NOVEMBER 22 2005 AGENDACITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME
CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At -Large
VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside -District 4
HARRY E. DIEZEL Kempsville - District 1
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 COUNCIL AGENDA
CITYMANAGER - JAMES K. SPORE
CITY ATTORNEY- LESLIEL. LILLEY
CITY CLERK - RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMC
I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
22 November 2005
- Conference Room -
CITYHALL BUILDING
2401 COURTHOUSEDRIVE
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005
PHONE: (757) 427-4303
FAX (757) 426-5669
E-MAIL: Ctycncl@vbgov.com
A. MAGNA CARTA EXHIBIT
Mark A. Reed, Historic Resources Coordinator
Department of Museums and Cultural Arts
Timothy Guy, Director, Aukett Brockliss Guy (ABG),
Joint Venture Communications and Design Consultancy
B. HISTORIC KEMPSVILLE PLAN
Clay Bernick, Environmental Management Program Administrator
Department of Planning
C. TOWING REGULATIONS
Louie Ochave — Chairman, Towing Advisory Board
II. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
III. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS
1:00 P.M.
IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 2:30 P.M.
A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 P.M.
A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
B. INVOCATION: Reverend J. Scott Griffin
Lynnhaven Presbyterian Church
C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
F. MINUTES
1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS November 8, 2005
G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. FARMER'S MARKET LEASE — FLS Corporation T/A The Nesting Box
2. EXCESS CITY PROPERTY — Fire Station near Seatack Elementary School
3. TAXI CAB INCREASE
I. CONSENT AGENDA
RE SOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES
Resolution PROVIDING for the issuance and sale of General Obligation Public
Improvement Bonds, heretofore authorized, in the maximum amount of $80,000,000 for
various public facilities and general improvements.
2. Resolution to ADOPT the findings in the Formal Needs Assessment Report and
AUTHORIZE the City Manager to issue a Request for Formal Renewal Proposal to Cox
Communications of Hampton Roads, LLC for their cable television franchise.
3. Ordinances to AMEND City Code:
a. §§ 7-1, 7-65, 7-66, 7-67 and 7-68 re regulation of golf carts and utility vehicles
b. § 6-114 re restrictions launching, landing, parking or stationing recreational
vessels in certain areas
C. Deferred Compensation Plan
(i.) AMEND §§ 2-121, 2-122 and 1-123 re the Deferred Compensation Plan
and Board Membership
(ii) Resolution to provide a Deferred Compensation Investment Policy
4. Ordinance re EXCESS PROPERTY adjacent to the Fire Training Center:
a. DECLARE City -owned land at rear of Seatack Elementary School as
excess property
b. AUTHORIZE the purchase of 9.3 acres by:
(i) Exchange of a one (1) acre parcel
(ii) Purchase 8.3 acre parcel
Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to renew leased Spaces Nos. 1 and 2 at the
Farmer's Market to FLS Corporation, t/a The Nesting Box.
6. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE a temporary encroachments into portions of City property:
a. Rouse Drive by ROUSE I, LLC to install and maintain PVC conduit for telephone
and computer lines
b. Diamond Springs Road by R. M. CLARKE, L.L.C. to install and maintain
conduit for network cables
7. Ordinance to ADD one full-time employee position to the City Attorney's Office and
TRANSFER $44,134 from the Contingency Fund to the City Attorney's FY2005-06
Operating Budget.
8. Ordinances to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE:
a. $2,500 from the Virginia Office of the Attorney General TRIAD Crime
Prevention for Senior's Grant and $1,000 from the Wal-Mart Foundation to the
Police Department's FY2005-06 Operating Budget repurchase of Project
Lifesaver equipment
b. $605,866 from the Virginia Compensation Board to the Clerk of Circuit Court's
FY 2005-06 Technology Trust Fund as reimbursement for technology expense
K. PLANNING
1. Application of K & SONS, INC. for the Modification of the Indian Lakes Land Use Plan to
allow a gasoline station in conjunction with a convenience store at 1196 Indian Lakes
Boulevard (Deferred by City Council on October 11 and November 8, 2005).
(DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE )
DEFERRED: November 8, 2005
RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL
2. Application of DONALD G. PRATT for a Modification ofProf ers from the Conditional
Change of Zoning granted by the City Council on April 11, 2000, re an additional office
building at 2244 General Booth.
(DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
3. Petition for a Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly
created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO), Subdivision
for WILLIAM L. PAGE, to vacate an existing property line of two adjacent properties,
remove an existing single family home and resubdivide creating two new lots of equal
size at 1544 West Little Neck Road.
(DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN)
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL
4. Application of BLUE HORSESHOE TATTOO V, Ltd. for a Conditional Use Permit
re a tattoo and body piercing establishment at 71-125 South Witchduck Road.
(DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE)
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL
on
7
Application of SPRINTCOM, INC. for a Conditional Use Permit re development of a
communication tower and maintenance cabinets at 1000 North Great Neck Road.
(DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN)
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL
Application of STEVEN KREVER for a Change of Zoning District Classification from
0-2 Office District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District at 3712 South
Plaza Trail re a delicatessen. (Deferred by City Council on October 11, 2005)
(DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL)
DEFERRED:
RECOMMENDATION:
October 11, 2005
APPROVAL
AMENDMENTS to REORDAIN and REPEAL the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO)
a. § 221.1 re specific standards for conditional uses within certain Air Installations
Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ); and, ADD Article 18, §§1800 — 1807 re
discretionary development applications and sound attenuation requirements in
buildings and structures in certain AICUZ
b. Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance (Appendix 1) re sound
attenuation requirements in certain buildings, structures and required disclosures
in residential real estate transactions
C. Official zoning map by designation and incorporation of the NAS Oceana —
NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area
d. Comprehensive Plan by the incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress
Interfacility Traffic Area Map
e. Comprehensive Plan, Chapters 1 (Introduction and General Strategy), 2
(Strategic Growth), 3 (Primary Residential Areas), 5 (Princess Anne/Transition
Area) and 9 (Natural Resources and Environmental Quality Plan), Appendix of
the Policy Document and Princess Anne Corridor Plan to incorporate provisions
of AICUZ, the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study and AICUZ Overlay
Ordinance
DEFERRED:
RECOMMENDATION:
October 25, 2005
Defer to December 20, 2005
L. APPOINTMENTS
BEACHES and WATERWAYS COMMISSION
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA BOARD
COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR HISTORIC SITES
HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE
HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE — PPEA
PERSONNEL BOARD (Alternates)
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (RAC)
SENIOR SERVICES OF SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA (SEVAMP)
VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORAITON (VBCDC)
WETLANDS BOARD (Alternates)
M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
N. NEW BUSINESS
1. ABSTRACT OF VOTES — GENERAL ELECTION — November 8, 2005
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 11/22/2005gw
www.vbgov.com
I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 1:00 P.M.
A. MAGNA CARTA EXHIBIT
Mark A. Reed, Historic Resources Coordinator
Department of Museums and Cultural Arts
Timothy Guy, Director, Aukett Brockliss Guy (ABG),
Joint Venture Communications and Design Consultancy
B. HISTORIC KEMPSVILLE PLAN
Clay Bernick, Environmental Management Program Administrator
Department of Planning
C. TOWING REGULATIONS
Louie Ochave — Chairman, Towing Advisory Board
H. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
III. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS
IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 2:30 P.M.
A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
I V. FORMAL SESSION
- Council Chamber - 6:00 P.M.
A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
B. INVOCATION: Reverend J. Scott Griffin
Lynnhaven Presbyterian Church
C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
F. MINUTES
1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS November 8, 2005
G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION
MP
9ip�F,
Xr.
Ai
TO-] - I
CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION,
pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The
Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and,
WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the
governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council
hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters
lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed
Session to which this certification resolution applies;_ and, (b) only such public business matters
as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or
considered by Virginia Beach City Council.
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. FARMER'S MARKET LEASE — FLS Corporation T/A The Nesting Box
2. EXCESS CITY PROPERTY — Fire Station near Seatack Elementary School
3. TAXI CAB INCREASE
NOTICEPUBLIC
■� •rif
The Virginia Beach City council will hold a PUBLIC HEAR.
ING at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 in the
City Council Chamber regarding the proposed lease agree-
ment of City -owned property located at the Virginia Beach
Farmers Market, as defined below:
Spaces #1 & #2 FLS Corporation T/A The Nesting Box;
Fred & Linda Jordan
The purpose of this public hearing will be to obtain public
comment on this lease of City property. Any questions con-
cerning these matters should be directed to Janel Leather-
man, Farmers Market Manager, by calling (757) 427-4395.
Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC
City Clerk
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 800-828-1120.
Beacon Nov. 13, 2005 14204177
The Virginia Beach City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEAR-
ING on the disposition and sale of 1± acre of property
located adjacent to and at the rear (northern boundary) of
Seatack Elementary School and being a part of GPIN
2416-75-0198, Tuesday, November 22, 2005 at 6:00
p.m. in the Council Chamber of the City Hall Building (Build-
ing #1) at the Virginia Beach Municipal Center, Virginia
Beach, Virginia. The purpose of this hearing will be to obtain
public input to determine whether this property should be
declared "Excess of the City's needs".
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
T®O only 427-4305 (TDD - Telephone Device for the Deaf).
Any questions concerning this matter should be directed to
the Office of Real Estate, Building #2; Room 392, at the Vir-
ginia Beach Municipal Center, The Real Estate Office tele-
phone number is (757) 427-4161.
Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC
City Clerk
Beacon Nov. 13, 2005 14204265
INCREASE METER DROP FEES FROM
0
The Virginia Beach City Council will hold a PUBLIC
HEARING in the Council Chamber, second floor of the
City Hall Building, on November ' 22, 2005 at 6:00
PM on a proposed amendment to City Code § W-172
authorizing taxi cab companies to collect $2.50 for the
first 1/8th of a mile. For every minute of waiting time,
the taxi cab companies would be allowed to collect $.25
per minute. This rate increase is proposed due to
increased gasoline prices and cost of living increases.
Interested residents of the City of Virginia Beach may
appear at the above -mentioned time and place to
present their views.
Interested residents unable to attend may submit
comments via email to budget@vib ov.corn
Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC
City Clerk
Beacon Nov. 13, 2005 14214054
J. RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES
Resolution PROVIDING for the issuance and sale of General Obligation Public
Improvement Bonds, heretofore authorized, in the maximum amount of $80,000,000 for
various public facilities and general improvements.
2. Resolution to ADOPT the findings in the Formal Needs Assessment Report and
AUTHORIZE the City Manager to issue a Request for Formal Renewal Proposal to Cox
Communications of Hampton Roads, LLC for their cable television franchise.
Ordinances to AMEND City Code:
a. §§ 7-1, 7-65, 7-66, 7-67 and 7-68 re regulation of golf carts and utility vehicles
b. § 6-114 re restrictions launching, landing, parking or stationing recreational
vessels in certain areas
Deferred Compensation Plan
(i) AMEND §§ 2-121, 2-122 and 1-123 re the Deferred Compensation Plan
and Board Membership
(ii) Resolution to provide a Deferred Compensation Investment Policy
4. Ordinance re EXCESS PROPERTY adjacent to the Fire Training Center:
a. DECLARE City -owned land at rear of Seatack Elementary School as
excess property
b. AUTHORIZE the purchase of 9.3 acres by:
(i) Exchange of a one (1) acre parcel
(ii) Purchase 8.3 acre parcel
Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to renew leased Spaces Nos. 1 and 2 at the
Farmer's Market to FLS Corporation, t/a The Nesting Box.
6. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE a temporary encroachments into portions of City property:
a. Rouse Drive by ROUSE I, LLC to install and maintain PVC conduit for telephone
and computer lines
b. Diamond Springs Road by R. M. CLARKE, L.L.C. to install and maintain
conduit for network cables
7. Ordinance to ADD one full-time employee position to the City Attorney's Office and
TRANSFER $44,134 from the Contingency Fund to the City Attorney's FY2005-06
Operating Budget.
8. Ordinances to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE:
a. $2,500 from the Virginia Office of the Attorney General TRIAD Crime
Prevention for Senior's Grant and $1,000 from the Wal-Mart Foundation to the
Police Department's FY2005-06 Operating Budget re purchase of Project
Lifesaver equipment
b. $605,866 from the Virginia Compensation Board to the Clerk of Circuit Court's
FY 2005-06 Technology Trust Fund as reimbursement for technology expense
A;t�s J
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: A Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $80,000,000 General Obligation
Public Improvement Bonds, Series 2005
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background: Based on a review of capital project expenditures and future CIP needs,
the Department of Finance has begun preparations for a general obligation bond sale in the
amount of $80 million. The Bond sale is composed of portions of 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004
Charter Bond Authorizations previously approved by Council. A portion of the bond proceeds
from the proposed sale will be reimbursing previous expenditures, and the remainder of the
funds will be for future planned expenditures.
■ Considerations: This sale represents the City's annual general obligation bond sale.
The City's bond counsel, Troutman Sanders, has prepared the enclosed resolution authorizing
the issuance and sale. The bonds will be sold by competitive bid with the actions of the City
Manager being conclusive provided, however, that the bonds shall have a true interest cost not
to exceed 5.5 percent. The proposed bond structure takes into consideration the FY 2006 and
FY 2007 debt service budgets.
The bond sale is scheduled for pricing on December 7, 2005. As an accommodation to bidders,
the City will employ an electronic bidding system in accordance with the Official Notice of Sale.
After today's Council action no further vote of the City Council will be necessary. The final
terms of the bond sale will be provided to City Council.
■ Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council
agenda process. The original Charter authorizations were a part of the public information
process for the Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program. In addition, a Notice of
Sale will be placed in The Bond Buyer.
■ Alternatives: There are no alternative funding sources at this time. This request
follows previously approved CIPs.
■ Recommendations: The enclosed resolution providing for the sale of the bonds is
recommended for City Council approval.
■ Attachments:
Resolution Authorizing the bond sale
Draft of the Preliminary Official Statement with:
Draft of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement — (Appendix C)
Draft of the Official Notice of Sale — (Appendix E)
Recommended Action: Approval of Reso
Submitting Department/Agency: Finance 716Um�
City Manager: m
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND
SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2005, HERETOFORE
AUTHORIZED, OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
VIRGINIA, IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $80,000,000,
AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM, DETAILS AND
PAYMENT THEREOF
The issuance of $49,700,000 of bonds of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City")
was authorized by an ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia (the "City Council") on May 9, 2000, without being submitted to the qualified voters of
the City, to finance various public improvements, including schools, roadways, coastal projects,
economic and tourism projects, building and parks and recreation projects, $38,896,170 of which
bonds have been issued and sold.
The issuance of $59,300,000 of bonds of the City was authorized by an ordinance adopted
by the City Council on May 14, 2002, without being submitted to the qualified voters of the City,
to finance various public improvements, including schools, roadways, coastal projects, economic
and tourism projects, building and parks and recreation projects, $37,000,000 of which bonds have
been issued and sold.
The issuance of $61,900,000 of bonds of the City was authorized by an ordinance adopted
by the City Council on May 13, 2003, without being submitted to the qualified voters of the City,
to finance various public improvements, including schools, roadways, coastal projects, economic
and tourism projects, building and parks and recreation projects, $18,601,237 of which bonds have
been issued and sold.
The issuance of $61,000,000 of bonds of the City was authorized by an ordinance adopted
by the City Council on May 11, 2004, without being submitted to the qualified voters of the City,
to finance various public improvements, including schools, roadways, coastal projects, economic
and tourism projects, building and parks and recreation projects, none of which bonds have been
issued and sold.
The issuance of $55,200,000 of bonds of the City was authorized by an ordinance adopted
by the City Council on May 10, 2005, without being submitted to the qualified voters of the City,
to finance various public improvements, including schools, roadways, coastal projects, economic
and tourism projects, building and parks and recreation projects, none of which bonds have been
issued and sold.
It has been recommended to the City Council by representatives of Government Finance
Associates, Inc. and ARD Government Finance Group (the "Financial Advisors") that the City
issue and sell a series of general obligation public improvement bonds in the maximum principal
amount of $80,000,000. The City Council has determined it is in the City's best interest to issue
and sell $10,803,830 of the bonds authorized on May 9, 2000; $22,300,000 of the bonds
authorized on May 14, 2002; $43,298,763 of the bonds authorized on May 13, 2003; $3,597,407
of the bonds authorized on May 11, 2004; and none of the bonds authorized on May 10, 2005.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA:
1. Issuance of Bonds. There shall be issued, pursuant to the Constitution and
statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the City Charter (Chapter 147 of the Acts of
the General Assembly of 1962, as amended) and the Public Finance Act of 1991 (Chapter 26, Title
15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended), general obligation public improvement bonds of the
City in the maximum principal amount of $80,000,000 (the "Bonds"). The proceeds of the Bonds
will be used to provide funds to finance, in part, the costs of various public, school, road and
highway, coastal, economic and tourism, building and parks and recreation improvements, as
more fully described in the ordinances authorizing the Bonds adopted on May 9, 2000, May 14,
2002, May 13, 2003, and May 11, 2004 (collectively, the "Project"), and the costs incurred in
connection with issuing the Bonds.
2. Bond Details. The Bonds shall be designated "General Obligation Public
Improvement Bonds, Series 2005," or such other designation as may be determined by the City
Manager, shall be in registered form, shall be dated such date as may be determined by the City
Manager, shall be in denominations of $5,000 and integral multiples thereof and shall be
numbered R-1 upward. Subject to Section 8, the issuance and sale of the Bonds are authorized on
terms as shall be satisfactory to the City Manager; provided, however, that the Bonds (a) shall
have a "true" or "Canadian" interest cost not to exceed 5.50% (taking into account any original
issue discount or premium), (b) shall be sold to the purchaser thereof at a price not less than 99.0%
of the principal amount thereof (excluding any original issue discount), (c) shall be subject to
optional redemption no later than January 15, 2016 at an optional redemption price of no more
than 102% of the principal amount to be redeemed plus accrued interest to the optional redemption
date, and (d) shall mature or be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemptions in annual
installments beginning no later than January 15, 2007, and ending no later than January 15, 2026.
Principal of the Bonds shall be payable annually on dates determined by the City Manager.
Each Bond shall bear interest at such rate as shall be determined at the time of sale,
calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months, and payable semiannually on
dates determined by the City Manager. Principal shall be payable to the registered owners upon
surrender of Bonds as they become due at the office of the Registrar (as hereinafter defined).
Interest shall be payable by check or draft mailed to the registered owners at their addresses as
they appear on the registration books kept by the Registrar on a date prior to each interest payment
date that shall be determined by the City Manager (the "Record Date"). Principal, premium, if
any, and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America.
Initially, one Bond certificate for each maturity of the Bonds shall be issued to and
registered in the name of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"), or its
nominee. The City has heretofore entered into a Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations relating
to a book -entry system to be maintained by DTC with respect to the Bonds. "Securities
Depository" shall mean DTC or any other securities depository for the Bonds appointed pursuant
to this Section 2.
-2-
In the event that (a) the Securities Depository determines not to continue to act as the
securities depository for the Bonds by giving notice to the Registrar, and the City discharges its
responsibilities hereunder, or (b) the City, in its sole discretion, determines (i) that beneficial
owners of Bonds shall be able to obtain certificated Bonds or (ii) to select a new Securities
Depository, then the City's Director of Finance shall, at the direction of the City, attempt to locate
another qualified securities depository to serve as Securities Depository and authenticate and
deliver certificated Bonds to the new Securities Depository or its nominee, or authenticate and
deliver certificated Bonds to the beneficial owners or to the Securities Depository participants on
behalf of beneficial owners substantially in the form provided for in Section 5; provided, that such
form shall provide for interest on the Bonds to be payable (A) from the date of the Bonds if they
are authenticated prior to the first interest payment date, or (B) from the interest payment date that
is or immediately precedes the date on which the Bonds are authenticated (unless payment of
interest thereon is in default, in which case interest on such Bonds shall be payable from the date
to which interest has been paid). In delivering certificated Bonds, the City's Director of Finance
shall be entitled to rely on the records of the Securities Depository as to the beneficial owners or
the records of the Securities Depository participants acting on behalf of beneficial owners. Such
certificated Bonds will then be registrable, transferable and exchangeable as set forth in Section 7.
So long as there is a Securities Depository for the Bonds, (1) it or its nominee shall be the
registered owner of the Bonds, (2) notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Resolution,
determinations of persons entitled to payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest, transfers
of ownership and exchanges, and receipt of notices shall be the responsibility of the Securities
Depository and shall be effected pursuant to rules and procedures established by such Securities
Depository, (3) the Registrar and the City shall not be responsible or liable for maintaining,
supervising or reviewing the records maintained by the Securities Depository, its participants or
persons acting through such participants, (4) references in this Resolution to registered owners of
the Bonds shall mean such Securities Depository or its nominee and shall not mean the beneficial
owners of the Bonds, and (5) in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this
Resolution and the provisions of the above -referenced Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations,
such provisions of the Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations, except to the extent set forth in
this paragraph and the next preceding paragraph, shall control.
3. Redemption Provisions.
(a) Optional Redemption. The Bonds may be subject to redemption prior to maturity
at the option of the City, in whole or in part, at any time on or after dates, if any, determined by
the City Manager, but no later than January 15, 2016, at a redemption price equal to the principal
amount of the Bonds to be redeemed, together with any interest accrued to the date fixed for
redemption, plus a redemption premium not to exceed 2% of the principal amount of the Bonds to
be redeemed, such redemption premium to be determined by the City Manager.
(b) Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption. Any term bonds may be subject to
mandatory sinking fund redemption upon terms determined by the City Manager.
If so determined by the City Manager, the Bonds may provide that the City may take a
credit against the mandatory sinking fund redemption obligation of any maturity of term Bonds in
-3-
the amount of Bonds of the same maturity that have been optionally redeemed or surrendered for
cancellation and have not been applied previously as such a credit. If the City wishes to take such
a credit, on or before the 70th day next preceding any such mandatory sinking fund redemption
date, the City's Director of Finance may instruct the Registrar to apply a credit against the City's
mandatory sinking fund redemption obligation for any Bonds of the applicable maturity that have
been optionally redeemed or surrendered for cancellation by the City and have not been previously
applied as a credit against any mandatory sinking fund redemption obligation for that maturity of
the Bonds. Each Bond so previously optionally redeemed or surrendered shall be credited at
100% of the principal amount thereof against the principal amount of such maturity of the Bonds
required to be redeemed on such mandatory sinking fund redemption date or dates for such
maturity as may be selected by the Director of Finance.
(c) Selection of Bonds for Redemption. If less than all of the Bonds are called for
optional redemption, the maturities of the Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by the City's
Director of Finance in such manner as may be determined to be in the best interest of the City. If
less than all of a particular maturity of the Bonds are called for redemption, the Bonds within such
maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by the Securities Depository pursuant to its rules and
procedures or, if the book -entry system is discontinued, shall be selected by the Registrar by lot in
such manner as the Registrar in its discretion may determine. In either case, (a) the portion of any
Bond to be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of $5,000 or some integral multiple thereof
and (b) in selecting Bonds for redemption, each Bond shall be considered as representing that
number of Bonds that is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such Bond by $5,000.
(d) Redemption Notices. The City shall cause notice of the call for redemption
identifying the Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed to be sent by facsimile transmission,
registered or certified mail or overnight express delivery, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days
prior to the redemption date, to the registered owner of the Bonds. The City shall not be
responsible for mailing notice of redemption to anyone other than DTC or another qualified
Securities Depository or its nominee unless no qualified Securities Depository is the registered
owner of the Bonds. If no qualified Securities Depository is the registered owner of the Bonds,
notice of redemption shall be mailed to the registered owners of the Bonds. If a portion of a Bond
is called for redemption, a new Bond in principal amount equal to the unredeemed portion thereof
will be issued to the registered owner upon the surrender thereof.
4. Execution and Authentication. The Bonds shall be signed by the manual or
facsimile signature of the Mayor or Vice -Mayor, shall be countersigned by the manual or
facsimile signature of the City Clerk or Deputy Clerk, and the City's seal shall be affixed thereto
or a facsimile thereof printed thereon; provided, that if both of such signatures are facsimiles, no
Bond shall be valid until it has been authenticated by the manual signature of the City Treasurer as
Registrar or an authorized officer or employee of any bank or trust company serving as successor
Registrar and the date of authentication noted thereon.
5. Bond Form. The Bonds shall be in substantially the form attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit A, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not
inconsistent with this Resolution as may be approved by the officers signing the Bonds, whose
approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Bonds.
in
6. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. The full faith and credit of the City are
irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the
Bonds. Unless other funds are lawfully available and appropriated for timely payment of the
Bonds, the City Council shall levy and collect an annual ad valorem tax, over and above all other
taxes authorized or limited by law and without limitation as to rate or amount, on all locally
taxable property in the City sufficient to pay when due the principal of, premium, if any, and
interest on the Bonds.
7. Registration, Transfer and Owners of Bonds. The City Treasurer is
appointed paying agent and registrar for the Bonds (the "Registrar"). The City may appoint a
qualified bank or trust company as successor paying agent and registrar of the Bonds. The
Registrar shall maintain registration books for the registration and registration of transfers of the
Bonds. Upon presentation and surrender of any Bonds at the office of the Registrar, or at its
designated corporate trust office if the Registrar is a bank or trust company, together with an
assignment duly executed by the registered owner or his duly authorized attorney or legal
representative in such form as shall be satisfactory to the Registrar, the City shall execute, and the
Registrar shall authenticate, if required by Section 4, and shall deliver in exchange, a new Bond or
Bonds having an equal aggregate principal amount, in authorized denominations, of the same form
and maturity, bearing interest at the same rate and registered in the name as requested by the then
registered owner thereof or its duly authorized attorney or legal representative. Any such transfer
or exchange shall be at the expense of the City, except that the Registrar may charge the person
requesting such transfer or exchange the amount of any tax or other governmental charge required
to be paid with respect thereto.
The Registrar shall treat the registered owner as the person or entity exclusively entitled to
payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest and the exercise of all other rights and powers
of the owner, except that interest payments shall be made to the person or entity shown as owner
on the registration books as of the Record Date.
8. Sale of Bonds. The City Council approves the following terms of the sale of the
Bonds. The Bonds shall be sold by competitive bid in a principal amount to be determined by the
City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisors, and subject to the limitations set forth
in Section 1, and the City Manager shall receive bids for the Bonds and award the Bonds to the
bidder providing the lowest "true" or "Canadian" interest cost, subject to the limitations set forth
in Section 2. Following the sale of the Bonds, the City Manager shall file a certificate with the
City Clerk setting forth the final terms of the Bonds. The actions of the City Manager in selling the
Bonds shall be conclusive, and no further action with respect to the sale and issuance of the Bonds
shall be necessary on the part of the City Council.
9. Notice of Sale; Bid Form. The City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial
Advisors, is authorized and directed to take all proper steps to advertise the Bonds for sale
substantially in accordance with the forms of the Official Notice of Sale and the Official Bid
Form, which forms are attached as an Appendix to the draft of the Preliminary Official Statement
described in Section 10 below, and which forms are approved; provided, that the City Manager, in
collaboration with the Financial Advisors, may make such changes in the Official Notice of Sale
-5-
and the Official Bid Form not inconsistent with this Resolution as he may consider to be in the
best interest of the City.
10. Official Statement. A draft of a Preliminary Official Statement describing the
Bonds, a copy of which has been provided or made available to each member of the City Council,
is approved as the form of the Preliminary Official Statement by which the Bonds will be offered
for sale, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this
Resolution as the City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisors, may consider
appropriate. After the Bonds have been sold, the City Manager, in collaboration with the
Financial Advisors, shall make such completions, omissions, insertions and changes in the
Preliminary Official Statement not inconsistent with this Resolution as are necessary or desirable
to complete it as a final Official Statement, execution thereof by the City Manager to constitute
conclusive evidence of his approval of any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes.
The City shall arrange for the delivery to the purchaser of the Bonds of a reasonable number of
copies of the final Official Statement by the earlier of seven business days after the Bonds have
been sold or the date of issuance of the Bonds, for delivery to each potential investor requesting a
copy of the Official Statement and for delivery to each person to whom such purchaser initially
sells Bonds.
11. Official Statement Deemed Final. The City Manager is authorized, on behalf of
the City, to deem the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement in final form, each
to be final as of its date within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 ("Rule 15c2-12") of the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), except for the omission in the Preliminary Official
Statement of certain pricing and other information permitted to be omitted pursuant to Rule 15c2-
12. The distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement in final form
shall be conclusive evidence that each has been deemed final as of its date by the City, except for
the omission in the Preliminary Official Statement of such pricing and other information permitted
to be omitted pursuant to Rule 15c2-12.
12. Preparation and Delivery of Bonds. After bids have been received and the Bonds
have been awarded to the winning bidder, the officers of the City are authorized and directed to
take all proper steps to have the Bonds prepared and executed in accordance with their terms and
to deliver the Bonds to the purchaser thereof upon payment therefor.
13. Arbitrage Covenants. The City covenants that it shall not take or omit to take any
action the taking or omission of which will cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within the
meaning of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations issued
pursuant thereto (the "Code"), or otherwise cause interest on the Bonds to be includable in the
gross income of the registered owners thereof under existing laws. Without limiting the generality
of the foregoing, the City shall comply with any provision of law that may require the City at any
time to rebate to the United States any part of the earnings derived from the investment of the
gross proceeds of the Bonds, unless the City receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond
counsel that such compliance is not required to prevent interest on the Bonds from being
includable in the gross income of the registered owners thereof under existing law. The City shall
pay any such required rebate from its legally available funds.
0
14. Non -Arbitrage Certificate and Elections. Such officers of the City as may be
requested are authorized and directed to execute an appropriate certificate setting forth the
reasonably expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds in order to show that such
reasonably expected use and investment will not violate the provisions of Section 148 of the Code,
and any elections such officers deem desirable regarding rebate of earnings to the United States,
for purposes of complying with Section 148 of the Code. Such certificate and elections shall be in
such form as may be requested by bond counsel for the City.
