
Among the constraints associated with the existing corridor, residential neighborhoods close to
the road are concerned about noise and about the impacts of proposed nonresidential uses. Certain
adjacent land uses, planned roadways and environmental factors impact future development
tracts and will require special mitigation methods. An example includes the level of jet noise and
accident potential zones (APZ's) associated with the Navy's Air Installation Compatible Use
Zone (AICUZ) due to the proximity to Oceana Naval Air Station. One area of particular concern
is within Sub -Area 1 (see description on page 12). In addition to the AICUZ impacts, high tension
Virginia Power transmission lines traverse the property. Similar power line and utility rights -of -
way are located within other developable areas of the Corridor and will require innovative site
planning and design methods to accomplish the quality physical environment we seek to achieve
through this study. Wetlands and archaeological/historic sites are present within the Princess
Anne Corridor and must be respected and/or mitigated if development plans encroach on these
areas. These areas are delineated in the description of the specific areas and Sub -Areas on pages
12 through 14 and deser-ibed and sh^..,., en page 16.
Page 12 of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan
d. Sub -Area 1
This Sub -Area contains thirteen separate privately owned properties comprising approximately 63
acres that consist mostly of vacant land with a few private residences and small commercial
establishments. Given its proximity to both Princess Anne Road and Dam Neck Road, this Sub -
Area faces high development pressure. Although Ddevelopment of the eastern portion of the site
is restricted by the Oceana NAS Accident Potential Zone (APZ). This and the remaining area are
located in the 70-75 DNL noise zone.
ceer-dinated, high -quality mixed -use -develepMeu . This development would serve both the nee
of the adjaeent residential areas as well as the needs of Pr-ineess Anne Commens. The
Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study, approved by City Council on May 10, 2005, recommends
against planning additional residential uses in noise zones 70+ DNL. Hence, residential
development is not recommended for this area. Non-residential uses including retail, service,
office educational and institutional are appropriate for this tract. Industrial uses and hotels are not
recommended for any portion of this site. Special attention should be given to ensure that the
adjacent Landstown Meadows neighborhood is protected from intrusive or adverse land use
impacts through the use of increased setbacks, attractive sound barriers, effective landscape
treatments and other methods.
In
General Location Map
Princess Anne Corridor - Sub -Area 1
19
Pages 24 and 25 of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan
Land Use Recommendations
A. General Recommendations
These general recommendations apply to all Sub -Areas:
1. General Criteria for Sub -Area
Development:
To advance the corridor objectives of creating well -planned developments, protecting
existing neighborhood areas and preventing the addition of any unplanned accesses along the
arterial parkways, the following land use planning strategy should be applied to the Sub -
Areas within the Princess Anne Corridor as described in this document.
It is the desire of the City that all proposed developments within this corridor adhere to the
general Goals and Objectives cited on page 7 and the Development Criteria noted on page 23.
In addition, Area -Specific Recommendations are presented on pages 24-32. It is the policy of
the city to strongly discourage development of individual parcels or isolated tracts of land
within the Sub- Areas of this corridor. Such methods of development result in an unplanned,
inefficient, unattractive and fragmented pattern of growth and contribute to increased traffic
congestion. Therefore, in those cases where applicants submit development proposals for
such unwanted development, especially those that propose direct access to the arterial
parkways, they will be judged against the criteria and objectives of this corridor plan and the
comprehensive plan in general.
2. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) and Accident Potential Zone (APZ): New
development or redevelopment should not include any housing, retail ^r offio hotel or other
uses that may deemed by the city to be incompatible within applicable noise zones or the
APZ's. Equiva4ent density that ethefwise wouid be allowed in the APZ afea may be applied
3. Site/Building/Landscape Design: Significant well -programmed and landscaped public (and
private, if applicable) open space.
4. Reverse Frontage: Those properties fronting on Princess Anne Road and Dam Neck Road
(includes Sub -Area 1, Sub -Area 2, Sub -Area 3 and properties adjacent to the TPC Golf
Course) should be provided sole access from a street connecting the rear of these properties -
otherwise known as "reverse frontage" access (see pages 40-42).
Aff
B. Area -specific Recommendations
The following land use recommendations apply to Sub -Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4:
1. Sub -Area 1
ice- The development potential of Sub -Area 1 above that allowed under current zoning, will
be based upon Aadherence to the following "ineentiplanning and design Performance
development Ceriteria:
iii.a. Incorporate as a significant part of the development Design and develop "main street"
rows of specialty shops with wide, attractively landscaped sidewalks or clusters of
"pedestrian scale" commercial retail shops, services, and effectively landscaped parking
areas. These "main street" rows should provide the major focus of the development.
rather than the typical suburban shoppingeenter- dominate a single, large
commercial structure served by a large and relatively unbroken parking lot flanked by
auto dependent, single use outparcels. Unsightly rooftop structures, loading areas and
trash receptacles should be completely screened from public view using design
techniques that complement the quality of the proposed development.
iii.b. Pay special attention to the design of roadway entrances and edges of development,
especially as they relate to commercial signage and landscaping. Carefully designed
undulating berms of reasonable depth should be built along the edges of Princess Anne
and Dam Neck Roads. Interior streets, parking areas and other traffic circulation
features should be designed using attractive, diverse landscaping, quality street and
pedestrian light fixtures and other street furniture that evokes a welcoming commercial
and ,-esi o„ environment. This subarea should not include an expansive `sea of
parking' Instead proposed plans for this site should incorporate the site design
concept of `chambered parking lots'. These lots divided into an organized series of
well -planned and carefully landscaped parking areas, provide safe, convenient and
attractive movement for both motorists and pedestrians.
good visual aeeess to businesses in this aFea.
21
iii.c. Carefully design the sidewalk and trail system so that it provides safe, attractive and
convenient access within this Sub -Area and provides good connections to the larger
trail system serving the Princess Anne Corridor and Princess Anne Commons.
iii.d. Ne-Ceommercial uses should be located adjaeent to separated from the Landstown
Meadows and Landstown Lakes neighborhoods. T��, s Such area should include
either- 11 1. nds e l ._ f., ily detaehed units at Er- below /1 dwelling
units pee a significant buffer area utilizing attractive fencing or berms and
appropriate landscape material that provide an effective screen between the
neighborhoods and Sub -Area 1.
ii.e. Vehicular and pedestrian Readway access within fef prepose,l uses _u Sub -Area 1 to
Pr-ineess Anne a D N k Reads .,ill „ltifnate4y should be provided by an safe,
efficient and attractive,,, tree lined, divided Loop Road, the ge r 1 e .,li,,nmt
rrraia
of .hieh is presented in this-l. internal circulations s� ^ twe lane r a
t t .1 withinfight f way wide o ugh to a .,Ultimateto � Ultimate four- lane
divided f6eility may be built a paf4 afa phased development pFavided it meets
plan,
aeeeptable levels .,f sevviee as defined by the eity.. Allaben Drive and Nettle Street in
Landstown Meadows will not be extended or connected to roadways within Sub -Area
1.
iii.f. Integrate an attractive, well -landscaped and parklike system of regierral stormwater
management facilityies to serve this Sub -Area.
iii.g. Provide at least 20% of this Sub -Area with attractively landscaped open space areas
that may include public plazas trails and other areas designed for public use and
enjoyment.
Delete the maps presented on pages 26 and 27 of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan, as shown
below and delete the references of these maps on page 54. Renumber the list of figures on
page 54 and the pages of the Princess Anne Corridor Study, accordingly:
22
Page 26 of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan
Figure 14 of Subarea I to be deleted
Maass ka
kid
3=
M.,
Sifloe , -
Fansq 1
Multi-purpost
Trail
W
Road
k(idtnt Potential
loot (API) 66(S
100,00.
Odfff
Eumple of Undesirable
Piecemeal Development
Using Baseline Op4on,
Note: Drawing ra to WA,
23
Page 27 of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan
Figure 15 of Subarea 1 to be deleted
3
Trail
I'w"r's
M—L—
Dam Ntck f4ad
NaK kg4v . QE Dan Nid Road
n hrws Amit had air loop
Read to be (6,11MIld velo.
cadent ottnal
f �0 .) limits
u t st Trail
Open spactRuk
Pourer bmt
ll'ruiu, Buffer -
to include east.
Trees stands
ry '7 Mod
pl 'Of one of several
€concepts for
ti -b &vel nt.
Draw€n I not to scale,
►z!
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
An Ordinance to amend and reordain the City Zoning Ordinance
(Appendix A) by repealing Section 221.1, pertaining to specific
standards for conditional uses within certain Air Installations
Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) and by adding a new Article 18
thereto, consisting of Sections 1800 through 1807, establishing the
policy of the City Council pertaining to discretionary development
applications and sound attenuation requirements in buildings and
Structures in certain Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ)
Item #9
City of Virginia Beach
An Ordinance to amend and reordain the Airport Noise Attenuation and
Safety Ordinance (City Code Appendix I), pertaining to sound attenuation
requirements in certain buildings and structures and required disclosures
in residential real estate transactions
Item # 10
City of Virginia Beach
An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by designation and incorporation
of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area
Item # 11
City of Virginia Beach
An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by the incorporation of the
NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area Map.
Item #12
City of Virginia Beach
An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by revising Chapters 1
(Introduction and General Strategy), 2 (Strategic Growth), 3 (Primary Residential
Areas), 5 (Princess Anne/Transition Area), 9 (Natural Resources and Environmental
Quality Plan), the Appendix of the Policy Document and the Princess Anne Corridor
Plan by incorporating provisions pertaining to Air Installations Compatible Use Zones
(AICUZ), the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study and the Air Installations
Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Overlay Ordinance
REGULAR
Joseph Strange: The next items are Items #8 — 12, the City of Virginia Beach. An
Ordinance to amend and reordain the City's Zoning Ordinance (Appendix A) by
repealing Sections 221.1, pertaining to specific standards for conditional uses within
certain Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) and by adding a new article 18
thereto, consisting of Sections 1800 through 1807, establishing the policy of the City
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 2
Council pertaining to discretionary development applications and sound attenuations
requirements in buildings and structures in certain Air Installations Compatible Use
Zones (AICUZ), Number #9 is the City of Virginia Beach for an Ordinance to amend and
reordain the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance (City Code Appendix I),
pertaining to sound attenuation requirements in certain buildings and structures and
required disclosures in residential real estate transactions, Number #10 is the City of
Virginia Beach for an Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning Map by the designation
and incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area,
Number #11 is the City of Virginia Beach for an Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive
Plan by the incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Fentress Interfacility
Traffic Area Map, Number #12 is the City of Virginia Beach for an Ordinance to amend
the Comprehensive Plan by revising Chapters 1 (Introduction and General Strategy), 2
(Strategic Growth Areas), 3 (Primary Residential Areas), 5 (Princess Anne/Transition
Area), 9 (Natural Resources and Environmental Quality Plan), the Appendix of the Policy
Document and the Princess Anne Corridor Plan by incorporating provisions pertaining to
Air Installations Compatible Zones (AICUZ), the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study
and the Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Overlay Ordinance.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. I know that is the reason why most of you are here. Before
we call the first person, I'd like to make a few comments. The resolution from the City
Council requires the Planning Commission to act on this today, October 12, 2005. The
AICUZ Overlay District was agreed to as part of the Joint Land Use Study, which was
adopted by the City Council in May 2005. City Council agreed to adopt a Zoning
Overlay District applying to all noise zones greater than 65dB to help prevent
encroachment. The AICUZ Overlay District applies only to discretionary development
applications such as Rezonings and Conditional Use Permits. The amendments do not
preclude the use of discretion by the Planning Commission and City Council. The
amendments have absolutely nothing to do with the condemnation of homes. The
amendments will not create a situation where no reasonable use is allowed on a parcel of
property. The amendments alone do not mandate noise attenuation measures. This is
required by the building code. Whether these amendments are approved or not, noise
attenuation measures are required. Noise attenuation measures for the residential use
group were adopted in 1994. The building code now also requires sound attenuation in
the assembly, business, education, institution, and mercantile use groups effective on
November 17, 2005. And this is a result of action by the Virginia General Assembly.
The Zoning Ordinance section on disclosures adopted in 1994 is deleted because a 2005
General Assembly required disclosure as a state law. This is a better way to do it.
Aggrieved people will have a more effective way to seek legal remedies for violations.
The AICUZ Overlay District reduces discretionary density in the interfacility traffic area
in accordance with the Joint Land Use Study. These amendments do not jeopardize the
proposed Old Beach Overlay District. The Overlay District does not increase density it
provides for better development and should not be in conflict. When the Old Beach
Overlay District is adopted, variances should rarely be needed to preserve the existing
cottages or to add a second unit. We're happy to have you all here today. I think it will
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 3
start with a presentation by Mr. Macali, and then everyone will have three minutes to
speak. Mr. Macali.
Bill Macali: The first ordinance and probably the most significant of the ordinances is the
AICUZ Overlay Ordinance. First, I think it most important to stress what the ordinance
does not do. It does not affect any by -right development. Any development permitted
under the Zoning District Classification of a parcel of property now will be continued
under this ordinance, if in fact, the ordinance is adopted by the City Council. The other
thing that this ordinance does not do, and is kind of truism at this point is the fact any
condemnation of property. It simply has nothing to do with that. What it does does is
two things. The first, and the lesser importance is the fact that it requires sound
attenuation measures to be employed in most. types of commercial structures. Not all but
most types of commercial structures. The ones that people generally frequent. In
addition to the currently required sound attenuation in residential structures, that is also
required as a matter of state law under the Virginia Uniform State Building Code even if
this ordinance did not specify that sound attenuation measures in these commercial
buildings are required, it would never the less remain the law. We chose to put it in there
because that was a representation we made before the Joint Land Use Study folks, and it
certainly does no harm to put it in there just as a reminder that is required. Secondly, the
ordinance provides that the OPNAV Instructions, which basically contain two tables
which state whether or not particular land uses are compatible in noise zones, and
secondly in APZ (Accident Potential Zones) are being compatible. As part of the JLUS,
the City agreed that it would take those considerations into much more serious account in
determining whether or not zoning applications coming before the City Council would be
granted. And so what this ordinance does is provide that in cases of discretionary
development applications, which include primarily rezonings and Conditional Use
Permits, it also includes other matters such as conversions or enlargements of non-
conforming structures where the application contemplates either a new building or an
expansion of a building where the total occupancy load would increase. It also includes
street closures of certain kinds as well. Essentially, the ordinance, and this is getting to
the heart of it, states that any application for a discretionary type of development coming
before the City Council that it would be the City Council's policy not to approve such
applications if the application contemplates a use or uses which are not deemed
compatible by either or both tables, depending on which of the tables is appropriate. For
that reason if an application contemplated a use that was in a noise zone where the
particular use was not deemed compatible that application, it would be the policy of the
City Council that application would not be granted. There is one big "unless" to that. The
application would not be granted unless there is no reasonable use of that particular
property that is compatible. So, if there is only one reasonable use of the particular piece
of property that is the subject of a rezoning, that use is incompatible with the charts or
tables, then the City Council would be able to grant that application so long as the
application that's granted is of the least intense or dense nature that is reasonable. The
reasoning for that is because there are constitutional restrictions on what the City may or
may not allow. Essentially, this abides by those constitutional restrictions. It does have
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 4
some special provisions for applications for residential development in the Interfacility
Traffic Area. The Interfacility Traffic Area is the Navy's designation for the flight path
between NAS Oceana and NALF Fentress. It's generally in the western portion of the
Princess Anne Transition Area. The change that this ordinance makes is that it limits the
maximum permitted density of single-family dwellings in the 70-75 dB DNL noise zone
to one dwelling per five acres of developable land. The ordinance also states that in the
greater than 75 dB DNL area the maximum permitted density is one dwelling unit per 15
acres of developable land. That's in the ordinance just to be in there so people know
what the restrictions are. That particular restriction though is not a change of current law.
The current Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate that there is any greater
development density in the greater than 75 dB DNL than one to fifteen. Essentially that is
it. I should mention that although this ordinance does establish an Overlay District in all
the entirety of the AICUZ footprint, that is to say 65-70, 70-75 and greater than 75 dB
DNL noise zones, the development restrictions on rezonings apply only in the 70-75 and
greater than 75 dB DNL areas. For that reason, in the 65-70 dB DNL noise zone, this
ordinance has absolutely no affect on existing development regulations. That's basically
the summary of the first ordinance. If the Chair would like me just to summarize the
others, I will quickly.
Dorothy Wood: Please.
Bill Macali: The next ordinance is the amendments to the City's Noise Attenuation and
Appendix I to the City Code. I forget the exact name of it. It is the Airport Noise
Attenuation and Safety Ordinance, as I said, City Code Appendix I. Those amendments
simply reflect the fact that this ordinance would be on the books and in order to avoid
conflicts we made some technical changes to reflect the fact that the real sound
attenuation, and the real heart of the matter is in the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance. The one
significant change we made is to delete the noise disclosure requirements in Appendix I,
which had required that people notify perspective buyers of residential property of the
existence of a noise zone on a particular piece of property under question. As the write
up states, the reason we did that is because the General Assembly passed legislation
which mandates that as a matter of state law and provides for private legal remedies
which are found to be a great bit more effective and serve as a much greater deterrent to
violators. So there is no reason for us to have that particular provision for enforcement by
the City. The enforcement is much, much better under the state law. The next ordinances
are Numbers # 10 and 11 on your agenda. They simply designate and incorporate the
Interfacility Traffic Area, both on the City's official zoning map and in the
Comprehensive Plan. Those are self-explanatory. We're just going to designate that area
and show it on the zoning map and on the Comprehensive Plan map. The next ordinance
amends the Comprehensive Plan by revising certain chapters. I think probably that Mr.
Scott is a better person to do that, if he maybe could explain that part.
Robert Scott: The noise attenuation?
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 5
Bill Macali: No. The Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Robert Scott: Well, the Comprehensive Plan amendment is mostly oriented toward the
Interfacility Traffic Area and really reflects the guidelines that are represented in the Joint
Land Use Study. It's a change, not in zoning but in the planning for that area. However,
it does extend somewhat further than that. It does, in some ways, address certain
discretionary approvals that could be contemplated outside of that area, in the city
generally. However, those are not great in number. If any questions come up about that
we can address that but primarily it is oriented towards putting a change in place to adjust
the plan for the Interfacilty Traffic Area, according to the density guidelines that Bill has
outlined.
Bill Macali: Madame Chair, I should mention that in light of some of the concerns or the
comments expressed by the Commission during the informal session, we have made a
couple of minor revisions to the ordinance. The new version has been passed out as a
stand-alone version to each member of the Commission. A copy has been provided to a
couple interested folks, and Ms. Lasley, has available several other copies. If I could just
take a couple of minutes to explain the changes just to reassure the members of the public
that they are minor. In your agenda version on Page 6, Line 108, that line reads
"associated with excessive noise from flight operations", we simply deleted the word
"excessive" and put in its place "high levels of noise". So essentially it reads, "to protect
and preserve the public health, safety and welfare from the adverse impacts associated
with high levels of noise from flight operations at NAS Oceana." The next change is on
Line 163 through 168, Page 9 of your agenda version, there is a finding there regarding
the modification of flight arrival and departure procedures. That entire finding has been
deleted. It simply is extraneous and really adds not much to the ordinance and probably
was best deleted. The only other change comes as a result of a very recent change in the
Department of Defense's OPNAV Instruction itself. Under the current ordinance, under
the ordinance in your agenda, nursing homes are permitted as compatible in noise zone
70-75 dB DNL. In the revised ordinance, which reflects the updated OPNAV, nursing
homes are deemed not compatible in the 70-75 dB DNL noise zone. Those are the only
changes. I think we would agree that none of them are particularly significant. And
anyone who wishes to have a copy of the revised ordinance and can't get one today, you
need only give Ms. Lasley or me a call and we will both go ahead and make sure that gets
done.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you very much Mr. Macali. Thank you for the hard work you
have done to bring this to us.
Ronald Ripley: May I ask Mr. Macali a question?
Dorothy Wood: Of course Mr. Ripley.
Ronald Ripley: Mr. Macali. You went through discretionary development applications
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 6
dealing with people that own property that are non -conforming and they wish to expand.
Would you try to explain that in layman's terms? For people that own homes and they
might want to add an addition to their house: or you have a business and you want to
expand it. What conditions would you think would be considered increasing occupancy
load?
Bill Macali: Well, first for people that have non -conforming dwellings, well for instance
a single-family dwelling in a B-2 District, something like that. In order to enlarge or alter
that non -conforming house, for instance by adding a new bedroom, something like that, a
person would have to go to the City Council. to get that permission under current law.
This ordinance would not affect situations like that simply because any kind of addition
to a single-family dwelling, so long as it remained a single-family dwelling, really does
not contemplate any total occupancy load increase or anything like that. So, people who
want to expand their non -conforming homes are not affected by this ordinance. Similarly
people who want to expand a non -conforming business are affected only where the total
occupancy load would increase. In other words, if you have some type of business where
you want to expand it to allow the occupancy load to be greater, this ordinance would
cover you. And it would mean that if the business that you seek to expand is deemed not
compatible with the tables, which reflect the OPNAV tables, then the expansion could be
allowed by the City Council only if not to do so would be unreasonable and essentially be
a violation of one's constitutional rights. Otherwise the expansion could certainly go
forward.
Ronald Ripley: So if you had a business that had ten employees and is a warehouse
attached to it and you wanted expand the warehouse in a non -conforming area, would that
be increasing the load?
Bill Macali: Well, presumably yes. It would depend on where you wanted to increase it.
But if the occupancy load, which is the number of people permitted on the premises at
one time would increase the ordinance would cover it.
Ronald Ripley: Well, now let me ask something. If it is conforming and you wish to
expand your property? Let's say I had a house and I wanted to add on to it, is that going
to be a problem with this?
Bill Macali: No sir. The ordinance does not cover expansion of conforming structures
and uses simply because they are by -right development and this ordinance does not affect
by -right development. It affects only those matters that are required to come before the
City Council for permission.
Ronald Ripley: Thanks.
Bill Macali: So that if a warehouse in an I-1 district needs expansion, a warehouse in an
I-1 district is compatible and the ordinance does not cover that.
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 7
Ronald Ripley: But if your house is not compatible under the ordinance but it is by -right
use you can still expand it?
Bill Macali: Exactly. Yes sir. Absolutely.
Dorothy Wood: Mr. Din.
William Din: I may just ask another question concerning that. How would that effect an
expansion of a church for instance in one of these areas?
Bill Macali: You need a Conditional Use Permit for that and number two covers it, and it
would cover it for an alteration or enlargement of an existing Conditional Use where the
occupancy load would increase. So this ordinance would affect any kind of Conditional
Use that sought to be expanded if the expansion would result in an increase of occupancy
load. And it would depend on whether the church, in your example is deemed compatible
or incompatible and it depends on the noise zone and APZ is located as well.
Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions? Thank you. Will you please the first
speaker?
Joseph Strange: Our first speaker in support will be Ray Firenze.
Dorothy Wood: Welcome Mr. Firenze.
Ray Firenze: Thank you. Good afternoon Madame Chair and members of the Planning
Commission. My name is Ray Firenze, the Community Planning Liaison Officer for
Naval Air Station Oceana. It is my pleasure to speak to you today on behalf of the
Commanding Officer Captain Patrick Lorge in support of Items #8 — 12 that pertains
specifically to the AICUZ around Oceana. In response to the Navy's concern over
encroachment, the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk undertook a regional
Joint Land Use Study with the Navy as technical advisors and the final study was adopted
by Virginia Beach on May 10, Chesapeake on May 17, and Norfolk on May 24. There
were no descending votes. The city leadership has spoken. At their direction and tireless
efforts on the part of your staff, we move forward today with a delicate understanding of
each other's concerns in a cooperative manner. Captain Lorge and former Command
Officer Captain Tom Keeley, would like to thank Mr. Scott and his staff for their hard
work in the process. They also appreciate the City leadership for the formation of the
AICUZ Task Force force that stimulated the bait and open public forum on these
emotional issues. Their hats are off to the City Manager Mr. Spore and Councilman
Maddox for their active participation throughout and on the AICUZ Task Force and more
importantly their role in forming the core of the Joint Land Use Study Policy Group. We
also like to thank the City Attorney's Office headed by Mr. Lilly and his deputy Mr. Bill
Macali. There were a vital communication link and kept us all straight. The city team is
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 8
to be commended and again the Captain sends his appreciation for their professionalism,
dedication, and cooperation in this partnership. Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you very much. Are there any questions for Ray? Thank you very
much.
Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Commander John Lauderbach.
Dorothy Wood: Welcome Commander. We're happy to have you with us.
John Lauderbach: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I'm Commander John
Lauderbach. I'm Special Legal Advisor for the Commanding Officer Captain Lorge. Ray
pretty much said everything but I did want to echo his comments concerning thanks to the
Planning staff, to the City Attorney's staff. It. was a unique effort that we went into
together, into the JLUS, which created a product that you're here considering today. The
one thing that we did all agree on, I think across the board when we're going through that
process was that we should have gotten together like this, the Navy and the City at the
level and intensity that we were many, many years ago. It's a good product. We like it.
Whatever the future holds for NAS Oceana. Whatever the future holds with respect to
Virginia Beach and NAS Oceana, this is a good product. Regardless of what may come
down the road. It's a regional effort. I'd ask you to consider that also that this is one part
of what many cities have undertaken and it merits your serious consideration. Thank you
ladies and gentlemen.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Commander. Are there any questions for the Commander?
Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Tim Faulkner.
Dorothy Wood: Welcome sir.
Tim Faulkner: Thank you. Good afternoon. I appreciate you all allowing me to be here.
I'm Tim Faulkner. I represent the Breeden Company, a real estate developer here in
Virginia Beach. And I would just like to recommend that you all approve these
ordinances. I think this is a first step in the process to retain Oceana at large. As we have
done research in our portfolio and looked at the economics of Virginia Beach, we
consider Oceana an extremely crticial part of that economy. And so we would ask that
you seriously consider approving this as a first step in retaining Oceana.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you so much for coming
today.
Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Nancy Perry.
Dorothy Wood: Welcome Ms. Perry.
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 9
Nancy Perry: Thank you. Chairperson Wood and members of the Planning Commission,
I'm Nancy Perry, Executive Director of the Virginia Beach Hotel/Motel Association. I
am here before you today to place our association on the record as not having enough
information to either oppose or support this ordinance. The City has indicated to us that
an economic analysis of the impact of complying with the BRAC directives will be the
starting point for discussion and ultimate decision with what we would hope for would be
plenty of public information and debate on this issue. Our board agrees with this
approach. It is also necessary that before any decisions are made regarding Oceana that
the public understand exactly what the consequences will be regarding eminent domain,
property rights, economic impacts, and what the future of any areas of the city affected by
Councils decision will be. In a perfect world no decision would be made until all of this
had taken place. Yet, we have been told that in order to comply with the timeline that this
ordinance needs to be send on to City Council now. Let my appearance before you toady
be an indication of the VBHMA strong desire to be informed and involved in every step
of this decision making process from this point forward. A deferral of this item would
allow for more information to be made public and discussed with the stakeholders. You
have before you an ordinance that makes hotels incompatible uses in certain area of the
Oceanfront and our Association and the stakeholders are not sure exactly what that means
at this point. We do not know what uses would be compatible at the Oceanfront if this
ordinance was adopted. The lack of information is not a good course of action to follow
particularly with an issue of this magnitude. Thank you for allowing me to place our
concerns and requests on the record. And once again, we would a request a deferral.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. You understand that we can not defer this today but thank
you.
Nancy Perry: I do now. Thanks.
Joseph Strange: Speaking in opposition is William J. Lee.
Dorothy Wood: Welcome Mr. Lee. We're happy to have you with us today.
William Lee: Commissioners. Guests. Taking people's property by zoning decree is not
right.
Dorothy Wood: Sir. Before you start, you know that were not talking about condemning
property?
William Lee: Well, it's taking some of your property rights.
Dorothy Wood: Okay.
William Lee: My name is Bill Lee. I live in the western Transition area. Taking people's
property by zoning decree is not right. The Bill of Rights states you are entitled to the
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 10
economic viable use of your property. Zoning by a 1999 or 2000 AICUZ Overlay does
not make any sense. There is also a 2000 AICUZ map being used in 3,500 noise law-
suits. What about OPNAV Instruction stating when a change of emission occurs, the
AICUZ should be changed also and any land or property up for sale should be bought by
the Navy or the City at fair market value. This being the Planning Commission you
should vote against this AICUZ Overlay for future rezonings. It makes no sense to
restrict 80 percent of the available land in the transition area in this overlay. This is very
poor planning. First it was the Transition Area, one unit per acre. Then with the AICUZ
Overlay is one unit per five acres or 15 acres. How long will it take to really be the
transition area it was supposed to be? The JLUS is flawed. Jacksonville and Cecil Field
are getting cold feet. The Chief of Naval Operations has a decision to make on the master
jet base. His impact study of losing Oceana is due in November. Was Virginia Beach
ever in the domain? The Overlay with regard to the AICUZ map should be one of the last
things to do, not the first. It should be deferred. It has been said that Oceana is not the
future of the Navy. Likewise, with this Overlay what is the future of Virginia Beach?
Dorothy Wood: Are there any questions? Thank you very much sir.
Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Wade Rabey.
Wade Rabey: I'm going to withdraw my comments.
John Harris: Can I have his turn?
Dorothy Wood: Yes. But please come up and give your name.
John Harris: Madame. City Planners. My name is John Harris and I live off of Indian
River Road.
Dorothy Wood: Welcome Mr. Harris. We're happy to have you with us.
John Harris: I had no questions or no concerns until I heard Mr. Scott speak earlier about
plans for the Transition Area. We've seen our property go from 1 to 15 acres, one per
five. We recently applied on the recommendation from our City Council member for the
ARP Program and we were turned down for the ARP Program. And Mr. Scott just
mentioned earlier there's a plan for the Transition Area. I would just like to ask Mr. Scott
what that plan is?
Robert Scott: It is right in the document in front of you. It's a reduction of the density
prescribed through the Use Permit process from 1 to 1 acre down to either 1 to 5 or lower
depending.
John Harris: But in particular Mr. Scott, can you address the ARP Program? There were
five people who applied and were turned down.
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 11
Robert Scott: I'll be happy to do that. One of the things that we are trying to do as part of
this approach is to look at an acquisition program for the property in that area. It would be
our preference to work with the property owners in the area to pursue purchase of
property but acquire the title to the property rather than just the development rights.
Naturally, we would be interested in doing that on a fair market value basis. But we are
aware that fair market values in this area have risen to the point where to acquire the
development rights or to acquire the title costs almost the same amount of money. And
we would like to talk to property owners in that area about acquisition but not necessarily
through the ARP Program.
John Harris: Okay. Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir for coming.
Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Barbara Yates.
Dorothy Wood: Welcome Ms. Yates. We're happy to have you with us.
Barbara Yates: Thank you. Good afternoon Ms. Wood and gentlemen and ladies of the
Planning Commission and city staff. My name is Barbara Yates and I'm Vice President
of Resort Beach Civic League. I'm here today representing the neighborhoods of
Lakewood, which runs from Norfolk Avenue to 17'' Street and Old Beach, which is 22°d
to 281h Streets. Within these neighborhoods we have nine zoning categories. Half of the
resort neighborhoods are in the 70-75 noise zone and the other half are in the 65-70. I
appreciate your comments prior to this issue coming up. I got to admit to you I am not
smart enough to understand what is going on.
Dorothy Wood: I'm sure you are Ms. Yates.
Barbara Yates: I'm not. I'm telling you. But I would like to go ahead and say my
comments. I understood that I would have more time since I was representing a group.
And then maybe you all could come back and help me figure out what we're doing here.
Would that be okay?
Dorothy Wood: I'm sure that staff would be more than happy to work with you. But I
believe it is three minutes for everyone.
Barbara Yates: Is it?
Dorothy Wood: Yes ma'am. Do you all want to give her more time?
Barbara Yates: It's not a full ten minutes. It won't be.
Dorothy Wood: We'll start from now.
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 12
Janice Anderson: If it is just something extra. I'll sponsor her.
Dorothy Wood: You'll sponsor her? Thank.
Barbara Yates: Okay. Thank you. Today, I'm here to speak to the negative impacts of
adopting the AICUZ Overlay that would be to the resort neighborhood and the resort area
overall. With the support of my neighbors and city staff, I spent the last 15 years trying to
improve the quality of life of Lakewood and. Old Beach residents. Over the last year, a
working group of residents with every kind of zoning along with developers, builders and
city staff produced the Old Beach Neighborhood Zoning Overlay. This document would
have permitted us to develop with a look similar to Norfolk's East Beach except homes
not so big and close together, and which had no opposition. It was weeks from being
presented to you and to City Council when all hell broke loose with Oceana and
everything was frozen. This Overlay provided incentives to property owner, which could
have resulted in lots, which now have 5-6 apartments being redeveloped into 1 or 2
single-family cottages. Now, I admit that I may not completely understand what this
proposed JLUS AICUZ Zoning Overlay does but I think it means that we will only be
able to develop by -right. If this is the case and since probably 90 percent of the lots and
homes in Lakewood and Old Beach are non -conforming, we are in a world of trouble.
And just to make sure I'm clear on this Overlay, I have a couple of questions. You maybe
answered one of them. If someone has an R-5S lot with a single-family cottage that does
not sit within the current setbacks and they want to add some square footage, will they be
allowed to do so? Secondly, if someone has an R-513 or A-12 lot with a single-family
cottage that sits outside the current setbacks, will they be allowed to add their second
unit? With the JLUS Overlay, I believe the answer to both of these questions is no. I
hope I'm wrong because this will force the property owner to tear down their existing
cottage and rebuild by -right. Since most of our lots are so small this will force the three
story monster box houses and duplexes to be built and we will loose our cottage
character. Our 30 and 40-foot wide lots will essentially be worthless unless there is an
out pouring of demand for very narrow homes. Now, I would like to comment what I
believe will be the affects of the JLUS Overlay on all resort development that
encompasses my neighborhoods as well. Although the BRAC's concern is for the 70-
noise zone and above when the BRAC Commission ends in March and the Navy's
authority takes over in April, their concern is with the 65 dB zone and above. This means
that the development of the entire resort is in big trouble because the by -right
development is not what will make the resort great and inviting. Here is how I see it. If
we are not able to surround the resort with quality diversified year around residential
density, the resort will never be an upscale year round destination. When the Convention
Center attendees arrive in the off season and can only find a t-shirt shop open, they will
never return and our new Convention Center will collapse on itself. Additionally, if we
are not able to develop a high quality resort the negative commercial impacts to the
surrounding neighborhoods impacts that make it nearly impossible to live in peace will
continue. The future of the entire resort will be no better than it is right now and in fact, I
believe, the resort will decline and finally another question? Why are we doing all of this
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 13
when we know that the next generation of jets will be much louder than the F-18s? I
believe it will be virtually impossible to live or work anywhere near where these jets fly.
So, I'm begging you please do not allow our cottage neighborhoods and the growing
resort industry to be destroyed. Please vote to not recommend approval of the AICUZ
Overlay. So help me understand.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ms. Yates. I'm sure that Karen will be happy to work with
you Ms. Yates. I think that your fears will be taken care of.
Barbara Yates: Great. Good to hear.
Janice Anderson: I've worked with Barbara on the Old Beach District so I can see her
concern. And I think that some of the issues that you brought up will not be affected. It is
my understanding that we will have more discussion on that but so far as if it's zoned A-
12 that would be the underlying zoning. You could build A-12. If you have a single
family home and you want to increase it with overlay that we're proposing for Old Beach
is to move those setbacks back so that would be the underlying zoning. But whatever the
underlying zoning allows you, you would be able to do it. So that wouldn't affect the
plans that we have for the cottage, the duplexes abilities with the garage apartments that
you have in your area that would be allowed. If you are zoned for a bed and breakfast or
like that, it would be allowed. It is whatever the underlying zoning that would be
allowed.
Barbara Yates: Then why was a recent application to the BZA, where I love to go we
have so much fun down there for 613 22°d Street that was an A-12 site with a non-
conforming cottage adding on a second unit„ why was that recommended for denial from
city staff recently?
Karen Lasley: Because technically that was not in the Old Beach neighborhood. I know
you debate that point with us.
Barbara Yates: I do.
Janice Anderson: There are other goods that make it common with the resort, which is
my concern also. The resort area has a zoning now that allows hotels there so those
hotels are allowed. There hasn't been a change really to the Overlay with the 191h Street
and with the Convention Center. We were talking about changing that zoning with an
overlay and I think that will require some year round residential.
Barbara Yates: Okay.
Janice Anderson: I think it has been studied that is the only way feasible to carry that
development. So, those are my understanding on the issues on.
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 14
Barbara Yates: Great. Thank you so much.
Dorothy Wood: Come back to see us. We'll try to make it more fun next time.
Ronald Ripley: May I make a comment to? Barbara, I haven't read anything here that
says that we're not going to be creating any .more new ordinances. Anymore new zoning
ordinances. I think picking up on what Jan's says, I would envision and Mr. Scott can
correct me if he would like or not at this point, but I would envision at some point there
will be an ordinance to address the 19th Street area to make sure that the mix uses are
allowed. But I think we're just trying to get the dust to settle at this stage of things. Once
we know exactly what we have that will be fashioned out so that we can move forward.
Would you envision something like that Mr. Scott.
Robert Scott: I would. We said at the very beginning of all this that the root of this
package that is in front of you today is in Joint Land Use Study. Well, something else has
its root in the Joint Land Use Study as well and that's the contemplation of revised a set
of regulations for the Oceanfront. And I think that when that is done, Old Beach area, the
I9th Street area and all that will be appropriately addressed. Once again we're in the
framework with the principles of the Joint Land Use Study but at the same time I'm
convinced as to the benefit of all the property owners and business people that have an
interest in that area.
Ronald Ripley: So, what's RT-1 today may not be. It will be something else but it is
going to be taken into account the whole logistic approach. We want the quality. That is
what we want. The quality development and the right compatibility with the Navy is
what we're trying to achieve and I think that is what Mr. Scott wants to see happen.
Barbara Yates: My concern is that by the time we get to that point, nervous developers
would have come in and built by -right, at least in my neighborhood they'll be nothing to
save. That is my concern.
Ronald Ripley: That is a good concern.
Barbara Yates: So, we'll pray for divine order. I walk around with the Serenity prayer
with me at all times.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you.
Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Ann Wells.
Dorothy Wood: Welcome Ms. Wells.
Ann Wells: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Ann Wells and I'm President of
the Landstown Civic League. And like Barbara, I think I'm a little over my head but I'm
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 15
here to speak on behalf of my civic league concerning agenda Item # 12, the sub area one
of the Princess Anne Corridor Study on page 12. We're not necessarily opposed to any
development. My understanding is that it is being changed from a residential
development to a business development and we do have some concerns. The first being
public safety. Specifically our neighbors are concerned about access of emergency
vehicles and emergency services to our neighborhood. Secondly, the potential for the
increase in crime that comes with any business development. We have a very active
neighborhood watch but it shouldn't be the burden of our neighborhood watch to take
care of these concerns, and lastly the quality of life for our neighborhood. We have
concerns over the visual aesthetics for the homes bordering the property as well as the
increase in traffic and inconvenience for our neighborhood, specifically the Princess Anne
entrance onto our neighborhood, which is Winterberry Lane. So in conclusion, I just want
to say that we trust that this Planning Board as well as the City will do what is right for
the citizens of Virginia Beach as well as for our neighborhood. Thank you very much.
Dorothy Wood: Any questions for her. Thank you so much coming down.
Barry Knight: As far as, I don't think it's a direction as far as business is concerned. I
think the Transition Area was down to 1 to 1 if you met a specific set of guidelines. And
with this, the zoning is going back to by -right 1 to 15 in certain areas, probably 1 to 5.
So, what you're probably going to see is if someone decides to build in there, it probably
still will be residential with a mix of business in certain areas. But it will be 1 to 5. It
won't be as dense as it would have been with the Transition Area. So, I understand your
concerns but I don't think they're come to pass.
Dorothy Wood: Mr. Scott.
Robert Scott: Ms. Wells civic league is north of the green line. It's in the Dam Neck
Road area. The problem is that part of that area is in an accident potential zone. All of
her comments are right on target. They are very legitimate concerns. What we need to
make sure of first of all is that we don't locate residential where residential is not going to
work because of the accident potential zone but any of that and it is zoned agricultural as
Mr. Knight points out. So, any of it is going to have to go through a rezoning to get to
another state and that rezoning needs to be very closely looked at with the effect of people
to make sure that the considerations are such that may work out for the residents that are
already in that neighborhood. But it does look like because of the presence of the
accident potential zone in there that where we have been planning residential before may
not be good idea moving along that kind of thought.
Barbara Yates: Mr. Pauls came and spoke to our civic league about a week and half ago
and that's where I received the information that it was going more towards the business
then residential development.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you so much for coming down.
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 16
Barbara Yates: Thank you.
Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Edward Bourdon.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Madame Chair, I'm passing out letters. These are a long list
of thoughts that I pinned a couple of weeks ago, and some of you in your spare time may
want to take the opportunity to read it and throw it away after you do. I represent a
number of property owners both of the resort and the interfacility zone, who have asked
me to come and speak on a number of topics and issues. Granted the City Council did
adopt the Joint Land Use Study that the Navy really didn't sign off on. They were just
really advisors back in May. As all of you should know and do know, the devil is always
in the details, and this ordinance does involve some details that are problematic. But
before I get into that I couldn't help to start with that it is nice that we're all standing up
and trying to give platitudes that everything is going to be okay down at the resort with all
of our residential redevelopment that was a partial of our decision to spend a quarter of a
billion dollars on the resort Conference Center. And yet, we're saying that all of that land
is now incompatible for just the type of development that we have said all along we want
to have happen there. And pardon me if I don't quite buy into that warm and fuzziness
saying that it is all incompatible and saying that we're still going to do it all when we
have an ordinance here that when I read it, and I would invite you to take a look at line
152-157 on Page 8. It says if "the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake fail to enact
and enforce legislation to prevent further encroachment of NAS Oceana by the end of
March 2006 by adopting zoning ordinances that require the governing bodies to follow
AICUZ Compatibility Use Zone guidelines in deciding discretionary development
applications". We're saying that is what we're going to do. It's says that is what were
doing here although I'm not sure we actually do it here in substance but we sure put it
here in form, how can we be saying that on the one hand and on the other hand suggesting
that we're going to adopt these zoning changes that the Overlay etc., that have to be
adopted in order to be able see that vision come to pass. I don't frankly know how we get
from Point "A" to Point `B" when that's what were saying we're doing in this ordinance.
Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon, we'll give you a few more minutes since you're
representing people. Your three minutes are up.