15. Limitation on Private Use. The City covenants that it shall not permit the
proceeds of the Bonds or the facilities financed with the proceeds of the Bonds to be used in any
manner that would result in (a) 5% or more of such proceeds or of the facilities financed with such
proceeds being used in a trade or business carried on by any person other than a governmental
unit, as provided in Section 141(b) of the Code, (b) 5% or more of such proceeds or the facilities
being financed with such proceeds being used with respect to any output facility (other than a
facility for the furnishing of water), within the meaning of Section 141(b)(4) of the Code, or (c)
5% or more of such proceeds being used directly or indirectly to make or finance loans to any
person other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(c) of the Code; provided, that if
the City receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that any such covenants need
not be complied with to prevent the interest on the Bonds from being includable in the gross
income for federal income tax purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law, the
City need not comply with such covenants.
16. Investment Authorization. The City Council hereby authorizes the Director of
Finance to direct the City Treasurer to utilize either or both of the State Non -Arbitrage Program of
the Commonwealth of Virginia ("SNAP") and the Virginia Arbitrage & Investment Management
Program ("AIM") in connection with the investment of the proceeds of the Bonds, if the City
Manager and the Director of Finance determine that the utilization of either SNAP or AIM is in
the best interest of the City. The City Council acknowledges that the Treasury Board of the
Commonwealth of Virginia is not, and shall not be, in any way liable to the City in connection
with SNAP, except as otherwise provided in the SNAP Contract.
17. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Mayor, the City Manager and such
officer or officers of the City as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute
and deliver a continuing disclosure agreement setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by
the City and containing such covenants as may be necessary to assist the purchaser of the Bonds in
complying with the provisions of Rule 15c2-12. Such continuing disclosure agreement shall be
substantially in the form attached as an Appendix to the draft of the Preliminary Official Statement
described in Section 10 above, which form is approved with such completions, omissions,
insertions and changes that are not inconsistent with this Resolution.
18. Other Actions. All other actions of officers of the City and of the City Council in
conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of the issuance and
sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. The officers of the City are
authorized and directed to execute and deliver all certificates and instruments and to take all such
further action as may be considered necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance, sale
and delivery of the Bonds.
-7-
19. Repeal of ConflictinLy Resolutions. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in
conflict herewith are repealed.
20. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
Exhibit A — Form of Bonds
IM
Exhibit A — Form of Bonds
Unless this certificate is presented by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust
Company, a New York corporation ("DTC"), to the issuer or its agent for registration of
transfer, exchange or payment, and this certificate is registered in the name of Cede & Co.,
or in such other name as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC (and any
payment is made to Cede & Co. or to such other entity as is requested by an authorized
representative of DTC), ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE, OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR
VALUE OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL inasmuch as the
registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein.
REGISTERED REGISTERED
No. R-_ $
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
General Obligation Public Improvement Bond
Series 2005
INTEREST RATE MATURITY DATE DATED DATE CUSIP
January 15, 20_ December _, 2005 927734
REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO.
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT:
DOLLARS
The City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City"), for value received, promises to pay,
upon surrender hereof to the registered owner hereof, or registered assigns or legal representative,
the Principal Amount stated above on the Maturity Date stated above, subject to prior redemption
as hereinafter provided, and promises to pay interest hereon from the Dated Date stated above on
each January 15 and July 15, beginning July 15, 2006, at the annual Interest Rate stated above,
calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. Principal, premium, if any,
and interest are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by the City Treasurer,
who has been appointed Registrar (the "Registrar"). The City may appoint a qualified bank as
successor paying agent and registrar for the bonds.
Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, this bond is subject to a book -entry system
maintained by The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), and the payment of principal, premium,
if any, and interest, the providing of notices and other matters shall be made as described in the
City's Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations to DTC.
This bond is one of an issue of $80,000,000 General Obligation Public Improvement
Bonds, Series 2005 (the "Bonds"), of like date and tenor, except as to number, denomination, rate
of interest, privilege of redemption and maturity, and is issued pursuant to the Constitution and
statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the City Charter and the Public Finance Act
of 1991. The Bonds have been authorized by ordinances adopted by the City Council of the City
of Virginia Beach (the "City Council") on May 9, 2000, May 14, 2002, May 13, 2003, and May
11, 2004, and are being issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on November
22, 2005 (the "Bond Resolution"), to finance various public, school, road and highway, coastal,
economic and tourism, building and parks and recreation improvements and to pay costs of
issuance of the Bonds.
The Bonds maturing on or before January 15, 20_, are not subject to optional redemption
prior to maturity. The Bonds maturing on or after January 15, 20, are subject to redemption
prior to maturity at the option of the City on or after January 15, 20_, in whole or in part at any
time (in any multiple of $5,000), upon payment of the following redemption prices (expressed as a
percentage of principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) plus interest accrued and unpaid to
the date fixed for redemption:
Period During Which Redeemed Redemption
(Both Dates Inclusive) Price
The Bonds maturing on January 15, 20_, are required to be redeemed in part before
maturity by the City on January 15 in the years and amounts set forth below, at a redemption price
equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed, plus interest accrued and
unpaid to the date fixed for redemption:
Year . Amount Year Amount
The Bond Resolution provides for a credit against the mandatory sinking fund redemption of the
Bonds maturing on January 15, 20_ in the amount of Bonds of the same maturity that have been
optionally redeemed or surrendered for cancellation and have not been applied previously as such
a credit.
If less than all of the Bonds are called for optional redemption, the maturities of the Bonds
to be redeemed shall be selected by the City's Director of Finance in such manner as may be
determined to be in the best interest of the City. If less than all the Bonds of a particular maturity
are called for redemption, the Bonds within such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by
DTC or any successor securities depository pursuant to its rules and procedures or, if the book
entry system is discontinued, shall be selected by the Registrar by lot in such manner as the
Registrar in its discretion may determine. In either case, (a) the portion of any Bond to be
redeemed shall be in the principal amount of $5,000 or some integral multiple thereof and (b) in
selecting Bonds for redemption, each Bond shall be considered as representing that number of
Bonds that is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such Bond by $5,000.
A-2
The City shall cause notice of the call for redemption identifying the Bonds or portions
thereof to be redeemed to be sent by facsimile transmission, registered or certified mail or
overnight express delivery, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the redemption date, to
DTC or its nominee as the registered owner hereof. If a portion of this bond is called for
redemption, a new Bond in the principal amount of the unredeemed portion hereof will be issued
to the registered owner upon surrender hereof.
The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on this bond. Unless other funds are lawfully available and
appropriated for timely payment of this bond, the City Council shall levy and collect an annual ad
valorem tax, over and above all other taxes authorized or limited by law and without limitation as
to rate or amount, on all taxable property within the City sufficient to pay when due the principal
of, premium, if any, and interest on this bond.
The Registrar shall treat the registered owner of this bond as the person or entity
exclusively entitled to payment of principal of and interest on this bond and the exercise of all
other rights and powers of the owner, except that interest payments shall be made to the person or
entity shown as the owner on the registration books on the first day of the month preceding each
interest payment date.
In the event a date for the payment of principal, redemption price, or interest on this bond
is not a business day, then payment of principal, redemption price, and interest on, this bond shall
be made on the next succeeding day which is a business day, and if made on such next succeeding
business day, no additional interest shall accrue for the period after such payment or redemption
date.
All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and statutes of the
Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of
this bond have happened, exist and have been performed, and the issue of Bonds of which this
bond is one, together with all other indebtedness of the City, is within every debt and other limit
prescribed by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, has caused this bond to
be signed by its Mayor, to be countersigned by its Clerk, its seal to be affixed hereto, and this
bond to be dated the Dated Date stated above.
COUNTERSIGNED:
(SEAL)
Clerk, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Mayor, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
A-3
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned sell(s), assign(s) and transfer(s) unto:
(Please print or type name and address, including postal zip code, of Transferee)
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF TRANSFEREE:
the within bond and all rights thereunder, hereby irrevocably constituting and appointing
, Attorney,
to transfer said bond on the books kept for the registration thereof, with full power of substitution
in the premises.
Dated:
Signature Guaranteed:
NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by
an Eligible Guarantor Institution such as a
Commercial Bank, Trust Company, Securities
Broker/Dealer, Credit Union or Savings
Association who is a member of a medallion
program approved by The Securities Transfer
Association, Inc.
#1404350v4
205182.000118
(Signature of Registered Owner)
NOTICE: The signature above must
correspond with the name of the registered
owner as it appears on the front of this bond in
every particular, without alteration or
enlargement or any change whatsoever.
A-4
Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of the City Council.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, this 22nd day of November,
2005.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
1
mane Department
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
City Attorney's Office
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned Clerk of the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the
"City Council"), certifies that:
1. A meeting of the City Council was held on November 22, 2005, at the time and
place established and noticed by the City Council, at which the members of the City Council were
present or absent as noted below. The foregoing Resolution was adopted by a majority of the
members of the City Council, by a roll call vote, the ayes and nays being recorded in the minutes
of the meeting as shown below:
PRESENT/ABSENT: VOTE:
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor /
Louis R. Jones, Vice Mayor /
Harry E. Diezel /
Robert M. Dyer /
Richard Maddox /
Reba S. McClanan /
J. M. Reeve /
Peter W. Schmidt /
Ronald John A. Villanueva /
Rosemary Wilson /
James L. Wood /
2. The foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of such Resolution as adopted
on November 22, 2005. The foregoing Resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or
amended and is in full force and effect on the date hereof.
WITNESS my signature and the seal of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, this
day of November, 2005.
Clerk, City Council of the City of Virginia
Beach, Virginia
(SEAL)
1404350v4
205182.000118
,! nth1A BEgrZ
y!
7.
Y)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: A Resolution Adopting the Findings Set Forth in the Needs
Assessment Report and Authorizing the City Manager to Issue a
Request for Formal Renewal Proposal to Cox Communications of
Hampton Roads, LLC
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background: The City's cable franchise agreement with Cox Communications
Hampton Roads, LLC ("Cox") expires in May 2006. In July 2003, Cox requested
renewal of its cable franchise agreement. The City subsequently prepared a
Formal Needs Assessment Report ("Report"). In preparing the Report, staff
conducted studies and surveys to determine the cable -related needs and
interests of the City's cable subscribers. Staff also evaluated the existing cable
system operated by Cox. The Report summarizes the needs and interests
identified in the studies and surveys. Based upon the Report, staff identified and
developed a list of renewal requirements.
■ Considerations: In an effort to obtain a favorable renewal agreement, staff
recommends that the City proceed in its negotiations with Cox pursuant to the
formal renewal process set forth in the Cable Act. Under the formal renewal
process, the City will issue a Request for Formal Renewal Proposal ("Request")
inviting Cox to submit to the City a cable franchise formal renewal proposal
describing the cable -related facilities, equipment, and services it proposes to
provide in the City during the franchise renewal term. As part of the request, the
City will provide a proposed model franchise agreement that includes the City's
cable needs and interests and is intended to serve as a model for the final
franchise agreement. City Council will subsequently have the opportunity to
approve or disapprove the proposal submitted by Cox. City Council can deny
Cox's request for renewal if it finds, among other things, that the proposal does
not reasonably satisfy the community's needs and interests or that Cox has failed
to comply with the existing cable franchise agreement.
This resolution 1) adopts the findings in the Report and confirms that the cable
needs and interests identified in the Report are representative of the City's cable
needs and interests; and 2) authorizes the City Manager to issue a Request for
Formal Renewal Proposal to Cox.
■ Public Information: To be advertised in the same manner as other items on
Council's agenda.
■ Alternatives: City staff could continue negotiations with Cox pursuant to the
informal renewal process and not initiate the formal renewal process by issuing
the Request. Given that the current franchise agreement expires in May 2006,
the formal renewal process will allow discussions to occur in a prescribed
timeframe. The City could also extend the current franchise agreement beyond
May 2006; however, given the changes in the legal, financial, and technological
environment over the fifteen years the franchise has been in place, City staff
believe that it is critical to enter into a new franchise agreement.
■ Recommendation: Adoption of Resolution.
■ Attachments: Resolution
Formal Needs Assessment Report
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution
Submitting Department/Agency: Coml `'``
City Manager: ' "U W"7'
2
1 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINDINGS
2 SET FORTH IN THE FORMAL NEEDS
3 ASSESSMENT REPORT AND AUTHORIZING
4 THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE A
5 REQUEST FOR FORMAL RENEWAL
6 PROPOSAL TO COX COMMUNICATIONS OF
7 HAMPTON ROADS, LLC
8 WHEREAS, cable television service is provided to residents
9 of the City of Virginia Beach ("City") pursuant to a franchise
10 agreement between the City and Cox Communications Hampton Roads,
11 LLC ("Cox");
12 WHEREAS, the City's cable television franchise agreement
13 with Cox expires in May 2006;
14 WHEREAS, in preparation for renewal negotiations, the City
15 prepared a Formal Needs Assessment Report ("Report");
16 WHEREAS, the Report includes several studies identifying
17 the cable -related needs and interests of the City's cable
18 subscribers and evaluating the cable system operated by Cox;
19 WHEREAS, the Report was used by staff as the basis for
20 identifying the City's cable needs;
21 WHEREAS, in an effort to obtain a favorable renewal
22
franchise agreement, staff
recommends
that
the
City proceed in
23
its negotiations with Cox
according
to
the
formal renewal
24
process set forth in
47
U.S.C. §546 (a-g);
25
WHEREAS, under
the
formal renewal process, the City will
26
issue a
Request for
Formal Renewal Proposal ("Request") inviting
27
Cox to
submit to
the City a cable franchise formal renewal
28
proposal
describing
the cable -related facilities, equipment, and
29 services it proposes to provide in the City during the franchise
30 renewal term; and
31 WHEREAS, as part of the Request, the City will provide a
32 proposed Model Franchise that includes the City's cable needs
33 and interests, as identified in the Report, and is intended to
34 serve as a model for the final franchise agreement that will be
35 entered into by the City.
36 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
37 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
38 That City Council hereby:
39 1. Adopts the findings set forth in the Formal Needs
40 Assessment Report and confirms that the cable needs and
41 interests identified in the Report are representative of the
42 City's cable needs and interests; and
43 2. Authorizes the City Manager to issue a Request for
44 Formal Renewal Proposal to Cox.
45 Adopted by the City Council of Virginia Beach, Virginia on
46 this day of , 2005.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS:
C o-MT T
CA9801
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Cox res
R-2
November 15, 2005
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
City Attorney's bffice
�tiN 9E�r+
n
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend Sections 7-1, 7-65, 7-66, 7-67 and 7-68 of the
City Code Pertaining to Regulation of Golf Carts and Utility Vehicles.
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background: Last year, City Council amended the City Code by adding
comprehensive regulations regarding the operation of wheeled devices. Among
other things, the regulations restrict the operation of golf carts on City streets.
The regulations currently do not address utility vehicles.
Recently, some have asserted that if a golf cart is not used for golfing, then it is a
"utility vehicle," and thus not subject to the restrictions on golf cart operation. The
Code of Virginia differentiates between golf carts and utility vehicles by defining
the two vehicles in mutually exclusive terms. The City Code lacks a definition of
the term "utility vehicle." Adding the definition of the term, as well as
corresponding references to such vehicles, would avoid confusion and attempts
to defeat the purpose of the restrictions on golf cart operation.
■ Considerations: This ordinance will incorporate the Code of Virginia's definition
of "utility vehicle" and add references to such vehicles, thereby eliminating any
confusion regarding the City's restrictions on golf cart and utility vehicle
operation.
■ Public Information: To be advertised in the same manner as other items on
Council's Agenda.
■ Recommendations: Approval of ordinance.
■ Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/A ency: Police
City Manager:�
1
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS
7-1,
7-65,
2
7-66, 7-67 AND 7-68 OF THE
CITY
CODE
3
PERTAINING TO REGULATION OF GOLF
CARTS
4
AND UTILITY VEHICLES
5
6
SECTIONS AMENDED: §§ 7-1, 7-65
thr.
7-68
7
8
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
9
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
10
11
That Sections 7-1, 7-65, 7-66,
7-67
and 7-68 of the City
12 Code are hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows:
13
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
14 Sec. 7-1. Definitions.
15 For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall
16 have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, unless clearly
17 indicated to the contrary:
18 All -terrain vehicle: A three -wheeled or a four -wheeled motor
19
vehicle powered
by a gasoline or diesel
engine and generally
20
characterized by
large, low -pressured tires,
a seat designed to be
21
straddled by the
operator, and handlebars
for steering, that is
22
intended for
off -road
use by an individual
rider on
various types
23
of unpaved
terrain.
This term does not
include
four -wheeled
24 vehicles that have low centers of gravity and are typically used in
25 racing and on relatively level surfaces, commonly known as "go-
26 carts," nor does the term include any "farm utility vehicle" as
27 defined in section 46.2 of the Code of Virginia. Except as
28 otherwise provided in this chapter, for the purposes of this
29 chapter, all -terrain vehicles shall be deemed to be motorcycles.
30 Bicycle: A device propelled solely by human power, upon which a
55 electric seated scooters, electric -powered mini choppers, electric-
ro V `'�C b%O T
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend Section 6-114 of the City Code, Deleting the
Permit Requirement to Launch, Land, Park, or Station a sailboat on the North End
Beach.
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background: The requirement for sailboat permits was established many
years ago to manage a proliferation of sailboats along the north end beach.
The situation that once necessitated a permit program no longer exists.
Hence, the community requested the program be eliminated. The program
provides less than $1000.00 per year in revenue to the City.
■ Considerations: Amending this coded section will allow the use of
sailboats between 42"d Street and Fort Story without a permit, which is
consistent with current policy citywide (Resort Beach excluded).
■ Public Information: The Ordinance will be advertised in the standard City
Council Agenda notice.
■ Alternatives:
(1) No Change — Keep existing program for the North End Beach only.
(2) Expand existing permit requirement to include all beaches.
(3) Eliminate permit requirement as requested by the community.
■ Recommendations: Adoption
■ Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency:
City Manager:
Public Works/Office of Beach Manage
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 6-114 OF THE
2 CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO THE RESTRICTIONS ON
3 LAUNCHING, LANDING, PARKING OR STATIONING
4 RECREATIONAL VESSELS IN CERTAIN AREAS
5
6 Section Amended: City Code Section 6-114
7
8 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
9 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
10
11 That Section 6-114 of the City Code is hereby amended and
12 reordained, to read as follows:
13 Sec. 6-114. Restrictions on launching, landing, parking. or
14 stationing recreational vessels in certain areas.
15
16 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to launch or land a
17 sailboat, motorboat, motorized personal watercraft, canoe, rowboat,
18 flatboat, kayak, umiak, scull or any other similar recreational
19 vessel on the beach area north of Rudee Inlet to the center line of
20 42nd Street prolongated eastward, during the resort season between
21 the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00 a.m. and
22 6:00 p.m. weekends and holidays. The provisions of this subsection
23 shall not be applicable to any person who is awarded a contract,
24 based upon competitive procurement principles, to conduct an
25 operation for the rental of designated recreational vessel(s) or to
26 any person who rents a vessel from an authorized rental operator
27 provided the vessel(s) so rented is launched or landed within the
28 area designated in such contract.
29 (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to park or station a
30 sailboat, motorboat, motorized personal watercraft, canoe, rowboat,
31 flatboat, kayak, umiak, scull or other similar recreational vessel
32 on the beach area north of Rudee Inlet to the center line of 42nd
33 Street prolongated eastward, with the following exceptions:
34 (1) In an emergency;
35 (2) With an approved race or regatta permit;
36 (3) In the process of launching or landing a vessel
37 specified above in the areas and during the time periods
38 permitted in subsection (a) of this section; or
39 (4) Pursuant to a contract in accordance with the
40 provisions of subsection (a) of this section.
41 (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to launch, land, park
42 or station a motorboat or motorized personal watercraft on the
43 beach between the area north of the center line of 42nd Street
44 prolongated eastward and the southern boundary line of Fort Story,
45 except in an emergency or with an approved race or regatta permit.
/ .-7 ) T +- h l l b� l f, l �
4 6 ��� �-1-a=���.�-e ewe launeh, land,
47 e-r- st-ati-eTr-u--s-arlbv-cren the between the area nerth e�c
49 beundary line of Fei=t S-t-e itheut—a—peLaffiit i=eFft the ei ty FRanagE
50 wi}huhe fell_-cew,_-ng exeepti_enT
51
; er
52 (2)
With an appr-eved r-aee—eLa icegatta pe -
19cam= , b., the—eity sail b, -,ts
53 (
) Perfftts will
launeheel, landed,
e,l faanagei= ez
the be be+-..,ee,-,
54 te—be
rkeel ez�t'-atie,-,ed en eh
55 the —area n e r h o f the— l' f 4 '�i� wee; r e l. g t e ,i
cc rrcc�ri ire—e-r— z
L r - J -
56 eastware „e' the seutlei=n ine—ef Few —Ste nd1Tthe
57 fe3lewing e-enEiitl6ns:
58 (1) The pert tie be issued en a f; Esceeffte first s_r�
59 basis subjeet te-subseeti-ens-(-') are' (;) eft- sseetien.
-/ ��e- � e�-shall l'�rrt the riuibe�ef piirrc$
61 to-feuic (4) saiibeatsper- Meek between t-he area-neith of
62 the-eenter line -e f 42rei St re et-p r-e le -�� atea-east-w-ar-el and
63 tbe-eenter- line -e f S V t h S m�ice t p r e l engate-east-wrd;
64 seven (-?) sallp ems -pew 1-e e k between -4c h e-area ne r— t h o f
65 the -e en-teic line ef5-7th Street prelengateei eastwre-tea
66 the eenter line -efZ71ch-Street p e l en gateeea s t wawa
67 twelve -(12) sailbeats peic-Meek been the area nei=thef
69 the th'e1r A'e Grda_r= -line ef Fe
70 (3) A sallbehavingt ---a valtel pc fftit-ginn Eier- thi-s
71 subseetien fflaye launehed,—landed, l9arleed -er-st-atiened
72 en the-beaeh area infi-ent ef any--b1eek- between n4Z Ei
73 Sti� eet and FeftS terms leers the x iffium b� . r , as
74 set-€ezth in (2) , b ego=e-i s-n-e t e m eeeded. if the
75 number as set ferth in (2) cab eve is em eee Ei e ,a tiien the
76 sallbeat that -lees net have -a-peifftit fer that p + ccriar
77 blee4,shall lee -in vielation ef-this seetien.
79 threugh the-ffte nt h e f G eteb e:E €e i-tbe year in whieh the
82 -(6) The annual perfftit—€ee shall be —th i r-lay—ele l l a r-s
85 to e stabs dates ef Issuanee fer sueh perfflits—€ems
87 -(7-) There -shall be ne—parking er sttrening efsailbeats
89 ewe-
91 fib. ,4 s unless appEeved by the dameetei—ef the.
92 dement ef publie wee —tee type, size and—ieeatien.
93 (9) N esallbeatsshall: be s ee u r-ed t o--lava f-ul: fi�Etur-e s e-r
97 (, ,) n e r,.. ; t , � erab 1-e .
Tom,-Z-c�r�rc�—crime-�ie�rcz airs
98 (d)+f} It shall be unlawful for any person to launch or
99 land any motorboat, motorized personal water craft or any other
100 motorized recreational vessel on the beaches extending south of
101 Fleet Combat Training Center Dam Neck to the southern boundary of
102 Little Island Park, or on the beaches south of Rudee Inlet to the
103 northern boundary of Camp Pendleton Military Reservation, during
104 the season from 6:00 p.m. on the Friday before Memorial Day Weekend
105 through 6:00 p.m. on the Monday following Labor Day Weekend,
106 between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00
107
a.m.
and 6:00
p.m. weekdays and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. weekends
108
and
holidays,
except as hereafter provided:
109 (1) Watercraft may be launched or landed in an emergency
110 or for law enforcement purposes.
ill (2) Commercial fishing boats operating from the beaches
112 by permission of the Virginia Division of Parks and
113 Recreation shall be exempt from the restrictions of this
114 article.
115 (e)4t+ It shall be unlawful for any person to launch, land,
116 park or station a sailboat, motorboat, motorized personal
117 watercraft, canoe, rowboat, flatboat, kayak, umiak, scull or any
118 other similar recreational vessel on the beach area between the
119 western end of the Lesner Bridge continuing southwest along the
120 shoreline of the Lynnhaven Turning Basin and then west to the
121 Lynnhaven Boat Ramp at Crab Creek with the following exceptions:
122 (1) In an emergency; or
123 (2) With an approved race or regatta permit.
124 (f) In addition to the other provisions of this section,
125 sailboats parked on the beach shall be subject to the following
126 restrictions:
127 (1) It shall be unlawful to park or station a sailboat
128 on any sand dune or in front of any access point or
129 street end.
130 (2) It shall be unlawful to drive any type of anchor
131 into the beach to secure a sailboat, unless approved by
132 the Director of the Department of Public Works as to
133 tvpe. size and location.
134 (3) It shall be unlawful to secure a sailboat to
135
fixtures
or structures on
the beach.
136
(g)4-h+ Any
police officer of
the City of Virginia Beach is
137
hereby authorized
to remove and impound
or have removed and
138
impounded any vessel which appears
to be in violation of this
139
section or which
is lost, stolen,
abandoned or unclaimed. In
140 addition to the fine imposed for a violation of this section, such
141 vessel shall be removed and impounded at the owner's expense until
142 lawfully claimed or disposed of.
143 (h)+i} Any person who shall violate any of the provisions
144 of this section shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.
145 - ersen hel6ing a per—faitper-fait under this seeti-en h
146 - irerre eenyieti-ens, er findings of net inneee nt in th-&
147 ewe—ef a juvenile, of vielating this seetien-er seetien--6 115
148 within the perfait—p ewe e-the—e-i-ty fg e shall revel-Ee that
149
150
151 {-}r per —se per-sen whe—has six (66 ) e r ffte r e e e 3ivi e t i errs—e-r
15 2 fin digs--e f net inne e e n t in the —ease --e €-also=ems e o f v i e 1 ate
153 this sL et i en ei-s e etien6--115wwithin any twe- year-peri-eel shall t
154 be— issued -apermit -by the —ems =iuneieE this seetien feic tee
155 ne, E� twe (2) yea
156
157 COMMENT
158
159 This amendment will abolish the sailboat permit requirement at the North End from 42"d Street
160 to Fort Story. Additionally, former sections (e) (7), (e)(8) and (e)(9) that outline additional restrictions
161 applicable to sailboats parked on the beach, are relocated to sections (f)(1), (f)(2) and (f)(3).
162
163
164 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
165 Virginia, on the day of
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Police Department
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
i
Public 0e,rks
, 2005.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
City for Office
CA9785
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Proposed\6-114 Rec. Vehicles.ORD
R-4
November 4, 2005
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend the City Code Regarding the Deferred Compensation Plan and
Board Membership and a Resolution to Adopt a Deferred Compensation Investment
Policy
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background: The City Council established a Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Plan") for
City employees in 1981. The plan originally included three (3) funds from which employees
could choose to place contributions from their salaries. The record keeper at that time was
Stanley Clarke & Associates. Since 1999, the record keeper has been Great West Retirement
Services. The Plan has been modified to include the Sheriff's employees as well as School
employees. The aggregate of the City, Sheriff, and School plans currently totals $113 million in
assets and includes 17 fund choices. The Plan assets are held in trust in accordance with
federal law.
The City Code establishes a Deferred Compensation Board (the "Board") to supervise,
administer, and implement the Plan.
• Considerations: In accordance with current fiduciary responsibilities and practices, the
Board has adopted a formal Investment Policy for the Plan currently offered to the City, Sheriff,
and School employees. The Investment Policy adopted by the Board and recommended for
adoption by City Council establishes performance standards based on financial composites and
ratings, expands investment options to include major asset classes, and establishes a Fund
Complex Corporate Rating. In addition, the Investment Policy empowers the Board to review
and amend the Investment Policy when recommended by the record keeper or in accordance
with state and federal laws. The City Council is currently required to approve all changes to the
Plan as well as confirm City Manager appointments to the Board. The proposed revisions to the
City Code require the City Council to adopt an Investment Policy and authorize the Board to
make plan changes in accordance with state and federal law as well as the Investment Policy.
In addition, the proposed ordinance appoints the Finance Director, Human Resources Director,
Payroll Administrator, and Employee Relations Manager to the Deferred Compensation Board,
and enables the City Manager to appoint up to three additional members. The proposed
Investment Policy is attached.
■ Public Information: Provided as part of the normal City Council agenda process.
■ Alternatives: Make no City Code changes, but instead bring every plan adjustment to City
Council as well as confirmation of each member of the Board whenever changes are made.
■ Recommendations: Adopt the attached Ordinance and Resolution.
■ Attachments: Ordinance, Resolution and Investment Policy
Recommended Action: Approval of Ordinan,
Submitting Department/Agency: Finance C uCI (
City Manager: S
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE
2 REGARDING THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION
3 PLAN AND BOARD MEMBERSHIP
4 SECTIONS AMENDED: §§ 2-121, 2-122, AND 2-123.
5 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
6 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
7 That Sections 2-121, 2-122, and 2-123 of the City Code are
8 hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows:
9 2-121. Plan Established.
10
Pursuant to the Government Employees Deferred Compensation
11
Act, section 51-111.67:14 et seq. of
the Code of Virginia,
1950, as
12
amended, the city hereby adopts and
establishes a plan of
deferred
13
compensation for its employees dated
the twenty-third day
of March,
14
1981. The purpose of the plan shall
be to provide for the
deferral
15
of compensation
to the participants. The
plan
shall exist in
16
addition to all
other retirement, pension or
other
benefit systems
17 available to the participants, and shall not supersede, make
18
inoperative
or reduce any
benefits
provided
by
any other
19
retirement,
pension or benefit
program
established
by
law.
20
On behalf of the
employer,
the city
manager
is
hereby
21
authorized and directed
to execute
and deliver
the plan
to
the plan
22 administrator. The plan shall contain such terms and amendments as
23 the city council may from time to time approve. The City Council
24 shall adopt a deferred compensation investment policy. The City
25 Council shall review the investment Policv no less than every two
1
26 years.
27 2-122. Board —Established.