Eddie Bourdon: I appreciate that and that leads me into another issue. Never in all my
days and all my history of being here have I seen ordinances that do so much which
affects so many people be adopted with less public review, less public discussion, and
less notice to the effected property owners than this ordinance. You all got this for the
first time less than 30 days ago. It's changed a few times. I'm not here to talk about
noise attenuation or talk about notice to people. All that stuff is wonderful. It should
happen. Don't have a problem with it. But when you get down to specific provisions that
I think clearly do impact and impact significantly people's property rights, there are some
things that need to be said. Let me look at lines 139-142 with you for just a second. In
there, there is reference made to the fact that the Navy has acquired restrictive easements
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 17
over about 4,200 square acres of land. The appropriate way for the Navy and the
Department of Defense to do what they need to do to protect their facility, I might add. It
is interesting that I have to note that the factual statement in your ordinance is not correct
because, in fact, many of the Navy's easements on properties in the 70-75 dB noise zone
permit hotel/motel development in those noise zones. Now, with this ordinance we're
changing that. Saying what was permitted under their own easements that they spent
money for and told the property owner that was one of the rights you get to keep we're
now coming in and taking it away. And that is what this does. Now it doesn't effect the
Oceanfront because they didn't take any easements at the Oceanfront but it does effect
people in other parts around Lynnhaven Mall and other some places where they have
these easements in place that allow that use and now we're saying that its not compatible
simply because somebody up in Washington decided it wasn't compatible, which leads
me into the interesting little comment at the end of Mr. Macali's presentation. All of
sudden, and did anyone know about it before today that nursing homes are no longer
compatible in the 70-75 noise zone. If you own one, that's a big deal. Even though it
may not be a big deal to you guys today, but if you own one it's a big deal. Did anyone in
Virginia Beach know it happened? No. We just found out about it today, the day that
were going to adopt this ordinance. This is exactly why we should not be advocating our
responsibility to land use plan in the City of Virginia Beach to somebody who doesn't
live here, doesn't speak to us, and makes these decisions without any input from us.
Ed Weeden: Eddie, your time is about up.
Eddie Bourdon: I'm sure it's up because people don't want to hear another side because
there is another side to this.
Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon. That's not the reason why it is up. We gave you more
time than anyone else including the Navy representative. But I appreciate it. Mr. Scott
would probably want to answer.
Robert Scott: I can answer some of the iss
es. As to the recent changes, there
evidentially has been an adjustment made t
the OPNAV Instruction that truthfully we
did just find that out about very recently.
nd we made that known as soon as we found
out about them, which was today. We did
ow that there was a change having to do
with the applicability to hotels. And I thin
that has been accurately reflected in the
ordinance but we decided to compare the t
o versions of the OPNAV Instruction to see if
we could find other discrepancies, and we
id find one or two others most noted the
nursing home thing. We made those chan
es known as soon as we discovered them. I do
feel that and I have said it before. A coupl
of times today and I'll say it again. Mr.
Ripley brought it up in his comments. I thi
k it is accurate that there is a great deal more
work to be done in terms of putting things in the right direction as far as development in
the City is concerned. This is a step but it is
not the only step. There are more concerns
out there that have been appropriately addressed in the Joint Land Use Study. I feel that it
is incumbent upon us at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way to follow through
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 18
with that. We are faced right now with one of the most difficult questions any City
Council in our history has ever been faced with. It requires a great deal of patience on the
part of everybody. It requires a clear vision of where we want to be and how we want to
get there, and how we have to work together to get to that point. It's exceedingly
difficult. It is very clear already that it exceeds the amount of patience that some people
have but that can't deter us. We have to keep working. We have to keep exhibiting the
necessary amount of patience and adherence to our goals and the outcomes we want to
achieve. There are some very difficult decisions yet to be made by our City Council.
And part of our job is to put the Council in the position, the best possible position, for
those decisions to be made with all the parts in place, one of which you have in front of
you today. It is very important.
Dorothy Wood: People are asking us to defer it. Would you please explain why we can't
defer this Mr. Scott? What would happen if we did defer it?
Robert Scott: It's not going to be a timely unfolding of all the pieces to the puzzle that
have to be in place. There are federal concerns. There are local concerns. There are state
concerns. The state concerns represent our efforts through the General Assembly,
legislation that has to be brought forward through the General Assembly. And other
considerations that have to do with the government at the state level. And that has to be
done in a timely manner and that necessitates that action be taken today. It's not just a
local concern. It is not just a local Virginia Beach concern. It's a regional concern as
Commander Lauderbach reminded us earlier. But in addition to that, significant work
with our federal government liaison and our state governmental liaison has got to be an
integral part of this every step of the way.
Dorothy Wood: And if we did defer it today, it would be as if we passed it? Is that
correct?
Robert Scott: Well you have a resolution that has been sent to you by the City Council. It
specifically calls for you to act on October 12, 2005. That is today.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you.
Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is R.J. Nutter.
R.J. Nutter: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is R.J. Nutter. I'm an attorney.
Madame Chair, I will try not to go over the time limit, however I do have the problem of
representing two distinct sets of clients, with two distinctly separately sets of issues. So,
forgive me, I may take six minutes but not in an effort to supplant your rules, if you will.
First let me say that I'm here representing a series of hotel interests. In particular, the
hotels that currently exist in the portion of the Oceanfront that is designated with a 70-75
noise zone area. As you know, that is only a relatively small portion of the Oceanfront
but nonetheless it is a significant portion because the hotels between somewhere, and I'm
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 19
not sure between 32°d and 33rd up to about 40th Street. It's difficult to know because of
the lines in the AICUZ maps have a plus or minus several hundred feet. So, we're
somewhere in that area. And, we represent these owners that own the hotels and resorts
on 33rd, 34`h 35th, 361h 37th and 391h Street. So as you can imagine they are keenly aware
and keenly concerned by the proposed ordinance. While they acknowledge that the
ordinance amendment only applies to discretionary acts, it does, nonetheless bother them
for several reasons. I'd like to relay that to you. And I would also like to say that while
this amendment that you're being asked to pass on today is based upon a compatibility
map of a third party, it is nonetheless our ordinance. It is nonetheless a decision that the
Planning Commission has to face like it does every other decision. So, I would urge you
not simply to think about what the Navy has asked. You aren't put here just to
rubberstamp this. You were put here to make a decision like you do on every other
decision and every application by either the city or the private sector. I would urge you
while you have evidence that indicates the Navy wants you to adopt certain compatibility
rules, it doesn't supplant the obligation, in my mind or the freedom of this group to make
an independent decision. So having said that the biggest concern these parties have is the
fact that their hotels are listed as no longer being compatible. The 1999 map, lists hotels
as conditionally compatible. They have built on that. They have bought land on that.
They have borrowed money on that. They made investments on that decision. And while
this does not change the zoning of those properties it does change a list somewhere to
indicate that they are incompatible. I've like to being like a first cousin in non-
conformity. You really can build but if you have to come back to Council for something
we may have to say no. So, it's really in between compatible and incompatible. I'd liken
it to be the first cousin of incompatibility. Here is how that affects them. Number one,
when they refinance their structures the banks and lending institutions, and these are very,
very sophisticated organizations, will look to a variety of decisions and laws affecting
those properties. The fact that their use is incompatible could undermine the
redevelopment of those properties. Second, as you all know the Oceanfront has a
problem with development and its blocks are long and on the east side of Atlantic Avenue
are short. They're narrow and they're difficult to develop upon. And the other problem is
that our code was adopted in 1988, which means it is almost 17 years old. And you take
an old ordinance and apply it to a difficult piece of property and the net result is
something that you've seen already and that is practically every new large hotel
development down there requires some sort of Councilmatic review. I've done many of
them so I can tell you I've been here for street closures, rezonings, Use Permits,
modifications of non -conformity. We've all�come to facilitate these structures. Listing
them as incompatible jeopardizes that proce s and causes that industry great concern.
The second concern they have has to do with what some of you already touched upon and
that's the sound attenuation issue. I want to thank Mr. Scott and his office and Cheri
Hainer and her office for providing a memo to us yesterday. My clients are simply
reserving the right to meet with Cheri. She is not in town today. And try to make sure
that the level of construction phase they enjoyed the last two years will continue to be the
same after this ordinance is adopted, if it is adopted. So, those are the interests of those
sets of clients. It is a serious issue. If you think about it you're being asked to adopt an
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 20
ordinance that lists hotels as incompatible in the City of Virginia Beach on the
Oceanfront all being in a 9-10 block area. Nonetheless, I don't think that has ever been
done in the history of this city. The second set of clients Ms. Wood I would like to
address have to do with those in the industrial areas around Oceana. These areas are
often zoned industrial. We will often come to you and rezone them from whatever they
are zoned today to I-1 or I-2. The concern in the list of tables and I didn't mention Mr.
Ray Firenze by the way coming in today. The table on Page 19 lists water areas as an
incompatible use in APZ1, APZ2, and clear zones. Fortunately, I think the clear zones
are all on the Navy's property so we don't have that issue but many of the clients in that
area have properties that are zoned I -I and I-2, and the concern being raised here is that
one of them wants to build a lake, they are all required to build stormwater management
ponds and stormwater features. We don't to in anyway imply want to or we want to make
sure that this ordinance in no way prohibits BMP features that are required by the
stormwater ordinance otherwise those properties will not be able to be developed for
industrial purposes when that's exactly what they were intended to serve.
Dorothy Wood: I think Mr. Scott could probably answer that. Would you answer his
concern?
Robert Scott: It's an excellent point. I think that my recollection of the Navy's concerns,
which they have voiced over the years, is the location of water features above and beyond
that, quite frankly they would attract birds and things like that and would interfere with
Naval operations. I think that is understandable. But, I think it is a question of doing the
things that are necessary to make development work but not go beyond that.
R.J. Nutter: We understand.
Dorothy Wood: I understand that.
R.J. Nutter: We thank you very much. Glad I'm not in your shoes.
Dorothy Wood: Are there any questions for Mr. Nutter? Thanks R.J.
R.J. Nutter: Thank you very much. My pleasure.
Dorothy Wood: That concludes our speaker. I guess we will have discussion. I would
like to thank the members of the Police Dep ment that were here today. Thank you so
much for coming and I think now we're just�oing to have discussion. If you all want to
leave and you're certainly welcome to stay. We do appreciate you being here and
protecting us today. Thank you very much. And thank the Lieutenant. Ron, I'm sure you
have something to say.
Ronald Ripley: Well, this ordinance that we have in front of us has come from the JLUS
process and it has been an initiative that has been approved by that group. And, the
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 21
BRAC, even though we didn't intend to marry the two together, the BRAC managed to
marry a provision that says, and I'm reading',from the BRAC right her, enact the 2005
final Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study Recommendations, which is this document,
which is what we're doing here today. And, whether we like it or not, this is something
whether you agree with it or disagree with it, this is something that JLUS has agreed to.
It is something that the cities have agreed to. I've read the ordinance probably now at
least four times just to make sure that I really I understood it. I'm like Mr. Nutter, I'm
really concerned about the message it sends about hotels on the beach and I think there
are a lot of people concerned about what is going to happen to their properties. Mr.
Macali was very clear in explaining that if your property is a by -right property this
doesn't affect it. If it is something you wish to add to it, it doesn't affect it. My main
concern and I'm going to support it at this point because I believe that the vision that we
have for the city is still the same vision. It may look a little different. Our resort area may
look a little different when it's finished but our vision is still the same. We would have to
step back and deal with this but I think once we get past that it will clear up and our
vision will become better and we will know what we will have to do to proceed. I've
worked real closely on the 19`h Street plan, as Jan has, and I still see the redevelopment
occurring in that area. One of the problems you have with redevelop though is that you
need density. Density will help drive the redevelopment. We don't have a
redevelopment authority so for the city to go out and actually acquire property and entice
the development community to come in and do something we don't seem to have the
ability to do it. So we are going to be a little handicapped in the density side of things but
on the other hand we have a base of density that may look different under the new
ordinance in the future. That is what I hope we see. My statement to City Council is that
if for some reason this ordinance is passed by this body and it will proceed to City
Council in one form or another, if City Council so chooses to comply with and pass this
ordinance in order to comply with what BRAC has really demanded of us, and if for some
reason the Department of Defense and the Inspector General of the Department of
Defense decides to realign the jets after this has been enacted, then I would like to
recommend to the City that this ordinance be returned to the Planning Commission to
review to make recommendations again. Because I think it is not right to take this set of
circumstances and apply it to a base that may, be different in the future because the jets
were realigned. And I think also that if the City Council decides not to comply with
BRAC in order to retain the jets that it ought to come back to the Planning Department
and the Planning Commission for further recommendations back to Council because the
base will look different if something like tha were to occur. So those are my comments.
I will be supporting it. I have reservations but I believe at this point this is the appropriate
thing to do.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any other comments on that side? Gene.
Eugene Crabtree: I concur with Ron. I think the people have worked long and hard.
This is the result of something that's really been in the works for approximately two
years. All of the communities in the area have been involved in it. The federal
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 22
government has been involved with it. The Department of Defense. I just think this is
the first step. I don't think this changes anything that exists right to date what exists
today remains. What is going to come about in the future will probably be restricted.
Hindsite is always better than foresight. And had we had this same vision 20 years ago or
30 years ago then we would not be in this predicament today. We would not be facing
the BRAC. We wouldn't have to worry about the JLUS. So, I think this is something
that is correct and this should have been done about 30 years ago. So, I'm going to
support it.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Barry. Do you have anything to add?
Barry Knight: Like my two colleagues have said, this is a hard decision. A lot of thought
has gone into it. We do have some time constraints imposed upon us because which ever
way is recommended by this body then it needs to go to City Council so in a timely
fashion it can get to the state so they can pass a resolution or a law to conform with what
BRAC has requested of us. This is just a first step along the way to move the process
along. But I would like to reiterate what Ron says. I'll call it a closings clause. That if at
such time the majority of the jets leave Oceana on the scope, purpose or mission of
Oceana changes, we would refer it back to Planning Commission and City Council,
hopefully go back to the laws on the books the way it was or revisit them anyways. We
know that all these laws and all these conditions are being done because of crash zones
and noise areas. Well, if we don't have a need for the crash zones or the noise areas,
maybe we don't have a need for this ordinance. I'll kind of second what Ron said along
those lines.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Will?
William Din: Yeah. I think I agree with my colleagues here that we probably should
have had this JLUS discussion years ago. But I think that this is another step in that
planning process that we need to go through. This is a step in the right direction I
believe. And, it's the right step for these circumstances and I concur with the need to
review these circumstances if we go through this process to make sure that our ordinance
and our other Comprehensive Plan Guidelines are inline with the circumstances as they
change. So, I probably will be supporting this also. Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there anybody on this side?
Joseph Strange: I too will be supporting the Joint Land Use Study. As everybody says, it
started a couple of years ago and only lately has the debate been intensified because of
BRAC but before that if we take BRAC out of it this Joint Land Use Study would have
come before us and I think I would have supported it without BRAC. So, I'll be
supporting that.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Mr. Virginia Tech.
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 23
Donald Horsley: Thank you. It's a compliment. I'm going to support the ordinance also.
Relative to the discussion it should of happened many years ago. That is the way a lot of
things happen. If our foresight were as good as our hindsite, we would be a whole lot
better off. You know, maybe these issues weren't as prominent back then and that's the
reason they didn't come up. But, all of a sudden the issues become more serious and
that's when these real serious decisions have to be made. Many times they are too late.
But there comes a time when they have to be made and this is the time. We can't
continue to wait any longer to do it. I'll be glad when this decision process is over and
they say we can do this or we can't do this so that the citizens and property owners will
know what's going on. Right now I think there are a lot of them in limbo. Mr. Harris
came today. In fact, Mr. Harris spoke today and asked me last night why his property that
was turned down for the Agricultural Reserve Program. I really didn't know but Mr.
Scott, I appreciate your explanation for that today. Because I couldn't answer his
question last night but I can understand that reasoning behind that because I think he
thought that if they applied for Agricultural Reserve it wouldn't be any problem. But
these people would like to keep their property but I can understand the City's position
there. So, I plan to support this ordinance today.
Kathy Katsias: I too concur with my fellow commissioners. They all have been so
eloquent. Like Mr. Crabtree said we probably should have had these discussions many
years ago. Unfortunately, we didn't. I think we're going in the right direction. I think
going as a unified body presenting this to City Council is in the right direction.
Therefore, I'm supportive of this amendment. Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: Jan.
Janice Anderson: Thank you. I had the same concerns as a lot of the speakers had here
today, Mr. Bourdon, Mr. Nutter, Ms. Yates, and the representative from hotel/motel. I
think there are concerns but I think at this point it would be a concern if we would hold
up at this position. This is a JLUS study that was entered and accepted by Council and
approved. The comments though are, especially with the no further encroachment that
Mr. Bourdon brought up. That's in the open statement of this and it says that the
findings. It's a statement of this was the findings is like a prelude of why we're going
forward in this. It's a statement that something BRAC Commission said to prevent no
further encroachment. That is not what this ordinance does. Because they're letting you
do by -right so if you have by -right and have a duplex and you have s single family home
you can do further encroachment by doing your by -right. So, this ordinance does not say
no further encroachment. And that is not what is it says. I see in the pre -ample it
mentions that but that is not what it says. And, there are some concerns with the
underlying zoning and that was one the issues that I wanted to make sure about and
inquired on that the underlying zonings there can be changes to those and what is by -right
because it has to been works and Mr. Ripley stated that we've been working on 19`h
Street, Old Beach, and then the old Oceanfront Zoning, the RT. That's going to be
changed. That has been in the works with the city. So, I just wanted to make sure those
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 24
issues won't be affected. I understand what Mr. Nutter says. It's kind of strange to say
that a hotel at the Oceanfront is not compatible but I believe when you're looking at this
ordinance it says that a hotel anywhere is not compatible with the higher noise zone 70-
75, which is different from before. But it is just saying that a hotel in high noise is not
compatible. But if the hotel area and the Oceanfront is zoned hotel then that would be
compatible really because it is permitted there. So, I think you get around that
compatibility because the City by zoning it there actually says that is a permitted use and
it's a reasonable use. And, I don't see any change of the City direction in saying that
hotels at the Oceanfront are not reasonable uses. There are some changes definitely with
this ordinance and the IFA is one of them. The Transition Area and that area is affected.
But I believe those issues Council had seen when they started implementing the
Transition Area matrix when development started there. They started seeing those issues
within that IFA area and now they have identified it and we included it into a map and
actually we're talking about specific area map now. I believe that it is appropriate that we
should go forward with this change and would be supportive to send it on to Council.
Dorothy Wood: Sounded like that was a motion.
Janice Anderson: I was going to let Mr. Waller have his say.
Dorothy Wood: Mr. Waller.
John Waller: Well, I'm going to support the ordinance. I have a lot of misgivings. I
think we'll see some big changes particularly in the Old Beach area and along the
Oceanfront. But, I think we're between a rock and hard place. But I will be supporting it.
Dorothy Wood: A motion by Ms. Anderson and seconded by Mr. Waller.
Bill Macali: Madame Chair.
Dorothy Wood: Yes sir.
Bill Macali: Just make it clear that the motion encompasses all five ordinances.
Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. Would you say exactly what you want it to say?
Bill Macali: The motion would be to approve Items #8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 as listed in your
agenda.
Dorothy Wood: Is that alright Ms. Anderson?
Janice Anderson: So moved.
Dorothy Wood: Mr. Waller?
Item #8-12
City of Virginia Beach
Page 25
William Din: As revised today or presented today?
Bill Macali: Ordinance Number 8 as revised and that was handed out to the Commission
at the beginning of the meeting.
AYE 10 NAY 0
ANDERSON
AYE
CRABTREE
AYE
DIN
AYE
HORSLEY
AYE
KATSIAS
AYE
KNIGHT
AYE
MILLER
RIPLEY
AYE
STRANGE
AYE
WALLER
AYE
WOOD
AYE
ABS 0 ABSENT 1
ABSENT
Dorothy Taylor: By a vote of 10-0, Items #8 — 12 have been approved.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Thank you all for coming down today. We all will have to
work together. Thank you. Meeting adjourned.
�ge
tl�� fin!
4.�Yr�V
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Pastor Gavino Bernales — Conditional Use Permit (church)
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Pastor Gavino Bernales for a Conditional
Use Permit for a church on property located at 3476 Holland Road, Unit 3458
(GPIN 14867371860000). DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL
■ Considerations:
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to occupy a portion of
an existing strip shopping center for a church. The applicant proposes to
lease the 1,500 square feet of space for services on Sundays from 2:00 PM
until 5:00 PM and meetings on Wednesdays from 7:00 PM until 8:00 PM,
Thursdays from 7:00 PM until 9:00 PM and Saturdays from 7:00 PM until 9:00
PM. On the last Friday of the month a prayer group will meet from 7:00 to
9:00 PM. Attendance for the church is not to exceed 45 people.
This shopping center currently has leases for two other churches.
Additionally, a Conditional Use Permit was approved for a third church that
once occupied the proposed lease space in this shopping center along with
the two existing churches with no negative impact. The parking lot has a total
of 176 parking spaces for the 32,000 square foot shopping center and a 2,600
square foot tire mounting business. Due to varying operating hours of the
tenants, the existing uses do not reach the maximum capacity of the parking
area. There is ample parking to accommodate the proposed church and the
other tenants of this shopping center.
Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because it is
compatible with surrounding land uses and the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed church is compatible with the other uses in the shopping center.
Most church activities will occur during off- or low -customer hours for the
other businesses, thereby freeing the parking lot for the church. The
proposed church will not disrupt or adversely impact surrounding
neighborhoods.
Pastor Gavino Bernales
Page 2 of 2
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to
approve this request with the following conditions:
The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits, inspections, and
approvals from the Fire Department and the Permits and Inspections
Division of the Planning Department before occupancy of the building. A
Certificate of Occupancy for the use shall be obtained from the Permits
and Inspections Division of the Planning Department.
2. Noise attenuation measures shall be required in accordance with the
November 17, 2005 version of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building
Code. These measures will be required even if Permits and Inspections
review this use prior to November 17, 2005.
3. Church gatherings shall be limited to Sunday between 2:00 PM and 5:00
PM, Wednesday from 7:OOPM to 8:00 PM, Thursday from 7:00 PM to 9:00
PM, Saturday between 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM and the last Friday of each
month from 7:00 PM until 9:00 PM.
4. No more than 45 people shall be present at the church during any
gathering.
5. The use shall be administratively reviewed on an annual basis.
■ Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department v�-
City Manager: V - W11
PASTOR GAVINO
BERNALES
Agenda Item # 11
September 14, 2005 Public Hearing
Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit for a church in a
shopping center.
IVA IVA
t
�, Via, ''� �►
ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 3476 Holland Road, Unit 3458.
GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE:
14867371860000 3 — ROSE HALL Part of a 3.119 acres shopping center
Proposed lease space1,500 square feet
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to occupy a portion of an existing strip shopping
center for a church. The applicant proposes to lease the 1,500 square feet of space for services on
Sundays from 2:00 PM until 5:00 PM, and meetings on Wednesdays from 7:00 PM until 8:00 PM,
Thursdays from 7:00 PM until 9:00 PM and Saturdays from 7:00 PM until 9:00 PM. The last Friday of the
month a prayer group meets from 7:00 to 9:00 PM. Attendance for the church is not to exceed 45 people.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: Commercial shopping center (Holland Lakes) zoned B-2 Community Business District.
SURROUNDING LAND North:
. Multi family (The Lakes) / A-12 Apartment District
USE AND ZONING: South:
. Across Holland Road, retail strip shopping center / B-2
Community Business District
East:
. Undeveloped property and drainage canal / A-12 Apartment
District
West:
. Across Diana Lee Drive, auto sales and service / B-2
Community Business District
PASTOR GAV
NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is covered by a strip shopping center and paved parking lot.
CULTURAL FEATURES: There are no significant natural resources or cultural features on this
site.
AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65-70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The
Navy indicates that this use is generally compatible with airfield
operations. The Navy also recommends that measures to achieve noise
attenuation be incorporated. Beginning November 17, 2005, the Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code will require noise attenuation
measures for this use.
IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES
MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Holland
Road in the vicinity of this application is a four (4) lane minor urban arterial road. In general peak hours
for the church facilities do not coincide with peak hours for the adjacent roadways and should not
contribute to peak hour traffic volumes on Holland Road.
TRAFFIC:
Street Name
Present
Volume
Present Capacity
Generated Traffic
Holland Road
32,500 ADT
22,800 ADT (Level of
Existing Land Use 2 — 65
Service "D") —
ADT
27,400 ADT' (Level of
Proposed Land Use s— 15
Service "E")
ADT
Proposed Land Use 4- 55
ADT
Average Daily Trips
s as defined by week day 1,500 SF portion of shopping center
3 as defined by week day 1,500 SF portion of church
°as defined by Sunday 1,500 SF portion of church
WATER: This site connects to City water.
SEWER: This site connects to City sanitary sewer.
FIRE: Building is a Group "M" and may not provide adequate life safety requirements to be used as a place of
Assembly Group "A". Current fire inspection required.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within the Primary Residential Area. The land use
planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on preserving and
protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located
in this area. In a general sense, the established types, size and relationship of land use, both residential
PASTOR GAVINO BERNALES
Agenda Item 11
Page 2
and non-residential, located in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when
considering future development.
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the conditions below. This shopping center
currently has leases for two churches "The Potter's House Christian Church" and "Dayspring Outreach
Ministries". The Potter's House Christian Church was granted a Conditional Use Permit on October 12,
1999 with conditions for no more than 75 people. Dayspring Outreach Ministries was granted a
Conditional Use Permit on November 13, 2001 with a time limit of three years (expiration November 13,
2004). Dayspring Outreach Ministries then requested and received approval by City Council on June 10,
2003 to expand its square footage and modify conditions so the use would be administratively reviewed
on an annual basis. Dayspring Outreach Ministries would not have more than 100 people. Additionally, a
Conditional Use Permit was approved for a third church that once occupied the proposed lease space in
this shopping center along with the two existing churches with no negative impact.
The parking lot has a total of 176 parking spaces for the 32,000 square foot shopping center and 2,600
square foot tire mounting business. Due to varying operating hours of the tenants, the existing uses do
not reach the maximum capacity of the parking area. There is ample parking to accommodate the
proposed church and the other tenants of this shopping center.
The proposed church is compatible with the other uses in the shopping center. Most church activities will
occur during off- or low -customer hours for the other businesses, thereby freeing the parking lot for the
church. The proposed church will not disrupt or adversely impact surrounding neighborhoods.
CONDITIONS
1. The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits, inspections, and approvals from the Fire
Department and the Permits and Inspections Division of the Planning Department before occupancy of
the building. A Certificate of Occupancy for the use shall be obtained from the Permits and
Inspections Division of the Planning Department.
2. Noise attenuation measures shall be required in accordance with the November 17, 2005 version of
the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. These measures will be required even if Permits and
Inspections review this use prior to November 17, 2005.
3. Church gatherings shall be limited to Sunday between 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM, Wednesday from
7:OOPM to 8:00 PM, Thursday from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM, Saturday between 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM and
the last Friday of each month from 7:00 PM until 9:00 PM.
4. No more than 45 people shall be present at the church during any gathering.
5. The use shall be administratively reviewed on an annual basis.
PASTOR GAV
NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances.
Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to
meet all applicable City Codes.
The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police
Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site.
PASTOR GAV
PROPOSED LEASED SPAC5
PASTOR GAV
CUP - church in a Shopping Center
1
06/27/83
Conditional Use Permit for tire mounting
Granted
2
05/12/92
Conditional Use Permit for a church
Granted
3
01/09/96
Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage
Granted
4
10/13/98
Conditional Use Permit for a church
Granted
5
04/13/99
Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales
& service
Granted
6
10/12/99
Conditional Use Permit for a church
Granted
7
02/27/01
Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales
& service
Granted
8
11/13/01
Conditional Use Permit for a church
Granted
9
06/10/03
Modification to a Conditional Use Permit for a
church expansion
Granted
10
03/02/04
Rezoning from 1-1 to conditional B-2
Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales
& service
Granted
ME
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated
organization, complete the following: j_>e A,
1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers: members, 4u-ateas,
partners, etc. below: (Affach list it necessary)
V�_)40 �(Q e Q 0 LGO �1_f A,)j;
_G,,OOA SOAQ-0
SO4FMe_16,0,_)V_Q AAJ6
2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list it necessary)
. . .... .......... . ........ . ....... ......... . ............. ____ .......... ... . .....................
. . . . . ............ ... . ...... . .....
...... . ..................... . .
0' Check here if the applicant is NOT corporation, partnership, firm, business, or
other unincorporated organization,
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant.
If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other
unincorporated organization, complete the following:
1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members,
trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary)
. . ............. .. . . —
2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
.. . .........
- - ------- - - - ---_
13"'Check here it the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business,
or other unincorporated organization.
& 2 See next page for footnotes
0), lidii�,xval UP Piwmit Applicatic.r.
page 10 of I I
ReAsed 21,1912W4
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
PASTOR GA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES
List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect
to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural
services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services and legal
services. (Attach list if necessary)
' "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one
corporation directly or indirectly ovens shares possessing more than 50 percent of the
voting power of another corpora�'on ' See State and LocalGovernment Conflict of
Interests Act, 'Va. Code § 2.2-3101.
2 "Affiliated business, entity relationship, means "a relationship, other than
parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when () one business entity has a
controlling ownership interest in the father business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in
one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared
management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be
considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship
include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two
entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share
the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or
personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship
between the entities,` See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va.
Code § 2.2-3101,
CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate.
I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been
scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required
sign on th subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled' public hearing
ac rd' g t instructions in this package.
C. At v t?
Appli nt`s ignatrtre Print Mama
Property Owners Signatu (if ditfereri than ppiicant) Print Name
Conditional Use Permit AapkaEion
Rags 11 of 11loft
Revised
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT'
l . DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL AIR STATION OCEANA
1750 TOMCAT BOULEVARD
VIAL INIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 234EO-2 91
N REPLY REFFq TCL
5726
Ser 33 / 464
August 8> 2005
Ms. Karen Prochilo vow
City of Virginia Beach
Department of Planning pt�
2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2
Virginia Beach, V.k 23456-9040
Dear Ms. Prochilo. OSS
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Conditional Use
Permit Application by Pastor Gavino Pernales to locate a church
in a snapping center at 3476 Holland Road in Virginia Beach.
The site is located in the 65-70 decibel day -night average
noise zone. The Navy's Air Installations Compatible Use Zones
Program considers this use generally compatible with airfield
operations, It is recommended that measures to achieve noise
level reduction be incorporated as set forth in the Virginia
Beach; Zoning ordinance,
If ;you have any questions, contact my Community Planning
Liaison officer, Mr. Ray Firenze at (757) 433-3158.
Sincerely and very respectfully,
T. rndikng�oificer
Ca Navy
Cc�
.'Copy �o s
cOMNAVREC MIDL,.ANT (OO/NO2B)
L,ALRTDI V
Mayor Meyera Oberndorf'
Virginia Beach City Council
Virginia Beach Planning Commission
PASTOR GAV
Item # 11
Pastor Gavino Bernales
Conditional Use Permit
3476 Holland Road, Unit 3458
District 3
Rose Hall
September 14, 2005
CONSENT
William Din: My next item is Item #11. This is Pastor Gavino Bernales. This is an
application for a Conditional Use Permit for a church to be located on property at 3476
Holland Road, Unit 3458 in the Rose Hall District. There are five conditions. Welcome.
Pastor Gavino Bernales: Good afternoon everybody. I'm Pastor Gavino Bernales and
I'm the Senior Pastor of the church. We just want to rent and we accept the conditions.
William Din: Thank you Pastor. Is there any objection to placing this item on consent
agenda? If not, Mr. Barry Knight will explain this item also.
Barry Knight: This is a shopping center. There are a couple of churches in here already.
This church is going to be compatible with the other two churches, and the other
businesses that are in the shopping center. There are very few parking spaces that are
used because of the difference in times that they are using this facility. Also the Navy has
weighed in and they said they're fine with it. They just want a normal sound attenuation
measures put in the renovations of this church facility. Therefore, it is in keeping with
our Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Plan in this area, so we put it on consent agenda.
William Din: Thank you Barry. I would like to make a motion to approve the following
item. Item#11 is Pastor Gavino Bernales. This is an application for a Conditional Use
Permit for a church on property located at 3476 Holland Road in the Rose Hall District
and that has five conditions.
Barry Knight: I'll second that motion.
William Din: Thank you.
AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 2
ANDERSON
AYE
CRABTREE
AYE
DIN
AYE
HORSLEY
ABSENT
KATSIAS
AYE
KNIGHT
AYE
Item #11
Pastor Gavino Bernales
Page 2
MILLER
ABSENT
RIPLEY
AYE
STRANGE
AYE
WALLER
AYE
WOOD
AYE
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, the Board as approved Item #11 for consent.
-55-
Item V-L.8.
PLANNING ITEM # 52939
Upon motion by Vice MayorJones, seconded by Councilman Reeve, City Council ADOPTED an Ordinance
upon application RONALD MODLINGER, M.D. fc)r a Conditional Change of Zoning:
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICA?'ION OF RONALD MODLINGER,
M.D. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
FROMR-5D TO CONDITIONAL 0-1 Z08041197
BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
Ordinance upon Application of Ronald Modlinger, M.D. for a Change
of Zoning; District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex
District to Conditional 0-1 Office District and Conditional R-5D
Residential Duplex District on property located on the northwest side
of Dam Neck Road, 1,150 feet south of Holland Road (GPIN
14950389940000; 14951400150000). The Comprehensive Plan
designates this area as Strategic Growth Area 11 (WestHollandArea),
suitable for non-residential uses consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan's policies for this area. DISTRICT 3 —ROSE HALL
The following condition shall be required:
1. An agreement encompassing proffers shall be recorded with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court and is hereby made a part of the
record.
This Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 (f) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 24th of August, Two Thousand Four
Voting: 9-0 (By Consent)
Council Members Voting Aye:
HartyE. Diezel, RobertM. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S.
McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim
Reeve, Ron A. Villanueva and Rosemary Wilson
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Peter W. Schmidt and James L. Wood
era
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Ronald E. Modlinger, M.D. — Modification of Conditions
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Ronald E. Modlinger, M.D. for a
Modification of Conditions for an application approved by City Council on
August 24, 2004 on property located at 3296 Dam Neck Road (GPIN
14950389940000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being
part of Strategic Growth Area 11-West Holland Area, suitable for non-
residential uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's policies for this
area. The purpose of this modification is to revise the design of the building.
DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL
■ Considerations:
The applicant recently rezoned this site with proffered elevations of the
proposed office structure. The applicant has made significant revisions to the
building elevations, therefore, modification of proffers from the conditional
change of zoning are necessary. The rezoning from R-5D Residential Duplex
District to Conditional 0-1 Office District and Conditional R-5D Residential
Duplex District was approved by the City Council on August 24, 2004 with six
(6) proffers. Proffer 3 references the original building elevations that have
since been revised and is requested for modification. The proposed building
style is traditional residential. The exterior building materials proposed reflect
materials used on some of the residential structures in this vicinity.
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because
the proposed change to the proffer will allow an architectural elevation, which
appears residential instead of commercial. The new building will better fit into
this mixed -use residential area.
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to
approve this request, as proffered.
■ Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Ronald E. Modlinger, M.D.
Page 2of2
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
City Manager: •��
RONALD
MODLINGER, M.D.
Agenda Item # 4
September 14, 2005 Public Hearing
Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo
REQUEST:
Modification of Proffers from the Conditional
nsoF 1 0 a c Ronald Modlin er M.D.
I-1 '11�, J- a
U21 A �� 0-2
R-5D
R-5D 118)
�.
112
6�� \
o �i\ \
ac-i
Modification of Proffers
Change of Zoning from R-5D Residential
Duplex District to 0-1 Office District and R-5D Residential Duplex District granted by the City Council on
August 24, 2004.
ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located on the northwest side of Dam Neck Road, 1150 feet south of
Holland Road.
GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE:
14950389940000 3 — ROSE HALL 0.92 acres or 40,075 square feet
14951400150000
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant had recently rezoned the site with proffered elevations of the structure. The applicant has
made significant revisions to the building elevations therefore modification of proffers from the conditional
change of zoning are necessary. The Conditional Rezoning from R-5D Residential Duplex District to 0-1
Office District and R-5D Residential Duplex District was approved by the City Council on August 24, 2004.
The Conditional Rezoning has six (6) proffers:
1. When the property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit
entitled "Conceptual Site Layout of Ronald Modlinger, prepared by Burkhart Thomas Reed
Architecture Interior Designs, PC, dated 5/28/04.
2. When the property is developed, the landscaping design shall be developed substantially as
shown on the exhibit entitled "Conceptual Landscape Design of Ronald Modlinger, prepared by
Kathleen Zeren Landscape Design.
3. The architectural design of the office building on the Site Plan will be developed as depicted on
the exhibit entitled "Conceptual Building Design", dated 5/28/04, which has been exhibited to the
Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning.
RONALD M
4. All.outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto
premises and away form adjoining property.
5. At such time that the parcel to be zoned Conditional R-5D (GPIN 1495-14-0015-0000) develops,
access to the site as well as the parcel to be zoned Conditional 0-1 (GPIN 1495-03-8994-0000)
shall be from the existing curb cut associated with the Conditional R-5D parcel. Furthermore, the
existing curb cut to the parcel zoned Conditional 0-1 shall at that time be removed and a no
ingress egress easement shall be platted along the Dam Neck Road frontage.
6. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and
administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all
applicable City code requirements.
Proffer 3 references the original building elevations that have since been revised and is requested
for modification.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: The property is currently undeveloped.
SURROUNDING LAND North: . Church, mini -storage / R-5D Residential District and 1-1
USE AND ZONING: Industrial District
South: . Across Dam Neck Road, single family residential / AG-2
Agricultural District
East: . Single family residential / R-5D Residential District
West: . Church / R-5D Residential District
NATURAL RESOURCE AND
CULTURAL FEATURES: There are stands of mature trees along the sides and rear of the site.
AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 70-75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The
Navy's stated position on the original rezoning in 2004 was that the
AICUZ Program considers this use generally compatible with airfield
operations. The Navy also recommends that noise attenuation
measures be incorporated.
IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES
MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Dam
Neck Road in the vicinity of this application is a four -lane divided major suburban arterial. It is shown on
the MTP map as a divided facility on a 120 feet right-of-way, which is the existing roadway width.
TRAFFIC:
Street Name
Present
Volume
Present Capacity
Generated Traffic
Dam Neck Road
35,390 ADT T
34,900 ADT (Level of
Existing Land Use — 55
Service "C")
ADT
Proposed Land Use s— 152
ADT
Average Daily Trips
gas defined by R-51D residential zoning
3as defined by medical office building
WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is an 16 inch City water main in Dam Neck Road.
SEWER: This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. There is an 8 inch City sanitary sewer in Dam Neck
Road. Sanitary sewer and pump station analysis for Pump Station 561 is required to determine if proposed
flows can be accommodated.
SCHOOLS: No Comment — Not Applicable to this application.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as part of the Strategic Growth Area #11 — West Holland
Area and recommends planning for non-residential uses including offices.
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this request with the modified Proffer Number Three submitted by the
applicant. The proffers are provided below.
The proposed building style is traditional residential. The exterior building materials proposed reflect
materials used on some of the residential structures in this vicinity.
RONALD
PROFFERS
The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The
applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these
proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable,"
(§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve
as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning.
PROFFER 1:
When the property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled
"Conceptual Site Layout of Ronald Modlinger, prepared by Burkhart Thomas Reed Architecture Interior
Designs, PC, dated 5/28/04.
PROFFER 2:
When the property is developed, the landscaping design shall be developed substantially as shown on the
exhibit entitled "Conceptual Landscape Design of Ronald Modlinger, prepared by Kathleen Zeren Landscape
Design.
PROFFER 3:
The architectural design of the office building on the Site Plan will be developed as depicted on the exhibit
entitled "Conceptual Building Design", dated 7/1/05 (Page 1 & Page 2), which has been exhibited to the
Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning.
PROFFER 4:
All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto premises and
away from adjoining property.
PROFFER 5:
At such time that the parcel to be zoned Conditional R-5D (GPIN 1495-14-0015-0000) develops, access to
the site to such site as well as the parcel to be zoned Conditional 0-1 (GPIN 1495-03-8994-0000) shall be
from the existing curb cut associated with the Conditional R-5d parcel. Furthermore, the existing curb cut to
the parcel zoned Conditional 0-1 shall at that time be removed and a no ingress egress easement shall be
platted along the Dam Neck Road frontage.
PROFFER 6:
Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of
applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code
requirements.
STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are acceptable as they dictate the level of quality of the
project.
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated July 25, 2005, and found it to be legally
sufficient and in acceptable legal form.
NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances.
Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to
meet all applicable City Codes.
The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police
Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site.
AERIAL OF SITE
RONALD MODL NGER M. .D.
Agenda item;# 4
Page 6
Conceptual Building resign .
711.JOS
'age 1
am M li
no min
N A
pp��gry�
:OM M=
= 01 M W
IN IE N
o u to w
MOON
Mmual '
� IA of �
`a�®w
fG �f •kR1 W4.
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING
RONALD
jf1
z
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING E
RONALD MC
1
08/24/04
Change of zoning from R-5D to Conditional 0-1
and Conditional R-5D
Granted
2
11/12/02
Conditional Use Permit for a church expansion.
Granted
3
10/09/01
Modification of Conditions for a change of
zoning form R-5D to Conditional 1-1.
Granted
4
07/03/01
Change of zoning from AG-2 to Conditional B-2
and Conditional Use Permit for automobile
service station and carwash.
Granted
5
09/14/99
Change of zoning from R-5D to Conditional 1-1
Granted
6
02/23/99
Conditional Use Permit for communications
antenna.
Granted
ZONING HISTORY'..
RONALD M
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, lousiness, of other
unincorporated organization, complete the following:
1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members;
trustees,; partners, etc. below: ,'Attach list ifnecessary)
2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary.)
Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firrn, business, or
other unincorporated organization.
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant.
If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or ether
unincorporated organization, complete the following:
1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all oicers, members,
trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary)
2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
C3 Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm,
business, or other unincorporated organization.
& z See next page for footnotes
MOditiCaNcui of Conditions Application
Page 1D of i #
RONALD
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
ADDMONAL DISCLOSURES
List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect
to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural
services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal
services: (Attach list if necessary)
(k-5
' "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one. _
corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the
voting power of another corporation.' See State and Local Government Conflict of
Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101.
"Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than
parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (I) one business entity has a
controlling ownership interest in the ether business entity, (H) a controlling owner in
one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared
management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be
considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship
include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two
entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share
the use of the sortie offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or
personnel on a regular basin or there is otherwise a close working relationship
between the entities." ,See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va.
Code § 2.2-3101.
Item #4
Ronald E. Modlinger, M.D.
Modification of Proffers from the Conditional Change of Zoning
3296 Dam Neck Road
District 3
Rose Hall
September 14, 2005
CONSENT
Dorothy Wood: The next order of business will be the consent items. The Vice Chair
will handle this portion of the agenda.
William Din: Thank you Ms. Wood. As in the stating of the reading of the rules, the
consent agenda process will consist of six items today. As I call each of the items, will
the representative or the applicant please come up to the podium, please state your name,
your relationship to the application, and then state if there are conditions with your
applications then state if you've read them and that you agree with those conditions on
each item. The first one that I have is Item #4. This is Ronald E. Modlinger, M.D. This
is a request to modify proffers for an application that was previously approved by City
Council on August 24, 2004. This property is located at 3296 Dam Neck Road in the
Rose Hall District. Welcome sir.
Ronald Modlinger: Morning.
William Din: Could you state your name please?