28 There is hereby created a deferred compensation board,
29 consisting of city employees,
30 and } b ,� b t� , �e—serve —a�e�
e�f,�r-x� e-e-�-ne �
31 L"r. The City Council hereby appoints the Director of
32 Finance, the Director of Human Resources, the Employee Relations
33 Manager, and the Payroll Administrator to the board. The City
34 Manager may appoint up to three (3) additional board members from
35 the deferred compensation plan participants. The board members
36 appointed by the City Manager shall serve terms of three years from
37 the date of appointment. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, all
38 members of the deferred compensation board shall serve at the
39 pleasure of the City Council. The terms of the members of the
40 deferred compensation board shall not be limited by the
41 restrictions of City Code § 2-3.
42 2-123. Same- Powers.
43 The deferred compensation board is hereby granted the power to
44 do all things by way of supervision, administration and
45 implementation of a plan of deferred compensation, including but
46 not limited to the power to contract with private corporations or
47 institutions for service in connection therewith; however, nothing
48 contained in this section shall be construed to authorize the
49 deferred compensation board to act beyond the limits of the plan.
r
50
The
deferred
compensation board
shall
administer the
51
investment
policy in
accordance with the
terms
of the investment
52 policy and prudent fiduciary standards. The deferred compensation
53 board shall have the authority to add and delete funds from the
54 investment policy in accordance with the investment policy adopted
55 by City Council.
56
COMMENT
57 The ordinance provides that the City Council will adopt a deferred compensation investment
58 policy and will review the policy at least every two years. The ordinance also provides for the
59 appointment of four deferred compensation board members by title rather than by name and grants
60 the City Manager the authority to appoint up to three (3) additional board members. The ordinance
61 clarifies that members of this board are not subject to the term limits established by City Code § 2-3.
62 Finally, the ordinance requires the deferred compensation board to administer the investment policy
63 and gives the board the authority to add and delete funds in accordance with the investment policy
64 adopted by City Council.
65
Adopted
by the
City Council of the
City of Virginia Beach,
66
Virginia, on
this
day of
, 2005.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
Department of Finance City Attorne 's Office
CA-9799
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Proposed\Deferred Comp ORD
R-2
November 10, 2005
3
1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A DEFERREED
2 COMPENSATION INVESTMENT POLICY
3 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach established a plan of
4 deferred compensation for its employees on March 23, 1981; and
5 WHEREAS, the purpose of the plan is to provide for the
6 deferral of compensation to the participants of the plan; and
7 WHEREAS, assets in the City's deferred compensation plan
8 total $113 million; and
9 WHEREAS, it is important that these assets be invested in
10 accordance with current fiduciary responsibilities and
11 practices; and
12 WHEREAS, the deferred compensation board has recommended
13 the adoption of a formal Investment Policy which establishes
14 performance standards based on financial composites and ratings,
15 expands investment options to include major asset classes, and
16 establishes a Fund Complex Corporate Rating.
17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
18 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
19 That the accompanying City of Virginia Beach Deferred
20 Compensation Plan Investment Policy Statement is hereby adopted.
21 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
22 Virginia on the day of November, 2005.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
n
Department of Financef City Attorney's Office
CA9799
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Deferred Comp RES
R-2
November 10, 2005
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT
PURPOSE:
This Investment Policy Statement ("Policy Statement") sets forth the goals and objectives of the
investment options available under the City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan (the
"Plan"). The purpose of this Policy Statement is to guide the Plan Board of Directors (the
"Board") in effectively supervising, monitoring, and managing the investment options available
under the Plan. This Policy Statement is designed to allow for sufficient flexibility in the
management oversight process, while also setting forth reasonable parameters to promote the
exercise of reasonable prudence and care with respect to the investment options available under
the Plan. This Policy Statement provides a framework for the selection of investment options, a
procedure for the ongoing evaluation of the investment options available under the Plan, and
guidelines for terminating and replacing any available investment option(s).
BACKGROUND:
The Plan was established by City of Virginia Beach code Ord. No. 1156, §§ 1--3, adopted March
23, 1981, Division 2.5, §§ 2-121--2-123,* and is administered by the Board and is intended to
qualify as a Section 457 defined contribution plan. The Plan is intended to provide eligible
employees with a means to save monies on a tax -advantaged basis in order to assist the employee
in reaching his/her retirement goals. The Plan allows each eligible employee to direct how
contributions made to his or her Plan account are invested among a diverse menu of investment
options selected by the Board.
The Board shall choose which investment options shall be available under the Plan and shall
monitor the investment options' compliance with this Policy Statement.
The Board and the Recordkeeper do not provide investment advice to any participant or assist
any participant in deciding how to allocate contributions to the participants' plan accounts. No
fiduciary shall be responsible for any financial loss that may be incurred by any participant
because of the participant's investment direction or because of any action taken in accordance
with the participant's investment direction.
INVESTMENT OPTION SELECTION:
The Board recognizes that there is investment risk inherent in all investment options.
Furthermore, the Board recognizes that individual participants each have their own level of risk
tolerance. The Board shall, therefore, select a broad array of investment options providing
different levels of risk and historical return. To this end, the Board shall select investment
options based upon the following criteria:
*Now found under Va. Code § 51.1-600 et seq.
City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105
Original adoption: June 2, 1999
Revision: October 31, 2005
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT
1. Selected investment options shall represent the major asset classes. For purposes of this
Policy Statement, the following major asset classes will be used, at a minimum, as defined by
Morningstar® (an independent fund evaluation company):
a. International: Foreign Stock;
b. U.S. Small -Cap Equity;
c. U.S. Mid -Cap Equity;
d. U.S. Large -Cap Equity (active and passive management);
e. Balanced/Asset allocation funds; and
f. Fixed Income/Stable Value.
g. Bond mutual fund — government or corporate, domestic or international, active or
passive management.
2. From funds in the domestic equity asset classes identified above in l (b), l (c) and 1(d), the
Board will attempt to choose investment options with contrasting stock selection styles. The
Board will attempt to choose investment options that tend to purchase both "value" stocks
(stocks that are purchased because the fund manager believes the stock is under valued)
and/or "growth" stocks (stocks of companies who have shown accelerated earnings).
3. The Board shall select investment options based upon administrative, pricing, historical
performance, management style, and other mutually agreeable criteria in cooperation with
the Plan's recordkeeper.
4. The expense ratio of the investment options must be competitive with other investment
options with similar objectives as measured by the applicable Morningstar® Category
average and one other rating agency. The Board will consider higher expense ratios,
however, for funds that have proven to outperform other funds (net of fees) with similar
objectives on a long-term basis.
5. Wherever practicable, the Board will choose investment options that are offered by
companies that have a reputation as being among the industry's leaders.
6. The selected investment options shall have at least three years of investment history.
Furthermore, the Board will attempt to choose investment options where the investment
manager exhibits style (i.e. growth, or value, large cap or small cap) consistency over at least
a three-year period. Lastly, the specific fund manager shall have managed the fund for at
least two years.
In accordance with the above criteria, the Board shall choose investment options that have
consistently outperformed their peer groups on both a total return and risk -adjusted basis.
City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105 2
Original adoption: June 2, 1999
Revision: October 31, 2005
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT
INVESTMENT OPTION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
The Board shall review each of the selected investment options at least annually to evaluate the
investment option's performance. The Board may utilize a consultant and/or recordkeeper to
assist in the evaluation process. The investment option review shall be objective, fair and shall
incorporate statistical analysis provided by an independent third party. The Board shall utilize the
following performance benchmarks:
1. Actively Managed Funds: Each Fund shall be benchmarked against its respective peer
group as determined by the Morningstar® Category. The Morningstar® Category identifies
funds based on their actual investment styles as measured by the underlying portfolio
holdings over the trailing 36-month period.
• Return Composite: The Return Composite measures the fund's performance relative to
its peer group on a net -of -fee basis. It is calculated by taking the equally weighted
average of the 3, 5 and 10 year return percentiles.
• Sharpe Composite: The Sharpe Composite measures the fund's risk -adjusted
performance relative to its peer group. It is calculated by taking the equally weighted
average of the 3 and 5 year Sharpe percentiles.
• Overall Composite: The average of the Return Composite and the Sharpe Composite
determines the Overall Composite where an Overall Composite above the 66.67%
percentile is considered above benchmark.
• Morningstar® Ratings: The Morningstar® Rating is a quantitative measure of risk -
adjusted returns. This rating shows how well a fund has balanced risk and return relative
to other funds in the same Morningstar® Category. The Morningstar® Rating is
calculated over a 3, 5 and 10 year time period on a 1 through 5 scale. A 3, 4 or 5 rating is
considered above benchmark, while a 1 or 2 rating is considered "Below Benchmark."
• Overall Rating: The below matrix combines the Overall Composite with the
Morningstar® Rating to determine if a fund is Above Benchmark, Neutral or Below
Benchmark for the most recent quarter -end time period.
Overall Composite
Morningstar®
Rating
Overall Rating
> 66.67%
AND
3, 4 or 5
Above Benchmark
>= 50.0%
AND
3, 4 or 5
Neutral Rating
< 50.0%
OR
1 or 2
Below Benchmark
City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105
Original adoption: June 2, 1999
Revision: October 31, 2005
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT
• Long -Term Rolling Analysis
To assess the long-term consistency of fund performance, the previous 12 quarters are examined
based on the accumulated Overall Ratings:
Consecutive Quarters
Below Benchmark
Quarters Below out of
trailing 12
Long -Term Rolling
Analysis
< 4 Quarters
AND
< 7
Pass
>= 4 Quarters
OR
>= 7 Quarters
Fail
2. Passively Managed Variable Funds (Index Funds): The Index Fund will track its
respective index within a 25 basis point range, gross -of -fees, as measured on an annual basis.
This tracking -error range shall be adjusted upward for International and Extended US Market
Index funds.
3. Fixed Income Fund (Stable Value Fund): The Fixed Income Fund shall continue to
provide participants with book value accounting and allow participants to make transfers
without restriction. The Fixed Income Fund's issuer shall be rated among the top three
ratings of at least two of the rating services (S&P, Moody's, Duff & Phelps, Best's).
The Board recognizes that Investment Manager's performance can move in cycles over time and
that investment option performance will not always be superior. As such, the Board will
generally monitor selected investment option performance on a periodic basis, but not less
frequently than annually. The Board will give fund managers sufficient time to remedy any
underperformance before the investment option is deleted from the available investment option
array available under the Plan.
While the primary analysis of the investment option will be quantitative, the Board reserves the
right to make decisions regarding the investment option based upon other criteria that it believes
will be in the best interest of the Plan and the participants.
Within the guidelines set forth above, the Board will evaluate investment options with the
assistance of the consultant or Recordkeeper. Investment options that do not perform at or above
their respective benchmark will be subject to the Plans' policies regarding underperforming
investment options.
UNDERPERFORMING INVESTMENT OPTIONS:
The Board shall take the following steps in the event that an investment option is rated "Below
Benchmark" for the current quarter or that "Fail" the Long -Term Rating criterion:
City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105 4
Original adoption: June 2, 1999
Revision: October 31, 2005
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT
If the Board determines that an investment option is rated Below Benchmark for the current
quarter, then the investment option shall be placed on a "watch list." While an investment
option is on "watch," no action will be taken to terminate and replace the investment option.
The fund manager will be informed, and additional information will be gathered as to why
the investment option is under performing. The Board may invite the fund manager to meet
and explain the investment option's performance.
2. Should an investment option that was on the "watch list" subsequently exceed its
benchmarks, it will be taken off the "watch list" and the investment option will again be in
"good standing." If the investment option's performance continues "Below Benchmark" for
four consecutive quarters or seven out of the trailing twelve, then the investment option has
"Failed" the Long -Term Rating. The Board may notify participants of the failure and the
investment option that failed its benchmarks may be closed to new contributions.
Additionally, the Board may choose to select a new investment option in the same asset
class. The Board, in its discretion, may also choose to terminate the investment option that
failed its benchmarks and transfer its assets or designate an existing or new investment option
to receive the assets from the investment option that failed its benchmarks. To the extent
practical, these investment option deletions will only occur once per calendar year.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
The Board, in its discretion, may conduct informal reviews and evaluations of an investment
option at any time. The Board may place an investment option under formal review, or
immediately terminate an investment option for any reason, including, but not limited to, the
following:
1. The investment option has changed managers, or such a change appears
imminent;
2. The investment option has had a significant change in ownership or control;
3. The investment option has changed its investment mandate or has experienced
style drift, departing from the investment objectives or parameters in its
prospectus;
4. The investment option has experienced substantial portfolio turnover;
5. The investment option has violated a SEC rule or regulation;
6. The investment option has experienced difficulty in transacting trades, fund
transfers, or pricing;
7. The investment option has experienced other changes or problems in its
procedures, operations, investing, reporting, or lack of employee participation,
which in the Board's view, has or could detract from the objectives of the Plan; or
8. Any other circumstance regarding the investment option that the Board
determines is in conflict with this Policy Statement.
9. Recognizing that retaining a fund or fund complex that has been involved in a
scandal process may be detrimental to the marketing of the Plan to participants
City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105 5
Original adoption: June 2, 1999
Revision: October 31, 2005
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT
this criteria allows the Board to delete funds or entire fund complexes depending
on their involvement in a scandal or regulatory violation. The Board shall
establish a rating for each mutual fund complex offered in the Plan to be called
the Fund Complex Corporate Rating. Levels Red, Yellow, and Green will be
determined. These ratings will be incorporated in the Fund Performance Report.
The Fund Complex Corporate Ratings will be determined periodically.
i. Red Fund Complex Corporate Rating —
A fund complex or any of its respective funds may be placed on the Red Fund
Complex Corporate Rating and may be terminated or disqualified from
participating in the Plan if that fund complex is determined by a court or
appropriate regulatory agency or the fund complex admits to having allowed
regulatory violations or corporate infractions in its funds by its employees
(officers or portfolio managers) of the complex. The occurrence of such
activity indicates a lack of supervision or control at the fund complex level. In
such event, depending on the severity of the violation or infraction, the Board
may determine the fund(s) shall be terminated even if such activity was not
found to have occurred in a fund used by the Plan but elsewhere in the fund
complex. If the decision is to terminate the fund or the fund complex for this
issue, the Board will use its best efforts to continue to monitor the fund or
fund complex, which may include meetings with the fund complex. Because
of the ongoing monitoring, the Board may determine at any time in the future
that the fund complex has addressed the abuses and may remove the fund
complex from the Red Rating making the fund complex eligible for
consideration for inclusion in the Plan. If removed from the Red Rating the
fund complex shall be re -rated.
ii. Yellow Fund Complex Corporate Rating —
A fund or fund complex will be put on the Yellow Fund Complex Corporate
Rating watch list if the fund complex is charged by a court or appropriate
regulatory agency or admits to regulatory violations or corporate infractions in
its funds. While a fund is on the watch list, no action shall be taken to
terminate or replace the fund. The Board, however, will use its best efforts to
periodically monitor the fund or fund complex to determine its
appropriateness for inclusion in the Plan. Such monitoring may include
meetings with the fund complex to determine if the fund should continue on
the watch list as a Yellow Rating or should be re -rated.
iii. Green Fund Complex Corporate Rating —
A fund or fund complex that has not been implicated in any regulatory
violations of infractions nor has admitted to committing such activities.
City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105 6
Original adoption: June 2, 1999
Revision: October 31, 2005
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT
Definitions
• Balanced Fund -- A fund that invests its assets in a combination of asset classes
including money market, bonds, preferred stock, and common stock with the intention to
provide both growth and income. Also known as an asset allocation fund.
• Bond -- A debt investment with which the investor loans money to an entity (company or
government) that borrows the funds for a defined period of time at a specified interest
rate.
• Equity - Stock or other security representing an ownership interest.
• Fixed Income Security -- An investment that provides a return in the form of fixed
periodic payments and eventual return of principle at maturity.
• Fund -- A security such as a closed or open end registered investment company (i.e., a
mutual fund) or other commingled or pooled funds consisting of a portfolio of assets,
including Equities, Bonds or other securities in which each holder participates in the gain
or loss of the entire portfolio.
• Growth Stock - Stock in a company whose earnings are expected to grow at an above
average rate relative to the market.
• International Fund - A Fund that can invest in the Stock bonds or other securities of
companies located anywhere outside the U.S.
• Large -Cap Stock - Stock issued by companies with a market capitalization over $5
billion.
• Mid -Cap Stock -- Stock issued by companies with a market capitalization of between $1
billion and $5 billion.
• Record Keeper
Third Party Administrator providing primary services of.
1. Trustee/Custodial Services — Take custody of all plan assets, maintain complete trust
accounting records, and provide monthly trust reconciliation statements.
2. Investment Funds Selection/Retention — Provide advice and counseling to City
Department of Finance and Plan Investment Committee on performance reviews of
existing funds, recommendations on design of menu of funds, and advice and
information on initial selection, retention or replacement of existing funds, and
periodic (i.e., quarterly) ongoing monitoring of Plan funds against array of industry
benchmarks and performance targets.
City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105
Original adoption: June 2, 1999
Revision: October 31, 2005
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT
3. Participant Services — Provide adequate administrative support to provide plan
information on an individual and group basis.
4. Administrative Services — Provide the City with quarterly consolidated account
statements; investment performance summaries; assistance with negotiating reduction
or elimination of certain fund expenses; and notification, updates, interpretation, and
research of Section 457 plan issues. Management systems necessary for the
administration of the Plan and accurate financial accounting shall be maintained.
Meetings with the City as required to review the Plan's status, resolve problems, and
discuss relevant issues.
5. Education Services — At various locations, provide educational seminars on a variety
of investment and financial planning topics. Produce and distribute newsletters, with
materials suited for a broad spectrum of investment expertise.
6. Hardship Services — Provide explanation and information to participants requesting
application for a hardship withdrawal; begin immediate research of each received
request; obtain supporting documentation; and prepare a written recommendation to
the City for either denying or approving the request.
• Small Cap Stock -- Stock issued by companies with a market capitalization less than $1
billion.
• Stable Value Fund -- A Fund that invests in bonds and other fixed income securities
with a goal of protecting the stability of the principal.
• Value Stock - A stock in a company that tends to trade at a lower price relative to its
fundamentals (i.e., dividend, earnings, sales, etc) and thus is considered undervalued.
Common characteristics of such stocks include high dividend yield, low price -to -book
ratio and low price -to -earnings ratio.
POLICY STATEMENT:
This Policy Statement has been formulated by the Board based on consideration of a wide range
of policies, and describes the prudent investment process that the Board deems most appropriate
for the Plan. The Board shall review this Policy Statement at least annually. The Board may
amend this Policy Statement, as it deems advisable from time to time.
City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105 $
Original adoption: June 2, 1999
Revision: October 31, 2005
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT
AGREEMENT:
This Policy Statement was adopted by the Board on October 31, 2005, supersedes any previously
negotiated Investment Policy Statements, and shall remain in force until amended or revoked.
Signed lkl);11,111A 3 664' --,
Board Chairperson Date
City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105 9
Original adoption: June 2, 1999
Revision: October 31, 2005
-23-
Item V-11 a/b
ORDINANCES ITEM # 54571
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Wood, City Council DEFERRED
INDEFINITEL Y :
Ordinance re EXCESS PROPERTY adjacent to the Fire
Training Center:
a. DECLARE City -owned land at rear of Seatack
Elementary School as excess property
b. AUTHORIZE the purchase of 9.3 acres by:
(i) Exchange of a one (1) acre parcel
(ii) Purchase 8.3 acre parcel
Voting: 9-0 (By Consent)
Council Members Voting Aye:
Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones,
Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve,
Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood
Council Members Voting Nay. -
None
Council Members Absent:
Reba S. McClanan and Peter W. Schmidt
November 1, 2005
ti7Be'�
t�'wv� JJ
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Seatack School/Fire Training Center Property
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background: Fame Liquidation Land Trust (1990) ("Fame") is the owner of a
9.3-acre tract of land adjacent to the Fire Training Center. The property is
suitable for expansion of the Fire Training Center and location of a FEMA storage
facility. The property owner is willing to sell the property to the City.
Ocean Breeze Fun Park (OB Land, LLC) ("Ocean Breeze") — an affiliate of Fame,
encroaches into a 1-acre parcel of land owned by the City adjacent to the
Seatack Elementary School property.
The City with the agreement of the principals of Fame and Ocean Breeze,
proposes to purchase the 9.3 acre tract adjacent to the Fire Training Center (1)
by exchanging the 1 acre encroached property adjacent to Seatack Elementary
to Ocean Breeze for 1 acre of the property adjacent to the Fire Training Center
and (2) by purchasing the remaining 8.3 acres at City assessed value.
This matter was deferred from its original Council Meeting date of November 1,
2005 because it needed to be re -advertised.
■ Considerations: Declare the encroached 1 ± acre in excess of the City's needs,
allowing Ocean Breeze to keep its encroachments in place. Accept 1 acre
adjacent to the Fire Training Center in exchange, and purchase the remaining
8.3 acres from owner for the city tax assessment of $106,585. The source of
funding is CIP 3-368 Various Site Acquisitions.
■ Public Information: Advertisement for Public Hearing, for Excess Property and
advertisement of Council Agenda.
■ Alternatives: Require Ocean Breeze to remove encroachments and not sell 1±
acre to it and not purchase 9.3 acres adjacent to Fire Training Center for
expansion.
■ Recommendations: Staff recommends conveyance of 1± acre to Ocean
Breeze in exchange for 1 acre adjacent to the Fire Training Center and purchase
of the remaining 8.3 acres adjacent to the Fire Training Center for $106,585.
■ Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map, Summary of Terms
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works 5tr
City Manager:C�r 5
l�, , '�,� a V,
I ORDINANCE NO.
2
3
4 AN ORDINANCE (1) DECLARING AS EXCESS
5 CERTAIN CITY -OWNED PROPERTY
6 LOCATED AT THE REAR OF SEATACK
7 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND (2)
s AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 9.3
9 ACRES BY (A) EXCHANGE OF A ONE ACRE
10 PARCEL AND (B) PURCHASE OF THE
11 REMAINING 8.3 ACRES OF PROPERTY
12 ADJACENT TO THE FIRE TRAINING
13 CENTER
14
15 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach (the "City") is the owner of a parcel of real property
16 containing approximately 59.4± acres, which property is identified and depicted in blue on the
17 attached Exhibit A and includes the site of Seatack Elementary School (the "School Property");
18 WHEREAS, the City is also the owner of a parcel of real property containing approximately
19 74 acres, which property is identified and depicted in blue on the attached Exhibit A and includes the
20 site of the City's Fire Training Center;
21 WHEREAS, OB Land, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company ("OB Land"), operating as
22 Ocean Breeze Fun Park, is the owner of a parcel of real property which abuts the School Property
23 and is identified and depicted in green on the attached Exhibit A;
24 WHEREAS, OB Land's improvements encroach on to approximately one acre of the School
25 Property (the "Excess Property") as shown in red on the attached Exhibit A;
26 WHEREAS, OB Land has requested that the City of Virginia Beach declare as excess and
27 convey to OB Land the Excess Property;
28 WHEREAS, Edward S. Garcia, Jr., Trustee of the Fame Liquidation Land Trust (1990)
29 ("Fame") is the owner of a certain parcel of real property containing approximately 9.3 ± acres (the
30 "Fame Property"), which property is also identified and depicted in green on the attached Exhibit A
31 and abuts the City's Fire Training Center;
32 WHEREAS, the City has identified the Fame Property as a suitable and appropriate site for
33 the expansion of the Fire Training Center and for the location of a FEMA storage facility;
34 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach, OB Land and Fame have agreed to the terms of
35 a proposed exchange of the Excess Property for the Fame Property pursuant to an Exchange
3 6 Agreement, a summary of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Exchange Agreement");
37 WHEREAS, the Exchange Agreement includes the payment by the City to the owner of
38 the Fame Property of $106,585 (the "Equalization Payment") which is the difference in assessed
3 9 values between the Excess Property and the Fame Property; and
40 WHEREAS, sufficient funding exists in CEP 3-368 Various Site Acquisitions to pay the
41 Equalization Payment.
42 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF
43 THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
44
45 DECLARATION OF EXCESS PROPERTY
46
47 1. That the approximately 1-acre of real property owned by the City of Virginia
48 Beach identified and depicted in red on the attached Exhibit A (the "Excess Property") is hereby
49 declared to be in excess of the needs of the City.
50 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the transfer of the Excess Property to
51 OB Land, LLC to be incorporated into Ocean Breeze Fun Park.
52 ACCEPTANCE OF FAME PROPERTY
53 AND PAYMENT OF EQUALIZATION PAYMENT
54
2
7
55 3. That the City Council hereby authorizes the acceptance from Edward S.
56 Garcia, Jr., Trustee of the Fame Liquidation Land Trust (1990) of approximately 9.3 acres identified
57 and depicted in green on the attached Exhibit A (the "Fame Property") in exchange for the Excess
58 Property.
59 4. That the City Council further authorizes payment from CIP 3-368 Various Site
60 Acquisitions of the amount of $106,585 (the "Equalization Payment") to the owner of Fame
61 Property, representing the difference in assessed values between the Excess Property and the Fame
62 Property.
63 EXCHANGE AGREEMENT
64 5. The City Council hereby approves the terms of the property exchange
65 described herein and authorizes the City Manager to execute a Property Exchange Agreement, a
66 summary of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
67 6. That the City Manager or his designee is further authorized to execute all other
68 documents that may be necessary or appropriate in connection with the property exchange described
69 herein, including, without limitation, a deed of conveyance for the Excess Property and the
70 acceptance of the deed for the Fame Property, so long as such documents are customary in real
71 estate exchange transactions and are acceptable to the City Manager and the City Attorney.
72 This Ordinance shall be effective from the date of its adoption.
73 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day
74 of , 2005.
THIS ORDINANCE REQUIRES AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THREE -FOURTHS OF
ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ELECTED TO COUNCIL.
3
CA9520
R-6
F:\Data\ATY\OID\REAL ESTATE\Excess\Seatack-Fire Training CA9520\ord v6.doc
October 26, 2005
Approved as to Content:
gws C.
kt�lic Works
Approved as to Legal Sufficiency
M, .s
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit B
SUMMARY OF TER
EXCHANGE OF EXCESS CITY PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE REAR OF
SEATACK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CITY OBLIGATIONS:
• City conveys approximately 1.07± acres ("Excess Property") located at
rear of Seatack Elementary School to OB Land, Inc. for incorporation into
Ocean Breeze Fun Park
• City accepts conveyance from Edward S. Garcia, Jr., Trustee Fame
Liquidation Land Trust (1990) ("Fame") of 9.3± acres located adjacent to
City's Fire Training Center ("Fame Property")
• City pays $106,585 equalization payment (representing tax assessment
differential between Excess Property and Fame Property) to Fame
FAME/OB LAND OBLIGATIONS:
• Fame conveys Fame Property to City of Virginia Beach and accepts
$106,585 equalization payment
• OB Land, LLC accepts Excess Property and incorporates Excess Property
into Ocean Breeze Fun Park by resubdividing and eliminating all interior
lot lines.
• OB Land, LLC to relocate 6 foot fence encroaching into City's 50'
drainage easement on Seatack Elementary School Property
rot �7
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM ,
ITEM: An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Lease Space at the Virginia
Beach Farmers Market
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background: The Farmers Market has been serving Virginia Beach and its
citizens for almost three decades. A variety of businesses lease space at the
Market.
■ Considerations: The Code of Virginia requires all leases of City property to be
approved by City Council. The proposed lease for FLS Corporation t/a Nesting
Box is for renewal of retail space rental.
■ Public Information: A public hearing is required and has been advertised.
■ Recommendation: The Farmers Market management team recommends the
approval of the lease renewal.
■ Attachments: Ordinance
Summary of Terms
Recommended Action: Adopt ordinance
Submitting Department/Agency: Agriculture r
City Manager: � ,
1 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY
2 MANAGER TO LEASE SPACE AT THE
3 VIRGINIA BEACH FARMERS MARKET
4
5 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach has leased spaces at
6 the Farmers Market since its inception;
7 WHEREAS, FLS Corporation, t/a Nesting Box wishes to lease a
8 space at the Farmers Market; and
9 WHEREAS, a public hearing concerning the proposed lease has
10 been advertised and conducted.
11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
12 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
13
That the City Manager or his
designee is hereby
authorized
14
on behalf of the City of Virginia
Beach to enter into
a lease
15
agreement from December 1, 2005 through November 30,
2008 with
16
FLS Corporation, t/a Nesting Box
for Spaces #1 and
#2 at the
17
Farmers Market. A summary of the
material terms of
such lease
18 is hereby attached.
19 Adopted by the City Council of Virginia Beach, Virginia on
20 this day of , 2005.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
Agriculture Departure t City Attorney's ffice
CA9792
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Farmers Market ord (2)
R-2
November 2, 2005
SUMMARY OF MATERIAL TERMS
LEASE FOR RETAIL SPACE AT THE
VIRGINIA BEACH FARMERS MARKET
LESSOR: City of Virginia Beach
LESSEE: FLS Corporation t/a The Nesting Box
TERM: December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2008
RENT: $538 per month
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LESSEE:
• Use leased space for retail enterprise consistent with the purpose of the Farmers
Market. Specifically, Lessee will sell handcrafted birdhouses, bird feed and related
items.
• Maintain leased space, including heating and air conditioning units; pay all assessed
fees.
• Purchase commercial general liability insurance.
• Keep business open during hours of Farmers Market operation.
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY:
• Maintain common areas of the Farmers Market and structural elements of the leased
space.
• Pay for water, sewer and electrical service.
TERMINATION: City may terminate lease by providing Lessee sixty (60) days notice.
o
�I
ss
eF1c
ti
A
I
LOCATION MAP SHOWING
ENCROACHMENT REQUEST FOR
ROUSE I LLC AND COMP
GPINS 1467-82-5496 and 1467-82-4604
SCALE: 1" = 200'
PREPARED BY PM/ ENG. DRAFT. 12-OCT-2005
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Encroachment request into a portion of the City's right of way known as Rouse
Drive from the adjoining property owners, Rouse I LLC, a Virginia limited
liability company and Comp, a Virginia general partnership.
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background:
Rouse I LLC and Comp (affiliated companies) have requested permission to install and
maintain 150', 4" PVC conduit for telephone and computer lines into a portion of the
City's right of way known as Rouse 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 portions of the City's rights of way.
■ Public Information:
Advertisement of City Council Agenda.
■ Alternatives:
Approve the encroachment as presented, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as
desired by Council.
■ Recommendations:
Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
■ Attachments:
Ordinance, Agreement, Location Map, Plat and Pictures.
Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance.
Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate "ya� �
City Manager: .
I Requested by Department of Public Works
2
3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A
4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A
5 PORTION OF THE CITY'S RIGHT-
6 OF -WAY KNOWN AS ROUSE DRIVE
7 BY ROUSE I LLC, A VIRGINIA
8 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND
9 COMP, A VIRGINIA GENERAL
10 PARTNERSHIP, THEIR ASSIGNS
11 AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE
12
13 WHEREAS, Rouse I LLC, a Virginia limited liability company
14 and Comp, a Virginia general partnership (affiliated companies)
15 desire to install and maintain a 1501, 4" diameter PVC conduit
16 for telephone and computer lines within a portion of the City' s
17 right-of-way known as Rouse Drive.
18 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-
19 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to
20 authorize temporary encroachments into a portion of the City's
21 right-of-way subject to such terms and conditions as Council may
22 prescribe.
23 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
24 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
25 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof
26 contained in §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950,
27 as amended, Rouse I LLC, a Virginia limited liability company,
28 and Comp, a Virginia general partnership, their assigns and
29 successors in title are authorized to install and maintain a
30 temporary encroachment for a 150', 4" PVC conduit for telephone
PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES
UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(C) (4)
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of G� , 2001—�;, by and
between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGfNIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor,
"City", and ROUSE I LLC, A VIRGINIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND COMP, A
VIRGINIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, THEIR ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE,
"Grantee", even though more than one.
WITNESSETH:
That, WHEREAS, the Grantee are the owners of those certain lots, tracts, or
parcels of land designated and described as "NOW OR FORMERLY CLARENCE HARRIS," as
shown on that certain plat entitled "PLAT OF PROPERTY TO BE CONVEYED TO WINSTON
G. SNIDER + SAM L. HAKIM KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA,"
and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach in Map
Book 102, at page 18; and designated and described as "#5034 & #5032," as shown on that
certain plat entitled "PHYSICAL SURVEY PROPERTY KNOWN AS 95034 & 5032 ROUSE
DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR DENNIS R. STUVER," said plat recorded in the
aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 2246, at page 1020; and also designated and described as
".62 Ac.," as shown on that certain plat entitled "PROPERTY OF ALFRED MCCLENNEY
LOCATED NEAR EUCLID — IN - PRINCESS ANNE CO., VA.," said plat recorded in the
aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 339, at page 364, and being further designated and
described as 5033 Rouse Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462, GPIN 1467-82-5496 and also
GPIN 1467-82-4604;
GPIN: NO GPIN ASSIGNED TO RIGHT OF WAY
1467-82-5496 and 1467-82-4604
WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to install and maintain 150', of 4"
diameter PVC conduit for telephone and computer lines, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City
of Virginia Beach;
WHEREAS, in installing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is
necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City right of way known as
Rouse Drive "The Encroachment Area"; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary
Encroachment within The Encroachment Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits
accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in
hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the
Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and
maintaining the Temporary Encroachment.
It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be
constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and
the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is
more particularly described as follows, to wit:
A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as
shown on that certain plat entitled: "CONDUIT ROUTING PLAN
OF PROPERTY OF ROUSE 1, LLC," a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more
particular description.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment
herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30)
days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The
2
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.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall
be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of
any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor
to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the
Grantee.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain
the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit and
have approved a traffic control plan before commencing work in The Encroachment Area.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees that no open
cut of the public roadway will be allowed except under extreme circumstances. Requests for
exceptions must be submitted to the Highway Operations Division, Department of Public Works,
for final approval.
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.
3
It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a right cat
way permit, the Grantee must post a bond or other security, in accordance with their engineer's
cost estimate, to the Office of 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.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment
must conform to the minimum setbacks�requirements, as established by the City.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit for
review and approval, a survey of The Encroachment Area, certified by a registered professional
engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachment
sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or
the Engineering Division of the 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
11
Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The
Encroachment Area, the equivalent of wha-t would be the real property tax upon the land so
occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time
ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One
Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is
allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner
provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Rouse I LLC, a Virginia limited
liability company, has caused this agreement to be executed by Robert S. Miller, III, Manager of
Rouse I LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, with due authority to bind said limited
liability company, and the said COMP, a Virginia general partnership, has caused this
Agreement to be executed in its name on its behalf by Robert S. Miller, III and W. R. Stephenson
Jr., partners, with due authority to bind said partnership. 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.
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
By
City Manager/Authorized
Designee of the City Manager
Wi
ROUSE I LLC,
A VIRGINIA LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPA-NY
Robert S. Miller, III, Manager
COMP,
A VIRGINIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
PC
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
Robert S. Miller, III, Partner
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 200_, 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
200, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA
Notary Public
IN
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF
CITY/Gnrv4r OF Y "jE6n'rt,'e4e to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this / day of
6 k, 2005 , by Robert S. Miller, III, Manager, on behalf of Rouse I LLC, a
Virginia limited liability company.
My Commission Expires: 06/67
STATE OF V,',,es,,nI A
CITY/696� OF-�Lla-&Ac4 -wit:
l
Notary Public
�}�
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /( day of
A-10'dek , 200 5 , by Robert S. Miller, III and W. R. Stephenson, Jr., Partners, on
behalf of Comp, a Virginia general partnership.
My Commission Expires: 9/3D�o'7
Notary Public
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY AND FORM
S NTU v
6 , rt
DEPARTMENT
X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\Rouse Drive - 4 inch conduit - PHAWgreement Encroachment. Frm. doc
7
§Ba¥
|! m
®�-
m#
#%
Kk¥`
\\�
% f
'*-
�,#«/--
k §! wW
~` � •;
.
s§
\�� ®
$%
\LM N
>«
\; §
\
)\/
:�a»\;w
. �.
/~0§V
4)\d
&�k
%
(%#
! m
t m
--
.��l.
(AJIY0*)
:M+o2
,w
, lvo
) �
f
k!
§ m
�
�@
f
z
\�
�k§
�
\� |
� ■
■§.a
||
� �-
/
�
hw
|�
�
ED
0
�o 0
�� R
r�c�:, tj
-� -* 7 � fir■
O.�
�O
Mw
�6��
? ENCROACHMENT REQUEST
FOR
CARE -A -LOT PET SUPPLY WAREHOUSE
1924 DIAMOND SPRINGS RD.
GPIN 1469 16-5050
SCALE: 1" = 400'
HKt—A—LLJI.UUN M.J.S. YKt YAKtU t3Y F'/W LNU C:ADD DEPT. OCT. 27, 2005
4 ate.
p,\� �wM y�7
ft
. �>
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Encroachment request into a portion of the City's right of way known as Diamond
Springs Road from the adjoining property owners, R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a
Virginia limited liability company.
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background:
R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company has requested permission to
install and maintain 135'± of 4" diameter conduit for network cables into a portion of the
City's right of way known as Diamond Springs Road.
■ Considerations:
City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachment and has recommended approval of
same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the agreement.
There are similar encroachments in portions of the City's rights of way.
■ Public Information:
Advertisement of City Council Agenda.
■ Alternatives:
Approve the encroachment as presented, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as
desired by Council.
■ Recommendations:
Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
■ Attachments:
Ordinance, Agreement, Location Map, Plat and Pictures.
Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance.
Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate �'v 'f
City Manager: �.� U-
I Requested by Department of Public Works
2
3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A
4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A
5 PORTION OF THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-
6 WAY KNOWN AS DIAMOND SPRINGS
7 ROAD BY R. M. C LARKE, L.L.C., A
8 VIRGINIA LIMITED LIABILITY
9 COMPANY, ITS ASSIGNS AND
10 SUCCESSORS IN TITLE
11
12 WHEREAS, R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability
13 company, desires to install and maintain a 135'±, 4" diameter
14 conduit for network cables within a portion of the City's right-of-
15 way known as Diamond Springs Road.
16 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009
17 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1-950, as amended, to authorize
18 temporary encroachments into a portion of the City's right-of-way
19 subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe.
20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
21 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
22 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof
23 contained in §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as
24 amended, R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability
25 company, and its assigns and successors in title,is authorized to
26 install and maintain a temporary encroachment for a 135'±, 4"
27 diameter conduit for network cables in a portion of the City's
28 right-of-way as shown on the map marked Exhibit "A" and entitled:
29 "ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT FOR CARE -A -LOT PET SUPPLY WAREHOUSE VIRGINIA
30 BEACH, VIRGINIA SEPTEMBER 21, 2005," a copy of which is on file in
31 the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a
32 more particular description; and
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment is
expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained
in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and R. M.
Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, (the
"Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his
authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement;
and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in
effect until such time as R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited
liability company and the City Manager or his authorized designee
execute the Agreement.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on the day of 1 2005.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS
SITGNATURE
DEPARTMENT
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY AND FORM
CITY ATTORNEY
CA-9707
PREPARED: 11/1/05
X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\Care a Lot - 4 inch conduit - PHA\Ordinance Encroachment.Frm.doc
F:IDataJATYIOIDIREAL ESTATE I Encroachments I PW Ordinances I CA9707 R. M. Clarke, LLC.doc
2
I Requested by Department of Public Works
2
3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A
4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A
5 PORTION OF THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-
6 WAY KNOWN AS DIAMOND SPRINGS
7 ROAD BY R. M. CLARKE, L.L.C., A
8 VIRGINIA LIMITED LIABILITY
9 COMPANY, ITS ASSIGNS AND
10 SUCCESSORS IN TITLE
11
12 WHEREAS, R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability
13 company, desires to install and maintain a 135'±, 4" diameter
14 conduit for network cables within a portion of the City's right-of-
15 way known as Diamond Springs Road.
16 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009
17 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize
18 temporary encroachments into a portion of the City's right-of-way
19 subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe.
20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
21 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
22 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof
23 contained in §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as
24 amended, R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability
25 company, and its assigns and successors in titlelis authorized to
26 install and maintain a temporary encroachment for a 135'±, 4"
27 diameter conduit for network cables in a portion of the City's
28 right-of-way as shown on the map marked Exhibit "A" and entitled:
29 "ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT FOR CARE -A -LOT PET SUPPLY WAREHOUSE VIRGINIA
30 BEACH, VIRGINIA SEPTEMBER 21, 2005," a copy of which is on file in
31 the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a
32 more particular description; and
33
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary
encroachment is
34
expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained
35
in the Agreement between the City of Virginia
Beach and R. M.
36
Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability
company, (the
37
"Agreement"), which is attached hereto and
incorporated by
38
reference; and
39
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City
Manager or his
40
authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement;
41
and
42
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance
shall not be in
43
effect until such time as R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a
Virginia limited
44
liability company and the City Manager or his authorized designee
45
execute the Agreement.
46
Adopted by the Council of the City of
Virginia Beach,
47
Virginia, on the day of
1 2005.
APPROVED (AS yTO CONTENTS
GNATURE
DEPARTMENT
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY AND FORM
A" cc� —
CITY ATTORNEY
CA-9707
PREPARED: 11/1/05
X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\Care a Lot - 4 inch conduit - PHA\Ordinance Encroachment.Frm.doc
F:IDataJATYIOIDIREAL ESTATEIEncroachmentslPW OrdinancesICA9707 R. M. Clarke, LLC.doc
2
PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES
UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(C) (4)
THIS AGREEMENT, made this' day of iLl�-e1--k�-`, 2005 by and
between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor,
"City", and R. M. CLARKE, L.L.0 , a Virginia limited liability company, ITS/HIS/THEIR/HER
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 "Parcel B-1 B, 2.602 AC." as shown on that certain plat entitled
"SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL B-1, PLAT SHOWING SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL B ON
SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF CHRIS G. CHRISTOPOULOS & CONSTANTINE G.
THOMAS, M.B. 45, P. 17", and being further designated and described as 1924 Diamond
Springs Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455;
WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain 135' f of 4"
diameter conduit containing network cables, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia
Beach;
WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is
necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City right of way known as
Diamond Springs Road "The Encroachment Area"; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary
Encroachment within The Encroachment Area.
GPIN 1469-16-5050
1
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits
accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in
hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the
Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and
maintaining the Temporary Encroachment.
It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be
constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and
the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is
more particularly described as follows, to wit:
A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as
shown on that certain plat entitled: "ENCROACHMENT
EXHIBIT FOR CARE -A -LOT PET SUPPLY WAREHOUSE
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA SEPTEMBER 21, 2005," a copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference
is made for a more particular description.
Providing however, nothing herein shall prohibit the City from immediately
removing, or ordering the Grantee to remove, all or any part of the Temporary Encroachment
from The Encroachment Area in the event of an emergency or public necessity.
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.
2
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and
hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses
and expenses including reasonable attorney' s fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an
action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall
be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of
any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor
to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the
Grantee.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain
the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit and
have approved a traffic control plan before commencing work in The Encroachment Area.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees that no open
cut of the public roadway will be allowed except under extreme circumstances. Requests for
exceptions must be submitted to the Highway Operations Division, Department of Public Works,
for final approval.
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 right of
way permit, the Grantee must post a bond or other security, in accordance with their engineer's
cost estimate, to the Office of Planning Department.
3
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and
keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed
necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured
or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability
insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance
policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days
written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of
the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or
contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the 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
11
allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner
provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said R. M. CLARKE, L.L.C. has caused this
agreement to be executed by Mary Clarke , Manager of R. M. CLARKE, L.L.C., a Virginia
limited liability company, with due authority to bind said limited liability company. Further,
that the City of Virginia has caused this agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf
by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
By:
City Manager/Authorized
Designee of the City Manager
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
City Clerk
R. M. Clarke, L.L.C.,
a Virginia limited liability company
By:
Mary Clarke, 44anager
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:
CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED
Notary Public
5
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2005, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
S OF V 1 I'LJyV) 6
IT COUNTY OF V1lat4NI - & - to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 day of
2005, by Mary Clarke, Manager(Title) on behalf of R. M. Clarke,
L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company_
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: -7 3 l
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS
S GNATURE
DEPARTMENT
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY AND FORM
AA —
&�.
SIGNATURE
X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\Care a Lot - 4 inch conduit - PHA\Agreement.doc
0
0
0
E.. a E
�a mQazo �nI
i o
m C
WCY O 0 V
>N NO)
OL_afQE
cl- N�ap =cvaf -F- oW o u Z�r- 0)
u-u't -
0Qm c 03:0ww1=C
t-
> I I og I Z Li > af
08
z I S
wl mire
= z
o� wri o l a
ma °�QI uw)� 1 0
v- N � 13�
cAo �U) �0I < d -
3
0a)m Y�IiIl1it~nI1i i oyaCLm maa
o z I
�'o�W
1
Z
oIII
III
NiIIOf LO
o U =I 0 wD�_U O
O o�o> woU �CD
N ^WHLO �mp zz
X
Zwo
w L41O
o
1 zm Qozo a z
3:0Zcnz
I I 0 owo .�
Lna:z Q J cn
I I I wm UpwZ LO
o
I I I w�(if _j0ow
o�� =ww
Z :D i- cn =
■
►=
,d
U
J
co
U
L-
0
0
E
U
cu
0
C:
W
�J
■
0
N
(�
d
0
d
`
s a`
C*05
5
C1
a
0
m
�,
z
ao
0
0
v N
N
0
0
Z
0
CL
f � ski
i� psi
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Add One Full -Time Employee Position and Transfer
$44,134 From the Reserve for Contingencies to the FY 2005-06 Operating
Budget of the City Attorney's Office
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background: The City Attorney's Office currently dedicates two full time
attorneys to representation of the Department of Human Services ("DHS").
These attorneys provide legal advice, training and support to 95 DHS social
workers. In addition, they represent DHS in cases involving child abuse and
neglect and elder abuse and neglect in both administrative proceedings and
in the Circuit and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts. The DHS Child
Protective Services Program and the Adult Protective Services Program have
experienced a significant increase in workload in recent years and require
increased attorney support. As a result of the increased demand for attorney
services, the attorneys presently assigned are insufficient to meet the needs
of DHS and the courts. Accordingly, we recommend the addition of a new
attorney position to supplement the attorneys presently assigned.
■ Considerations: Attorney support for DHS has increased by 18% from
Fiscal Year 2004 to present. DHS caseload trends between 2000 and 2004
suggest that the demand for attorney services will continue to increase
beyond present levels. The two attorneys currently assigned manage a daily
docket of between 5 and 20 cases in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court,
some of which are emergency hearings involving less than 24 hours notice. In
addition, because there is an appeal of right to the Circuit Court, these same
attorneys are often scheduled to appear in that court as well. Because of
competing demands for their time, the attorneys are often scheduled to be in
two or more courtrooms at the same time. This means that the Court, parties,
witnesses and other counsel often must wait for the assigned City Attorney to
appear before their case can proceed.
■ Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal
Council agenda process.
■ Alternatives: Council could decline to add the new position. In that case,
the City Attorney's Office will continue to support DHS to the fullest extent
possible with existing staff.
1 AN ORDINANCE TO ADD ONE FULL-TIME
2 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND TRANSFER
3 $44,134 FROM THE RESERVE FOR
4 CONTINGENCIES TO THE FY 2005-06
5 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE CITY
6 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
7 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
8 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
9 1. That an additional full-time attorney position is
10 hereby established in the City Attorney's FY 2005-06 Operating
11 Budget at a total cost of $44,134 for the remainder of this
12 fiscal year.
13
2. That
$44,134 is hereby transferred
to the
City
14
Attorney's FY 2005-06
Operating Budget from the
Reserve
for
15 Contingencies to fund the position authorized by this ordinance.
16 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
17 Virginia, on the day of
Approved as to Content
%Managem t ervices
CA9794
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\City Attorney REFTE Ord
November 4, 2005
R-1
2005.
Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency
0 .
City Attorney's Office
■ Recommendations: Approve the addition of a full-time employee position to
provide additional attorney support to the Department of Human Services and
transfer $44,134 from the reserve for contingencies to the FY 2005-06
operating budget for the City Attorney's Office.
■ Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency:
l
City Manager: I�
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: A Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate $2,500 from the Virginia Office of the Attorney
General's TRIAD Crime Prevention Program and $1,000 from the Wal-Mart Foundation
to the Police Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget for the Purchase of Project
Lifesaver Equipment
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background: The Virginia Office of the Attorney General's TRIAD Crime Prevention for
Seniors Grant Program provides funds to help Virginia localities protect senior citizens from
crime through education and prevention programs. The Virginia Office of the Attorney General
awarded the City $2,500 in grant funds. This grant requires $250 of matching funds. The $250
of matching funds will be funded through the Crime Prevention Operating Budget. This is the
second TRIAD grant that the Police Department has received. It will allow the Police
Department to expand on initiatives developed as a result of the first grant.
The Wal-Mart Foundation provides funds through the Safe Neighborhood Heroes Grant
Program to help organizations promote a safer community. In 2004, the Wal-Mart Foundation
awarded more than 80,000 grants, totaling $61 million. The Wal-Mart Foundation has awarded
the City $1,000 in grant funds. The grant does not require any matching funds.
The TRIAD and Wal-Mart Foundation grants will be used to purchase 9 transmitters, 9 battery
testers, and 223 batteries, which will be used to start up a loan program of Project Lifesaver
tracking equipment for low-income seniors at risk of wandering.
■ Considerations: A $250 cash match is required for the TRIAD grant. No matching
funds are required for the Wal-Mart Foundation grant.
■ Public Information: Public information will be provided through the normal Council
agenda process.
■ Recommendations: Accept and appropriate the TRIAD and Wal-Mart Foundation grant
awards to the Police Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget.
■ Attachments: Ordinance and Grant Award Letters (2)
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Police Department
City Manager. ( S V .-ZY80-�,
1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE $2,500
2 FROM THE VIRGINIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
3 GENERAL TRIAD CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM AND
4 $1,000 FROM THE WAL-MART FOUNDATION TO THE
5 POLICE DEPARTMENT'S FY 2005-06 OPERATING
6 BUDGET FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROJECT LIFESAVER
7 EQUIPMENT
8 WHEREAS, the Police Department has identified $250 in matching
9 funds to support the Virginia Office of the Attorney General's
10 TRIAD Crime Prevention for Seniors grant.
11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
12 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
13 1. That $2,500 is hereby accepted from the Virginia Office
14 of the Attorney General and appropriated to the Police Department's
15 FY 2005-06 Operating Budget for the purchase of Project Lifesaver
16
equipment,
with
state
revenue increased accordingly.
17
2.
That
$1,000
is hereby accepted from the Wal-Mart
18 Foundation and appropriated to the Police Department's FY 2005-06
19 Operating Budget for the purchase of Project Lifesaver equipment,
20 with donation revenue increased accordingly.
21 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
22 Virginia, on the day of , 2005.
Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of
the City Council.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
J)
Management Services
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY
Ef I, �,
City Attorney's afice
CA9795
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Triad Walmart ORD
R-2
November 10, 2005
ya5
Office of the Attorney General
Judith Williams Jagdmann
Attorney General
September 30, 2005
Mr. A.M. Jacocks, Jr.
Chief of Police
Police Headquarters
2509 Princess Anne Road
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
Title: TRIAD Crime Prevention for Seniors Grant Program
Dear Chief Jacocks:
900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071
FAX 804-786-1991
_.yugmiR Relay Services
800-828-1120
7-1-1
OCT
• i
Congratulations, your organization has been selected to participate in the Office of the Attorney General TRIAD
Crime Prevention for Seniors Grant Program. I am pleased to advise you tat grant number for the
above -referenced grant program has been approved in the amount of $7 00.00-1n, state funds and $250.00 in local
matching funds for a total award of $ . 750,00•
Enclosed you will find a Statement of wa ant ev,rri and, Statement ..0 (•. . a e... _a • -• TO
indicate your acceptance of the award and rnnriihcLnc„sign the award acceptance and return it to Jennifer Hasty,
Director of TRIAD & Citizen Outreach, at the Office of the Attorney General (OAG). Please review the conditions
carefully; as some require action on your part before we will release grant funds.
When we receive documentation showing that you have complied with the conditions, you will be eligible to request
reimbursement of grant funds awarded under this grant. A REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT form is included with
this letter and should be used for this purpose. In addition to the Request for Reimbursement form, please submit the EDI
PAYMENT AGREEMENT form that is included in this packet to the Office of the Attorney General and Department of
Accounts in order to expedite fund transmittal. You may request reimbursement of funds at the same time you submit the
documentation of compliance with the grant conditions, or at any time thereafter. However, we cannot process your
request until we have received and approved all required information. Also, enclosed are the Post Award Instructions and
Reporting Requirements. Please refer to and read this information carefully as it contains details on processing financial
and progress reports, as well as requesting reimbursement for the awarded funds.
We appreciate your interest in this grant program and will be happy to assist you any way we can to assure your
project's success. If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Hasty at (804) 786-9516 or via email at
i has tv0),oa tr. state. va . u s.
Sincerely
o
<?a
Judith William aglannn
Enclosure
cc: Marie Chiarizia, Lieutenant
Patricia Phillips, Finance Director
09,, 26 2em 14: 20 7574163497 f AGES 02
P
U.
IN
a
IN
03
14
n
00
PD
V4
I#
co
p�m
'Ad
Nov 16 05 02:35p
p.2
grant Application —
Office of the Attorney General, 900 East Main Street, Rich mond, Virginia 23219
Grant Program:
TRIAD —Commonwealth of Virginia
Applicant: Virginia Beach Police Department
Applicant Federal ID 540722061
Number:
Jurisdiction(s) Virginia Beach, Va
Served:
Program Title: Crime Prevention for Seniors G rant Program
Grant Period: October 1, 2005 to June 30, 2000
Pro
ject Director - •
Name: Marie Chiarizia A.M. Jacoc cs, Jr.
Title: Lieutenant Chief of Po ice
Address: Third Police Precinct Police Hew [quarters
926 Independence Blvd 2509 Princi ss Anne Rd
Virginia Beach, VA 23453 Virginia Be ach, VA 23456
Phone: 757-219-2703
Fax: 757460-7566
E-mail: MchiarizQyb
com
757-427-41 - 11
757-427-91 i3
ov.com
Patricia Phillips
Finance Director
Municipal Center, B dg. 1
2401 Courthouse D ive
Suite 220
Virginia Beach, VA :3456
7574274681
7574274302
rwhilllofi�vbc
.col r
Establish a start up Loaner Program to provide the tracking device of the Project Lifesaver trr nsmitters
and equipment to seniors who have Alzheimer's disease or memory impairment, and are at risk of
wandering from home, becoming lost, and not being able to find their way home. This pry gram will
benefit clients who need the device and who cannot ai ford to purchase the equipment. Once; client no
longer needs the equipment, it will then be assigned to another client.
State Cash
Personnel $ N/A $ N/A
Consultants $ N/A $ N/A
Travel/Subsistence $ N/A $ N/A
Equipment $2,500.00 $250.00
Indirect Costs $0.00 $0.00
Suonlies/Other Operating Expenses $0.00 $0.00
Totals:
00 I $250.00
Grand Total: $2700.00
Nov 16 05 02:36p
p.3
TRIAD Crime Prevention fo' Seniors Grant Program
Sponsored by the Office o ` the Attorney General
APPLICANT: Marie Chiarizia
JURISDICTION(S) SERVED: Virginia [leach, Va J
PROJECT TITLE: Crime Prevention fcir Seniors Grant
AMOUNT OF FUNDING REQUESTED: $2,500.00
AMOUNT OF CASH MATCH BY LOCALITY: $250.00
(Must Be 10% of Requested Funding)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• How will funding be used? Document the need for this funding.
• Explain the project's relevance to senior crir ie prevention and expected timeline for
completion of the project
• Detail history of project if it has been done b afore (success stories)
• Detail any organizations/agencies that will collaborate to ensure the success of the iro
Wandering is one of the most common, potBntially life threatening behavior:
associated with Alzheimer's disease. Wancering involves leaving a safe
environment, walking away and getting loss. Adults with Alzheimer's diseas a and
related dementia or memory impairment wh o wander constitutes a critical
emergency and a need for immediate searc i efforts by police and search an 1
rescue personnel. Tremendous resources will be called upon to find the mi: sing
person because with each passing hour, th,: area to be searched grows
exponentially and the risk of injury and death for the missing person increas �s
significantly. The probability they will not s urvive this incident escalates to ;0%
if a missing Alzheimer's patient is not found within 12 hours. The average sl !arch
effort lasts approximately 9 hours and the vfindow of successfully locating tl ie
missing Alzheimer wanderer diminishes ra fiidly for these types of searches.
There are approximately 26,000 people in H 3mpton Roads who have been
diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. In Virginia Beach it is estimated that o er
6500 people have Alzheimer's disease and '10% of this group will wander fro n
their homes. That means 650 seniors are at -risk of becoming lost, or being fi irther
victimized, while they are lost in our community. Such individuals are unaw� re of
their situations and they leave few verifiabli� clues when they leave. A signif cant
number of individuals will walk into areas a nd cannot get out. They do not c all
out for help and will not respond when peol)le call out to them and many wii die
as a result of exposure to the elements.
Nov 16 05 02:3Gp
p.4
In May 2005, the Virginia Beach Police Department partnered with Project
Lifesaver, International to be able to provide a pro -active involvement with
individuals who suffer from Alzheimer's di::ease. Project Lifesaver is desig led to
provide security and comfort for the family while safe guarding the memory
impaired and those who are least able to help themselves. This effort provi Jes
personalized transmitters to people who are at risk of wandering away from home
and becoming lost. The transmitter emits a constant radio signal that has bi -en
powered by a small battery. They have been in operation since 1999 trainin I
police and sheriff departments in this program. There has been 1165 searcl es to
date and all 1165 individuals have been found alive and in less than 30 mint tes.
If the client wanders away from home, a sp acialized team of officers from Vi •ginia
Beach Police responds. Having been trainod in the unique tracking equipm ant
and search techniques they will respond to all cases of the lost person in th s
program and search for them.
This equipment is being provided to citizens for a minimal fee of $376.35 for one
year. For a little more than a $1.00 a day a 3ch participant will receive a
personalized transmitter and battery tester that ensures the equipment is al, vays
working. However, many Senior citizens at a on a fixed income and cannot; fford
this extra expense. Insurance companies zind Medicaid do not cover the co ;t of
this vital piece of equipment and we are loc eking for resources to be able to
provide the assistance needed to obtain thi s equipment.
The grant funding would be used to start ul) a loan program with the initial
purchase for transmitters and battery testers and a supply of batteries for tt ose
who cannot afford the equipment. Once a i:urrent client no longer needs the
tracking equipment, it will be reassigned to others who are entering into the
program. The transmitters and battery testers can be used for several year., and
can be assigned to clients with the greaten: risk of wandering. By establish ng a
loan program it will ensure those who are most in need and cannot afford th
program will be able to obtain this equipment.
BUDGET DETAIL
• Breakdown of what the requested
will be used for
Purchase 9 transmitters @ $223.65 ea.
Purchase 9 battery testers @ $ 52.50 ea.
Purchase 33 batteries @ $ 6.50 ea.
_ $2012.85
$ 472.50
= $ 214.50
$2699.85
Nov 16 05 02:36p
p.5
TARGET POPULATION
• How many seniors are expected to benefit fr :)m the project?
The direct benefit will be to 9 individuals at a time. It is estimated that the
program could assist 9 to 81 people. It will be dependent on the duration of he
time they each spend in the program.
FUTURE GOALS
• Describe how the project could be maintained in future years if grant funding is not
available
The purchase of this equipment ensures th; it it will be available and designa- ed
for those individuals who need assistance in the future.
t 1
x '�Sr•i
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate $605,866 from the State to the Clerk of
the Circuit Court's FY 2005-06 Technology Trust Fund
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background: The Clerk of the Circuit Court receives funding for technology by
charging fees. In the past the State awarded this money to the Clerk's Office through
the State budget, so the City was not responsible for appropriating this funding. The
State Compensation Board has changed this procedure, and the State now reimburses
the City for technology expenses rather than appropriating the funding directly to the
Clerk's Office through its State budget. The City has received $605,866 in additional
revenue for the Clerk's Office to cover the cost of court technology for Fiscal Year 2005-
06.
■ Considerations: This appropriation will not require any additional money from
the City.
■ Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal
council agenda process.
■ Recommendations: Accept and Appropriate $605,866 in State Revenue to the
Clerk of the Circuit Court's Technology Trust Fund.
■ Attachments: Compensation Board's Authorization of Funds
Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval of Attached Ordinance
Submitting Department/Agency: Clerk of the Circuit Court
City Manager. ---
1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE
2 $605,866 FROM THE STATE TO THE CLERK OF
3 THE CIRCUIT COURT'S FY 2005-06
4 TECHNOLOGY TRUST FUND
5
6 WHEREAS, the State of Virginia Compensation Board has
7 changed it's reimbursement format for the Clerk of the Circuit
8 Court's Technology Trust Fund.
9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
10 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
11 That $605,866 in additional State revenue is hereby
12 appropriated to the Clerk of the Circuit Court's FY 2005-06
13 Technology Trust Fund to cover the cost of court technology with
14 State revenue increased accordingly.
15 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
16 Virginia on the day of
Approved as to Content
Management Services
, 2005.
Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency
A"
City Attorney' Office
CA9800
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Clerk Tech. Trust Fund ORD
R-2
November 10, 2005
11- 9-05; 3:17PM; ;456 5586
# 2/ 2
11/01/05 Sel: Clerks Equipment/Service 757-427-8817
YY/MM: 05/10 Loc_ 810 Off: 321 Officer Name: TINA E. SINNEN
IT Equipment Description Quantity Unit Cost
Service Vendor Service Description
Equipment
Services
Totl:
0.00
+
0.00
= LOC
Combined Total:
Totl:
0.00
+
0.00
= CB
Combined Total:
Authorized:
Exp to Date:
Aut:
66814.00
Aut:
539052.00
605866.00
0.00
YTD:
0.00
YTD:
0.00
0.00
Bal:
66814.00
Bal:
539052.00
0.00
SCBRUM23
Gross Cost
0.00
0.00
Balance:
605866.00
605866.00
. 0.00
N Q '�
N R
w E
c m
ECL cD
CL N
E..
O
'9 0 EQ
a�iv p p
ow
raU
JS
z N d d
O Z -z
d N
0
C M
yo
Q y p N R
3 7
� xC��^y oo�
N
:vat
.yG�
Q cLi al=
O a) m M
F w
i3C C t/1
Z m oa
w
Q n c0LD
z
m E
a' 5r
a. n
o E
�cwav a) 0n
�m a
U
H
J �
� 69
0
O d
E
o �
w tp qq C
0
E Oo
cc
€ c _ pj c o U
7
r-g m a3c 0 E-A -i
o
ti wvom m sa� oa'Y�'aEi
Et�d�L at �EC�so
CV M OCG I� a00�
-:,4'i"i
I7
all: Ir.2iR
LO
>-I>-I>-1 >-I d >-1 >-I >-I d >-1 d d d } -I
-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1m -1-1-1 m -1
ZI >-I ZI d ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI A
ZI ZI ZI I
r.1
d d d d d d d d d I d d d A d
t�l MI �I UI co w r- mI C> �I
Z
0
Q
0
LL
Z
LL
0
W
00
LL Z
N
K. PLANNING
1. Application of K & SONS, INC. for the Modification of the Indian Lakes Land Use Plan to
allow a gasoline station in conjunction with a convenience store at 1196 Indian Lakes
Boulevard (Deferred by City Council on October 11 and November 8, 2005).
(DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE )
DEFERRED: November 8, 2005
RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL
2. Application of DONALD G. PRATT for a Modi cation of Pro, f ers from the Conditional
Change of Zoning granted by the City Council on April 11, 2000, re an additional office
building at 2244 General Booth.
(DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
3. Petition for a Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly
created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO), Subdivision
for WILLIAM L. PAGE, to vacate an existing property line of two adjacent properties,
remove an existing single family home and resubdivide creating two new lots of equal
size at 1544 West Little Neck Road.
(DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN)
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL
4. Application of BLUE HORSESHOE TATTOO V, Ltd. for a Conditional Use Permit
re a tattoo and body piercing establishment at 71-125 South Witchduck Road.
(DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE)
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL
Application of SPRINTCOM, INC. for a Conditional Use Permit re development of a
communication tower and maintenance cabinets at 1000 North Great Neck Road.
(DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN)
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL
6. Application of STEVEN KREVER for a Chankof Zoning District Classification from
0-2 Office District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District at 3712 South
Plaza Trail re a delicatessen. (Deferred by City Council on October 11, 2005)
(DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL)
DEFERRED: October 11, 2005
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
AMENDMENTS to REORDAIN and REPEAL the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO)
a. § 221.1 re specific standards for conditional uses within certain Air Installations
Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ); and, ADD Article 18, §§1800 — 1807 re
discretionary development applications and sound attenuation requirements in
buildings and structures in certain AICUZ
b. Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance (Appendix 1) re sound
attenuation requirements in certain buildings, structures and required disclosures
in residential real estate transactions
C. Official zoning map by designation and incorporation of the NAS Oceana —
NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area
d. Comprehensive Plan by the incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress
Interfacility Traffic Area Map
C. Comprehensive Plan, Chapters 1 (Introduction and General Strategy), 2
(Strategic Growth), 3 (Primary Residential Areas), 5 (Princess Anne/Transition
Area) and 9 (Natural Resources and Environmental Quality Plan), Appendix of
the Policy Document and Princess Anne Corridor Plan to incorporate provisions
of AICUZ, the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study and AICUZ Overlay
Ordinance
DEFERRED:
RECOMMENDATION:
October 25, 2005
Defer to December 20, 2005
'4
L
A
I.; "A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
!1,111, WIII(Ip'-11 C",
November 22, 2005. at 6:00
DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
Donald G. Application: rvloditical,�,_)n of Proffers rl-)
Ilie Conditional Cl),irir.c, ,)f Zoning front granted by the City
Colincli Or) !NP 11 1 ", 2(R) J7 '241 'general Booth Boulevard
(GPIN )41.40665720()00) The Coniprehensive. Plan identr
ties this site as being a 1)10 of the Primary Residential
Aw,-i-South General R-)oth Cotridot, suitable for appropriately
ocatecl s )(inurh,in residential and non-residential uses con,,
teat v,,,li the j of the Comprehensive Plan. The ;-,U,
oo-,,e of Itii- !iI_,dification is to develop an adflition(ii office.
o[I ":Ii_ Idt".
DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN
Appeal to Deci;jons of Administrative Officers in regard to
certain el(inents of the Subdivision Ordinance. SUO(I'VISIMI
lij, Wtlhatn L. Pap N�, .e. at West Little Neck Road (GPI
148915035590000; 14895046060000).
SjwritCow, Inc. Api)llcali,,)n: Coriditi, r mal F�Use Permit for a Road iGPIN
oininunic,ition Town
cir 1000 Nort (� ,al Necl,
40813887200001.
DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE
Blue Horseshoe Tattoo V. Ltd. Application: Conditional Use
P-limit f(-), o tattoo and body piercing establishment a,
1 ' 25 Road (GPHNI 1467737757000(1)).
DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL
Yt,veri ",'(Fives Application: Chatil'—le of-Zoninp- District Clas-
(;cation fr_1W, )-" Office to Conditional B-1 Nefg� ,)ornood
0 iciness a 1,712 South Plaza Trail it IGPIN
1_4g75(._)159 70000, Jl;e Comprehensive Plan designate')
this site as being part of the Primary Residential Area, suit
for appropriately located suburban residential ir,cj
ri,w-iesideiiIial uses consistent with the policies of th,,� Cow,
ptt�hen,:;ive Pan. The purpose of this rezoning is to cill')w a
delicatessen; and other uses on the property
(Deferred tw (,;,v Cotwt.;l on Oclohei I'l, 20un)
All Interested citizens are invited to attend
RI Hodges Smith. N11%1C
City Clerk.
Copies of the proposed ordinances, iesolotiui,s aiiJ
ments are on file and may be examined in the Depar7w(�Iil of
Planning. For information call 427-4621.
If you are physically disabled or visually impaired iwl
need assistance at this nleetiq,,, )!ease rail rite CITY
CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303. Hearing impaired,
Virginia Relay at 1-800-828-1120.
The plawnlng Ag_InIl,) is ""'i tire-
Gltv',;Intr rnetHone r',rg
/w_ww_vbgov.corTi _/plarriningcommission
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCELI:
ALL that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, together with the buildings and
improvements thereon, situate, and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia,
being known, numbered and designated as Parcel C-1-B as shown on that certain
plat entitled "Subdivision of Parcel C-1, Map Book 181, Page 24, Kempsville
Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia", made by Waterway Surveyors and Engineering,
Ltd., dated January 6, 1987 and last revised on April 2, 1987, which said plat is
duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, in Deed Book 2637, at Page 1808, reference to which plat is hereby made
for a more particular description of the property.
GPIN: 1465-89-6856
PARCEL 2:
Part of that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, lying, situate and being in the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Parcel C-
I -1 as shown on that certain plat entitled, "Subdivision of Parcel C-1, Map Book
181, Page 24, Kempsville Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia", made by Waterway
Surveyors and Engineering, Ltd., dated January 6, 1987 and last revised on April 2,
1987, which said plat -is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 2637, at Page 1808, containing
6262 square feet as depicted on the plan entitled "K & Son's, Inc. Gas Pumps
Addition and Revitalization Plan", prepared by The Spectra Group, Inc., dated
3/ 1 /2005.
GPIN: 1465-89-5885 (Part)
CONDITIONALRZONE/ SAEED / PROFFER
PREPARED BY:
1H SYKES. BOUi-�R�D7ON,
IN AJIERN & LRVY, P.C.
7
PREPARED BY:
IN SMS. ROURDON,
IR AI URN & LEVY, P.C.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
K & Son's, Inc., a Virginia corporation
By: (SEAL)
Khalid Saeed, President
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this lst day of June,
2005, by Khalid Saeed, President, K 8s Son's, Inc., a Virginia corporation,
Grantor.
f�-'a &
At
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006
me
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 Grantor and
the Grantee.
PREPARED BY:
SYKES, ROURDON,
AHERN & LEVY. P.C.
5
PREPARED BY:
SYKES. ROURDON.
AHERN & LEVY. P.C.
shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if
the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new
or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The
conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of
recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by
the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a
resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing
before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section
15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or
resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of
such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void.
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, 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
0
PREPARED BY:
. SYKLS. BOURDON,
A►IERN & LWY, P.C.
Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning
("Revitalization Plan") shall be substantially adhered to.
2. When the Property is redeveloped, three (3) gasoline pumps shall be
added as depicted on the Revitalization Plan and the architectural design,
materials and colors of the canopy will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit
entitled "LUKOIL - Pleasant Valley," prepared by Pro Signs, which has been
exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach
Department of Planning ("Canopy Elevation").
3. When the Property is redeveloped, the existing freestanding sign
shall be replaced with a monument style freestanding sign no greater than eight
feet (8') in height with a base of split -face block painted to match that on the
existing building. The exterior surfaces of the masonry (split -face block) walls of
the existing building shall be painted a light, earth tone color. The existing
dumpster shall also be relocated and screened as depicted on the Revitalization
Plan.
4. When the Property is redeveloped, the existing entrances on to the
Property from Indian Lakes Boulevard shall be consolidated and relocated as
depicted on the Revitalization Plan. All lighting on the site shall be consistent
with those standards recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society of
North America (IESNA). A photometric lighting plan indicating the number and
types of lighting will be submitted as part of the formal site plan submission for
review by the Planning Department to determine consistency with Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and practices.
Lighting shall be installed and operated as shown on the approved plan. All
lighting shall be directed inward and downward within the site.
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 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
3
PREPARED BY.
D SYKES, ROURDON,
11 AHERN & LEVY. P.C.
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 Grantor's
rezoning application gives rise; and
WHEREAS, Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and
prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed
modification to the PDH-1 Land Use Plan applicable to the Property in addition to
the regulations provided for the PDH-1 and B-2 Zoning Districts 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, 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 Grantor, its successors, personal
representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title:
1. When the Property is redeveloped, in order to achieve a more
coordinated design and development on the site in terms of vehicular access,
parking and landscape buffering, the "K 8v SON'S INC. GAS AND PUMP
ADDITION AND REVITALIZATION PLAN", dated 3 / 1 / 2003 revised 5 / 2 / 2005,
prepared by The Spectra Group, Inc., which has been exhibited to the Virginia
2
K & SON'S, INC., a Virginia corporation
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 K &
SON'S, INC., a Virginia corporation, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of a two (2) parcels of property located
in the Kempsville District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately
30,341 square feet of land which are more particularly described as Parcels 1 and
2 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said
parcels are herein referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor 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 modify the PDH-1 Land Use Plan with a B-2 Commercial
Designation applicable to the Property to permit the sale of gasoline; 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
GPIN: 1465-89-6856
1465-89-5885 (Part)
PREPARED BY:
SULS, BOURDON,
AHERN & LRVY. P.C.
1
SYKES, BOURDON.
FERN & LEVY, P.C.
Robert J. Scott, Director
November 10, 2005
Page 2
With kind regards, I am
Very truly yours,
REBjr/ arhm R. Edward Bourdon, Jr.
Enclosures
cc: Carolyn A.K. Smith, Department of Planning
Ruth Hodges Smith, City Clerk
Khand Saeed, K & Son's, Inc.
Christopher A. Taylor, The Spectra Group, Inc.
AmendmentPDHPlan/ Saeed / Macali2
1 LURN & LEVY, JL , P.C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK - BUILDING ONE JON M. AHERN
281 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD R. EDWARD BOURDON, JR.
FIFTH FLOOR JAMES T. CROMWELL
VI RGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462-2989 L. STEVEN EMMERT
DAVID S. HOLLAND
TELEPHONE: 757-499-8971 KIRK B. LEVYO. JACKSON MOORE, JR.
FACSIMILE: 757-456-5445 November 10 2005
� JENNIFER D. ORAM-SMITH
HOWARD R. SYKES. JR.
Via Hand Delivery
William M. Macali, Deputy City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
City Hall Building # 1, Room 260
Municipal Center
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456
Re: Application of K & Son's, Inc. for Modification to the Indian Lakes Land Use
Plan to allow fuel sales on property designated Neighborhood Commercial
located 1196 Indian Lakes Boulevard, Kempsville District; City Council
Agenda Date: November 22, 2005
Dear Bill:
As discussed prior to the City Council's public hearing on Tuesday,
November 8, 2005, enclosed herewith please find original revised pages 3
through 5 of my client's previously Proffered Covenants, Restrictions and
Conditions. We would appreciate your inserting these revised original pages
into the original Proffered Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions.
Obviously, my client has endorsed and agreed to this revision.
In addition to the pages which we request be substituted in the
original agreement, I have also provided you with a black -lined copy of the
revisions which are all contained in Proffer #3.
I have also enclosed a complete copy of the Proffered Covenants,
Restrictions and Conditions as revised for your information.
If you have any questions or concerns in this regard do not hesitate to
contact me.
MSYKES, IROURDON,
MM AURN & LEVY, P.C.
Robert J. Scott, Director
November 1, 2005
Page 2
With kind regards, I am
Very truly yours,
R. Edward Bourdon, Jr.
REBjr/arhm
Enclosures
cc: William M. Macali, Deputy City Attorney
Ruth Hodges Smith, City Clerk
Khalid Saeed, K & Sons, Inc.
Christopher A. Taylor, The Spectra Group, Inc.
AmendmentPDHPlan/ Saeed/ Scotts
SYKES, ]POURDON,
AHERN & LEVY, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK - BUILDING ONE
281 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD
FIFTH FLOOR
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462-2989
TELEPHONE: 757-499-8971
FACSIMILE: 757-456-5445 November 10, 2005
Via Hand Deliverta
Robert J. Scott, Director
Department of Planning
Building 2, Room 115
Municipal Center
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456
ATTN: Carolyn A.K. Smith
JON M. AHERN
R.EDWARD BOURDON,JR.
JAMES T. CROMWELL
L. STEVEN EMMERT
DAVID S. HOLLAND
KIRK B.LEVY
O. JACKSON MOORE, JR.
JENNIFER D. ORAM-SMITH
HOWARD R. SYKES, JR.
Re: Application of K & Son's, Inc. for Modification to the Indian Lakes Land Use
Plan to allow fuel sales on property designated Neighborhood Commercial
located 1196 Indian Lakes Boulevard, Kempsville District; City Council
Agenda Date: November 22, 2005
Dear Mr. Scott:
As discussed by City Council at its informal briefing on Tuesday,
November 8, 2005, and as previously offered by my client at the Planning
Commission hearing on September 14, 2005, enclosed herewith please find
a "black -lined" revision to the Proffered Covenants, Restrictions and
Conditions along with eight (8) clean copies of the revision.
The revisions made were to Proffer #3 on page 3 of the agreement.
They involve my client's agreement to paint the exterior masonry surface of
the existing building with a light earth tone color (i.e. beige).
By separate cover we have submitted an original of the revised page 3
to the City Attorney's Office requesting that they insert the revised page 3 for
the page 3 currently in the original document.
In addition, I have provided a clean copy of the revised Proffered
Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions to the City Clerk.
Should you or any member of the Planning staff have any questions
or concerns regarding this revision, do not hesitate to contact me.
SYK ES, BOURDON,
AHERN & LEVY, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK - BUILDING ONE
JON M. AHERN
281 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD
R. EDWARD BOURDON, JR.
FIFTH FLOOR
JAMES T. CROMWELL
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462-2989
L. STEVEN EMMERT
DAVID S. HOLLAND
TELEPHONE: 757-499-8971
KIRK B.LEVY
FACSIMILE: 757-456-5445 November 10, 2005
O. JACKSON MOORE, JR.
JENNIFER D. ORAM-SMITH
HOWARD R. SYKES, JR.
Via Hand Deliveru
Ruth Hodges Smith, City Clerk
Office of the City Clerk
City Hall Building # 1, Room 281
Municipal Center
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456
Re: Application of K & Son's, Inc. for Modification to the Indian Lakes Land Use Plan to
allow fuel sales on property designated Neighborhood Commercial located 1196
Indian Lakes Boulevard, Kempsville District; City Council Agenda Date: November
22, 2005
Dear Ms. Smith:
Given the fact that this application is going to be back on the Council
agenda on November 22, 2005, I felt it prudent to provide you with a copy of the
transmittal of the revised proffer to the Planning Department along with a copy of
the revised set of Proffered Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions.
Also be advised that I have provided a copy of the revised Proffered
Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions to Mr. Macali in the City Attorney's Office.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
With kind regards, I am
Very truly yours,
R. Edward Bourdon, Jr.
REBjr/arhm
Enclosures
cc: Carolyn A.K. Smith, Department of Planning
William M. Macali, Deputy City Attorney
Khalid Saeed, K & Son's, Inc.
Christopher A. Taylor, The Spectra Group, Inc.
AmendmentPDHPlan/ Saeed/ Smith 1
Item V-K. 4.
-32-
PLANNING
ITEM # 54504
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Council Lady Wilson, City Council DEFERRED
INDEFINITELY an Ordinance upon application of K& SONS, Inc. for Modification to the Indian Lakes
Land Use Plan to allow a gasoline station in conjunction with a convenience store.
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF K & SONS, INC. FOR THE
MODIFICATION OF THE INDIAN LAKES LAND USE PLAN TO
ALLOW GASOLINE SALES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
CONVENIENCE STORE
Ordinance upon Application of K & Sons, Inc. for the Modification of
the Indian Lakes Land Use Plan to allow gasoline sales in conjunction
with a convenience store on property located at H96 Indian Lakes
Boulevard (GPINs 14658968560000; part of 14658958850000). The
Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being part of the Primary
Residential Area, suitable for appropriately located suburban
residential and non-residential uses consistent with the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this modification to the land use
plan is to develop the site for gasoline sales in conjunction with a
convenience store. DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE
Voting: 11-0 (By Consent)
Council Members Voting Aye:
Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba
S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim
Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and
James L. Wood
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
None
October 11, 2005
ro`
� Ly
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: K & Sons, Inc. — Modification of the Land Use Plan
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of K & Sons, Inc. for the Modification of the
Indian Lakes Land Use Plan to allow gasoline sales in conjunction with a
convenience store on property located at 1196 Indian Lakes Boulevard
(GPINs 14658968560000; part of 14658958850000). The Comprehensive
Plan designates this site as being part of the Primary Residential Area,
suitable for appropriately located suburban residential and non-residential
uses consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of
this modification to the land use plan is to develop the site for gasoline sales
in conjunction with a convenience store. DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE
This application was deferred at the request of the applicant by City
Council on October 11t". The request was deferred again on November
11t" to allow for a new proffer to be added. An amended proffer
agreement has been submitted indicating that the "exterior surfaces of
the masonry (split face block) walls of the existing building shall be
painted a light, earth tone color." In addition the revised proffer
indicates that the proposed monument style freestanding sign shall be
painted to match the building.
■ Considerations:
The applicant is proposing a modification of the Land Use Plan to allow for
fuel sales on property designated as "neighborhood commercial." A 97- foot
by 24- foot fuel canopy is proposed parallel to Indian Lakes Boulevard and it
will be 22 feet high. There is an existing convenience store and personal
service business on the property in a single 3,024 square foot building. The
site plan depicts additional property incorporated into the site for a total of
30,341 square feet. The existing dumpster is proposed to be relocated to a
less conspicuous part of the site. Streetscape landscaping is proposed along
both Indian Lakes Boulevard and Pleasant Valley Road. Two similar requests
for the addition of fuel sales to this property were both denied by City Council
in 1985 and again in 1987. The latter request was for a 24 by 24 foot canopy
and fuel island.
K & Sons, Inc.
Page 2 of 2
The proposal is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's
recommendations for this area nor is it compatible with the adjacent
residential neighborhood. The Plan calls for established neighborhoods to be
protected against invasive land uses that due to their activity would tend to
destabilize them. The addition of the fuel pumps would increase the intensity
of the existing commercial use in an area designated primarily as residential.
The Indian Lakes Land Use Plan identifies this site as commercial use but not
as a service station. Commercial areas are intended to provide residents of
the immediate area with low intensity goods and services. Unfortunately, this
proposed increase in intensity could result in negative impacts for the
residential area by increased traffic generation, noise and bright lights. Uses
such as fuel sales are more appropriately located in commercial corridors or
on the fringes of neighborhoods and only when effective protective measures
are in place to protect surrounding properties. Where commercial uses are
adjacent to residential uses, the preference is for higher density residential
adjacent to lower intensity commercial. The mix of more intense commercial
adjacent to residential does not follow sound planning practices.
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 5-4 to deny
this request.
■ Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends denial.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
City Manager: S
Map p-9
a s�—
K & SONS, INC.
Agenda Item # 15
September 14, 2005 Public Hearing
0
Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith
REQUEST:
Modification of the Land Use Plan to allow for fuel
sales on property designated as "neighborhood
commercial' on property currently zoned PD-1-11.
ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 1196 Indian Lakes Boulevard.
GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE:
14658968560000; 2 — KEMPSVILLE 30,341 square feet
portion of:
14658958850000
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant is proposing a modification of the Land Use Plan to allow for fuel sales on property
designated as "neighborhood commercial' on property currently zoned PD-1-11. The proposed 97 foot by
24 foot fuel canopy is proposed parallel to Indian Lakes Boulevard and will be 22 feet high. There is an
existing convenience store and personal service business on the property in a single 3,024 square foot
building. The site plan depicts additional property incorporated into the site for a total of 30,341 square
feet. Several of the required parking spaces are depicted immediately adjacent to a proposed
ingress/egress easement. As cars within these spaces would be forced to back out into this easement,
they must be either relocated or the property line adjusted to accommodate them. The existing dumpster
is proposed to be relocated to a less conspicuous part of the site. Streetscape landscaping is proposed
along both Indian Lakes Boulevard and Pleasant Valley Road.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: There is a small retail operation (convenience store and nail salon) on the property.
SURROUNDING LAND North: . Grassed area, Indian Lakes Boulevard / PDH-1
USE AND ZONING: South: . Pleasant Valley Road, single family dwellings / PDH-1
East: . Daycare facility / PDH-1
West: . Intersection of Pleasant Valley Road and Indian Lake
Boulevard, open space / PDH-1
NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There are no
CULTURAL FEATURES: significant environmental features on the site as it is developed as a
retail operation.
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)• Indian
Lakes Boulevard in the vicinity of the property is a 100 foot, four lane divided, collector road, as shown
on the MTP. Improvements are not anticipated for this roadway within the next five (5) years.
TRAFFIC:
Street Name
Present
Volume
Present Capacity
Generated Traffic
Indian Lakes
8,273 ADT
13,100 ADT (Level of
Existing Land Use —
Boulevard
Service "C") — 20,700 ADT
2,114 ADT
' (Level of Service D"")
Proposed Land Use 3-
3,293 ADT
Average Daily Trips
z as defined by retail operation with convenience store
3 as defined by addition of fuel pumps
WATER & SEWER: This site has an existing water meter that may be used or upgraded. The site is already
connected to City water and sewer.
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
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. The established type, size, and relationship of
land use, both residential and non-residential, in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a
guide when considering future development.
"Generally, in large suburban settings often characterized by many'single use' zoning districts, land use
compatibility is achieved through the process of orienting similar or, at the very least, not incompatible
land uses and densities next to one another. While landscaped buffers, attractive site planning, quality
architecture and other techniques are sometimes the only option to help mitigate the impacts of adjacent
and incompatible land uses, it is the city's position that good architectural and site designs are not
acceptable substitutes for good land use planning. We must focus on applying sound land use planning
practices first, then address design considerations. As one travels outside the stable, low density, single-
family neighborhoods, there should evolve a coherent pattern of development depicting gradual increases
in residential densities and the introduction of neighborhood -serving commercial uses. Where residential
and commercial uses adjoin one another, the preferred land use relationship should reflect higher density
residential and lower intensity commercial uses." Page 90
Staff recommends denial of this EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
application. Two (2) similar
requests for the addition of fuel sales to this property were both denied by City Council in 1985 and again
in 1987. The latter request was for a 24 by 24 foot canopy and fuel island.
The proposal is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area nor is
it compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The Plan calls for established neighborhoods to
be protected against invasive land uses that due to their activity would tend to destabilize them. The
addition of the fuel pumps would increase the intensity of the existing commercial use in an area
designated primarily as residential. The Indian Lakes Land Use Plan identifies this site as commercial
use but not as a service station. Commercial areas are intended to provide residents of the immediate
area with low intensity goods and services. Unfortunately, this proposed increase in intensity could result
in negative impacts for the residential area by increased traffic generation, noise and bright lights. Uses
such as fuel sales are more appropriately located in commercial corridors or on the fringes of
neighborhoods and only when effective protective measures are in place to protect surrounding
properties. Where commercial uses are adjacent to residential uses, the preference is for higher density
residential adjacent to lower intensity commercial. The mix of more intense commercial adjacent to
residential does not follow sound planning practices. Therefore, Staff cannot recommend favorably for
this request.
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 redeveloped, in order to achieve a more coordinated design and development on the
site in terms of vehicular access, parking and landscape buffering, the "K & Son's Inc. Gas and Pump
Addition and Revitalization Plan," dated 3/1/2003 revised 5/2/2005, prepared by The Spectra Group, Inc.,
which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach
Department of Planning ("Revitalization Plan") shall be substantially adhered to.
PROFFER 2:
When the property is redeveloped, three (3) gasoline pumps shall be added as depicted on the
Revitalization Plan and the architectural design, materials and colors of the canopy will be substantially as
depicted on the exhibit entitled " LUKOIL — Pleasant Valley, " prepared by Pro Signs, which has been
exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning
("Canopy Elevation").
PROFFER 3:
When the property is redeveloped, the existing freestanding sign shall be replaced with a monument style
freestanding sign no greater than eight feet (8) in height with a base of split face block matching that on the
building. The existing dumpster shall also be relocated and screened as depicted on the Revitalization Plan.
PROFFER 4:
When the property is redeveloped, the existing entrances on to the Property from Indian Lake Boulevard
shall be consolidated and relocated as depicted on the Revitalization Plan. All lighting on the site shall be
consistent with those standards recommend by the Illumination Engineering Society of North American
(IESNA). A photometric lighting plan indicating the number and types of lighting will be submitted as party of
the formal site plan submission for review by the Planning Department to determine consistency with Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and practices. Lighting shall be installed and
operated as shown on the approved plan. All lighting shall be directed inward and downward within the site.
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 are not acceptable to staff for the reasons stated above
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.
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.
F
k SONS,
nda
Item
1-NC
# 15
Pare4
PROPOSED SITE PLAN"--"'
WIN
PROPOSED CANOPY
[ap D-9
► '� �� ♦ M.M." .
�r
WAR
. � r• 0
i �� ►w
0
Modification of Land Use Plan
A
1
01/05/87
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT fuel sales
Denied
2
03/18/85
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN
Denied
3
09/10/84
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN
Denied
4
01/11/82
CHANGE OF ZONING PD-H to PD-H1
Granted
ZONING HISTORY
. fi x 13
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)
Sykes, Bourdon, Ahem & Levy, P.C.
The Spectra Group, Inc.
1 "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.
2 "Affiliatedbusiness 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 public hearing
according to the instr ctions `n this ackage.
K & Sons, Inc.
By: Khalid Saeed, President
Applicants Signature Print Name
Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name
Amendment to'POH Plan Application
Page 12 or 12
Re%laed: 91112004
DISCLOSURE STATEMEENT'��,'.;
Item # 15
K & Sons, Inc.
Modification of the Indian Lakes Land Use Plan
1196 Indian Lakes Boulevard
District 2
Kempsville
September 14, 2005
REGULAR
Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #15, K & Sons, Inc. An Ordinance upon
application of K & Sons, Inc. for the Modification of the Indian Lakes Land Use Plan to
allow gasoline sales in conjunction with a convenience store on property located at 1196
Indian Lakes Boulevard, District 2, Kempsville with five proffers.
Dorothy Wood: Is there anyone here representing K & Sons?
Eddie Bourdon: I apologize. My good friend Ms. Connors and I were having a nice chat.