Ronald Modlinger: I'm Dr. Ronald Modlinger. I'm the owner of the property. We have
changed the design of the building a bit. I've read the conditions and will uphold them.
William Din: There are six proffers that you proffered on this. There are no conditions
associated with it. Is there any objection to placing this item on consent agenda?
Dorothy Wood: It's very attractive doctor. Thank you.
Ronald Modlinger: Thank you.
William Din: If there is no opposition then we will have Jan Anderson explain why we
have placed this on consent. Thank you sir.
Ronald Modlinger: Thank you.
Janice Anderson: Yes. Thank you. This application was for a Modification of Proffers as
previously stated. The only modification was to an elevation. One of the proffers
showed the elevation of the building. The design had a more commercial look to the
Item #4
Ronald E. Modlinger, M.D
Page 2
building. It is to be a doctor's office, and he has requested a change to these. The new
elevation is more residential in type and in look. So, we believe that is reasonable and
recommend approval to Council.
William Din: Thank you Jan. I would like to make a motion to approve the following
item. Item #4 is Ronald E. Modlinger, M.D. An application for modifying proffers on an
application previously approved by City Council on property located at 3296 Dam Neck
Road in the Rose Hall District.
Barry Knight: I'll second that motion.
William Din: Thank you.
AYE 9 NAY 0
ANDERSON
AYE
CRABTREE
AYE
DIN
AYE
HORSLEY
KATSIAS
AYE
KNIGHT
AYE
MILLER
RIPLEY
AYE
STRANGE
AYE
WALLER
AYE
WOOD
AYE
ABS 0 ABSENT 2
ABSENT
ABSENT
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, the Board as approved Item #4 for consent.
f V
� 9 =
1
' tV
9 NS
�F BUR NPZ�O
In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6292
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
DATE: October 13, 2005
TO: Leslie L. Lilley* DEPT: City Attorney
FROM: B. Kay Wilson DEPT: City Attorney
RE: Conditional Zoning Application; Ronald Modlinger
The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the
City Council on October 25, 2005. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated
July 25, 2005, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A
copy of the agreement is attached.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter
further.
BKW/ks
Enclosure
cc: Kathleen Hassen
RONALD MODLINGER
TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 25`" day of July, 2005, by and between Ronald Modlinger,
party of the fist part, and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal cooperation of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the second part.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the owner of certain parcel of property located in
District 3, Rosa Hall, Virginia, containing approximately 1.95 acres, more or less, which is more
particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Said parcel is herein referred to as the "Property", and
WHEREAS, the party of the first part, being the owner of the Property has initiated as
conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition
addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from R-5D
Residential District to Conditional 0-1 Office District and Conditional R-51) Residential District,
and
WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for
various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible
development of various types of used conflict and that in order to permit differing types of used on
x
w
and in the area of Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will be
0
0
a�
created by the Grantor's proposed rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the
N
Property for the protection of the
u n
a '5 - "
G-PIN: 14950308994000
G-PIN: 14951400150000
C7 N iL > v
community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the
situation to which the Grantor's rezoning; application gives rise; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to
the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map
with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical
development, operation, and use or the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the
Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the
rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns,
grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by of
exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid
pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes
the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the
physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that
this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding
upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its
successors, personal, representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in interest or title:
When the Property is developed, is shall be developed substantially as shown on
the exhibit entitled "Conceptual Site Layout of Ronald Modlinger, prepared by Burkhart Thomas
Reed Architecture Interior Designs, PC, dated 5/28/04.
2. When the Property is developed, the landscaping design shall be developed
substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "Conceptual Landscape Design of Ronald
Modlinger, prepared by Kathleen Zeren Landscape Design.
3. The architectural design of the office building on the Site Plan will be developed
as depicted on the exhibit entitled Conceptual Building Design, dated 7/l/05 (pages 1 & 2),
which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia
Beach Department of Planning.
4. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct
light down onto premises and away from adjoining property.
At such time that the parcel to be zoned Conditional R-5D (GPIN 1495-14-0015-
0000) develops, access to such site as well as the parcel to be zoned Conditional 0-1 (GPIN
1495-03-8994-0000) shall be from the existing curb cut associated with the Conditional R-5D
parcel. Futhermore, the existing curb cut to the parcel zoned Conditional 0-1 shall at that time
be removed and a no ingress egress easement shall be platted along the Dam Neck Road
frontage.
6. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan
review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and
departments to meet all applicable City code requirements.
All references hereinabove to 0-1 Office and R-513 Residential and to the requirements
and regulations applicable thereto refer to Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this
Agreement by the City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein.
The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by
the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and
effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals
such conditions. Such conditions shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent
amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such
conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the zoning Ordinance even if the
subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially
revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed,
amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of
recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in
writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing
body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the grantee which was advertised pursuant to
the provision of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or
resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent,
and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void.
The Grantor covenant and agree that:
(1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested
with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the
authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and
(b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory
or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding;
(2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny
the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate;
(3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these
provisions, The Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to
instituting proceedings in court; and
(4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of
conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be j
made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning
Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office
of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, indexed in the names of the grantor
and the Grantee.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
rT? ANTTnD -
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this '5?5dav of July, 2005, by
Ronald Modlinger.
Notary ublic
My Commission expires:/
Exhibit "A"
PARCEL TWO:
ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the City
of Virginia Beach, Virginia and being designated "Lillie G. Miller to Theodore
Morings, .95 ac," as shown upon that certain plat entitled, "Landtown-Princess
Anne Co., VA." dated June 13, 1962, and made by W.B, Gallup, County
Surveyor, which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 56, page 41.
PARCEL ONE:
ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with its appurtenances, situate in the City
of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and described as "Theodore Morings" as shown on that
certain plat entitled "Property of Theodore Morings at Landtown-in-Princess AnneCo.,
VA", dated March 10, 1956, made by W.B. Gallup, County Surveyor, and duly recorded
in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed
Book 446, page 318, containing two (2) acres, more or less, and fronting two hundred
(200) feet on the western side of Landtown Road.
but Mai
577,
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: S & J, L.L.C. — Change of Zoning District Classification and Conditional Use
Permit (multi -family dwellings)
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of S & J, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning
District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-
4 Mixed Use District with a Shore Drive Overlay District on property located at
3762 Shore Drive (GPINs 14893879190000; 14893960430000;
14893950710000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being of
the Primary Residential Area -Shore Drive Corridor, suitable for appropriately
located residential and non-residential uses consistent with the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop 18 multi-
family dwellings with 2,400 square feet of retail. DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE
An Ordinance upon Application of S & J, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit
for multi -family dwellings on property located at 3762 Shore Drive (GPINs
14893879190000; 14893960430000; 14893950710000). DISTRICT 4 —
BAYS I DE
■ Considerations:
The applicant proposes to rezone the existing property to allow the
development of a mixed -use project with 18 residential condominium units
and 2,400 square feet of retail/office. A three-story building is proposed. The
parking area and retail space will be located on the ground floor. The
condominiums will be located on the second and third floors.
The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's
recommendations for this area. The Shore Drive Advisory Committee has
reviewed the project and has commented favorably. The building and
landscaping have been designedl'i-n accordance with the Shore Drive Design
Guidelines. The height of the building at 45 feet maximum and the proposed
setback from Shore Drive of 15 feet is compatible with other recently
developed properties within the "Mixed Zone". Setbacks from Shore Drive
within the Mixed Zone vary from 15 feet to 30 feet. This proposal is
compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood as well as the business
areas. The exterior building materials reflect the materials used within the
residential neighborhood adjacent to this property. Staff recommended one
S & J, L.L.C.
Page 2 of 2
condition be attached to the Conditional Use Permit for multi -family dwellings
concerning the fagade of the building.
There was opposition to the requests.
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to
approve the requests as proffered and with the following condition:
1. The building elevations must be revised to show a gable end roof in lieu of
the gambrel style roof.
Note: A revised elevation meeting condition #1 was submitted after the
Planning Commission meeting and is attached.
■ Attachments:
Revised Elevation
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
City Manager: �L . 7��r6 &)k
S&J, LLC
Agenda Item #5 & 6
September 14, 2005 Public Hearing
Staff Planner: Barbara Duke
REQUEST:
5) Change of Zoning District Classification from
B-2 Community Business District to
Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District with a
Shore Drive Overlay District;
6) Conditional Use Permit for multi -family dwellings
w
C_onotttona! Zoning Change from b-Z Mn to H-a (SU)
ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 3762 Shore Drive
GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE:
14893879190000; 4 - BAYSIDE 33,976 square feet
14893960430000;
14893950710000
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant proposes to rezone the existing property to allow the development of a mixed -use project
with 18 residential condominium units and 2,400 square feet of retail/office. A three-story building is
proposed. The parking area and retail space will be located on the ground floor. The condominiums will
be located on the second and third floors.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: Boat sales and service
SURROUNDING LAND North: 0 Duplex and Single -Family Dwellings / R-5R Residential District
USE AND ZONING: South:
Shore Drive
East: . Boat sales and service/ B-2 Community Business District
West: . Design business and Residential / B-2 Community Business
District
NATURAL RESOURCE AND The majority of the site is developed with impervious cover. There is
CULTURAL FEATURES: very little landscaping on the site.
AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS
Oceana.
IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES
MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Shore
Drive in front of this site is a four lane divided major urban arterial roadway. It is designated on the
Master Transportation Plan as a 150 foot divided right-of-way with a multi -use trail. According to the
Department of Public Works, the right-of-way at this location is sufficient to meet the requirement of the
Master Transportation Plan.
A right of way reservation/dedication may be required on Stratford Road to upgrade the roadway to
current standards. This requirement will be determined during detailed site plan review.
TRAFFIC:
Street Name
Present
Volume
Present Capacity
Generated Traffic
Shore Drive
36, 285 ADT'
26,300 ADT
Existing Land Use — 100 ADT
Proposed Land Use 3- 211 ADT
Average Daily Trips
Zas defined by 5,200 s.f. of marine sales
3 as defined by 18 residential condos and 2,400 s.f. of commercial
WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is a 6 inch City water line in Stratford Road fronting this
site.
SEWER: This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. Analysis of Pump Station #306 and the sanitary sewer
collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. There is an 8 inch City sanitary
sewer in Stratford Road fronting this site.
SCHOOLS:
School
Current
Capacity
Generation
Change 2
Enrollment
Thoroughgood
684
1
1
Elementary
Great Neck Middle
1330
1
1
Cox High
2018
1 1
1
"generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school
2 ,change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The
number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students).
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being a part COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
of the Primary Residential Area — Shore Drive Corridor. The area of the proposed development falls
within the "Mixed Zone" as identified in the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines. This portion of Shore
Drive possesses a mix of uses, primarily single-family and duplex units, office and commercial uses. The
Comprehensive Plan generally supports resort type uses including lodging, retail, entertainment,
recreational, cultural and other uses in this area. The Bayfront Planning Area's land use policies support
well -planned and designed residential developments that promote community aesthetics, economic
vitality, quality physical environment, and enhanced quality of life. The Shore Drive Corridor Plan and the
Design Guidelines are established to ensure that these initiatives are achieved
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this request with the submitted proffers as well as the conditions listed
below. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area.
The Shore Drive Advisory Committee has reviewed the project and has commented favorably. The
building and landscaping have been designed in accordance with the Shore Drive Design Guidelines. The
height of the building at 45 feet maximum and the proposed setback from Shore Drive of 15 feet is
compatible with other recently developed properties within the "Mixed Zone". Setbacks from Shore Drive
within the Mixed Zone vary from 15 feet to 30 feet. This proposal is compatible with the adjacent
residential neighborhood as well as the business areas. The exterior building materials reflect the
materials used within the residential neighborhood adjacent to this property. Staff has recommended one
condition be attached to the Conditional Use Permit for multi -family dwellings concerning the fagade of
the building.
PROFFERS
The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The
applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these
proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable,"
(§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve
as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning.
PROFFERII:
When the Property is developed, in order to achieve a coordinated design and development of this mixed
use site in terms of limited vehicular access, parking, landscape buffering, and building design, the
`CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN OF VINTAGE QUAY", dated May 30, 2005,
prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the
Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan") shall be substantially adhered to.
PROFFER 2:
When the Property is developed, vehicular ingress and egress shall be via one (1) entrance from Stratford
Road.
S&J, L.L.
Agenda Item # 5
Page
C.
&6
3
PROFFER 3:
The architectural design of the building depicted on the Concept Plan will be substantially as depicted on the
exhibit entitled "VINTAGE QUAY Bishard Development Retnauer Design Associates", which has been
exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning
("Elevation"). The principal exterior building materials shall be brick and synthetic shake cedar siding.
PROFFER 4:
There will be no more than eighteen (18) residential units and no less 2400 square feet of enclosed
commercial space not utilized for residential purposes, within the building depicted on the Concept Plan.
The only commercial uses permitted in the building are:
a. retail shops;
b. florists, gift shops and stationary stores;
c. business studios, offices and clinics; and
d. medical and dental offices and clinics.
PROFFER 5:
Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of
applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code
requirements
STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are acceptable as they dictate the exact mix of uses and the
level of quality of the project.
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated May 31, 2005 and found it to be legally
sufficient and in acceptable legal form.
CONDITIONS
1. The building elevations must be revised to show a gable end roof in lieu of the gambrel style roof.
NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances.
Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to
meet all applicable City Codes.
The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police
Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site.
AERIAL OF SITE
LOCATION
Ak kit
1
07/01/03
REZONING from B-2 Business to B-4
GRANTED
and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for
multifamily dwellings
2
06/08/87
REZONING from R-8 to B-2 (Conditions
GRANTED
Pending)
3
03/26/91
CHANGE TO NONCONFORMING USE
DENIED
4
05/09/00
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for boat
GRANTED
sales and service
07/02/02
MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS
GRANTED
5
04/28/98
REZONING from B-2,R-5D,P-1 to A-18
GRANTED
(PDH2)
NO
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated
organization, complete the following:
1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees,
partners, etc, below: {Attach list if necessary)
S & J, L.L.C.: Steven Bishard, Managing' Member; John Bishard, Member
2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
0 Check here fi the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or
other unincorporated organization.
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant.
If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other
unincorporated organization, complete the following:
1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members,
trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary)
JohnB. Griswold, III and Dorothy R, Griswold
2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
X Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business,
or other unincorporated organization:'
& See next page for footnotes
Condiffonal Rezonirecg Appliication.
Page 1 t of t?
RevisedS41;2004
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES
List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect
to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural
services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal
services: (Attach list if necessary)
MSA, P.C.
Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C.
Retnauer resign Associates, P.C.
Harry R, Purkey, Jr., P.C.
' "Parent -subsidiary relationship„ means "a relationship that exists when one
corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the
voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of
Interests Act, Va. Code § 22-3101.
2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means"a relationship, other than
parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a
controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in
one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii)there is shared
management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be
considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship
include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two
entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share
the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, -resources or
personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship
between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va.
Code § 2.2-3101.
CERTIFICATION`: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate.
I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been
scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required
sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled VpubIjear'
accordin to e instructi s in this packagS & J, -LBy: �, Ske n a ,g Member
Applica etur Print Name
John B. Griswold, III
Dorothy R. Griswold
fl perty OwnRfnot (if different than applicant) Print Name
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Item #5 & 6
S&J, L.L.C.
Change of Zoning District Classification
Conditional Use Permit
3762 Shore Drive
District 4
Bayside
September 14, 2005
REGULAR
Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #5 & 6, S & J, L.L.C., an ordinance upon
application of S&J, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2
Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District with a Shore Drive
Overlay District on property located at 3762 Shore Drive and Item #6 S&J, L.L.C., an
ordinance upon application of S & J, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for multi-
family dwellings on property located 3762 Shore Drive, District 4, Bayside with four
proffers and one condition.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you again Mr. Secretary. Madame Chair, for the record, again,
my name is Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney. It is my pleasure to come before
you this afternoon to represent this application for S&J, L.L.C. I gave the Zoning
Administrator copies of seven letters that I am passing around from members of the
community who give us letters of support for the requested Change of Zoning District and
Conditional Use Permit for multi -family dwellings. The property is an assemblage of
three existing parcels, which contains, just slightly under 34,000 square feet on Shore
Drive that has been occupied for quite a number of years by Colley Marine. They
operated there. The area has certainly grown and changed in all these years and quite
frankly, their operation is somewhat in terms of their appearance and character are out of
keeping with what's developed in this area of Shore Drive. We think the proposal is one
for a multi -family and commercial office mixed use development that is in with keeping
with what we are trying to achieve on this section of Shore Drive, the ULI Study and
some of the other incentives that have been put into our design in the Shore Drive area,
and the ordinances. The units that we're proposing to build will be built on top of what is
in essence is a parking garage. All the parking is on the first floor but it doesn't look like
a garage. It is very attractive. It looks to be a building but is actually parking on the first
floor. It is the only building of its type that I'm aware of that has been proposed, and will
be built on Shore Drive that is not waterfront. This property is not waterfront and it is a
testament to the values of this area, and what this area is becoming and will continue to
be as it evolves. The building materials that we're talking about are brick, cedar shake,
hardy -plank, and metal roof. There are currently three entrances to this property. One on
Shore Drive and two on Stratford that will be reduced to none on Shore Drive and one on
Stratford. The entrance you see here. There will be no entrances on Shore Drive. You
come in off of Stratford and enter the parking area beneath the residential and commercial
retail. The commercial office I guess I should say is here on the corner. It is anticipated
Item #5 & 6
S&J, L.L.C.
Page 2
that there will be an office in here, as well as, likely a retail or apparel store for those who
spend a lot of time on the water and around the water. It's all based on parking and the
value of the property. We meet the parking requirements for the residential as well as the
office and retail. One of the benefits of mixed use as we found out in Town Center and as
we evolve in our thinking as far as zoning is concerned is that you have a situation where
the residents are gone during the day and that provides additional potential parking other
than over and above the 12 parking spaces for the office and retail. And at night, the 12
parking spaces for the office and retail are available for the residents who live in the units.
The units are 2,200 square feet. They are not the type of units that are going to be
occupied by families with children, and very little, if any children will be residing in this
type of a development. We will also be making improvements along Stratford Road and
adding four parallel parking spaces off site, which are not necessary to meet the parking
requirements in our zoning ordinance but we will be providing those as well. The
building itself is setback 15 feet from the property line along Shore Drive. It is in line
with the beautiful building to our west. One of the letters that you have from the owner
of that property strongly supports this application. As you proceed further to the west,
there is development that Mr. Arnold is doing and he certainly doesn't have any objection
to this one at all. And then next to that is the O&R Condos that were built a number of
years ago and very nicely landscaped along Shore Drive. Those units are only setback 8
feet from the property line. That is further to the west here in this location here. It is my
understanding that my client spent a great deal of time with the community, with the
Shore Drive Community working through this process and has gotten significant amount
of support from the community. It is referenced in these letters and with the numerous
meetings that he has had. Your staff is recommending approval of the application and we
certainly appreciate that, and concur. We think it's a great use of this property, a
significant investment, reinvestment, and redevelopment of this property, which will be a
long-term benefit to this section of the City. I understand this morning there was
apparently some questions about maybe some changes to the architecture on the outside.
We're certainly amenable to working with those changes. We think it is very high
quality, very attractive but we're certainly not going to shut the door to any changes. We
made the one change that Planning Department had a barn style feature on the exterior
architecture and we changed that and that is reflected on what you have before you.
There are some railings what have you that you think are too busy, we're certainly not
adverse to making changes or removing those railings. We're happy to work with staff.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? I think we have
some opposition Mr. Bourdon. Thank you.
Joseph Strange: Okay. We have three people speaking in opposition today. The first
person is Judy Connors.
Dorothy Wood: Welcome Ms. Connors.
Item #5 & 6
S&J, L.L.C.
Page 3
Judy Connors: Thank you. My name is Judy Connors. I'm a long time resident of Ocean
Park. We spent much time and effort trying to protect the integrity of this strategic
situated community. When speaking for myself, and I'm not truly in opposition. What
we saw is just a little bit different then what I understood what it was going to be. So,
I'm sort of thrown here. I guess I'll skip to the fact that I think it is very commendable
because I think he's creating an imaginative project. As a member of the BZA, it thrills
me. Evidently, it will not need any variances. However, it is going to have driveways
accessible from a residential street that is already over burdened and that is one of our
concerns about these projects. But my major concern as I discussed with Mr. Bishard is
parking. I recognized that he's meeting the minimum requirements of the City but I also
recognize that those requirements do not meet the needs of this highly developed
community that's springing up in Ocean Parr:. Two spaces per unit with no visitor
designated parking is not practical in today's world. Many families have three cars today
plus most enjoy having guests, both overnight and daytime, daytime for teas, card parties
and just plain conversation. Using the business allotted spaces for overnight guests. The
only time that these spaces will officially be available to the resident conjures up visions
of every one shifting cars in the morning when the business need theirs. A walk through
these high -density communities in the early morning or late evening is very telling when
you see the way creative people park or creative parking. There is just not enough
parking for these high -density developments.. In digressing a bit when I represented the
Ocean Park Civic League and worked with the City 20 or so years ago to develop the
Ocean Park Beach, is a public beach, we pledged to work with the City to identify places
for the public to park to use this wonderful asset. Many of these are now being used by
the current residents for overflow parking. So it can come to pass that the public will be
completely shut out. The bottom line is that Ocean Park is now an extremely high -
density area and we need to be considerate of the quality of life for the folks who now
live there as well as those who are going to purchase these units.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ms. Connors. We appreciate you coming down. Would you
answer any questions? Mr. Ripley?
Ronald Ripley: Judy? How are you today?
Judy Connors: I'm fine. I've talked to him about this.
Ronald Ripley: You see the sign. Relax. It's a little different on that side.
Judy Connors: I've been on that side to long.
Ronald Ripley: We have spoken two times about this in great length. Judy is expressing
the same sentiment that we've talked about several times particularly. The one thing is
that the access on Stratford may not be as desirable but you realize you don't want to
access it on Shore Drive because you want to get the road going through. I don't think
that is a big issue is it?
Item #5 & 6
S&J, L.L.C.
Page 4
Judy Connors: That is big but it taking into consideration that this is primarily a
residential community, and all these streets are very over developed. They have a lot of
cars, a lot of people, a lot of children, and making all accesses. I don't know what the
answer is. It is better than Shore Drive as you and I talked about.
Ronald Ripley: Right.
Judy Connors: I do object to him including those parking spaces he's developing on
Stratford Road because that is in the public right-of-way. To pull them in and grab this
Conditional Use Permit is a little bit disturbing to me.
Ronald Ripley: It is in a public right-of-way. I would think that residents in the area will
park there too from time to time.
Judy Connors: Oh, they will be used.
Ronald Ripley: I would think so. Yeah. If you count all that up, I mean the 36 units and
the 12 units and the 4 units on the road is like 52 parking spaces. I don't how you can get
anymore parking on there.
Judy Connors: We talked about this on the fact of how he was going to create anymore
parking.
Ronald Ripley: How much more parking do you think that something like this would
need?
Judy Connors: I think one of my primary reasons for coming down here today is to bring
this parking situation in this community and along Shore Drive out so that people can
realize when you put all these condominiums in here that do not require any open spaces
so we are creating parking hazards, and we're doing away with the public parking that we
promised the public would be available when we created a public beach in Ocean Park,
and now any public access to it is being cut off because these parking spaces that are
being needed by the people who have bought and have more cars. So parking is a big
issue and this was a big issue to me to see this building meeting the City requirements,
and I acknowledge that. But I'm bringing my concerns to you.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions for Ms. Connors? Thank you very much.
We appreciate you coming.
Joseph Strange: The next speaker in opposition is Carl Godwin.
Item #5 & 6
S&J, L.L.C.
Page 5
Dorothy Wood: Welcome Mr. Godwin.
Carl Godwin: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Carl Godwin and I represent the
Ocean Park Civic League. I don't need to add anything to what Ms. Connor's just said
other than the civic league totally backs her on this parking problem. We do have a
parking problem in that area and we feel this is just going to add to them.
Dorothy Wood: What would you like to see there?
Carl Godwin: Well, maybe a little less number of units there might take care of it. That
is the only thing that I can think of. The building is beautifully designed. We have no
problem at all with the design of the building, and the use of the building. But it
definitely is going to add to the parking problem that already exists in this area.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Are there any questions? Ron?
Ronald Ripley: I will ask you the same kind of question that I asked Judy. This property,
including the on site street parking that is shown on the site plan is 52 parking spaces for
18 units. How many more parking spaces would you think would be needed? It really is
excessive. It's more than anything else that has been put up.
Carl Godwin: Two commercial operations there, as I understand it. And assuming that
two people work there in each unit, there are four spaces going right there. If they have
any kind of traffic at all, where are people going to park? I don't think you can count on
the people that live there being gone in the day. That is not a valid assumption that
they're going to be gone or their cars are going to be gone during the day. So, where do
these people park that are going to visit these commercial operations and give business to
the people.
Ronald Ripley: I agree. There is no guarantee that people won't be there during the day.
We typically see people coming and going at least seven times for each housing unit there
so there is always people coming and going. There are always spaces opening up and
closing typically. One of the things and I'm sure you looked at this but one of the
proffers in there talked about limiting the types of uses in the retail so it doesn't require a
lot of parking, which I'm glad to see. The staff recognized that and the applicant agreed
to it. Hopefully you all saw that? Did you see that?
Carl Godwin: We did see that.
Ronald Ripley: Good. Thank you very much.
Carl Godwin: The on street parking we feel like the people in the neighborhood and
since parking is so restricted there that these spaces are probably going to be filled up by
residents.
Item #5 & 6
S&J, L.L.C.
Page 6
Ronald Ripley: I would think so. Yes.
Dorothy Wood: And your civic league did vote on this sir?
Carl Godwin: Yes.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Godwin. We appreciate it.
Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Irene Sutton.
Dorothy Wood: Welcome Ms. Sutton.
Irene Sutton: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for this opportunity. My parents
bought the piece of property.
Ed Weeden: Ma'am, state your name for the record.
Irene Sutton: Oh, I'm sorry. Irene Sutton. My parents bought the piece of property that
is right across from the opening of the drive on Stratford Road. Right where that large
beautiful Water Oak tree is back in 1940.
Dorothy Wood: Could you please use the pointer and show us where your parent's
property is?
Irene Sutton: This would be it.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you.
Irene Sutton: And it is still in the family. This is a single-family residence. The one
right next to it is a single-family residence. My family and I highly oppose this use
because of the congestion and the parking problems. We have had horrible parking
problems with just the boat place that has been there for over 40 years, blocking the road,
people parking in our yard, people blocking our driveway. This will just compound it.
This is right where we have single-family housing. We would like to keep it the way it is
but not any worse certainly than what it is. Right now, the way it looks is people's
headlights are going to be coming out of there during the night and going directly into our
family house. I would hate to see this kind of thing go up right across from my family
home where I grew up especially, I don't think that anyone in this room would want to
see an 18 unit condo going up right across the street from their house. We feel the same
way. Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: What would you like to see there?
Irene Sutton: It's been a business for a long time, so some kind of small business. The
Item #5 & 6
S&J, L.L.C.
Page 7
boat place supposedly had a lot of parking places. They still parked all over the road.
They still blocked our driveway. We still hadi problems all the time and that was just a
single business. You're talking about two businesses and 18 units and a lot of visitors, a
lot of people coming and going. That's a lot of congestion for Stratford Road.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Would you please answer any questions?
Irene Sutton: Yes. Certainly.
Dorothy Wood: Well, there are no questions.. Thank you Ms. Sutton.
Irene Sutton: Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon. Would you like to say a few words?
Eddie Bourdon: Yes. I appreciate it. I appreciate the comments. I appreciate Ms.
Connors long time crusade for making sure there is public parking that provides people
access to the beach. We certainly have a very large parking lot at the foot of the bridge
there with the boat ramp facility. This application or this proposal so it is very clear does
not contemplate utilizing any of the on street parking that would be creating to satisfy the
requirements of the zoning ordinance on this site. The parking for this property meets the
zoning ordinance requirements on this site underneath the building. The other spaces that
will be created along Stratford Road are for the public's use. Where you're going to have
a series of buildings on these lots with a series of driveways coming out to Stratford
Road, three, four or five, you will have less parking for the public on Stratford Road. The
entrance is close to the entrance to the neighborhood from Shore Drive so the traffic
going in and out will not be passing anybody's house across the street. In fact, across the
street is part of the Colley Marine property that my client has an option to buy but the
owners at this point not willing to sell yet. They're looking for another location to
possibly relocate to for that part of their business. At this point, that commercial
operation across the street will remain where it is located and our entrance is basically at
the end of that property in the area right about here. The letter that I wanted to read of all
the letters that you have and I apologize for reading but I think this needs to be put out
there is from the people from Seascape Interiors next door. I've owned the property
directly adjacent to Colley Marine Boat Shop on Shore Drive for 28 years. During this
time I have operated by interior design business, Seascape Interiors out of this location
and have leased out other shops in my building. I'm a resident of Ocean Park, a member
of the Ocean Park Civic League, and I occasionally attend the Shore Drive Advisory
Meetings. On August 4, I attended the Shore Drive Advisory Committee meeting and
while at that meeting, I observed a presentation by Mr. Bishard regarding the proposed
mix use residential project for Vintage Quay. It goes on to say in great length about how
she supports this proposal. I think it absolutely meets with everyone in this area should
be looking for. It's going to a good quality.
Item #5 & 6
S&J, L.L.C.
Page 8
Dorothy Wood: Times up. Thank you so much Mr. Bourdon. Are there any questions
for Mr. Bourdon? Ron.
Ronald Ripley: Eddie, the number of units in there was mentioned, could that be reduced
to allow for more parking? Is that something that is feasible with this application?
Eddie Bourdon: It isn't feasible economically given the value of the property, and the
amount of money that is being spent to develop, and the quality that is being proposed. In
other words, we're not talking about cutting any corners with this proposal. And parking
is what is driven. This is all we can do based on the parking and providing parking that
will meet the needs of the people in the building. Were it even feasible to economically
to try and do fewer units, you would be dealing with larger units, more likely to produce
more cars, more residents, and you're just dealing with the simple economics, as I said,
the value of the property, and the cost of constructions. These are not large units.
They're 2,200 square feet. They're designed and marketed for essentially empty nesters
or young professionals that do not have families.
Dorothy Wood: Any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Gene.
Eugene Crabtree: Eddie, the lady spoke about the entrance to the project being straight
across the street from her family home. It looks like on the picture there are trees in front
of any structure right there in that area. Am I correct?
Eddie Bourdon: You are Mr. Crabtree. With the location of the entrance, unless
someone was coming out and turning to the :left in the evening, there wouldn't be any
lights.
Eugene Crabtree: The entrance sits down closer to the corner then what our diagram
shows?
Eddie Bourdon: Correct. Well the entrance is in this area right here. And that is
relatively close to the corner. The movement of vehicles out is going to be 90 percent
taking a right turn and coming out this way. There will be very little traffic that will leave
this building and turn this way and come down this way. I'm not saying there won't be
any.
Eugene Crabtree: What I'm asking is the building on that particular property appears in
the picture that it sits toward the back of the property.
Eddie Bourdon: Yes sir. It does.
Eugene Crabtree: Okay.
Dorothy Wood: Ms. Katsias.
Item #5 & 6
S&J, L.L.C.
Page 9
Kathy Katsias: The fact that the parking is on the first floor has any consideration to
eliminate the 2,400 square feet of offices or businesses and create that as additional
parking as opposed to having it as a mix use?
Eddie Bourdon: Well, there are 12 parking spaces for that separate and apart from the
parking spaces for the residential. So that is number one. We provided all the parking
that is required for that use. Those uses are by design low intense uses that are not going
to produce a great deal of traffic, and are only going to be operating during the day time.
We're dealing with a situation where we are absolutely and supremely confident that
there will be more than enough parking on site to deal with the employees and business
customers of those two buildings. So, we have not given any consideration to not having
it be a mix use because that is what gives us energy to the community of having
businesses you can walk to. I understand we're trying to create. I think this what were
doing and doing it in a way that is cognizant of parking issues and are not asking for any
variances for parking whatsoever.
Dorothy Wood: Ron?
Ronald Ripley: So you're saying that the parking you designed meets each use
independent of each other?
Eddie Bourdon: Yes sir.
Ronald Ripley: You didn't mix the use. Yoa didn't say like in Town Center where you
can mix the office and the residential and the: retail at a lower per unit or in this case per
1,000.
Eddie Bourdon: That is 100 percent correct. We're not doing what has been done in
Town Center. But it works but this is not what we're doing here.
Dorothy Wood: John?
John Waller: Eddie, I think you said you were going to do something with those railings
on the third floor. Are you going to redesign that?
Eddie Bourdon: Again, I apologize. I did absolutely say we would be happy to
implement what you have all asked for but as I was at another meeting. We made
changes that the staff asked us and I understand that was what you all asked for and if that
was what you asked for then we are willing to do that. Yes sir.
Dorothy Wood: Have you shown the opposition the new plans because I think they're
much more attractive than the ones that are up here.
Item #5 & 6
S&J, L.L.C.
Page 10
Eddie Bourdon: I'm not sure but I will be happy to do so. The architecture changes and I
don't think the opposition was concerned about the architect.
Dorothy Wood: Okay. I thought maybe they would be happier.
Eddie Bourdon: I certainly will. I don't want to put words in Ms. Connor's mouth.
think she is just concerned about parking.
Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions? Any discussion? Jan.
Janice Anderson: Yes. The application as a whole, I think is attractive and I would make
a motion to approve. I just want to go through a few things and concerns. I believe the
parking in the whole Shore Drive area is an issue and it is not just this one area that is
isolated. I don't know Mr. Ripley if something could be done with parking in general
over there whether an overlay district it can change that way where there is a requirement.
In this specific area is an Overlay to have more parking for that area but I don't feel
comfortable for this applicant to do more parking than is required by what the City has as
a requirement. It is clear from what he put in there that he's met the parking required for
the residential and that the parking required for the retail. And above that, they added
four spaces right on the road that really wouldn't benefit either of those uses but maybe
benefit the residents. I know there is parking issue but I think he's not hurting it because
he's not cutting back but he's providing everything that is required plus four. So, he's
gone above. The other thing that I think is attractive with this is and I think Mr. Ripley
discussed it in the closed meeting is the way they designed the parking underneath the
building. It is all underneath the building. It is not right visible. You're not looking at a
huge car lot right in front of houses. It is covered. It's an open space. It looks like
another floor right there. So, I think that design is nicely done. The access and there is
one access on Stratford Road so even though there are 18 units there is only one access
and I think that is a benefit nothing on Shore Drive. This is a B-2 zoning right now. It
could be a very heavy commercial use right next to these residences. And I think they
will probably be happy with a mix use that has residences in it whether than a heavier
business use as a B-2 would allow. So far as the zoning, they're requesting a B-4 zoning.
I believe it actually could a little bit more denser. The application, I don't think is as
dense as it could be under the zoning, and with the height I don't have a problem with
that. I think it is in scale with the rest of the development on Shore Drive. Those are the
reasons behind my support for the application.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any other comments? Ron?
Ronald Ripley: The applicant and I've talked with the applicant a couple of times. The
applicant, I understand has been very cooperative in working with the City and a couple
of ideas that I suggested to him took to heart and did. With regard to his landscaping he's
trying to comply with the landscaping plan that is envisioned up and down the corridor,
and putting a sidewalk in was important. At first when I looked at the application, I was a
Item #5 & 6
S&J, L.L.C.
Page 11
little concerned about it being too much for the site. But the more I looked at it and I was
really concerned about the parking, and Judy and I talked about that. I really thought long
and hard about it. When I looked at the fact that it was meeting the ordinance for both
uses completely, which is about 50 spaces, if I'm counting correctly. I think that's right.
Is that right? Where if you were in Town Center, if I understand the ordinance correctly
you would be in the retail about 3.3 spaces per 1,000, and on the residential it would be
1.7 units spaces for 1,000. You would have about 38 spaces. The point is that is what is
recognized in a mix use environment is that you're blending the uses and your sharing the
uses. Here, he's trying to meet the intent of both the commercial use and the residential
use independent of the other. If we could have more parking it would be helpful but you
heard him say it is not feasible. As far as adding parking into the area, I think it is sorely
needed and Kathy Katsias and I have talked a couple of times about the need and at least
having one deck of parking when the bridge goes in over and have it some how fit it into
the parking that is by the bridge. I know Clay Bernick had mentioned and I think maybe
actually going under the bridge with some more parking somehow. But I think that needs
to be studied too and I think additional parking would be helpful for people accessing the
beach from that point. Another thing, I believe I understand about this site plan is that
traffic that is traveling easterly would probably turn in at Roanoke because it is decel lane
at that point. I don't think there is decel lane back up at Roanoke. I think it is a cross
over at the median but it is not a decel lane. I think if you're coming home you would
want to get into that decelerate to make the turn, so I think the traffic for the most part
will be coming and going at that point. So, I don't think it will be feeding back into the
neighborhood too often. I'm sure some will feed back there but I think a majority will
come out on Roanoke. So, I think that is important. If this application was fitted back
into the neighborhood that would never work because they would be just too much traffic
generated, I believe. I've taken to heart what Judy said because we've had a couple of
nice long conversations about this but I kind of come back to supporting the application.
I think there is enough parking there. I would love to see more so I'm going to be in
favor of the application.
Dorothy Wood: Is there anyone else? Can I hear a motion please?
Janice Anderson: I'll make a motion to approve the application.
Dorothy Wood: A motion by Ms. Anderson and a second by Mr. Crabtree and Mr.
Ripley to approve the application. I would ask Eddie that you have your client talk to
Mr. Waller before it goes to Council to tweak the design. We're very lucky to have Mr.
Waller, an architect. I think he is good at this. Thank you.
Eddie Bourdon: We will talk to him today.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you.
Item #5 & 6
S&J, L.L.C.
Page 12
Kay Wilson: Ms. Wood, for both applications or for the application for Rezoning or the
Conditional Use Permit?
Eugene Crabtree: Both
Kay Wilson: I need clarification please.
Dorothy Wood: Would you please?
Janice Anderson: Yes. My motion is to approve the Change of Zoning and for the
Conditional Use Permit.
Kay Wilson: Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is that your second?
Eugene Crabtree: Yes.
AYE 9 NAY 0
ANDERSON
AYE
CRABTREE
AYE
DIN
AYE
HORSLEY
KATSIAS
AYE
KNIGHT
AYE
MILLER
RIPLEY
AYE
STRANGE
AYE
WALLER
AYE
WOOD
AYE
ABS 0 ABSENT 2
ABSENT
ABSENT
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0 the Board has approved the application of S&J, L.L.C. for
the Change of Zoning and the Conditional Use Permit.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you all for coming down. And as you know, this is just a
recommendation to City Council.
In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6228
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
DATE: October 13, 2005
TO: Leslie L. Lille y DEPT: City Attorney
FROM: B. Kay Wilson . DEPT: City Attorney
RE: Conditional Zoning Application; S & J, LLC
The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the
City Council on October 25, 2005. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated
May 31, 2005, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A
copy of the agreement is attached.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter
further.
BKW/ks
Enclosure
cc: Kathleen Hassen
S & J, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company
JOHN B. GRISWOLD, III and DOROTHY R. GRISWOLD, husband and wife
TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of
Virginia
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 31st day of May, 2005, by and between S &
J, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the first part;
JOHN B. GRISWOLD, III and DOROTHY R. GRISWOLD, husband and wife,
parties of the second part, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a
municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the
third part.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of three (3) parcels of
property located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing
approximately ± .78 Acres which are more particularly described as Parcels 1, 2
and 3 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Said parcels are herein together referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of the
parcels described in Exhibit "A" and has initiated a conditional amendment to the
Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the
Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from B-2
Community Business District to B-4 Resort Commercial District (SD); and
GPIN: 1489-38-7919
1489-39-6043
1489-39-5071
PREPARED BY:
' SYKES. EOURDON,
UN AIIERN & LEVY. P.C.
1
PREPARED BY:
0M SYKES. ROURDON,
Mil ARM & LEVY, P.C.
WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly
development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land
development legislation; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes
incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the
area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the
need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of
the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to
land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's
rezoning application gives rise; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of
and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed
amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the B-
4 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following
reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of
the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map
relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the
rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal
representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in title or interest,
voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its
governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for
zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make
the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and
govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby
covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running
with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties
and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal
representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title:
1. When the Property is developed, in order to achieve a coordinated
design and development of this mixed use site in terms of limited vehicular
access, parking, landscape buffering, and building design, the "CONCEPTUAL
2
PREPARED BY:
OM SPICES, BOURDON,
OR ARM & LEVY, P.C.
SITE LAYOUT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN OF VINTAGE QUAY", dated May 30, 2005,
prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City
Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept
Plan") shall be substantially adhered to.
2. When the Property is developed, vehicular ingress and egress shall
be via one (1) entrance from Stratford Road.
3. The architectural design of the building depicted on the Concept
Plan will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "VINTAGE QUAY
Bishard Development Retnauer Design Associates", which has been exhibited to
the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department
of Planning ("Elevation"). The principal exterior building materials shall be brick
and synthetic cedar shake siding.
4. There will be no more than eighteen (18) residential units and no
less than 2400 square feet of enclosed commercial space not utilized for
residential purposes, within the building depicted on the Concept Plan. The only
commercial uses permitted in the building are:
a. retail shops;
b. florists, gift shops and stationary stores;
C. business studios, office and clinics; and
d. medical and dental offices and clinics.
5. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed
Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City
agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements.
The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed
and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance,
shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the
zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions
shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if
the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new
or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The
conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach,
3
PREPARED BY:
M. : SYK£S, BOURDON,
AII£RN & LEVY, P.C.
Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of
recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by
the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a
resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing
before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section
15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or
resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of
such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void.
The Grantor covenants and agrees that:
(1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia,
shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of
the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing
conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that
any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal
action or suit to insure compliance! with such conditions, including mandatory or
prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or
proceeding;
(2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute
cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits
as may be appropriate;
(3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made
pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for
the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and
(4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the
existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the
ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for
public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning
Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court
of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the Grantor
and the Grantee.
W
PREPARED BY:
OM SYKPS. ROURDON,
OR M10 & LEVY, P.C.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
S &; J, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company
By: t.P/1.. (SEAL)
Steven Bishard, Managing Member
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this lst day of June,
2005, by Steven Bishard, Managing Member of S 8a J, L.L.C., a Virginia limited
liability company.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006
5
PREPARED BY:
EM SYK£S. BOURDON,
dU AJI£RN & l.£YY, P.C.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
GRANTOR:
�z (SEAL)
John B. Griswold, III
(SEAL)
orothy ri w
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this aT day of
June, 2005, by John B. Griswold, III and Dorothy R. Griswold, husband and wife.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
0.uV,X,0� 31, 0-00S
C1
PREPARED BY:
O�SYKES, BOURDON,
tERN & LEVY. P.C.
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL 1:
ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements
thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being
known, numbered and designated as Lot 7, in Block 33, as shown on that certain
plat entitled "Plat of Ocean Park, Section B", which said plat is duly recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map
Book 5, at Page 137.