Alright. Again, for the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney and
I'm representing the applicant. First of all, and I apologize. I intended to make copies
but the copy machine and I didn't get along real well early this morning. I have a petition
and I actually would like to get this back so I can have copies made before this matter
goes to City Council. It's a petition signed by 1,041 who come into my client's business
seeking your support and Council's support for this application for three gasoline pumps
on this site. Again, I'll pass this around. I do not have copies for everyone. It is front
and back signatures. Also, I understand that this is better than anything. This is a request
that Mr. Din had to see what the pumps look like. These are what the proposed gas
pumps look like. Now, this is an application for a Modification to the Land Use Plan on
this property that is recommended for commercial. It has been a convenience store for
many years. My client, who has operated there for approximately four years recently was
able to acquire the property, and the adjacent property. He lives in the community. He
operates his business in the community. It's an older building. He didn't construct it. He
didn't have anything to do with the original development of it. I'm sure you all visited
the site and realize that it is a property that could use some upgrading. It could use some
investment. That is what he wishes to do. At the same time, there is a considerable
amount of support, as I expressed, that he has been receiving from the neighborhood.
There really aren't any gas facilities close by and I've driven around. It is an area that
really isn't served by any real gas other than out on Indian River Road. Three pumps he
proposes to put in front of the site with an attractive canopy, brick columns. He will
relocate the dumpster, which is in pretty visible location, screen it away from the
residential. It is now in this area along Pleasant Valley Road. He is going to re -landscape
the site and eliminate the existing curb cut here on Indian Lakes Boulevard so there will
be one entrance from Indian Lakes and one from Pleasant Valley. The main thing is the
landscaping and eliminating the dumpster here and putting it on this side and screening it.
There will be a significant upgrade on the property. There is an existing sign now, which
Item # 15
K & Sons, Inc.
Page 2
is a pole sign and it is in bad shape and non -conforming. We're going to be eliminating
the sign. We will be going with an attractive monument style sign. This is a
neighborhood business that is there to support the residential and the people who live in
the residences. I understand some of the reason for the staff's opinion based on Getty Oil,
which developed the site many years ago attempted to gas approved here. There was a
member of the community, at that time whom was adamantly opposed to it, and
organized opposition within the community at that point before it was built, and that
individual is no longer living in this area. My client has gone to the Community
Association and was told that we certainly don't oppose you. At this point, I think it is
something that the community would like to see. It is something that will be an upgrade
on this piece of property. There is residential across the street and across both streets there
is open space common area between the backs of those houses and the roads themselves,
so there is some buffer. We would ask that it be approved and that the conditions and
there are none and have been put forth because it is a proffered plan because it is PD-H1.
I think it is something the community would like to see. We don't think limited scale
which is three pumps is going to present a problem with regard to nuisance.
Dorothy Wood: Eddie, I was happy to hear you say that they were upgrading the
building. We didn't have that on our plans. What are they going to do with the building?
Eddie Bourdon: I've misspoken. He would like to be able to upgrade the building and
bought the land adjacent to it but he's got to pay for it. He needs the gas to help pay for
it. He's got additional property that he is adding to it that will be able to be developed
when he is able to afford it. It's my fault. I misstated. He wants to be able to afford to
make upgrades over and above the ones that we have shown but he is not a big operation
like Wawa.
Dorothy Wood: I didn't see the upgrades. That is what I was asking you.
Eddie Bourdon: The upgrades are the landscaping. Once we can get that into the ground
and start producing the revenue so he can afford to get financing.
Dorothy Wood: I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you said that he was going to
upgrade the building and improvements.
Eddie Bourdon: That is his desire to do that. This is a way to.
Dorothy Wood: But not at this time.
Eddie Bourdon: He's has to able to afford to do it. These costs that he is occurring,
eliminating the curb cut and putting up a new sign, and doing landscaping, these are also
costs but it's the first step in what he hopes to be a more comprehensive development and
redevelopment of the property.
Item #15
K & Sons, Inc.
Page 3
Dorothy Wood: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for Eddie?
William Din: Eddie, on your petition have you evaluated your petition to see how many
people actually live in this neighborhood or just passing through?
Eddie Bourdon: Well, I have not but my client has collected signatures over a long
period of time. This is a neighborhood business if you've been to the site. It is not a road
that garnishes a significant. If you look at the addressed they're primary addresses of
houses in this area. There is no doubt about that. May there be out of the 1,041 some
people who don't reside in this particular neighborhood? I'm sure there are but the mass
majority of them are people who live in this neighborhood.
William Din: Indian Lakes Boulelvard is a cut through from Providence Road down to
Farrell Parkway back and forth.
Eddie Bourdon: It's a cut through for the residents of that area. It is not a citywide type
of arterial highway. I mean it is to people who live in that general community that are the
ones who are using that road.
William Din: But you really haven't analyzed to see how many live in this area? It is not
just walk in traffic. Correct?
Eddie Bourdon: I'm sorry.
William Din: Is it walk in traffic?
Eddie Bourdon: They certainly have walk in traffic. Certainly.
Dorothy Wood: This wasn't like, and I think Mr. Din is saying that they didn't go door to
door in the neighborhood?
Eddie Bourdon: No. I apologize. I misunderstood you. No. They did not go door to
door in the neighborhood. He has talked to the Neighborhood Association and his
neighbors. He lives in the neighborhood. I'm not aware that he took the petition door to
door. He may tell me that he did.
William Din: So you're saying that he approached the civic leagues in this area and they
approved?
Eddie Bourdon: This community that the facility is in, absolutely. He met with them.
William Din: The Indian Lakes Civic League? Do you know what civic league?
Item #15
K & Sons, Inc.
Page 4
Eddie Bourdon: The Indian Lakes Community Association is what I understand to be the
entity.
William Din: They opposed no opposition to this?
Eddie Bourdon: Correct. In fact, they told him they would not oppose.
William Din: I do think that it is an increase in the intensity of the use of this area. I
agree with what staff has written up on this that it does provide an intensive use that is
highly a residential area. That is why I'm concerned with how many of these residents
were actually on this petition.
Eddie Bourdon: Most of them have addresses listed there. It's a community business and
my client tells me that he is active in the community. He lives in the community. He tells
me that the community supports what he is trying to do. It's three gas pumps. It's not a
Wawa, which is a great operation but were not talking about a large twelve pump
operation here. Three pumps. I pointed to a situation where there is a gas station on
South Lynnhaven at the entrance to Princess Anne Plaza that has been recently upgraded,
and pumps added. It looks good. It's right next to residential but is only a small
operation. I think in that case four pumps. So, this area is underserved by gas when you
drive around and look there really isn't any. I think that is the reason why there is a
significant amount of support for it. I understand staff having a similar application
having been denied by City Council 15 years ago. It's kind of difficult for them to take
the position that they favor it when there has already been a Council action denying it.
I'm not taking any vows with the staff but I think there has been an evolution of thought
in this particular community, and I can certainly understand why there would be support
for it.
Dorothy Wood: Barry? Oh, I'm sorry.
William Din: I understand that the landscaping is a condition here. Correct? The
landscaping around the site is going to come in.
Eddie Bourdon: Totally re -landscaped. The dumpster moved and screened. Sign
removed and replaced with a monument style sign. We proffered the canopy elevation
with the brick columns. They have shown you what it looked like.
William Din: The building itself is not going to be renovated? Not going to be painted
or anything? You know, some improvements to it.
Eddie Bourdon: In terms of if you want to suggest that it be painted, I don't think my
client is adverse to that. He would really like to do is be in a position within a few years
to be able to do basically a total redo on the building. He is just not in a position
financially to be able to afford to do that at this point. If you want to suggest a condition
Item # 15
K & Sons, Inc.
Page 5
that the building be repainted, I don't think he would be adversed to doing that. He is not
in a position to do what he ultimately would like to do from a financial standpoint.
William Din: Do you know what neighborhood he lives in around here?
Eddie Bourdon: He lives in Indian Lakes. He lives in that neighborhood.
Dorothy Wood: Barry.
Barry Knight: I see down here where it says it is zoned for neighborhood commercial.
There may be a technical set of criteria for neighborhood commercial that I kind of
wonder when the neighborhood if the biggest majority of the people who signed the
petition live in the neighborhood and they are for this type of commercial or this type of
gas pumps. If they want it then maybe it meets the criteria of the neighborhood
commercial. If you could, put the aerial up please? Eddie, can you show us. There is a
buffer zone around the yellow line. I believe that is all zoned the same zoning on there. I
anticipate some time in the future that will probably be developed as neighborhood
commercial. It may be a buffer zone if one is even needed between them and the
residents. Then you go across the street and that looks like it is designated as open space.
It looks like we may have a buffer zone with these gas pumps or with this convenience
store. If we have all these 1,041, although I did note that one person on there objected so
maybe your down to 1,040 but you do have some numbers on there. It looks like the
neighborhood or the biggest majority that signed the petition I assume are from the
neighborhood are in favor of it. I understand the staff's recommendation but I kind of
think it wouldn't be quite as intrusive as I first thought. I guess that is just my
observation.
Eddie Bourdon: You're correct. This is all commercial designation. This is open space
here and here along Indian Lakes Boulevard. It's all residential. There wouldn't be, and
it doesn't set a precedent for the leapfrog across the street.
Dorothy Wood: You know, we did talk this morning about our design awards and
making sure that this is a design that makes sure the building fits.
Barry Knight: That is why I'm kind of wondering if the gas pumps are approved and they
put a new style canopy in there, and once they dig up that parking lot then of course, that
is going to be totally asphalted. I'm sure we wouldn't consider approving this unless we
did ask him to, at the very minimum paint the building. Its kind of where I was going on
that. I kind of think that if we left it as is, it would be status quo, and if we maybe
approved it with a condition or two, it would maybe be an upgrade.
Dorothy Wood: Unless he spent his money now creating it and then coming back with
the pumps. Jan.
Janice Anderson: I have some concerns about putting gas at this site. It is in a residential
Item #15
K & Sons, Inc.
Page 6
area. And even though the petition has been signed. That is one factor to look at and it is
an important factor but is not the whole basket that you got a petition signed that they
want that and it should go. I think it is important factor but if you look at other items.
The concern that I have is adding the canopy and three gas pumps. I don't think it adds to
much of the site attractiveness. I don't think it is a full improvement really in total. It is a
definitely a more intense use. You're going to have a lot more traffic in this area because
you're going to have gas pumps. It is just putting a drive thru on the corner it attracts so
much more traffic than the facility that doesn't have a drive thru. Gas pumps are going to
do the same. You're going to have a lot more people stopping there then you do just for
the convenience. And, my other concern is that it is zoned right next to it the
neighborhood businesses, from my understanding is kind of like the 13-1 Neighborhood
zoning and if you put gas there, I think it would flow to the other parcel that had a more
intense use to other parcels rather then keeping them a neighborhood business. Those are
my concerns.
Dorothy Wood: Ron.
Ronald Ripley: I'm kind of going on with what Barry said. I do appreciate the intent to
keeping the neighborhood commercial. It's not a mega corner and a mega flow of traffic
going through here. What would be important to me is to see some attention paid to this
building that is acceptable to the Planning Director, and perhaps if you looked at the
building from the neighborhood backs and sides, the foundation and landscaping around
there that would help mitigate that too. I like the landscaping along Indian Lakes and
Pleasant Valley. I think that is good and that is going to help a lot. So, I would be
supportive of the application providing that some redevelopment would occur to this
building that would be acceptable to Mr. Scott and his staff. The parking lot is going to
get ripped up. I assume the tanks are going in the ground where the asphalt is? Am I
correct?
Eddie Bourdon: You are correct Mr. Ripley.
Ronald Ripley: So you will have new asphalt and new canopy out there.
Eddie Bourdon: New parking lot. We will are certainly willing to work with the
Planning Director and the Zoning Administrator. We don't have a problem with a new
site plan putting down a foundation of landscaping and painting the building. If there are
any other upgrades that might be suggested that would not be astronomical in cost, my
client, who is here, will be happy to try to incorporate that into it. The idea is to upgrade
the site. The surrounding commercial doesn't change with this.
Dorothy Wood: Eddie, they just won't be patching the asphalt. They're totally going to
replace it.
Item # 15
K & Sons, Inc.
Page 7
Eddie Bourdon: I think that is what is going to have to happen given the improvements.
He is also eliminating a curb cut. They're putting a gutter along Indian Lakes Boulevard.
That is another benefit of that. There are two curb cuts there now and there will only be
one. That is also an expense. There is going to be a lot of work done that will be a
positive nature on this site.
Dorothy Wood: Gene.
Eugene Crabtree: I sort of go along with Barry and Ron. I feel like that something
should be done to the building but I don't think we need to look at past history because if
we look at past history then we're just going to stay and stagnant and we're not looking at
future economic development, which we were talking about doing in the City. If we
don't do something to upgrade pieces of property like this then it just stays there the way
it is. It does nothing and we don't improve anything. Maybe this is the first step in
improving that particular maybe for economic development in there. There is a lot of
wide-open space around. It doesn't look like it is going to be intrusive on anybody and
therefore if there were improvements to the building, and upgrade the site to make it look
a little bit better, I think I would be in favor of supporting this application.
Dorothy Wood: Joe.
Joseph Strange: I'm surprised because we don't have anybody here to speak in
opposition that I know of. No one signed up. It is kind of me, personally, maybe I
shouldn't speak personally but it is kind of funny that nobody has shown up with them
putting a gas station right in the middle of this development because that is exactly what
you're doing here. Having said that and since there is no opposition, I do think if we're
going to approve this that we ought to extract something out of this as far as the building
because as you can see it, nothing doesn't seem like anything has been done to this piece
of property in the last 15 years to upgrade it or put in any types of shrubs out or anything
else. I mean, I think at the very least we need to extract something out of this if we're
going to approve to put gasoline.
Dorothy Wood: I agree with you. I couldn't support it unless they were going to redo the
building.
Eddie Bourdon: If I could add, the site has actually been up for two months. It was on
the agenda last month.
Dorothy Wood: Thanks Eddie.
Eddie Bourdon: We're willing to work with you.
Dorothy Wood: On the building? That is what we're all asking for.
Item #15
K & Sons, Inc.
Page 8
Eddie Bourdon: There isn't an ability financially to tear the building down and build a
new building. Again, we're not dealing with a major oil company here. This is a one
man, one family, mom and pop business and he's invested a lot of money just to buy it.
He didn't create it. He just recently purchased it. He agrees with me. He is trying to
upgrade the site. It's one of those deals where Rome wasn't built in a day. He's not in a
position financially to be able to just simply bulldoze what's there and start over again.
Dorothy Wood: Of course his spending doesn't ask him for something and this is what
we're asking for in return.
Eddie Bourdon: He's willing to do the landscaping. He's willing to paint the building. I
don't know how you would begin to suggest how would you remodel the building? You
would have to tear it down.
Dorothy Wood: I have no idea. Will.
William Din: Well, I don't think I'm talking about remodeling the building as a saving
grace for this. I don't think I'm in favor of putting fuel pumps in this area. This is in the
middle of a residential area. It does and it will lead to other commercial uses into this
area, which I don't think needs to go into the middle of a residential area that this is in. It
is a PD-H area. It hasn't been developed because I think there is enough commercial on
the end of Indian Lakes Boulevard and to the Kempsville River area also, and also future
west toward Kempsville, and where Providence comes in. And for that reason, I think
putting an intense use like this would lead to other commercial building in this area,
which I don't believe is needed in the middle of a residential area. The intensity of a gas
pump is, I think is going to destabilize this area to some degree. The commercial aspect
of it, I don't believe is really needed in this area. So, I will be voting against this
application. I don't believe that even remodeling the building is going to quite do that.
Dorothy Wood: Mr. Waller.
John Waller: I agree with Will. I don't think putting gas pumps or anything you do that
to that building is going to help that site at all. It's a nice piece of land. Good location.
It's the wrong building. It's the wrong use for it. I'm going to vote against it.
William Din: I would like to make a motion that we deny this application.
John Waller: I'll second the motion.
AYE 5 NAY 4 ABS 0 ABSENT 2
ANDERSON AYE
CRABTREE NAY
DIN AYE
Item # 15
K & Sons, Inc.
Page 9
HORSLEY ABSENT
KASTIAS AYE
KNIGHT NAY
MILLER ABSENT
RIPLEY NAY
STRANGE AYE
WALLER NAY
WOOD AYE
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 5-4, the Board has denied the application of K & Sons, Inc.
In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6204
TO: Leslie L. Lilley
FROM: B. Kay Wilso 0
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
DATE: November 10, 2005
DEPT: City Attorney
DEPT: City Attorney
RE: Conditional Zoning Application; K & Son's, Inc.
The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the
City Council on November 22, 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
K & SON'S, INC., a Virginia corporation
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 K &
SON'S, INC., a Virginia corporation, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of a two (2) parcels of property located
in the Kempsville District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately
30,341 square feet of land which are more particularly described as Parcels 1 and
2 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said
parcels are herein referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor 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 modify the PDH-1 Land Use Plan with a B-2 Commercial
Designation applicable to the Property to permit the sale of gasoline; 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
GPIN: 1465-89-6856
1465-89-5885 (Part)
PREPARED BY:
C SYKES, BOURDON,
f#HHERN & LEVY. P.C.
1
PREPARED BY.
SULS, R(O JRDON,
El AILRN & LL1r'. P.C.
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 Grantor's
rezoning application gives rise; and
WHEREAS, Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and
prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed
modification to the PDH-1 Land Use Plan applicable to the Property in addition to
the regulations provided for the PDH-1 and B-2 Zoning Districts 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, 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 Grantor, its successors, personal
representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title:
1. When the Property is redeveloped, in order to achieve a more
coordinated design and development on the site in terms of vehicular access,
parking and landscape buffering, the "K & SON'S INC. GAS AND PUMP
ADDITION AND REVITALIZATION PLAN", dated 3/1/2003 revised 5/2/2005,
prepared by The Spectra Group, Inc., which has been exhibited to the Virginia
E
PREPARED BY:
3 SYKES. BOURDON.
I ANFRN & LEVY. P.C.
Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning
("Revitalization Plan") shall be substantially adhered to.
2. When the Property is redeveloped, three (3) gasoline pumps shall be
added as depicted on the Revitalization Plan and the architectural design,
materials and colors of the canopy will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit
entitled "LUKOIL - Pleasant Valley," prepared by Pro Signs, which has been
exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach
Department of Planning ("Canopy Elevation").
3. When the Property is redeveloped, the existing freestanding sign
shall be replaced with a monument style freestanding sign no greater than eight
feet (8') in height with a base of split -face block painted to match that on the
existing building. The exterior surfaces of the masonry (split -face block) walls of
the existing building shall be painted a light, earth tone color. The existing
dumpster shall also be relocated and screened as depicted on the Revitalization
Plan.
4. When the Property is redeveloped, the existing entrances on to the
Property from Indian Lakes Boulevard shall be consolidated and relocated as
depicted on the Revitalization Plan. All lighting on the site shall be consistent
with those standards recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society of
North America (IESNA). A photometric lighting plan indicating the number and
types of lighting will be submitted as part of the formal site plan submission for
review by the Planning Department to determine consistency with Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and practices.
Lighting shall be installed and operated as shown on the approved plan. All
lighting shall be directed inward and downward within the site.
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 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
3
PREPARED BY:
SULS. ROURDON.
=RN & LEVY, P.C.
shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if
the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new
or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The
conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of
recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by
the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a
resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing
before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section
15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or
resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of
such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void.
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, 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
M
PREPARED BY:
11 SYKES, BOURDON.
A}IERN & LEVY, P.C.
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 Grantor and
the Grantee.
5
PREPARED BY:
10 SYKES, ROURDON.
11 AURN & LEVY. P.C.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
3iG F.A110 91
K 8v Son's, Inc., a Virginia corporation
By: (SEAL)
Khalid Saeed, President
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this lst day of June,
2005, by Khalid Saeed, President, K 8v Son's, Inc., a Virginia corporation,
Grantor.
My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006
4,6( ! .Kt i
11-2
Notary Public
6
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCELI:
ALL that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, together with the buildings and
improvements thereon, situate, and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia,
being known, numbered and designated as Parcel C-1-13 as shown on that certain
plat entitled "Subdivision of Parcel C-1, Map Book 181, Page 24, Kempsville
Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia", made by Waterway Surveyors and Engineering,
Ltd., dated January 6, 1987 and last revised on April 2, 1987, which said plat is
duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, in Deed Book 2637, at Page 1808, reference to which plat is hereby made
for a more particular description of the property.
GPIN: 1465-89-6856
PARCEL 2:
Part of that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, lying, situate and being in the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Parcel C-
I -1 as shown on that certain plat entitled, "Subdivision of Parcel C-1, Map Book
181, Page 24, Kempsville Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia", made by Waterway
Surveyors and Engineering, Ltd., dated January 6, 1987 and last revised on April 2,
1987, which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 2637, at Page 1808, containing
6262 square feet as depicted on the plan entitled "K 8s Son's, Inc. Gas Pumps
Addition and Revitalization Plan", prepared by The Spectra Group, Inc., dated
3/ 1/2005.
GPIN: 1465-89-5885 (Part)
CONDITIONALRZONE/ SAEED/ PROFFER
PREPARED BY:
IM SYKES.IIOURDON,
IN ANERN & LEIS'. P.C.
7
Modification of Proffers
Cp41A BEq `7
Yam- o
'1.
{lit mbl
`�`fflas.�ex
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Donald G. Pratt — Modification of Proffers
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Donald G. Pratt for a Modification of Proffers
from the Conditional Change of Zoning from granted by the City Council on April
11, 2000 on property located at 2244 General Booth Boulevard (GPIN
24140665720000). The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being a part
of the Primary Residential Area -South General Booth Corridor, suitable for
appropriately located suburban residential and non-residential uses consistent
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this modification is
to develop an additional office building on this site. DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS
ANNE
■ Considerations:
The Conditional Rezoning from R-20 Residential District to 0-1 Office District
was approved by the City Council on November 23, 1993 with seven (7) proffers.
Proffer 6 relates to the original plan which called for the existing two-story barn to
be removed and is requested for modification because the applicant proposes to
keep the two-story structure and add to it. Additionally, Proffer 3 no longer is
relevant since the property to the north was rezoned in 1995 from R-20
Residential District to 0-1 Office District.
Since the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant has amended the
proffer agreement to include a new proffer #6 requiring privacy fencing along the
southern property line adjacent to the residential property. This was added at the
request of the adjacent property owner.
The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's
recommendations for this area. The proposal is compatible with the adjacent
residential neighborhood as well as the business areas. The existing two-story
structure is located to the rear of the property and is not obtrusive from the street.
A two-story addition using similar materials and design to the Gambrel roof
portion of the structure would be appropriate.
Donald G. Pratt
Page 2 of 2
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because
conditions have changed surrounding this site, the neighbors concerns were
alleviated and the proposed site plan changes are appropriate.
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to
approve this request, as proffered.
■ Attachments:
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.
� V
' �l
DONALD G. PRATT
Agenda Item # 1
October 12, 2005 Public Hearing
Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo
REQUEST:
Modification of Proffers from the Conditional
Change of Zoning from granted by the City
Council on November 23, 1993.
K-" nee Donald G. Pratt
'R-
Cl-
a %
0
3P d
Q R-2o
R-20 AR
2L''�i R-2,
(��
Modification of Proffers
ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located 2244 General Booth Boulevard.
GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE:
24140665720000 7 — PRINCESS ANNE 41,991 square feet
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The Conditional Rezoning from R-20 Residential District to 0-1 Ofice District was approved by the City
Council on November 23, 1993. The Conditional Rezoning has seven (7) proffers:
1. The Property shall only be used for the following principle uses and their accessory uses and
structures:
a. Business offices;
b. Medical and dental offices and clinics and laboratory; legal, engineering, architectural and
other professional offices; accounting and bookkeeping offices;
c. Florist retail.
2. Access to the Property from General Booth Boulevard shall be in accordance with the Deed of
Easement and Agreement dated December 16, 1991 and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach in Deed Book 3055 at Page 2018.
3. Landscaped buffer areas shall be maintained along the northern property line of Property to
screen the structure and the parking lot so long as the adjacent property is zoned for residential
use. The buffer areas shall be ten feet (10') in width for the length of the structure and parking lot.
4. Lighting on the Property shall be directed inward and not toward surrounding property.
5. The existing residential structure shall be maintained and exterior improvements of any structure
located on the Property will be constructed and maintained in a manner aesthetically compatible
with adjoining residential uses and with Nimmo Church.
6. The Property shall be developed in accordance with the Site Plan filed with the Planning
Department entitled "Rezoning Exhibit Property of Donald G. & Sandra Pratt' dated September
14, 1993, prepared by Talbot Group and exhibited before the Planning Commission.
7. Further conditions maybe required by the Grantee during detailed site plan and/or subdivision
review and administration of applicable city codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments
to meet all applicable city code requirements.
Proffer 6 relates to the original plan which called for the existing two-story barn to be removed and is
requested for modification because the applicant proposes to keep the two-story structure and add to it.
Additionally, Proffer 3 no longer is relevant since the property to the north was rezoned in 1995 from R-20
Residential District to 0-1 Office District.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: One single family home and a two-story barn on site.
SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single family dwelling / 0-1 Office District
USE AND ZONING: South: . Single family dwelling/ R-20 Residential District
East: . Undeveloped land / Ag-2 Agricultural District
West: . Across General Booth Boulevard is Crescent Apartments
multifamily residential and two single family home sites / A-18
Apartment District and R-20 Residential District
NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is currently residential. There are no cultural features or
CULTURAL FEATURES: significant natural resources.
AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana.
IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES
MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): General
Booth Boulevard in the vicinity of this site is a four lane divided minor urban arterial.
TRAFFIC:
Street Name
Present Volume
Present Ca acity
Generated Traffic
General
36,382 ADT
14,800 ADT (Level of
Existing Land Use —
Booth
Service "C")
19 ADT
Boulevard
22,800 ADT' (Level of
Proposed Land Use s
Service "D")
— 330 ADT
27,400 ADT' (Level of
Service "E"
Average Daily Trips
Zas defined by existing residential use
as defined by office use
WATER: This site currently connects to an existing 16" water main on General Booth Boulevard. This site has
an existing 5/8" meter (meter # 9504990) which may be upgraded.
SEWER: This site currently has a septic tank and field. There is an existing 6" sanitary force main located on
General Booth Boulevard. City gravity sanitary sewer is not available. Health Department approval is required
for septic systems. Private grinder pumps and force main may be an option. If flows enter an existing pump
station area, analysis of the pump station and the sanitary pump collection system is required to ensure flows
can be accommodated.
SCHOOLS: Not applicable
FIRE: The Fire Department has no concerns with the concept of leaving the existing structures and rehabbing
into offices as long as appropriate permits are obtained. The proposed site plan shows the rear structure
greater than 150 feet from General Booth Boulevard, which requires a turn around for fire apparatus or
emergency equipment.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this site to be within the Primary Residential Area, Site 4.2 Nimmo
Parkway / General Booth Intersection Area. Proposed development within the Primary Residential Area
should focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic
quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. Within this particular area, "Future land use, site
design and building architecture should complement the historic character of the area as defined by
Nimmo Church." (p.106)
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this
request with the modified proffers submitted by the applicant. The proffers are provided below.
The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The
proposal is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood as well as the business areas. The
existing two-story structure is located to the rear of the property and is not obtrusive from the street. A
two-story addition using similar materials and design to the Gambrel roof portion of the structure would be
appropriate.
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, it shall be developed substantially as shown on exhibit entitled "Preliminary
Layout Exhibit A General Booth Office Building" dated July 27, 2005, prepared by Site Improvements
Associates, Inc., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia
Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan").
PROFFER 2:
The use of the property shall be limited to (a) business offices; (b) medical and dental offices and clinics and
laboratory; legal, engineering, architectural, and other professional offices; accounting and bookkeeping
offices; and (c) florist retail; all in accordance with a conditional zoning duly approved by the City Council of
the City of Virginia Beach.
PROFFER 3:
Access to the Property from General Booth Boulevard shall be in accordance with the Deed of Easement
and Agreement dated 16, 1991, and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of
Virginia Beach, in Deed Book 3055, at page 2018.
PROFFER 4:
Lighting on the Property shall be directed inward and not toward surrounded property.
PROFFER 5:
The existing residential structure shall be maintained and exterior improvements of any structure located on
the Property will be constructed and maintained in a manner aesthetically compatible with the adjoining
residential uses and with Nimmo Church.
PROFFER 6:
Provide privacy fencing along the southern property line adjacent to the residential property.
PROFFER 7:
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.
D G. PRATT
nda Item # 1
Page 4
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated September 22, 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.
i
b
9
0
wr.siw
*
• r'* N rur
d
awrrwi*s
BOOK mmar Kw
owst m 4).
r. f
* THE SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR THIS PROPERTY 1S RMVft " N KS. 162, PG. S. EXHIBT A
* IN -MNSUBDIVISION. ^s PRELIMINARY' LAYOUT
2244 GENERAL BOOTH BLVD. /
* GPIN # 2414-0—6572-00D0 / GENERALBOOTH OFFICE BUILDING
* ZONtNG: 0-1-(CONDITIONAL REZONED 11-23-93) VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
WE &MOVl9u M A AT NO. SCALE: I" = 40, DATE: 07-27-05
188 I P, � s ITE 100 40 20 0 40 80
Y1 MtA BEACH, VA. 23"2 11
wow / (7M M-M FAX (M M-. 1
as�oa scale feet
1
05/25/99
Conditional Rezoning from AG-1, AG-2 & R-20
to A-18 Apartment District
Granted
2
08/08/95
Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to 0-1 Office
District
G ranted
3
11/23/93
Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to 0-1 Office
District
4
08/25/92
Subdivision Variance
-Granted
Granted
5
01/28/92
Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to 0-1 Office
District
Granted
6
06/25/90 1
Conditional Use Permit for a church addition
Granted
7
04/25/88 1
Street closure
Granted
ZONING HI
DISCLOSURE
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other
unincorporated organization, complete the following:
t. List the applicant 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 entity2
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
rAI 3
Check here if 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:
I . List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members,
trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary)
"l . 4+
2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
W
! Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm,
business, or other unincorporated organization.
See next page for footnotes
Modif tion of GondiWns Appkation
Page 10 of 11
Revised W1 t2004
ISURE 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) �1-
WCOJS L01(11 AV44� , I i I (", I Y Y4 ry I t
' "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 .
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 .