GPIN: 1489-39-7919
PARCEL 2:
ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements
thereon, lying, situate and being in. the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being
known, numbered and designated as Lot 6, in Block 33, as shown on that certain
plat entitled, "Plat of Ocean Park, Section B", which said plat is duly recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map
Book 5, at Page 137.
GPIN: 1489-39-6043
PARCEL 3:
ALL THOSE certain lots, pieces or parcels of land, with the buildings and
improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Lots 4, 5, 8 and 9, in
Block 33, as shown on that certain plat entitled "Plat of Ocean Park, Section B",
which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City
of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 5, at Page 137.
GPIN: 1489-39-5071
CONDITIONALREZONE/ S&J/ VINTAGEQUAY/ PROFFER5
REV.7/29/05
7
aac>h'r h geac-+y
ro``.t r
uS ..gat
S t
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C. — Conditional Use Permit (boat sales and service)
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2005
■ Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C. for a Conditional
Use Permit for boat sales and service on property located at 3716 Shore
Drive (GPINs 14894941480000; 14894940670000). DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE
■ Considerations:
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow boat sales and
repair on this property. The applicant currently operates a boat sales and
repair facility at the eastern base of the Lesner Bridge. The application states
that the hours of operation are proposed as 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday
through Saturday with five (5) employees. The existing buildings are not well
kept and the overall site's appearance is not exemplary. The applicant
intends to improve the appearance of the site by painting the existing and
somewhat rusted metal structures and installing the required landscaping, as
the site is currently void of any notable vegetation, other than grass.
The Shore Drive Advisory Committee has reviewed the project and has
commented favorably. The proposal is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The Comprehensive
Plan policies and Shore Drive Overlay District guidelines established for the
Shore Drive Corridor focus on preserving, protecting and enhancing the
character, environmental quality and economic value of the adjacent
neighborhoods. This site will benefit from the proposed upgrades associated
with this proposal including, but not limited to, enhancing the landscaping,
removing the chain link and barbed wire fence and replacing it with attractive
fencing, painting the existing structures, striping the parking lot, and paving
the display area.
The conditions set forth below are designed to ensure that the proposed use
will be compatible with surrounding properties. Staff recommended limiting
days and hours of operation, confining display and parking areas, and limiting
work and storage areas. In addition, the applicant has been very agreeable
to all suggested improvements associated with upgrading the appearance of
the buildings and improving the overall appearance of the site.
Deep Blue Marine< L.L.C.
Page 2 of 3
There was opposition to the request.
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to
approve this request with the following conditions:
Upgrades to the site shall be in substantial conformance with the plan
entitled, "Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service,
L.L.C.," prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil
Engineers including, but not limited to, paved areas, additional
landscaping, fencing, and signage.
2. Prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit from the Building Official's
Office the following conditions shall be met:
a. the existing metal buildings, including the roofs, shall be painted a
white or earth tone color (other colors may be used for trim and
details);
b. all landscape material depicted on the plan entitled, "Planting Plan
and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C.," prepared
by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers shall
be installed;
c. the existing chain link fence shall be removed and replaced with a
fence in substantial conformance with the decorative, white, vinyl
fence depicted on the plan entitled, "Planting Plan and Exhibit,
Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C.," prepared by WPL,
Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers;
d. all illegal trailers and/or storage containers shall be removed from
the site;
3. There shall be no parking or displaying of boats for any reason within the
City right-of-way, on any grassed area or beyond the limits of the
designated display area depicted on the plan entitled, "Planting Plan and
Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C.," prepared by WPL,
Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers.
4. There shall be no parking or displaying of boats on the asphalt on the west
side of the structure identified as "Showroom," on the plan entitled,
"Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C.,"
prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers.
5. A Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Center for
review and approval prior to the approval of the final site plan.
Deep Blue Marine< L.L.C.
Page 3 of 3
6. Any freestanding sign shall be monument in style and shall be in
substantial conformance with the sign detail depicted on the plan entitled,
"Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C.,"
prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers.
The existing sign face currently used at the applicant's existing location of
3304 Shore Drive, may be utilized for this site provided the sign face
meets all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. The sign height shall
be limited to six (6) feet.
7. The hours and days of operation shall be limited to 9:00 am to 5:00 pm,
Monday through Saturday. The showroom may be open Monday through
Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.rn.
8. All boat and engine service and repair work shall be performed indoors.
9. Outdoor storage of inoperable boats, engines or repair parts shall not be
permitted.
10 The sidewalk shall be extended to the eastern property line fronting on
Shore Drive.
11. If, within six (6) months of approval noise complaints are received by the
Zoning Administrator, the applicant will be required to insulate the sides of
the buildings facing residential properties.
■ Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agen : Planning Department
City Manager:
DEEP BLUE
MARINE, L.L.C.
Agenda Item #9
September 14, 2005 Public Hearing
Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit for boat sales and
service.
_ R-t
ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 3716 Shore Drive.
GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE:
14894941480000 4 - BAYSIDE 0.566 acres
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow boat SUMMARY OF REQUEST
sales and repair on this property. The applicant currently
operates a boat sales and repair facility at the eastern base of the Lesner Bridge. The application states
that the hours of operation are proposed as 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Saturday with five (5)
employees. Currently, the site is utilized by a retail business. The existing buildings are not well kept and
the overall site's appearance is not exemplary. The applicant intends to improve the appearance of the
site by painting the existing and somewhat rusted metal structures and installing the required
landscaping, as the site is currently void of any notable vegetation, other than grass.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: The almost entirely impervious site has two (2) structures with a retail business
currently operating on site.
SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single family dwelling / R-5R Residential District
USE AND ZONING: South: . Shore Drive, retail / B-2 Community Business District
East: . Office, retail, duplex / B-2 Community Business District, R-5R
Residential District
West: . Dupont Circle, single-family homes / R-5R Residential District
NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, however, there are no
CULTURAL FEATURES: significant environmental features on the site as it is almost entirely
DEEP BLUE MARINE
Agenda Item # 9
Page 1
impervious.
AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS
Oceana.
IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES
MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM MIR Shore
Drive is considered a four (4) lane urban arterial roadway. The MTP designates this section of Shore
Drive as a proposed 150 foot, divided facility with a multi -use path. Improvements are not planned within
the next five (5) years.
TRAFFIC:
Street Name
Present
Volume
Present Capacity
Generated Traffic
Shore Drive
36,285 ADT
17,300 ADT (Level of
Existing Land Use —
Service "C") — 31,700 ADT
131 ADT
' (Level of Service "E")
Proposed Land Use 3-
131 ADT
Average Daily i rips
2 as defined by specialty retail
3 as defined by specialty retail as no specific data is available for boat sales and service
WATER: There is a six (6) inch water main in Dupont Circle. This site already has an existing water tap that
may be used or upgraded.
SEWER: There is an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer main in Dupont Circle and an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer
main in Shore Drive. City sanitary sewer is available. Sanitary sewer and pump station analysis for pump
station #308 may be required to determine if flows can be accommodated.
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
the Primary Residential Area (Shore Drive Corridor, Site 1). Land use plan policies and principles for the
Primary Residential Area focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic
value, and aesthetic quality of the surrounding stable neighborhoods. The established type, size, and
relationship of land use, both residential and non-residential, located in and around these neighborhoods
should serve as a guide when considering future development.
Staff recommends approval of this EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
request with conditions
recommended by staff. The recommended conditions are provided below.
The Shore Drive Advisory Committee has reviewed the project and has commented favorably. The
proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The
Comprehensive Plan policies and Shore Drive Overlay District guidelines established for the Shore Drive
Corridor focus on preserving, protecting and enhancing the character, environmental quality and
economic value of the adjacent neighborhoods. This site will benefit from the proposed upgrades
associated with this proposal including, but not limited to, enhancing the landscaping, removing the chain
link and barbed wire fence and replacing it with attractive fencing, painting the existing structures, striping
the parking lot, and paving the display area, etc.
The conditions set forth below are designed to ensure that the proposed use will be compatible with
surrounding properties. Staff is recommending limiting days and hours of operation, confining display and
parking areas, and limiting work and storage areas. In addition, the applicant has been very agreeable to
all suggested improvements associated with upgrading the appearance of the buildings and improving the
overall appearance of the site.
CONDITIONS
1. Upgrades to the site shall be in substantial conformance with the plan entitled, "Planting Plan and
Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C.," prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects,
Surveyors, & Civil Engineers including, but not limited to, paved areas, additional landscaping, fencing,
and signage.
2. Prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit from the Building Official's Office the following
conditions shall be met:
a. the existing metal buildings, including the roofs, shall be painted a white or earth tone color
(other colors may be used for trirn and details);
b. all landscape material depicted on the plan entitled, "Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue
Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C.," prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil
Engineers shall be installed;
c. the existing chain link fence shall be removed and replaced with a fence in substantial
conformance with the decorative, white, vinyl fence depicted on the plan entitled, "Planting
Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C.," prepared by WPL, Landscape
Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers;
d. all illegal trailers and/or storage containers shall be removed from the site;
3. There shall be no parking or displaying of boats for any reason within the City right-of-way, on any
grassed area or beyond the limits of the designated display area depicted on the plan entitled,
"Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C.," prepared by WPL, Landscape
Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers.
4. There shall be no parking or displaying of boats on the asphalt on the west side of the structure
identified as "Showroom," on the plan entitled, "Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales &
Service, L.L.C.," prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers.
5. A Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Center for review and approval prior
to the approval of the final site plan.
6. Any freestanding sign shall be monument in style and shall be in substantial conformance with the
sign detail depicted on the plan entitled, "Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales &
Service, L.L.C.," prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers. The existing
sign face currently used at the applicant's existing location of 3304 Shore Drive, may be utilized for
this site provided the sign face meets all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. The sign height
shall be limited to six (6) feet.
7. The hours and days of operation shall be limited to 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Saturday.
8. All boat and engine service and repair work shall be performed indoors.
9. Outdoor storage of inoperable boats, engines or repair parts shall not be permitted.
NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances.
Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to
meet all applicable City Codes.
The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police
Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site.
AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION
DEEP BLUE MARINE
Agenda Item # 9
Page 5
�
�
: / < * PIANate _ IKON
\ DEEP BLUE M�>£ SALES & SERVICES, LLC
.� �_ .
. ._
PROPOSED SIGN
W .o
r
PROPOSED FENCE
DEEP
1
11/25/03
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (multi-
Granted
family in B-4
2
07/02/02
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Granted
(modification of boat sales & small
05/09/00
engine repair)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (boat
Granted
sales & small engine repair)
03/28/88
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Granted
01 /28/85
(storage)
G ranted
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (fuel
sales
3
12/17/96
STREET CLOSURE
Denied
4
03/27/89
CHANGE OF ZONING P-1)
Granted
5
01/24/83
CHANGE OF ZONING B-2 to B-4
Withdrawn
6
01/24/83
CHANGE OF ZONING R-8 to B-4
Withdrawn
ZONING HISTORY
DEEP BLUE MA
Agenda-Iti
I
INE
#9
Ie 8
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a f.Qrp_grjaiQn_ partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated
organization, complete the following:
1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees,
partners, etc, Wow: (Attach list if necessary}
TIL-
IC C-
2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
[—]Check here if the applicant is Nor a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or
other unincorporated organization.
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant.
If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other
unincorporated organization, complete the following:
1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members,
trustees, partners, etc, below: (Attach list if necessary)
rl' ivyCAQ17
2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity'
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
MCheck here if the property owner is Nora corporation, partnership, firm, business,
or other unincorporated organization,
& Z See next page for footnotes
Conditional Use Perm# Appicabon
Page 9 of 10
RaWsed 9/t/2004
DEEP
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES
List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect
to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural
services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services and legal
services: (,Attach list if necessary)
rat l-
' "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means 'a relationship that exists when one
corporation directly or indirectly awns shares possessing more than 50 percentof the
voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of
Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101.
2 ":Affiliated business entity relationship" means 'a' relationship, other than
parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (0 one business entity has a
controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in
one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared
management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be
considered in determining the existence of an affiliated lousiness entity relationship
include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two
entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share
the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or
personnel on a regular oasts; or there is otherwise a close working relationship
between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va.
Code § 2. -3101.
CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate.
l understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been
scheduled for public hearing, 1 am responsible for obtaining and posting the required
sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing
according to the instruu tons in this package.
Applicant's Si net, Print Name
its + es Signature if different than applicant) Print Nam
Conditional Use Permit ApplicabW
Page 10 of 10
PLMNG DEPARTMENT Revised 911ti?tl04
DEEP BLUE MARINE
Agenda Item # 9
Page 10
Item #9
Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C.
Conditional Use Permit
3716 Shore Drive
District 4
Bayside
September 14, 2005
REGULAR
Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #9 Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C, an Ordinance upon
Application of Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for boat sales and
service on property located at 3716 Shore Drive, District 4, Bayside.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you again Mr. Secretary. Madame Chair, my name is Eddie
Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney and I'm here representing this application for a
Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Meade, who operates this business currently on the east side
of Shore Drive is here today. The piece of property that we are speaking about on the east
side of the intersection of Shore Drive and DuPont Circle just to the east of what we are
just speaking of S&J, is a rather unique and I would say distressed piece of property in its
current use. The few pieces of property that I hesitate to say bad things about is really a
problem. This application will clean up that problem. The Cool and Eclectic that is there
now and all of the various sundry junk that they have around there all will go, which I'm
told by my client, has met with the civic league there. I heard they got a standing ovation.
They got a lot of applause when they found out this was going. One side of is that it is all
going. Those trailers that are there are all going. The proposal is one that is landscaped
nicely manicured property in place of what is there now. Get rid of the fencing and the
barbed wire. The staff has worked with the applicant diligently to come up with a
number of conditions that will ensure that this property is operated in a manner that is
compatible with the neighborhood. The hours of operation limited to Monday to
Saturday, 9 to 5. I want to clarify that the hours of operation are the service part of the
business. The sales, which will occur out of the front building go on until 6:00 p.m. on
those same days but the service part, which will all take place in the rear building stops at
5:00 p.m. Also, all the servicing will take place inside the building and the applicant will
confirm this. The motors that he services are four stroke engines not two cylinders. I'm
told they'll hold loud types engines for those of you are familiar with boating and with
boat engines are far, far quieter. They are very quiet engines but all the repair work will
take place in the rear building within the building itself. No storage will take place on
the west side of the building. Again, you got a series of nine conditions all of which are
acceptable to my client. He's an existing operator who is moving his business because of
the redevelopment of the Duck In site on the opposite side of the bridge. The Hale Botel,
this isn't quite the same is using a similar type of fencing and that property is to the west
of this property is one that I know that the civic league is very happy with in terms of
what they have done with that piece of property. These types of operations, the sale and
service of boats are prevalent in this area. There are five in Ocean Park today and with
Item #9
Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C.
Page 2
this approval and if it is approved and with the improvements they will be making, I
would submit this would be next to the Hale operation, the next most attractive of these
types of facilities along Shore Drive. We think it's an appropriate use on the site. It will
certainly be a significant betterment to what is there today and that goes without saying.
We will extend the sidewalks. We will make sure there is pedestrian accessibility across
this site and be happy to attempt any issues that any of you may have.
Dorothy Wood: And you have been to the Shore Drive?
Eddie Bourdon: Yes ma'am.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Will.
William Din: Eddie, I got a picture here of a proposed fence. Where does that fence go
on the diagram?
Eddie Bourdon: It will go in this area here and in the back.
William Din: What's in the front or on the other side along DuPont Circle and Shore
Drive?
Eddie Bourdon: There is no fencing here. There is nothing allowed. I'm sorry. Steve,
we're fencing that side as well correct?
Steve Meade: Yes.
Eddie Bourdon: We're going to be fencing this area here along DuPont in the back with
that type fencing and then we'll be fencing the remainder. Again, we are going to be
fencing here out here on the Shore Drive side as well.
William Din: You said you have existing boat sales, where is that?
Eddie Bourdon: Where it is now is on the east side of the Lesner Bridge.
William Din: Okay. Are the same number of boats there going to be placed at this
location?
Eddie Bourdon: Do you want to come up? The number of boats you currently have will
be similar number of boats on this site?
Dorothy Wood: Sir, would you please give your name for the record?
Steve Meade: Steve Meade.
Item #9
Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C.
Page 3
Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir.
Steve Meade: Right now, I don't have a show room where I'm at now. The front
building is a show room once I get it opened back up like it should be inside. The
building is approximately 75 feet long inside and 40 feet wide. So a lot of my new boats
will be inside. I do a lot of work on military boats, police boats for Homeland Security.
So there will be some of those boats there at different times. Sometimes I have two or
three of them on the lots at a time so it looks like the seven fleet sometimes. Generally,
we have, at any number of times have 10 boats in the yard that we're working on. What
I'm working on will be inside the shop, which is what we do now.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Meade. Are: there any other questions?
William Din: I guess my question Mr. Meade was are you going to maintain the two lots
or are you going to move all those boats on the other lot to this lot?
Steve Meade: No sir. Everything will be going down to this lot.
William Din: Okay. Do you know how many boats are going to be total in this area?
Steve Meade: Outside or inside?
William Din: Both or outside probably.
Steve Meade: Probably outside, I would say no more than 10 boats at a time.
William Din: And all the work is going to be done inside? Correct?
Steve Meade: Yes sir.
William Din: Alright. Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: I think we have Mr. Ripley and then Mr. Waller.
John Waller: I got a question. Where do you park? If I were going to get my boat fixed
where would I go through that back gate?
Steve Meade: To that last corner.
Eddie Bourdon: That's parking for the service.
Dorothy Wood: Thanks John. Ron?
Ronald Ripley: Mr. Meade, a real important condition here is that all the service and work
Item #9
Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C.
Page 4
on your motors where you turn them on to tune them or whatever you have to do will be
done inside. I don't know if you ever done it but I just wanted. to be real clear.
Steve Meade: Yes sir.
Ronald Ripley: I know boats would just as easy to start her up outside and start her up
inside and pull her in there and you got other boats in there. I can imagine that it could go
on inside. I just want to be real clear about that.
Steve Meade: All our engines are run inside. We have a test tank that we put them in
when we run them.
Ronald Ripley: Where you put the little earphones on them or running the water through
them and cutting them outside too with the hose. Right?
Steve Meade: Right. Normally, if were running engines inside we have a test tank and
they drop right down the test tank and you can't even hear them run. You can hardly hear
them run on with earmuffs. They're very quiet engines.
Ronald Ripley: The other thing and I asked staff and I don't see it in here but where that
sidewalk ends on Shore Drive, I would like to know if you would all be agreeable to
extending it to the adjacent property which is just in front where the fence is to that point?
It would connect the sidewalk right now. I think it would be helpful because we're trying
to get the whole sidewalk down that road and that would be one of the missing pieces.
So, I would like to know if you would be willing to do that?
Steve Meade: Is that what you need?
Ronald Ripley: I'm just asking.
Steve Meade: I understand. There is probably in this area right here there is like a cut in
the curb.
Ronald Ripley: Yeah. It is just a path.
Steve Meade: Yeah. I guess where a driveway was at one time. I don't know. But there
is no problem to put a sidewalk across there if that is what you all want.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you.
Steve Meade: Because what you're running here you are only talking a few more feet.
Ronald Ripley: Right.
Item #9
Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C.
Page 5
Steve Meade: I don't see a problem with it myself.
Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions for Mr. Meade or Mr. Bourdon? Thank
you both.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all.
Joseph Strange: We have three people speaking in opposition. The first person is Judy
Connors.
Judy Connors: Again, I'm Judy Connors and a long time resident of Ocean Park. I'm not
really in opposition as much as I have a concern. So I applaud the efforts to improve this
site but I am concerned that the plans seem to be mostly aesthetic. The two buildings are
old metal sheds. And the one, I understand where the repairs are going to be done will
greatly impacted by the noise no matter how quiet he reports these motors to be. I would
urge you to require some sort of sound proofing in addition to the cosmetic upgrade, at
least to this building to protect the concurrent residents of the area. There is a facility
currently grandfathered that is supposed to contain noise within the building but often
fails to do so and can be heard blocks away. We must prevent this from happening in this
case. There are safety issues that need to be addressed as far as ingress/egress. Using the
residential street in my estimation may be creating an accident waiting to happen.
Especially when you've got the huge trucks that are going to deliver the new boats to this
site and have to come in on that residential street. We have already witnessed one lane of
Shore Drive often being obstructed with boats being delivered to another facility. I agree
moving Deep Blue from its present site can be a move for the better but not at the
expense of the current residents' right to enjoy their property, their homes in peace,
securing their safety with as much serenity as possible. Sound proofing that building
must be a proffer on this I think. Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: Judy, are you talking about the rear building?
Judy Connors: The rear building which he just go through saying is going to have deep
water and he's going to do repairs. Bigger boats than what we were led to believe and
that's just an old, old metal shed.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any questions for Ms. Connor? Thank you Judy.
We appreciate it.
Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Carl Godwin.
Carl Godwin: Good afternoon.
=— Dorothy Wood: Welcome back Mr. Godwin.
Item #9
Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C.
Page 6
Carl Godwin: Yes. Thank you. My name is Carl Godwin. I represent the Ocean Park
Civic League. And by unanimous vote we did vote that we had two concerns on this
property. One is, as Judy pointed out, is the noise there. That is an old metal building
and in my opinion would act like a drum and probably just increase the volume of the
noise there. We already have a marina across the street that also promised to do all their
work inside but did not. We would like to see that addressed. I think the lady who is
going to speak behind me lives directly behind this building, within feet of this building.
Of course, she is the one who is going to be mostly impacted by that. Her house is
virtually feet from this parking lot. The other thing that we have some concern about is
parking. I understand there will be five employees and there are five parking places. So,
we're back to off street parking again, which is just what we talked about a few minutes
ago and virtually in the same neighborhood, just a block away.
Dorothy Wood: Are there any questions? Thank you so much for coming down. We
appreciate it.
Joseph Strange: And the next speaker is Carol Collins.
Dorothy Wood: Welcome.
Carol Collins: Thank you. My name is Carol Collins and I'm a property owner at Ocean
Park and my house is adjacent to this property.
Dorothy Wood: Could you show us with the pointer?
Carol Collins: This is my property. It's a single-family house, which is a rarity at Ocean
Park. I talked to the neighbor who owns this piece of property. I think you have a letter
from her objecting. And before I start, I wanted to point out that I'm a Board member of
the Ocean Park Civic League and the meeting where this was presented to us they did not
give a standing ovation. As a matter fact, as you can see from our vote we had some
discussion on it and did have those two issues. So, my concern here is primarily with the
noise. And I understand the rights of the business property owners but the City's
Comprehensive Plan for Shore Drive order does state that the land should and I quote
"focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and
aesthetic quality of the surrounding stable neighborhoods." In the dense neighborhood
like Ocean Park our residences are located so close to the businesses and to each other
that the safety and aesthetic qualities become even more critical. So, as a homeowner that
is right behind the property, I do see the noise as being a big issue. The proposed service
building as stated is kind of an old metal shed. It has no insulation in it. It has a huge
door opening there. It is located about 10 feet from the rear of their property and about 15
feet from the two neighboring houses and that is those two right here. There is a small
one in the back, which looks like it is right on it. I would imagine when the engines are
running the door may often be opened for purposes of ventilation for the gas fumes and
the exhaust. All boats I ever heard are loud and annoying especially the older ones and
Item #9
Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C.
Page 7
they talk about working on these government boats. I doubt if they're quiet. Ocean Park
is a very desirable place to live. I think it is very important that you address the concerns
that we have for the economic value, which would be lessened as well as the aesthetics.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Thank you for coming
down. Mr. Bourdon?
Dorothy Wood: Before you start Mr. Bourdon, I'm sure you heard the two concerns of
the parking. You would please address the parking for the employees and also if your
client would be willing to not only have the sidewalk but the insulation of the back
building.
Eddie Bourdon: The first issue. We've provided six parking spaces that are actually
designated parking spaces on site. But as you can tell there are lots of other areas paved
on site. My client's business does not produce a tremendous amount of traffic. Someone
picking up their boat or taking their boat once it has been repaired. A lot of times they
will take the boat and take it down and meet them at where they put the boat over. There
is not a tremendous amount of traffic there. His employees are not all there at the same
time. And two of his primary employees, father and son who drive together everyday
from the Eastern Shore have one vehicle. We have one more parking space than the
ordinance require. With regard to the exterior of the building, I neglected to mention that
will be painted and the lady with Seascape Interiors, she also expressed strong support for
this application and gave us some ideas on the type of trim has to be white with a light
blue trim. As far as the noise issue or reported noise issue, we would certainly propose
that if there is noise that is a nuisance to the community after the operation begins, we
certainly would not be adverse to doing insulation in the building. But we frankly don't
think that noise will be an issue in any way, shape, manner or form and would not want to
be spending considerable sums to put insulation in a building for a problem that we are
firmly convinced will not be a problem.
Dorothy Wood: Is the building insulated now Eddie?
Eddie Bourdon: It's not a shack. It is a metal building.
Dorothy Wood: Metal building but is it insulated? Do you know?
Eddie Bourdon: Again, what we are believing and it is not to say that the concern is
understandable but they actually experience it, we don't believe there will be any noise
that is going to produce with the ambient noise level coming from Shore Drive, I don't
believe there is an issue that anybody is going to have any noise that they are going to
hear that is going to cause a problem.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Eddie. Are there any other questions for Eddie?
Item #9
Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C.
Page 8
Eddie Bourdon: I did want to mention one thing and I apologize. I got confused. It was
the Shore Drive Advisory Board meeting that everyone clapped for the applicant after I
made the presentation and not the civic league. So, I was completely inaccurate in which
board it was.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Barry.
Barry Knight: Eddie, you heard a couple of the concerns. Where would they be
unloading the new boats if there brought in by tractor -trailer?
Eddie Bourdon: The boats when they're delivered and there are only a couple of
deliveries a year. They're usually in the fall and the early spring. They would bring them
into the site and deliver the boats. We'll get a tractor -trailer maybe at most twice a year.
Other times he will just bring boats on trailer. But they are delivered and will be
delivered through the entrance on DuPont Circle, as there is no access to Shore Drive.
We're not having an access on Shore Drive.
Barry Knight: If they're working on the boats is the door going to be open and closed, as
far as the lady is concerned about boat exhaust and fumes?
Eddie Bourdon: The door will be opened and closed during the day. That is one of those
issues obviously with the weather outside as to whether or not it is closed the entire time.
But with the four stroke engines and the type the way he operates. If it is an issue with
noise, we'll insulate the building and the doors will be closed. Our point is that we don't
believe the noise will be an issue once they experience the operation, we don't believe
they will be complaining about the noise.
Barry Knight: The point I was getting at was if there is boat exhaust in there, we had an
application, I believe was last month, Budget Rent -A -car with the paint. They had an
exhaust fan that was exhausting near the neighbors and it was squealing. Can you
address that?
Eddie Bourdon: There won't be any exhaust fan. That is a different type of an operation.
We're just dealing with basic outboard motors. We're not talking about a major
operation like the painting and the fumes that come from painting. There will not be any
exhaust fan. In fact, they are not necessary but if there were it would cost more than the
actual fixing of the outboard motors or four stroke engines.
Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions?
Eddie Bourdon: We are cognizant of that concern and Steve is here. He is a member of
the business community in that area for years and years. Certainly if any of the
community neighbors have a problem and we've gone door to door and given out flyers
and asked people to come by and call and discuss any issues they may have. We haven't
Item #9
Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C.
Page 9
heard from anyone but we're an open door policy as far as speaking with and trying to
allay any of their concerns and trying to make sure their problems are addressed
immediately.
Dorothy Wood: A little more difficult sometimes to fix a noise problem with the nuisance
law than it is to fix it up front. I would like to see what Karen or Bob or someone what
you think about insulation on the building. They were concerned about the sound.
Robert Scott: Well. It is a metal building. I can relate to that comment that it is like a
drum. We need to do some things on it. I just don't know what standard needs to be
done to or what we would have to do to meet that standard. Those are unknowns right
now or cost said we should do it. I think it's something they would look into but it's
going to be kind of hard.
Dorothy Wood: Thanks. Barry?
Barry Knight: Just for a matter of record. I own a few of these metal buildings almost
exactly like this and insulation you put in is easy when your building the building to put
some insulation in there with vinyl covers and of course this is an existing building. I'm
familiar with two types of spray on insulation. The type of spray on insulation is
sometimes the gentleman might not want because it kind of fibers down once in a while.
But there is a Styrofoam type of insulation that you could put in here. It isn't real pretty
on the inside of the building granted but it does attenuate noise somewhat. So, I didn't
know if he checked into the cost of that. I got some more figures in the back of my mind
but they're 10-12 year old figures. I don't know if you all checked into that or not. But
I'm thinking maybe $3,500.00 or so they can spray the insulation inside of this building
and if I'm close on my estimates, it doesn't seem like it would be anything that would run
them over the top of their costs.
Dorothy Wood: Gene.
Ronald Ripley: The building and it is hard to see on this picture that I have in front of me
on the site plan, but it looks like is about 2,000 square feet. So it is not a huge building so
I think Barry is in line with some sort estimate to have it insulated to help with the sound
attenuation if nothing else, it is a really heavy sound attenuation on the sides by the
residential areas.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you.
William Din: I do have a question for Eddie. On the showroom side are any exterior
renovations planned for the showroom?
Eddie Bourdon: Yes sir. There are. The intention is to that the whole building is going to
be repainted but at this point, I think that's the extent of it is just to paint the building. Oh
Item #9
Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C.
Page 10
yeah, the fence is being totally removed. The building is going to be repainted white and
again, we've been speaking to the lady with Seascape Exteriors and she's got some ideas
on how to dress up the building in terms of the trim.
William Din: I don't know if the exterior meets the Shore Drive recommendations on
how appearance should look from the street. I don't know if you looked at from that
Committee's standpoint.
Ronald Ripley: It's a redevelopment. It's kind of hard to impose so much on them.
Eddie Bourdon: This guy is a tenant. He's making significant improvements to property
that he doesn't own but he's leasing because his current business is being displaced by the
redevelopment of the Duck In site. He lost that site so he's putting a lot of money into it.
He's agreeable, and again I guess it is about the question of perception. We don't have a
problem with insulating the rear building if there is noise that's discernable, that's
objectionable from the service operations. My only thought is why spend the $4,000-
$5,000 on something that we don't believe to be a problem in the first place. We are not
adverse to doing insulation of the rear building. We believe it would be a waste of
money. We're not adverse to doing it is what I'm saying.
Dorothy Wood: You wouldn't be adverse to having that as a condition Mr. Bourdon?
Eddie Bourdon: We would not be adverse to having it as a condition. We would
certainly request that it be a condition that once they're operating that the Zoning
Administrator would send someone out to check the operation and if it is necessary
because there is noise that is discernable on the adjacent properties then he would be
required to do it. We don't think it would be a problem. Therefore it is just a waste of
money to spend.
Dorothy Wood: It is a little more difficult to do it that way isn't it Karen?
Karen Lasley: You can see if there is opposition from the neighbors. I'm not the one
who makes the decision that it comes back to this body and City Council.
Eddie Bourdon: I'm more willing to leave it up to the Zoning Administrator or Planning
Director if there are noise complaints. If there are noise complaints, we'll do it. We just
don't think there will be any once they're actually operating.
Robert Scott: You might think about putting and if there is going to be problems you're
going to know right away whether there are problems or not. It's not just something that
is going to crop up eight years from now. So, what you might want to do is establish
some criteria for insulating it and require that the neighbors be given a period of time, a
year say to evaluate what they think in terms of whether it's working or not. And if is not
working, then we'll have to work with the applicant and have him upgrade the insulation
Item #9
Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C.
Page 11
to some higher degree. But we want to keep the cost down and the effectiveness up and
the neighborhood satisfaction at a high level so I guess this is sort of a trial and error
approach but it might be the best way to do it.
Eddie Bourdon: If you want to do six months. My client doesn't want to have any
problems with the neighbors. If they perceive to be noise that is causing them discomfort
in their environment then we want to address it and we want to address it quickly. We
can simply say we'll do the insulation but its going to be more than doing the insulation.
We want to have a dialogue. We want to make sure that if there are issues with regard to
the noise and were sure there won't be. We're happy to work with the neighborhood and
the staff in any way you want us to do it.
Dorothy Wood: Do I hear a motion from anyone? Barry.
Barry Knight: I'll make a motion that we approve agenda Item #9 Deep Blue Marine
with an added condition that within the first six months if we have neighborhood
complaints, I guess the Zoning Administrator will go check the validity of those
complaints. If she deems them valid then they will put insulation i.e., sound attenuation in
the building to mitigate those complaints.
Dorothy Wood: And also the sidewalk.
Barry Knight: Excuse me. Do we need to add that as a condition?
Ronald Ripley: Sure.
Barry Knight: And Condition #11 that we have continuity on the sidewalk on Shore
Drive.
Dorothy Wood: Thanks. Do I have a second to Barry's motion?
Ronald Ripley: I'll second it.
Dorothy Wood: A motion by Mr. Knight and a second by Mr. Ripley to approve it with
the two additional conditions, one for the sidewalk and one giving them six months for
the neighbors to call Ms. Lasley if they do hear noise.
Carolyn Smith: Condition #7 limits their operating hours from 9-5, Monday through
Saturday. And Mr. Bourdon stated that they're open for sales up to 6:00 p.m. So, I'm not
sure if that is part of the motion?
Barry Knight: I guess we could amend Condition #7 to say that hours and days of the
repair operation shall be limited to 9-5 and the showroom shall be opened until 9-6. Do
Item #9
Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C.
Page 12
you concur with your second?
Ronald Ripley: I do.
Dorothy Wood: I won't repeat the entire motion again. And again, this is just a
recommendation to City Council. They will be making the final decision. Thank you.
AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 2
ANDERSON
AYE
CRABTREE
AYE
DIN
AYE
HORSLEY
ABSENT
KATSIAS
AYE
KNIGHT
AYE
MILLER
ABSENT
RIPLEY
AYE
STRANGE
AYE
WALLER
AYE
WOOD
AYE
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, the Board has approved agenda Item #9 Deep Blue Marine
with the amended changes to the conditions.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you all for coming down.
Carol P. Collins
2213 Rockbridge Road
Virginia Beach, VA 23455
757-226-9433
Virginia Beach Planning Commission
Municipal Center, Bldg 2, Rm 115
2405 Courthouse Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040
Attn: Carolyn Smith
Re: Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C.
Sept. 14, 2005 Public Hearing
9/13/05
This is a response to the requested Conditional Use Permit to allow boat sales and repair
at 3716 Shore Drive. My home is adjacent to this property and I have serious concerns
about the use of this property for boat sales and repair.
My main objection is to the noise which will be generated from the repair of boat
engines. Older boat engines which are the ones most in need of repair are extremely loud.
This was confirmed at our civic league meeting discussion of the subject by several
members who live near one of the other marine businesses doing engine repair. One
member who lives a block away has called the city on several occasions to complain
about the noise level, but got no results. The discussion resulted in our civic league
voting unanimously to express our concern about the noise level, as well as the parking
concerns.
The metal building which is proposed to house the service department is not an insulated
building and has a very large door opening which I would imagine would need to be open
for exhaust purposes when the engines are running. The building is located close to the
rear property line and is approximately 15 feet away from two neighboring houses. It is
about 40 feet from my home which I work out of during the day while the business would
be open. As a real estate agent I can say that the values of the nearby homes would be
adversely affected by a business that is generating engine noise on a regular basis. I
therefore object to the use of this property as a boat repair facility.
The reason Ocean Park is such a desirable place to live is its proximity to the wide beach,
bay and river. I bought my home for the view of the bay, the proximity to the beach and
the live oak tree in the backyard, the aesthetics, and would never have bought it if I heard
boat engines in my backyard. The Comprehensive Plan states that the land use plan
policies "focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic
value, and aesthetic quality of the surrounding stable neighborhoods". This business use
would definitely adversely affect both the economic value and the aesthetic quality.
Yours truly,
Carol Collins
September 2, 2005
Ms. Karen Lasley, Zoning Administrator
Operations Building
2405'Courthouse Drive
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456-9019
Dear Ms. Lasley:
I would be remiss if I did not thank you for the diligent service you have rendered to us
all in the past. I apologize for the length of this epistle, but my neighbors and I are intensely
interested in future developments along the Shore Drive corridor. If we share fully with you our
concerns, you will be able to represent us accurately in upcoming hearings.
Normally I would attend the hearings in matters of concern, but I will be out of town
when these two are beard on September 15, 2005. One application, I have heard, will request a
rezoning and;Conditional Use Permit to allow Deep Blue Marine to move into the space most
recently occupied by Cool & Ecletic.
I am opposed the proposed use for two reasons, I believe he intends to operate a,boat `
sales venture, whichposes the following problems, for me: pirstis the nois0- pollutioin: H6 rnay.'
say that he does not intend.to,undertalce repairs on site;, but "if gb', hdw ts•he tt5 address walrattty f
p axis We already have a violator �ii Shore Drive Martne, which;, uatder. the ter Tis of
their
C e only to work 4on the boat dngmes'indodrs_...in fhct,.th' — eoriduGt all'sort$cif of#`ensively',
loud tests'in tkte"open axr. lrlo doubt they vouUsay it is becaukthe heat has been unbearably,
hot on'some days, but their offonses have not been limited to such days, not did tl ey'appear #o
make any space indoors comfortable enough to abide by their CUP. This is only relevant "
because Deep Blue Marine will argue that they will not offend in the same fashion; however,
Shore Drive Marine proves it is impossible to enforce the terms of the CUP because the
violations are intermittent and unpredictable.
The second concern I have with Deep Blue Marine is one I share with the another item
to be beard on September 15th. That would be the proposed development of space currently
occupied by Colley Marine. This proposal, I have heard, is for the construction of a mixed -use
building comprising residential and retail space. I support the concept, but the amount of
parking assigned by the developer will not accommodate the number of units planned. I have
been told that he argues that additional parking on West Stratford Road will answer, but I will
be angry if the city allows a developer to avail himself of public right-of-way in order to
maximize his profit (i.e. satisfy his greed). So, parking and lot coverage are issues which I hope
will be addressed for both Deep Blue Marine and the proposed development on the Colley
Marine property. Again, thank you for guarding our interests in these matters.
Si ce ely,
X.Gce Moran. REC
2225 Roanoke Avenue
Virginia Beach, VA 23455 1 SEP 0. 6 2005
C,F PLANNING
Carolyn Smith
From:
PurdsVaBch@aol.com
Sent:
Sunday, September 11, 2005 10:46 AM
To:
Carolyn Smith
Cc:
owensjm@verizon.net
Subject:
Application of Deep Blue Marine
Dear Ms. Smith,
I own the property, 3730 Dupont Circle, which is directly behind the 3716 Shore Dr.
property at which Deep Blue Marine,LLC has submitted a Conditional use Permit to operate.
I work out of town and was unable to attend the presentation at the Shore Dr. Civic League
meeting, and I will be out of the country and unavailable to attend the hearing on the
12th. I have, however, spoken with the Owner of the business who did not have an
elevation of the improvements he plans for the property to show me but assured me that the
improvements would be significant as far as landscaping and asthetics of the buildings.
He has also stated that there will be no noise from the operation of servicing boat
engines.
My concern is the numerous old and rusted containers that are kept on the north side of
the property. I have attended a Shore Drive Advisory Committee meeting to complain about
this and have called the zoning department several times and none of my calls have been
returned. These containers are unsightly but more importantly unsafe. They are rusting,
the doors are not latched closed and after a rain, they hold gallons of standing water on
top that smells and attracts mosquitoes.
The owner of Deep Blue Marine, LLC has stated that the owner of the property has said the
containers will be removed prior to his occupying the property. I would like some
assurance that this will happen.
As long as 1)the containers are removed and 2)the noise of the operation of servicing
marine engines is contained , I support the business of Deep Blue Marine, LLC operating on
she property 3716 Shore Drive.
Thank you,
Kathy Owens
2567 Landview Circle
Virginia Beach, VA 23454
757-679-8591
1
12 September 2005
To: City of Virginia Beach
Department of Planning
Ms. Carolyn Smith
From: Jeffrey. B. Birch (property owner)
3729 Dupont Circle
VA Bch., VA 23455
Subject: Ordinance Application of Deep Blue Marine, LLC
For a Conditional Use Permit for Boat Sales and Service on
property located at 3716 Shore Drive (GPIN's
14894941480000; 14894940670000).
DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE, Planning Commission Public Hearing
Wednesday, September 14, 2005 at 12:00 noon.
First, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address my concerns as
a property owner regarding the proposed variance application for the above
subject. Unfortunately, I will be out of town on the hearing date and unable
to attend this very important discussion. As a proponent and advocate for
appropriate, fitting, and residential friendly business development; I
understand the value and need for such. Business development is a vital
element for the success and expansion for the City of Virginia Beach as well
as the back bone of America's industrial base. However, there are principal
business and humanistic factors to consider for the projected property use
such as safety, health and aesthetics.
From a safety and health perspective (unsafe traffic flow,
unsatisfactory parking conditions, and annoying and unpleasant
noise levels), the proposed business operation is unsatisfactory.
This element is the most important in that it affords the increased
opportunity for traffic and pedestrian accidents both on Shore Drive and
Dupont Circle (as well as surrounding neighborhood streets). Drivers do not
anticipate sudden stops for vehicle turns onto Dupont Circle; this is an
extreme safety hazard especially with boats or other marine type equipment
in tow. Safety hazards continue to be a factor as the vehicle travels through
the residential neighborhood, not to mention the use and operation of
industrial vehicles to delivery and off-load boats and related equipment.
Adults and children walk and ride their bikes in the residential neighborhood
on a frequent basis; this type of pedestrian traffic is significantly increased
during the warmer months of the season as they walk to the beach access
areas.
From an aesthetics perspective, Ocean Park home owners and civic league
members take great pride in the revitalization and progressive developments
in their residential neighborhood community.
Property values and taxes have increased significantly due to the sought
after location, safe and quiet neighborhood community environment, and
planned residential enhancements and developments. The incorporation of
an industrial marine operation into a residential community is aesthetically
unpleasing and will result in decreased property values not to mention
unnecessary neighborhood problems and nuances. As you travel the Ocean
Park neighborhood community, you see many residential developments and
improvements; this is the proper use and alteration of property. The
contemplation of introducing a marine type operation into a residential
neighborhood is impractical due to the unnatural integration of property
purpose and use - they are not companion or related uses of property.
Understanding that the subject address is a business property, by virtue of
the unique circumstances additional and cautious considerations are
necessary for the property variance as proposed.
In summary, my research for the proper use of a variance determined that a
"hardship" must be proven. This hardship is to be supported by a legitimate
explanation and justification for the proposed alteration of property. By the
simply definition of the term "hardship", there is no just condition or
rationalization to support the granting of such a variance. There are more
appropriate, proper, and safe business locations for the proposed business
operation; as stated, the subject variance proposal is inappropriate for such a
business operation. I am hopeful that you as subject matter experts both
appreciate and understand my concerns for safety, health and aesthetics
as explained. I trust that you, as personal homeowners, individuals with
families and leaders for the City of Virginia Beach, as a committee deny such
unjust application for the proposed business operation.
Very Respectfully,
Jeffrey B. Birch