TION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and
I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been
schedul for public hearing, I sible for obtaining and posting the required
onl
sign
rr su t ;�bje �rope ;q eas 0 days prior to the scheduled public hearing
ns 6116 - package-
rdi� o ns �F!
Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant)
Modification of Conditions Application
Page 11 of1l
Revised 9M/2004
Print Name
Do I Rutf
Print Name
K-01
=1
doom
LD G. PRATT
enda Item # I
Page 10
Item # 1
Donald G. Pratt
Modification of Proffers
2244 General Booth Boulevard
District 7
Princess Anne
October 12, 2005
CONSENT
Dorothy Wood: The next order of business will be the consent items. The Vice Chair
will handle this portion of the agenda. Mr. Din.
William Din: Thank you Ms. Wood. Today we have eight items on our consent agenda.
As I call each of the items, will the representative for each of the items come forward to
the podium, please state your name, your relationship to the application, and if there are
conditions related to that item, please state that you've read them and you agree with
them. My first item that -I have is Item #1, Donald G. Pratt. This is request for a
Modification of Proffers from a Conditional Change of Zoning that was made on
November 23, 1993 on property located at 2244 General Booth Boulevard, Princess Anne
District. Yes sir. Welcome.
Donald Pratt: Good afternoon. My name is Donald Pratt. I'm the owner at 2244 General
Booth Boulevard property. I've read the proffers and I understand them and agree with
them.
William Din: Thank you Mr. Pratt.
Donald Pratt: Yes sir. Thanks.
William Din: Is there any objection to placing this item on the consent agenda. If not, we
generally explain why we have explained these items on consent agenda.
Karen Prochilo: We are going to add one proffer to that and they are aware of that.
William Din: Okay. Thank you Karen. That is correct. They have added one proffer to
make a total of seven proffers. The applicant has added the additional proffer. As I was
saying, we generally explain why we have placed these items on consent agenda and
today explaining Item #1 is Don Horsley.
Donald Horsley: Thank you Will. As I recollect back, I think I was on Planning
Commission back in 1993 when this was originally brought forth. It was passed with the
conditions. But the applicant is asking to adjust some of those conditions. Condition #3
is no longer needed because of the property adjacent has been rezoned so that is fine to
delete that. The barn that is associated in Proffer #6 was to have been removed, the
Item #1
Donald G. Pratt
Page 2
applicant wishes to change that proffer because he is planning on doing some work to the
barn and adding on to it, so Proffer #6 will be a site plan change reflecting that. And, also
it was mentioned the adjacent R-20 property, the one it is in buffering and this is a proffer
that will have to be added before Council that states that a six foot high buffer will need
to be put between this property and the R-20 property next door. And that has to be done
before it gets to Council. I think the applicant is aware of that with the neighbor. So,
there was no objection from the community, and staff recommended approval so that was
the reason why we put it on the consent agenda for today.
William Din: Thank you Don. I'd like to make a motion to approve the following
consent item. Item #1 is Donald G. Pratt. A Modification of Proffers previously
approved on November 23, 1993 located at 2244 General Booth Boulevard in the
Princess Anne District. Do I have a second for that?
Donald Horlsey: Second.
William Din: Thank you Don.
AYE 10
ANDERSON
AYE
CRABTREE
AYE
DIN
AYE
HORSLEY
AYE
KATSIAS
AYE
KNIGHT
AYE
MILLER
RIPLEY
AYE
STRANGE
AYE
WALLER
AYE
WOOD
AYE
NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1
ABSENT
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, the Board has approved Item #1 for consent.
2
9 0"
OUR NAZ��N
S
In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6300
TO: Leslie L. Lilley
FROM: B. Kay Wilsone6u�
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
DATE: November 10, 2005
DEPT: City Attorney
DEPT: City Attorney
RE: Conditional Zoning Application; Donald G. Pratt
The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the
City Council on November 22, 2005. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated
September 22, 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
Thb Document Prepared by:
Fiae, Fine, T,egum & McCracken, T.LP
THIS AGREEMENT made this 22nd day of September, 2005 by and between
DONALD G. PRATT. Property Owner, herein referred to as Grantor, party of the first part; and
THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, Grantee, party of the second part.
_WIINESSETH:
WHEREAS, Property Owner is the owner of certain parcels of property located in the
Princess Anne district of the City of Virginia Beach, more particularly described as follows:
See Exhibit "A"
said parcels hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated a conditional amendment to the zoning map of the
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning
Classification of the Property from R-20 to 0-1, having been previously rezoned by agreement
dated June 10, 1993 duly recorded on November 29, 1993, in Deed Book 3307, at page 417; 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 uses conflict and that in order to permit different types of uses
on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will
GPIN No.2414-06-6572-0000
Page 1 of 6
Owner's Initials
be created by the Grantor's proposed rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use
of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land
similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application
gives rise; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing; in advance of and prior to
the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map
with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical
development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the
Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the
rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns,
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
fro cuq 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, Grantee, and other successors in interest or title:
l . When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the
exhibit entitled "Preliminary layout Exhibit A General Booth Office Building", dated July 27, 2005
prepared by Site Improvement Associates, Inc., which has been exhibited to Virginia i
Page 2 of 6
's Initials
Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan").
2. The use of the Property shall be limited to (a) business offices; (b) medical and dental
offices and clinics and laboratory; legal, engineering, architectural and other professional offices;
accounting and bookkeeping offices; and (c) florist retail; all in accordance with a conditional zoning
duly approved by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach.
3. Access to the Property from General Booth Boulevard shall be in accordance with the
Deed of Easement and Agreement dated December 16, 1991, and recorded in the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, in Deed Book 3055, at page 2018.
4. Lighting on the Property shall be directed inward and not toward surrounded property.
The existing residential structure shall be maintained and exterior improvements of any
structure located on the Property will be constructed and maintained in a manner aesthetically
compatible with adjoining residential uses and with Nimmo Church.
6. Provide privacy fencing along the southern property line adjacent to the residential
property.
7. 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 the 0-1 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations
applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this agreement by City Council,
which are by this reference incorporated herein.
The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by
the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall c ue in ful fo
Page 3 of 6
er's Initials
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 CIerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record
owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that such
instrument is consented to by 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 Grantors covenant and agree that:
(1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia shall be vested
with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the
authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied, and
(b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory
t
or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding;
(2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictionsZshaticonstittune o deny
Page 4 of 6Owners Initials f
the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate;
(3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these
provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to
instituting proceedings in court; and
(4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of
conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be
made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning
Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the
Grantor and the Grantee,
WITNESS the followin
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGRQA BEACH, to -wit:
1, / f / < <, � e 4 // / f -e— , a Notary Public in and for the City and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that Jonald G. Pratt, whose name is signed to the foregoing
instrument dated the 22nd day of September, 2005 did personally appear before me in my City
and State aforesaid and acknowledge the same before me.
GIVEN under my hand and seal this ZIday of October, 2005
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Page 5 of 6
uwner•s initials
Exhibit "A"
ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia
Beach, Virginia, near Nimmo Church, numbered and designated as Lot A, upon that certain plat
entitled, "Subdivision of Property, Charles C. Hickman, et ux, D.B. 482, P. 21, M.B. 25 P. 70,
Princess Anne Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Scale 1" = 100', September 24, 1971, W. B.
Gallup, Surveyor," said lot being of the size and dimension as shown on said plat, which is duly
of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in
Map Book 88, at Page 45, to which reference is hereby made for a more particular description for
the land herein conveyed.
Page 6 of 6
Owner's Initials
Map G-4
M�p Not to William Pa .
Subdivision Variance
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: William L. Page — Subdivision Variance
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background:
Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the
Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for William L. Page. Property is located at
1544 West Little Neck Road (GPINs 14895035590000; 14895046060000).
DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN
■ Considerations:
It is the intent of the applicant to vacate the property line of two adjacent
properties, remove the existing single family home that is in the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Area Resource Protection Area (RPA) then re -subdivide to create
two new lots of more equal size. Both proposed lots will meet the minimum
square footage requirement of 40,000 square feet outside of water, marsh,
wetlands and the floodway portion of the floodplain. The applicant intends to then
build one single family dwelling on each newly created lot.
One (1) of the two existing lots does meet the minimum square footage
requirement of 40,000 square feet. Neither existing lot meets the minimum lot
width requirement of 125 feet. One of the existing parcels (Parcel One) is
64904.4 square feet with a lot frontage of 122.05 feet. The other existing parcel
(Parcel Two) is 21,576.6 square feet with a lot frontage of 42.58 feet.
The proposal provides evidence of a hardship created by the physical character
of the property including dimensions and topography justifying the granting of a
variance to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The authorization of
the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the
character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. Both of the
proposed parcels will meet the minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet for R-40
zoning, which is in keeping with the surrounding properties.
Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because this
request will result in lots that are in keeping with the surrounding area.
■ Recommendations:
William L. Page
Page 2 of 2
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to
approve this request with the following conditions:
1. The parcels shall be subdivided and recorded as depicted on the plan entitled
"Proposed Subdivision Property of Doris Ellen Harvey Lambert" prepared by
The Spectra Group dated 06/30/05.
2. No development for either principal structure or any accessory structure
excluding water dependent facilities shall occur within the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Area Resource Protection Area (RPA). All structures for
Proposed Lots A and B shall be placed landward of the variable buffer (100'
top of bank) depicted on the submitted plan identified in Condition #1 above.
3. Provide a site plan for demolition of the existing residence along with erosion
and sediment control plan on how the area will be restored.
■ Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency:
City Manager: 1�
V
Planning Department'
WILLIAM L. PAGE
Agenda Item # 2
OCTOBER 12, 2005 Public Hearing
Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo
REQUEST:
Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the
Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly
created lots to meet all the requirements of
the City Zoning Ordinance.
William L. Ya e
QR-40
1YNfilF�FLIJ-= _ �'
`f40 R-AO
-� R-40
R 40
D
Subdivision Variance
ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Properties located at 1544 West Little Neck Road and 185 feet west of Little
Neck Point.
GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE:
14895035590000 5 — LYNNHAVEN Parcel One: 1.49 acres
14895046060000 Parcel Two: 0.51 acres
Total Site: 2 acres or 87,120 SF
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
It is the intent of the applicant to vacate the property line of two adjacent properties, remove the existing
single family home that is in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Resource Protection Area (RPA)
then re -subdivide to create two new lots of more equal size.
Existing Lots:
One (1) of the two existing lots does meet the minimum square footage requirement of 40,000 square
feet. Neither existing lot meets the minimum lot width requirement of 125 feet. One of the existing parcels
(Parcel One) is 64904.4 square feet with a lot frontage of 122.05 feet. The other existing parcel (Parcel
Two) is 21,576.6 square feet with a lot frontage of 42.58 feet.
Proposed Lots:
The applicant proposes to recreate two lots of more equal area by re -subdividing the existing two lots.
The applicant shall then build one single family dwelling on each newly created lot.
Both proposed lots will meet the minimum square footage requirement of 40,000 square feet outside of
water, marsh, wetlands and the floodway portion of the floodplain.
WILLIAM L. PAGE
Agenda Item # 2
Page 1
1WM
e9quiW
LQt..A
LQt@
Lot Width in feet
125 feet
144.5 feet
20.13 feet*
Lot Area in square feet
40,000 SF
40,952 SF
44,526 SF
*Variance required
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: One site with a single family dwelling and one undeveloped site
SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single-family dwellings / R-40 Residential District
USE AND ZONING: South: . Across West Little Neck Road, single-family dwellings / R-40
Residential District
East: • Across from the Lynnhaven River, single-family dwellings / R-
40 Residential District
West: . Single-family dwellings/ R-40 Residential District
NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. A portion of the
CULTURAL FEATURES: property lies with in the Resource Protection Area (RPA), the more
stringently regulated portion of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area.
No new development is planned for the RPA. The existing lots are
wooded with tidal wetlands along the shoreline.
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): West
Little Neck Road is a two lane undivided residential street. There are no plans to upgrade this facility at
this time.
TRAFFIC:
Street Name
Present
Volume
Present Capacity
Generated Traffic
Little Neck Road
500 ADT
6,200 ADT
Existing Land Use —
10 ADT
Proposed Land Use 3-
20 ADT
Average Daily Trips
s as defined by one single family dwelling
3 as defined by two single family dwellings
WATER: The site must connect to City water. There is an 8 inch City water line in West Little Neck Road
fronting the site.
SEWER: There is currently a City CIP in this area for the installation of a vacuum sanitary sewer that will front
this site. The site must connect to City vacuum sanitary sewer when it becomes available. Sanitary sewer and
pump station analysis is required to determine if flows can be accommodated.
FIRE and RESCUE: All minimum requirements of the building code and fire code must be met. Provide an all
weather road surface for fire department access to within 150 feet of structure. Fire hydrant shall be within 500
feet of residential structure. Minimum fire lane width to be not less than 20 feet under some condition greater
width will be required by the authority having jurisdiction.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan designates this neighborhood as a 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. The established type, size and relationship of land use, both residential and non-residential,
in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development.
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states:
No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that:
A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship.
B. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected.
C. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably
practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the
ordinance.
D. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions
and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by
the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-
inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance.
E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is
located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance.
Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials does provide
evidence of a hardship created by the physical character of the property including dimensions and
topography justifying the granting of a variance to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The
authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of
the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. Both of the proposed parcels will meet the minimum lot
size of 40,000 square feet for R-40 zoning, which is in keeping with the surrounding properties.
Staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions.
CONDITIONS
1. The parcels shall be subdivided and recorded as depicted on the plan entitled "Proposed Subdivision
Property of Doris Ellen Harvey Lambert" prepared by The Spectra Group dated 06/30/05.
2. No development for either principal structure or any accessory structure excluding water dependent
facilities shall occur within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Resource Protection Area (RPA).
All structures for Proposed Lots A and B shall be placed landward of the variable buffer (100' top of
bank) depicted on the submitted plan identified in Condition #1 above.
3. Provide a site plan for demolition of the existing residence along with erosion and sediment control
plan on how the area will be restored.
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
M1
40,
an unu am ilaw
•ar a 4 a
xaw
r
r
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
AA"4% /_-A
Subdivision Variance
TTf'17• T 71h
1
06/08/05
Subdivision Variance
Granted
2
07/05/83
Subdivision Variance
Denied
11 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)
N/A
2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity,2
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
N/A
0 Check here if 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)
N/A
2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary or affiliated business entity2
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
N/A
1731 Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm,
business, or other unincorporated organization.
i & 2 See next page for footnotes
Subdivision Variance Application
Page 10 of 11
Revised: 911 C2004
W
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)
The Spectra Group, Inc.
Billy Garrington
1 "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.
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, (4) 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 public hearing
according to the instructions in t e. packag
William L. Page
Applicant's Signature Print Name
Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name
k S(-,C ATrkfiChi f-AVCRASt,t_yj'gA47
Subdivision Variance Application
Page 11 of 11
Revised 9,1r2004
MW
I
Aft Am
Item #2
William L. Page
Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in
Regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance
1544 West Little Neck Road
District 5
Lynnhaven
October 12, 2005
CONSENT
William Din: Our next item on consent is William L. Page. This is a subdivision
variance request for property located at 1544 West Little Neck Road in the Lynnhaven
District and there are three conditions associated with this item.
Billy Garrington: Thank you Ms. Wood and ladies and gentlemen of the Planning
Commission. For the record, I'm Billy Garrington. I'm a local consultant here on behalf
of the applicant Mr. William Page to ask for approval of this subdivision variance on
property located at West Little Neck Road. In the staff write up, there are three
conditions attached to this request. We're in total agreement with all three conditions.
William Din: Thank you Mr. Garrington. Is there any objection to placing this item on
consent? If not, Ms. Katsias will explain this item.
Kathy Katsias: This property is located at 1544 West Little Neck Road. It consists of two
lots. One lot is 1.49 acres and the other lot is a'/z acre. It is the intent of the applicant to
vacate the property line and remove the existing single-family house that is in
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area and then resubdivide the lot to create two new lots of
equal size. By vacating these lots each lot will be approximately 40,000 square feet,
which will be conformed to the R-40 zoning, which is keeping in with the surrounding
areas. Staff recommends this application and with three conditions. Therefore, we placed
it on the consent agenda.
William Din: Thank you Kathy. I'd like to make a motion to approve the following
consent item. Item #2 is William L. Page. This is a request for Subdivision Variance on
property located at 1544 West Little Neck Road in the Lynnhaven District with three
conditions.
Donald Horlsey: Second.
AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1
ANDERSON AYE
CRABTREE AYE
DIN AYE
Item #2
William L. Page
Page 2
HORSLEY
AYE
KATSIAS
AYE
KNIGHT
AYE
MILLER
RIPLEY
AYE
STRANGE
AYE
WALLER
AYE
WOOD
AYE
ABSENT
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, the Board has approved Item #2 for consent.
Map D-7
4_11.�s 1141.
Mijo "~coch io Tnttnn TV
.�lot__ ME
- IN
N
pan aeq n
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Blue Horseshoe Tattoo V, Ltd. — Conditional Use Permit (tattoo and body
piercing establishment)
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Blue Horseshoe Tattoo V, Ltd. for a
Conditional Use Permit for a tattoo and body piercing establishment on property
located at 71-125 South Witchduck Road (GPIN 14677377570000). DISTRICT 2
— KEMPSVILLE
■ Considerations:
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a tattoo and body -
piercing establishment. The applicant currently operates a tattoo and body -
piercing establishment on London Bridge Road and is aware of State and City
requirements regarding the use. The applicant plans to occupy a 4,700 square
foot unit in the existing center and will employ four tattoo artists. The proposed
hours of operation are Monday through Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. and
Sunday, 10:00 a.m. to Midnight. The applicant will also have body jewelry, silver
goods, and clothing for sale in the unit.
The conditional use permit request to operate a tattoo and body -piercing
establishment in an existing retail space does not present any land use concerns
that depart noticeably from the Comprehensive Plan policies established for this
portion of Strategic Growth Area 4, specifically, the West Pembroke sub -area.
The proposed establishment meets the requirements of the City Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to tattoo and body piercing establishments.
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because they
felt that it is an appropriate use for the site, staff recommended approval and
there was no opposition to the request.
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to
approve this request with the following conditions:
The conditional use permit for a tattoo and body -piercing establishment is
approved for a period of one year, with an administrative review every year
Blue Horseshoe V, Ltd.
Page 2 of 2
thereafter.
2. A business license shall not be issued to the applicant without the approval of
the Health Department for consistency with the provisions of Chapter 23 of
the City Code.
3. No signage more than four (4) square feet of the entire glass area of the
exterior wall(s) shall be permitted on the windows. There shall be no other
signs, including neon signs or neon accents installed on any wall area of the
exterior of the building, windows and / or doors.
4. The actual tattooing / body piercing operation on a customer shall not be
visible from any public right-of-way adjacent to the establishment.
5. The hours of operation shall be 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday, and 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sunday.
6. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for the change of use in
the unit from the Building Code Official.
■ Attachments:
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.r
�'� L
r
BLUE HORSESHOE
TATTOO V, LTD.
Agenda Item # 3
October 12, 2005 Public Hearing
Staff Planner: Faith Christie
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit for a tattoo and body -
piercing establishment
CUP - Tattoo & Body Piercing Establishment
ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 71-125 South Witchduck Road
GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE:
14677377570000 2 - KEMPSVILLE 4,700 square feet
u
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a SUMMARY OF REQUEST
tattoo and body -piercing establishment. The applicant currently
operates a tattoo and body -piercing establishment on London Bridge Road and is aware of State and City
requirements regarding the use. The applicant plans to occupy a 4,700 square foot unit in the existing
center. The center was constructed in 1977 and has split zoning of B-2 Business and 1-1 Industrial. Uses
fronting Witchduck Road include roofing, window, satellite T.V., hot tub, and kitchen showrooms and
offices. A beauty shop and hot dog stand also occupy the front of the center. To the rear of the site are
office and warehouse uses. The applicant will employ four tattoo artists in the unit. The proposed hours of
operation are Monday through Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. and Sunday, 10:00 a.m. to Midnight.
The applicant will also have body jewelry, silver goods, and clothing for sale in the unit.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: A retail and serivice oriented strip commercial center.
SURROUNDING LAND North: . Norfolk and Southern Railroad right-of-way
USE AND ZONING: South: . Interstate 264
East: . Witchduck Road
• Across Witchduck Road are service oriented uses / 1-1 and 1-2
Industrial
West: . Interstate 264
BLUE HORSESHOE
NATURAL RESOURCE AND There are no natural resources or cultural features associated with the
CULTURAL FEATURES: 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):
Witchduck Road in front of this application is a four -lane divided minor urban arterial facility. The
Witchduck Road Phase II Roadway Improvements project, which will widen Witchduck Road in front of
this site to six lanes, is currently in the design stage and is scheduled to begin construction in 2009.
TRAFFIC:
Street Name
Present
Volume
Present Capacity
Generated Traffic
Witchduck Road
44,043 ADT
27,400 ADT
Existing Land Use —
Unknown
Proposed Land Use 3 -
200
Average Daily Trips
s as defined by unknown
3as defined by specialty retail
WATER and SEWER: The site is connected to city water and sewer.
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Strategic Growth Area #4. The Pembroke Strategic Growth Area consists of many tracts of land that differ
widely in land use type, intensity, character and value.
Staff recommends approval of this EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
request subject to the conditions
listed below. The conditional use permit request to operate a tattoo and body -piercing establishment in an
existing retail space does not present any land use concerns that depart noticeably from the
Comprehensive Plan policies established for this portion of Strategic Growth Area 4, specifically, the West
Pembroke sub -area. The proposed establishment meets the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance,
Section 242.1. The applicant is aware of the Health Department requirements for the operation.
CONDITIONS
BLUE HORSESHOE
1. The conditional use permit for a tattoo and body -piercing establishment is approved for a period of one
year, with an administrative review every year thereafter.
2. A business license shall not be issued to the applicant without the approval of the Health Department
for consistency with the provisions of Chapter 23 of the City Code.
3. No signage more than four (4) square feet of the entire glass area of the exterior wall(s) shall be
permitted on the windows. There shall be no other signs, including neon signs or neon accents
installed on any wall area of the exterior of the building, windows and / or doors.
4. The actual tattooing / body piercing operation on a customer shall not be visible from any public right-
of-way adjacent to the establishment.
5. The hours of operation shall be 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 12:00 p.m. to
8:00 p.m. on Sunday.
6. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for the change of use in the unit from the Building
Code Official.
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.
BLUE HORSESHOE
TOO V, LTD
nda Item #3
Page 3
AERIAL OF SITE
BLUE HORSESHOE
s
7
PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
BLUE HORSESHOE
7
PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
BLUE HORSESHOE
EXISTING BUILDING
BLUE HORSESHOE
Mn.n 1�7
CUP - lattoo & Body Piercing Establishment
I-f
1.
6/22/04
Street Closure
I.Approved
2.
2/12/02
Conditional Use Permit Communication Tower
Approved
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 th4 names of all officers, members, trustees,
partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary)
151"- 901--;0-5 it TA*Do 31, 1—T4
At. ff , A-cs;(Je-4-,
Zr, fX, W MAA1
2. List all businesses that have a parent-eiubsIdlary" or affiliated business entity'
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list ffnecessary)
Check here If the applicant is NOT a cdrporation, partnership, fin-n, business, or
other unincorporated organization.
PROPMY OWNER DISCLOSURE
Complete this voctfon only If property owner Is dftrent from applicant.
if the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other
unincorporated orgenitaflon, 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)
BeA-S-4- V,�"t-, 7co 4 &,- ! �A-e d E I I i - s
S4*-,3,-- L - P�4r-�Lcwls� M/j;/1
rw4�JY-,VA 23s-jo
2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity'
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list ff necessary)
CA-V4—
Check here if the property owner is Nora corporation, partnership, firm, business,
or other unincorporated organization.
I & 2 See ne$t page for footnotes
Zonculional Uee Parmft A.Ppilration
Page a or 10
Rvvis-d 9,1112004
�3
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
AODITJONAL DISCLOSURES
List all known contractors or busineisses 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 It
Mbwt- .
"Parent -subsidiary relationihip" means 'a relationship that exists when one
corporation airectly or inairseW owns snares possessing more than bu percent or ine
voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of
Intere%lis Act, Va. Code § 2.2-310I.1
2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means 'a relationship, other than
parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (1) one business entity has a
controlling ownership Interest In the other business entity, (il) a controlling owner in
one entity Is also a controlling owner In the other entity, or (111) them Is shared
management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be
considered in determining the axislance of an affillated business entity relationship
include that the same person or substantlielly the same person own or rnanage, 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.' Sae State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va.
Code S 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
schadud for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required
sign o%,the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing
accorAYng to the tqstrqbtlons In this package.
Print Name
- k b�Ll�ae_ CJ
Owner's Siqni:ik�dl different then applicanti Print Name
ConditkWmI Us& Permit AppiloalJon
P&gm, ?Oar? C,
ftv4sd WV2004
BLUE HORSESHOE
Item #3
Blue Horseshoe Tattoo V, Ltd.
Conditional Use Permit
71-125 South Witchduck Road
District 2
Kempsville
October 12, 2005
CONSENT
William Din: My next item is Item #3. This is Blue Horseshoe Tattoo V, Ltd. This is a
Conditional Use Permit request for a tattoo and body piercing establishment to be located
at 71-125 South Witchduck in the Kempsville District, and this has six conditions. Is
there a representative for this item? If not, can we move forward with this? I believe we
can, right?
Bill Macali: Yes sir. Sure.
William Din: There's no opposition. Is there any opposition to placing this item on
consent? Okay. If not, then Ms. Anderson will explain this item.
Janice Anderson: Thank you. This application is for a tattoo and body piercing facility.
The applicant already has an established business on London Bridge Road. The applicant
is familiar with the health regulations and has been in compliance with those. The
approval is based on six conditions. It will limit hours of operation. And actually this
new business is going to be located in an existing lease space, in a B-2 zoning area, and
the surrounding zoning off Witchduck Road is industrial. So the Commission believed
that it was an appropriate use and would recommend approval to Council.
William Din: Thank you Jan. I'd like to make a motion to approve the following
consent item. Item #3 is Blue Horseshoe Tattoo V, Ltd. This is a Conditional Use Permit
for a tattoo and body piercing establishment on property located at 71-125 South
Witchduck Road in the Kempsville District with six conditions.
Donald Horlsey: Second.
AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1
ANDERSON
AYE
CRABTREE
AYE
DIN
AYE
HORSLEY
AYE
KATSIAS
AYE
KNIGHT
AYE
MILLER
ABSENT
Item #3
Blue Horseshoe Tattoo V, Ltd.
Page 2
RIPLEY
AYE
STRANGE
AYE
WALLER
AYE
WOOD
AYE
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, the Board has approved Item #3 for consent.
CUP - Telecommunication Tower
rSry,.aR� ''Lv
1.., xa�:. ,. o✓ovl
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: SprintCom, Inc. — Conditional Use Permit (communications tower)
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of SprintCom, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit
for a communication tower on property located at 1000 North Great Neck Road
(GPIN 24081388720000). DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN
\� Considerations:
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow development of the site
for a communication tower and maintenance cabinets. The proposed tower and
maintenance cabinets are to be located in the northwestern portion of the site
adjacent to Princess Anne Memorial Cemetery. The proposed lease area is 58-
feet by 60-feet with a 20-foot access easement. The submitted site plan depicts
the required landscaping of Leyland Cypress trees and Burford Holly shrubs
around the proposed lease area. The proposed communication tower is a stealth
monopole type of an overall height of 130-feet. The proposed monopole will
accommodate three carriers.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of this request because the
applicant worked with staff and the adjacent neighborhoods to locate the
monopole tower in the least obtrusive area of the site. The applicant has
provided evidence of the need for additional coverage in the Great Neck area,
and has provided for additional carriers on the monopole. There was opposition
at the public hearing.
■ Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to
approve this request, with the following conditions:
1. The tower shall be constructed substantially in adherence to the site plans
entitled "Sprint, Virginia Beach Christian Life Center", prepared by Fullerton
Engineering Consultants, Inc., and dated 3/22/05. This site plan has been
exhibited to City Council and is on file with the Department of Planning.
2. The tower shall be limited in height to 130-feet.
SprintCom, Inc.
Page 2of2
3. The tower shall be constructed to accommodate equipment for two additional
wireless providers as depicted on the submitted site plans.
4. Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of
Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency
emissions study (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to
practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s)
will not interfere with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications
facilities, shall be provided prior to site plan approval for the tower and all
subsequent users.
5. In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities
arises from the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures
reasonably necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the
interference cannot be eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall
immediately cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference.
6. The applicant shall submit a tree protection plan for review and approval
before any disturbance of the site.
7. Should the antennae cease to be used for a period of more than one (1) year,
the applicant shall remove the antennae and their supporting tower and
related equipment.
8. All conditions of the conditional use permit approved for Virginia Beach
Christian Life Center, dated 10/14/03, shall remain in effect.
■ Attachments:
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: V � `��
SPRINTCOM, INC.
Agenda Item # 17
October 12, 2005 Public Hearing
Staff Planner: Faith Christie
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit for a Communication
Tower
ss s+► �� � tr � i
. � � x'"•r,y C Qi�� •<,.: AFL .
ICI ,.
ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 1000 North Great Neck Road
GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE:
24081388720000 5 - LYNNHAVEN 10,000 square feet
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow SUMMARY OF REQUEST
development of the site for a communication tower and
maintenance cabinets. The proposed tower and maintenance cabinets are to be located in the
northwestern portion of the site adjacent to Princess Anne Memorial Cemetery. The proposed lease area
is 58-feet by 60-feet with a 20-foot access easement. The submitted site plan depicts the required
landscaping of Leyland Cypress trees and Burford Holly shrubs around the proposed lease area. The
proposed communication tower is a stealth monopole type of an overall height of 130-feet. The proposed
monopole will accommodate three carriers.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: The Wave Church, formerly Virginia Beach Christian Life Center
SURROUNDING LAND North: 0 Princess Anne Memorial Park / R-10 Residential
USE AND ZONING: South: . Old Donation Parkway
• Across Old Donation Parkway are Single-family dwellings / R-
10 Residential
East: . Single-family dwellings / R-10 Residential
West: . Great Neck Road
Across Great Neck Road is Single-family dwellings / R-20
Residential
NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is wooded in several areas. The applicant has
SP
4. Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of Communications and
Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emissions study (RF Study), conducted by a
qualified engineer licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended
user(s) will not interfere with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities, shall be
provided prior to site plan approval for the tower and all subsequent users.
5. In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from the users of
this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and eliminate the
interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall
immediately cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference.
6. The applicant shall submit a tree protection plan for review and approval before any disturbance of the
site.
7. Should the antennae cease to be used for a period of more than one (1) year, the applicant shall
remove the antennae and their supporting tower and related equipment.
8. All conditions of the conditional use permit approved for Virginia Beach Christian Life Center, dated
10/14/03, shall remain in effect.
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.
S
_c
F d
�r
3
F �
b
� 4y�
th
ox
0 ix
oil
0 JIN
0
x
o H
0,9:1
II
0
0
0
0000000
XF
M�,Ww
I
PROPOSED SITE &
LANDSCAPE PLAN'
a
C
RY
1/12/67
Rezoning (R-R1 Rural Residential / R-S1 Residence Suburban to R-M
Withdrawn
Multiple -Family / C-L2 Limited Commercial)
1/13/69
Conditional Use Permit (Billboard)
Approved
6/9/75
Rezoning (R-5 Residential to R-9 Residential Townhouse)
Denied
4/26/76
Conditional Use Permit (Church)
Approved
8/9/82
Conditional Use Permit (Church Expansion)
Approved
5/21/84
Conditional Use Permit (Church Expansion)
Approved
7/13/93
Conditional Use Permit (Pre-school)
Approved
12/5/95
Conditional Use Permit (Church Expansion)
Approved
10/14/03
Conditional Use Permit Church Expansion)
1a.
11/14/66
Rezoning (R-S 3 Residence Suburban to C-L1 Limited Commercial)
Denied
5/15/78
Conditional Use Permit(Cemetery)
Approved
2.
9/14/93
Subdivision Variance
A roved
3.
7-7-92
Conditional Use Permit Pre-school
Approved
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated
organization, complete the fallowing:
1. Ust the applicant name "owed by the names of all officers, members, trustees,
partners, etc, below: (Attach list if necessary)
SprintCom, Inc. - See Attached List
Z. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entityz
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or
other unincorporated organization.
PIJOPERTY OWN DISCLOSURE
Complete this section only if property owner i different from applicant.
If the property owner is a c arporation, partner hip, firm, business, or other
unincorporated organization, complete the foi owing:
1. List the property owner name followed by he names of all officers, members,
trustees, partners, etc, low: (Attach list 'f necessary)
Vir1linia Beach Christian Life Ce ter - S76 .� Owl'-14Y� Cd
2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entityz
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
ElCheck here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business,
or other unincorporated organization.
.dr
Aft
DISCLOSURE STATE
�0M, INC,
i Item # 17
Page 9
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
se ' Att�st If necessary
1 "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means"a relationship that exists when one
corporation directly or indirectly owns -hares possessing more than 50 percent of the
voting power of another corporation." ,gee State and Local Government Conflict of
Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3 01.
a "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, (6) 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
I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the applice
scheduled public hearing, 1 am responsible for e btaining and petinc
sign on o s,,b' t property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled pub
nstrtmtions in this package_
ame
N
Print ante
tee,
different than applicant)
PrintNatto -
Grxn ltion:al Use Penn!! Aplica�c^
Placet 0, 0 10
Revised T1f<'.uii�'!
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
R�
Directors
Gene M. Betts
Robert J. Dellinger
D. Brett Haring
Jff€c&! s
Len J. Lauer
President
Michael W. Strut
Executive Vice President
Kathryn A. Walker
Executive Vice President- Network Services
Gene M. Betts
Senior Vice; President and Treasurer
William R. Blessing
Senior Vice President - Corporate Strategy/Dcvelupment
John A. Garcia
Senior Vice President Sales/Distribution - PCS
John P. Moyer
Senior Vice President and Controller
Thomas E. Murphy
Senior Vice President Corporate Communications
Steven M. Nielsen
Senior Vice President - Finance - PCS
Cynthia A. Rock
Senior Vice President- Customer Solutions
Michael P. Allen
Vice President - Law - Marketing/Sales Operations
David B. Bottoms
Vice President- Strategic Partners
Clary E. Charde
Vice President -Tax
Faye S. Davis
Vice President,- Enterprise Property Services
Kurt C. Gastrock
Vice President Wireless Sites
Stephen P. Geldmachcr
Vice: President- Indirect Field Sates
Luisa L,ancetti
Vice President- Regulatory Policy
Thomas F. Mateer
Vice President - Customer Experience
James C. Mickey
Vice President - Sprint Store Management
Dennis C. Piper
Vice President and Assistant Treasurer
Claudia S. Toussaint
Vice President and Secretary
Charles E. Wunsch
Vice President and Assistant Secretary
Harley Ball
Assistant Vice President
Mark V. Beshears
Assistant Vice President - Tax.
James G. Meyers
Assistant Vice President _- Site Development
Jahn W. Chapman
Assistant Secretary
D. Brett Haring
Assistant Secretary
Michael T. Ilyde
Assistant Secretary
Ellen S. Martin
Assistant Secretary
6/9/2005
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
I
Item #17
SprintCom, Inc.
Conditional Use Permit
100 North Great Neck Road
District 5
Lynnhaven
October 12, 2005
REGULAR
Dorothy Wood: We're going to go on and call Item #17 first because there is only one
speaker in opposition, and I think the rest of you are here for Items #8 — 12.
Joseph Strange: Item #17, which is SprintCom, Inc. An ordinance upon application for a
Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower on property located at 1000 North
Great Neck Road, District 5, Lynnhaven with eight conditions.
Dorothy Wood: Lisa, would you like to do a short presentation because you were on
consent. There is someone who would like to speak and maybe you can answer the
questions.
Lisa Murphy: Briefly, my name is Lisa Murphy. I'm a legal attorney, and I'm here today
on behalf of the applicant, SprintCom. This, as you may recall this particular application
was deferred from the last Planning Commission hearing. Our original application was
for a 150 foot flush mounted antenna installation tower at the Virginia Beach Christian
Life Center. And in speaking with the neighbors who live in Michael's Glen, a couple of
times we have revised that application, which is what you have before you. It is a 130
foot tower, but it is a stealth tower so that the antennas are internal to the tower, and
really the antennas won't be seen from outside. This is obviously, as most of you know a
very difficult area of the City to cover because of the trees. Just to give you an idea of the
surrounding sites, there is a site at Cox High School, which you're probably familiar with.
There is a 125-foot light pole replacement at that installation. There is a Virginia Power
tower to the south at the Great Neck Professional Center, and there is rooftop installation
at First Colonial. Really, other than that, there is a pretty good gap of coverage in that
part of Great Neck Road. That is really what Sprint is looking to cover. As you know
from the application there is a Letter of Intent to collocate that we received from another
wireless carrier. As it shows in the plans, there will be two additional spaces for other
carriers to install their antennas. And we believe, a little bit surprised that there is
someone here today, but we are happy to answer any questions. We did work very
closely with staff and with the neighbors on this to try to tailor this application for that
particular location.
Dorothy Wood: Thanks Lisa. We're going to call the opposition and then give you a few
minutes.
Item # 17
SprintCom, Inc.
Page 2
Joseph Strange: Speaking in opposition is Paul Diaczun.
Dorothy Wood: Welcome sir.
Paul Diaczun: Thank you. My name is Paul Diaczun, and I do have an adjacent property
to the Princess Anne Memorial Park. Unlike the other neighbors mentioned there was no
effort made to enlist our concerns earlier than this point until I received a letter about this.
I have two items that really amount to more questions, that perhaps if answered then my
objection would go away. One is whether this tower will give any RF interference to my
own personal and business communications. I do run a business out of my house, and I
use the cell phone to work my business. Second, whether there was any consideration of
the fact that there is quite a bit of press on health risks that radio towers in residential area
that recommends up to three miles away from a residential area, and whether that has
been investigated fully to make sure that this tower does not propose such a risk. When
those questions are answered satisfactorily, I remove any opposition. Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: Perhaps you and Lisa can talk and come back? Would you like to do
that, or would you like her just to answer?
Paul Diaczun: If she could answer the questions right now.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir.
Lisa Murphy: The first question that was raised with regard to RF interference. Sprint
operates between 1850 — 1900mh. Most of your other household uses, your computer,
fluorescent lights, television, am-fm radio, those types of things, operate at a much lower
frequency. So unlike the situation where you have a baby monitor and someone's
cordless phone possible causing interference, the range at which the carriers operate, and
which their licensed to operate, is a range that should not cause interference with any
other types of electrical uses or computers in the area. As far as the health risks, I think
that has been addressed by the Telecommunications Act. And, the antennas, as you
probably know are all around. There on the football field at Cox High School, at First
Colonial High School. They are on the rooftops of buildings. The federal government
has determined that there really isn't a health risk that is created by them. And we are
regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, in additional other federal
agencies.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you Lisa.
Lisa Murphy: You're welcome.
Dorothy Wood: Does this answer your question sir?
Item # 17
SprintCom, Inc.
Page 3
Paul Diaczun: She mentioned that it wouldn't interfere with my computer. My question
was on my cell phone, whether it would interfere with my cell phone?
Dorothy Wood: She's shaking her head no sir.
Paul Diaczun: Then I withdraw my opposition.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Ron.
Ronald Ripley: Mr. Scott, have you received any complaints against these towers that
you can recall?
Robert Scott: No.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you.
Dorothy Wood: Do I hear a motion?
Eugene Crabtree: I make a motion that we approve the item as presented.
Kathy Katsias: Second.
Dorothy Wood: A second by Ms. Katsias.
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
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, the Board has approved Item #17.
ABSENT
-35-
Item V-K.6.
PLANNING ITEM # 54506
Attorney David S. Hay, 3720 Holland Road, Suite 103, Phone; 428-8488, represented the applicant and
requested an INDEFINITE DEFERRAL to allow inclusions within the proffer agreement. The applicant
requests the hours be 10: 00 A.M. to 9: 00 P.M. weekdays and 10: 00 A.M. to 11: 00 P.M on weekends. The
exterior of the building shall be refurbished and the parking lot repaved.
Upon motion by Council Lady McClanan, seconded by Council Lady Wilson, City Council DEFERRED
INDEFINITELY an Ordinance upon application of STEVEN KREVER for a Conditional Change of
Zoning:
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF STEVEN KREVER FOR A
CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICA TIONFR OM 0-2 TO
CONDITIONAL B-1
Ordinance upon Application of Steven Krever for a Change ofZoninQ
District Classification from 0-2 Office District to Conditional B-1
Neighborhood Business District on property located at 3712 South
Plaza Trail (GPIN 14875015970000). The Comprehensive Plan
designates this site as being part of the Primary Residential Area,
suitable for appropriately located suburban residential and non-
residential uses consistent with thepolicies ofthe Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of this rezoning is to allow a delicatessen and other uses
on the property. DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye. -
Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba
S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim
Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and
James L. Wood
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
None
October 11, 2005
�me c
y11�* HL,
{ t!
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Steven Krever — Change of Zoning District Classification
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005
■ Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Steven Krever fora Change of Zoning
District Classification from 0-2 Office District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood
Business District on property located at 3712 South Plaza Trail (GPIN
14875015970000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being
part of the Primary Residential Area, suitable for appropriately located
suburban residential and non-residential uses consistent with the policies of
the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this rezoning is to allow a
delicatessen and other uses on the property. DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL
This request was deferred by the City Council on October 11t" to allow
the applicant to amend the proffers. A new proffer has been added to
the legal agreement, proffer #3, indicating that the parking lot will be
repaved where necessary and that the exterior of the building will be
cleaned and repainted where necessary. The new proffer has been
incorporated into the revised staff report that is attached.
■ Considerations:
The applicant proposes to rezone the existing office property to B-1
Neighborhood Business District in order to operate a delicatessen restaurant.
No changes to the exterior of the existing building or parking lot are proposed
with the exception of the addition of landscaping that the applicant has
proffered.
The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because
they felt that the rezoning and the proposed use are appropriate for this
location. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's
recommendations for this area. The rezoning to B-1 Neighborhood Business
District with proffered conditions will allow a small delicatessen with no drive
through window and no alcoholic beverages to operate in conjunction with the
established office uses on the site. As proffered, the delicatessen is
compatible with the adjoining residential neighborhood and more appropriate
than many uses allowed by right in the existing unconditional 0-2 Office
District.
Steven Krever
Page 2 of 2
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
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
City Manager: ' -' 'L,
STEVEN KREVER
Agenda Item # 14
September 14, 2005 Public Hearing
Staff Planner: Barbara Duke
REQUEST:
Change of Zoning District Classification from 0-2
Office District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood
Business District.
Steven Krever
7
TELJMINIA
fIXJL
5 (s»�wQ,w �� ;tr_cm_cQmrr cr �°I
,�A 6b
Q
j
o
0
S.
--,I��I
TT
Zoning Change from 0-2 to Cond. B-IA
ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 3712 South Plaza Trail
GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE:
14875015970000 3 — ROSE HALL 12,000 square feet
This item was deferred from the August public hearing at the request of the applicant to work with staff
on the proffer agreement.
The applicant proposes to rezone the existing property to B-1 SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Neighborhood Business District in order to operate a
delicatessen restaurant. No changes to the exterior of the existing building or parking lot are proposed
with the exception of the addition of landscaping that the applicant has proffered.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: Existing office building and parking
SURROUNDING LAND North: 0 Child day care center/ 0-2 Office District
USE AND ZONING: South: • South Plaza Trail
East: . Office building/ 0-2 Office District
West: . Presidential Boulevard
NATURAL RESOURCE AND
CULTURAL FEATURES: There are no natural resource or cultural features on this site.
AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS
Oceana.
IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES
No measurable impact on city services is anticipated with this rezoning.
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
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. The established type, size, and relationship of
land use, both residential and non-residential, in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a
guide when considering future development.
Staff recommends approval of this EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
request with the submitted
proffers. The proffers are provided below.
The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area.
The rezoning to B-1 Neighborhood Business District with proffered conditions will allow a small,
independently owned delicatessen, the epitome of a neighborhood use, to operate in conjunction with the
established office uses on the site. The B-1 Neighborhood Business District is more appropriate for this
location at the entrance to this residential area than the existing unrestricted 0-2 Office District zoning.
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:
The Property shall be used for business offices as permitted in the B-1 District, and less than 50% shall be
used for a restaurant without drive -through windows provided that products prepared or processed on the
premises shall be sold only as retail. Also, there shall be no sale or serving of alcoholic beverages at the
restaurant.
ST
PROFFER 2:
Grantor shall install foundation landscaping as approved by the Planning Director. Grantor shall also install
street frontage landscaping as approved by the Planning Director in the existing green spaces between the
sidewalk and the parking lot along South Plaza Trail and Presidential Boulevard.
PROFFER 3:
The parking lot will be repaved where necessary and the exterior of the building will be cleaned and
repainted where necessary.
PROFFER 4:
The hours of operation of the restaurant will be from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. during the week and 10 a.m. to 11
p.m. on weekends.
PROFFER 5:
Further conditions mandated by applicable development ordinances may be required by the Grantee during
detailed site plan and/or subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City
agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements.
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated October 12, 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 VIEW OF SITE
TION
4 KREVER
a Item # 14
Page 4
3AINO ':CIOQ VNNOO
I�
j(
E
.........�.�.._
eJ
Ru
F 4r ►c..
i
.+w
�r
4
.�lit Jr
..._
! I.
MTV a {'0 "'(A IQ.. IYII 3atS3Cv
1
04/07/65
REZONING from RS-4 Residential to
GRANTED
CL-2 Commercial
2
12/15/75
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for
GRANTED
beauty salon
3
10/15/84
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for gas
DENIED
station
4
10/24/83
REZONING from B-2 Business to A-1
DENIED
Apartment
ffDISCLOSURE 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)
e- Lnst an Dusinesses triat nave a parent-subsidiary'or affiliated business entity
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
figglCheck here If the applicant Is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or
other unincorporated organization.
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
Corn#ete this section only if properly owner Is differarg from applicant.
If the property owner Is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other
unincorporated organization, complete the followinW.
I 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers. membAm-
trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary)
Z. LIST all Dusinesses that have a parent-subsidiary'I or affiliated business entlty2
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list ff necessary)
Check here if the Property owner Is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business,
or other unincorporated organization.
& See next page for footnotes
I-�
Conditional Rezonkig Application
P09e 71 of 12
Revised 911/2004
POW 12 of 12
Item #14
Steven Krever
Change of Zoning District Classification
3712 South Plaza Trail
District 3
Rose Hall
September 14, 2005
CONSENT
William Din: Our next and last item is Item #14 Steven Krever. This is an application by
Mr. Krever to Change the Zoning District Classification from 0-2 Office District to
Conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District on property located at 3712 South Plaza
Trial in the Rose Hall District. This is a proffered application.
David Hay: Good afternoon. My name is David Hay. I'm a local attorney representing
Steve Krever. We have got three proffers and we agree to the conditions set forth in the
staff comments.
William Din: Thank you Mr. Hay.
David Hay: Yes sir.
William Din: Is there any objection to placing this item on consent agenda? Okay.
Thank you. Mr. Gene Crabtree will explain this issue.
Eugene Crabtree: This application is for rezoning from 0-2 to B-1 in a residential or at
the start of a residential area in the Windsor Woods section of Virginia Beach. The
Comprehensive Plan recognizes this as being in a primary residential area but it is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as recommended for this area. We believe
that the B-1 Neighborhood Business District is appropriate for this location at the
entrance to the residential area. There are some office buildings adjacent to this that
should be able to support a business of this type. Therefore, we put it on the consent
agenda.
William Din: Thank you Gene. I would like to make a motion to approve the following
item. Item #14 is Steven Krever. This is an application to change the Zoning District
Classification from 0-2 Office District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business
District on property located at 3712 South Plaza Trail, Rose Hall District.
Barry Knight: I'll second that motion.
William Din: Thank you.
AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 2
Item #14
Steven Krever
Page 2
ANDERSON
AYE
CRABTREE
AYE
DIN
AYE
HORSLEY
KATSIAS
AYE
KNIGHT
AYE
MILLER
RIPLEY
AYE
STRANGE
AYE
WALLER
AYE
WOOD
AYE
ABSENT
ABSENT
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, the Board as approved Item #14 for consent.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you very much.
W
In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6229
TO: Leslie L. Lilley
FROM: B. Kay WilsonV
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
DATE: November 10, 2005
DEPT: City Attorney
DEPT: City Attorney
RE: Conditional Zoning Application; Steven Krever
The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the
City Council on November 22, 2005. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated
October 12, 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
KREVER HOLDINGS, INC.
a Virginia corporation
To
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
a Municipal Corporation of the
Commonwealth of Virginia
THIS PROFFER AGREEMENT ("Agreement") made this f� day of October, 2005, by and among
KREVER HOLDINGS, INC. (the "Grantor"); and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal
corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Grantee")
RECITALS:
A. Grantor is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the City of Virginia Beach being briefly
described as Parcel A, 0.58566 Acres, 3712 South Plaza Trail, and more particularly described upon Exhibit A
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
B. Grantor has initiated an amendment to the zoning map of the City of Virginia Beach by petition of
Grantor addressed to Grantee to change the zoning classification of the property to Conditional B-1
Community Business District. The proposed amendment is made pursuant to the terms of the City Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted April 18, 1988, as amended and in effect on the date of this
Agreement (the "City Zoning Ordinance").
C. Grantee's policy is to provide for the orderly development of land for various purposes, including
commercial purposes, through zoning and other land development legislation.
D. Grantor acknowledges that in order to prevent incompatible land use, reasonable conditions governing
the use of the Property, in addition to the regulations generally applicable to land zoned B-1 as specified in the
City Zoning Ordinance, are required to address the project proposed in Grantor's rezoning application.
PREPARED BY: DAVID S. HAY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
GPIN NO. 1487-50-1597-0000
E. Grantor has voluntarily proffered in writing, prior to the public hearing before Grantee, as a part of the
proposed amendment to the Zoning Map and in addition to the regulations specified in the City Zoning
Ordinance for the B-1 zoning district, reasonable conditions outlined in this Agreement related to the
development and operation of the Property. These conditions will be adopted as a part of the amendment to the
Zoning Map relative to the Property, and have a reasonable relation to the use of the Property as rezoned B-1 and
are needed as a result of the rezoning.
F. The conditions outlined in this Agreement have been proffered by Grantor and allowed and accepted
by Grantee as a part of the amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map. These conditions
shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property;
provided, however, that such conditions shall continue if the subsequent amendment is part of the
comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance of Grantee. The conditions
outlined in this Agreement may be amended only by following the procedures and recording the documents as
outlined and required in the City Zoning Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, Grantors, its heirs, successors, assigns, grantees and other successors in title or
interest to the Property, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from Grantee or its governing
body and without any element or compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit
or subdivision approval, makes the following declaration of conditions and restrictions governing the use and
physical development and operation of the Property, and covenants and agrees that this declaration and the
further terms of this Agreement shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding
upon the Property, and upon all persons and entities claiming under or through the Grantor, his heirs, personal
representatives, successors and assigns, grantees and other successors in interest or title to the Property;
namely:
1. The Property shall be used for business offices as permitted in the B-1 District, and less than 50% shall
be used for a restaurant without drive -through windows provided that products prepared or processed on the
2
premises shall be sold only as retail. Also, there shall be no sale or serving of alcoholic beverages at the
restaurant.
2. Grantor shall install foundation landscaping as approved by the Planning Director. Grantor shall also
install street frontage landscaping as approved by the Planning Director in the existing green spaces between
the sidewalk and the parking lot along South Plaza Trail and Presidential Boulevard.
3. The parking lot will be repaved where necessary and the exterior of the building will be cleaned or
repainted where necessary.
4. The hours of operation of the restaurant will be from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. during the week and 10 a.m. to
11 p.m. on weekends.
5. Further conditions mandated by applicable development ordinances may be required by the Grantee
during detailed site plan and/or subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all
cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements.
6. All references hereinabove to zoning districts and to regulations applicable thereto, refer to the City
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, in force as of the date of the conditional rezoning amendment
is approved by the Grantee.
7. 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 specified in this
Agreement, including (i) the ordering in writing of the remedying of any noncompliance with such conditions,
and (ii) the bringing of legal action or suit to ensure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or
prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages or other appropriate action, suit or proceedings; (2) the failure to
meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy
permits as may be appropriate; (3) if aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator made pursuant to
the provisions of the City Code, the City Zoning Ordinance or this Agreement, the City shall petition the
governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) the Zoning Map shall
3
show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the subject
Property on the map and that the ordinance and conditions may be made readily available and accessible for
public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department and that they shall
be 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 Grantee.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
STEVEN KREVER
President of Krever Holdings, Inc.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
I, 4Cme tl A• �/a=E"�� , the undersigned, a Notary Public in
and for the City and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Steven Krever, whose name is signed to the
foregoing instrument as president of Krever Holdings, Inc., has sworn to, subscribed, and
acknowledged the same before me in my City and State aforesaid this /.t" day of October, 2005. The
said Steven Krever is personally known to me; or ✓ has produced
4 vas✓'ms for identification purposes.
My Commission
ARY PUBLIC
4
EXIIIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ALL that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the building and improvements thereon, lying, situate
and being in the Lynnhaven Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and described as
"Parcel A, 0.58566 acres" on plat entitled "Subdivision of Property of W. C. Lineberry Estate, M.B. 72,
Pg. 4, made by Langley and MacDonald, Engineers -Planners -Surveyors, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Scale
1" = 20', dated 8/31/79 including an easement shown on "Parcel B" and "Parcel C" on said plat extending
from South Plaza Trail to the northern boundary of "Parcels B and C", and "Ingress/Egress, Parking
Easement hereby dedicated to Parcels A and C from Parcel B", which said plat is duly of record in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 136 at page 31.
IT BEING the same property conveyed to Krever Holdings, Inc. by deed dated March 31, 2003, from Key
Associates, Inc.
- 5 -
Page 2 of 2
on the change to the instruction
We recently applied for a rezoning necessary to better lay out a residential project to protect the Chesapeake
Bay. We offered reduced density from what we can build by right and we offered the minimum of land
disturbance. The Commanding Officer of NAS Oceana has recommended denial; he said we should build a
compatible use. I checked the table; now this is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. To the Navy,
compatible use is a rubber manufacturing plant, a petroleum refinery, a distribution facility, an automobile service
facility, or a shopping center. I do not think you would want to face the neighborhood under these circumstances.
My point is that I want the planning commission and the city council to retain sovereignty over local land use
decisions. I want the Chairman of the Planning Commission to be that person whom you elect, not the CO of
NAS Oceana. I object to the ceding of local authority over land use decisions to federal officials.
I have many other comments about the proposed changes, but frankly, most important is the transfer of local
authority to the federal government. I urge you to recommend to the City Council that you simply will not concur
with these changes, that they have not been through due process, that they clearly substitute the judgment about
land use from you and the planning staff to federal bureaucrats over whom we in this community have no
authority nor input whatsoever.
Sometimes, we just have to stand up and speak truth to power. This is one of those times. MJB sends!
9/21 /2005
Page 1 of 2
Gloria S. Winkler
From: Ruth H. Smith
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:13 AM
To: Gloria S. Winkler
Subject: FW: comments on Proposed AICUZ changes
BE SURE THIS IS A LEFT PUNCH when the item comes to City Council in November - - or later - -
whenever .............
From: Mike Barrett[mailto:mjbarrett@runnymedecorp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 9:53 AM
To: Bob Scott
Cc: Ruth H. Smith; James Spore
Subject: comments on Proposed AICUZ changes
Bob, may I asked your indulgence to pass this on to the members of the Planning Commission?
Honorable Chairman
Members of the Planning Commission
I intend to appear to offer comment at your October 12th meeting; however, I had hoped to be able to send these
comments to you in advance in the hope that you will have ample opportunity to consider them before you make
your recommendation to City Council.
First, I believe that since 1974, the Planning Commission and the City Council have acted on some 8,700
applications; according to the Virginian Pilot, the Navy opposed 71 of those applications. Also, it is noted that in
52 cases, the council voted against the Navy's recommendation. In other words, in over 99% of the applications
over a 31 year period, the commission and the council voted approval without objection from the Navy.
This is important to the discussion of these new AICUZ proposals. You and the Council incorporated the old
AICUZ in your comprehensive plan and in the zoning ordinance, but that made not one wit of difference to the
BRAC; they condemned all development whether it was compatible with AICUZ or not.
In that context, and in view of the fact that over 20,055 homes have been built without objection from the navy in
the noise zones which house 92,162 citizens of Virginia Beach, and this property is now valued at
$3,416,568,491, how can we as a community justify now saying that residential use is not allowed in the noise
zones?
In fact, in the preface to the changes, section 1802, the drafter of this amendment all but identified the tactic any
land use lawyer will use to say we did this for the Navy. If you vote to pass this ordinance, you will vote to deny
property owners the right to use their property in the same way that their neighbors have used theirs, and
believe it will open the city to numerous challenges for taking property rights without due compensation.
I thought that under Virginia Land Use Law, similar properties must be treated similarly and that property owners
must be afforded a reasonable use of their property. Frankly, with 20,055 homes in the noise zones already, how
can the door suddenly be slammed shut in the face of other property owners with similar properties? Why was
residential use compatible on December 18, 2002, but not so on December 19, 2002?
We all know the answer; the Navy's AICUZ instruction changed; in fact, the table of compatibility that
accompanies the AICUZ map was changed to make residential use not compatible. The official who made the
change, Alan Zusman, testified to the AICUZ task force that he simply made the change on his own; he
conducted no scientific studies, took no testimony from experts, held no public hearings, gave no opportunity for
local officials to comment or to be heard. He just made the change and the Chief of Naval Operations signed off
9/21 /2005
-43-
Item V-K.1.
PLANNING ITEM # 54544 (Continued)
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Maddox, City Council DEFERRED until the
City Council Session of November 22, 2005:
Ordinances re AICUZ, noise, traffic and JLUS:
a. AMEND andREORDAINthe CZOREPEALING Section 221.1
and ADD a new 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
Voting: 7-4
Council Members Voting Aye:
Harry E. Diezel, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan,
Richard A. Maddox, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva,
Council Members Voting Nay:
Robert M. Dyer, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Rosemary Wilson and
James L. Wood
Council Members Absent:
None
Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones DISCLOSED Pursuant to Section § 2.2-3115 (G) re discussion and vote on the
City's response to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission's (BRAG) Final and Approved
Recommendations regarding Naval Air Station Oceana. Vice Mayor Jones owns property located in the
inter facility traffic area and is a member of the Board of Directors of Resource Bank where he receives
more than $10, 000 annually in compensation as a Member of the Board. Resource Bank has extended loans
and lines of credit to owners and developers ofproperty located in the Accident Potential Zone Vice Mayor
Jones wished to disclose this interest and advised he was able to participate in this discussion fairly,
objectively and in the public interest. Vice Mayor Jones's letter of October 25, 2005, is hereby made a part
of the record.
October 25, 2005
Sm
Item i- K.1.
PLANNING ITEM # 54544 (Continued)
Bill Gambrell, 6304 Atlantic Avenue, registered in OPPOSITION. Oceana is a vital component of our
City. He requested DEFERRAL until completion of the Citizen BRAC Committee report and Economic
Study
Don Smith, 208 77th Street, life long resident and business owner, requested DEFERRAL until completion
of the Citizen BRAC Committee report and Economic Study.
Attorney R..J. Nutter, 222 Central Park Avenue #2002, Phone: 687-7500, represented hotel owners on 33'd
34`h, 35`h, 36', 37" and 391h Street. This is the area where the 70 decibel noise area intersects with the
Oceanfront and particularly the east side of Atlantic Avenue. These businesses jointly have over 3, 000
employees. Attorney Nutter requested DEFERRAL until completion of the Citizen BRAC Committee report
and Economic Study
Mike Barrett, 212 72"d Street, member of the earlier AICUZ Task Force and now newly appointed Citizen
BRAC Committee. The Navy will continue to oppose any development above 65 decibel. There are
approximately 95, 000 citizens residing in 25, 000 homes valued at approximately $3.5-BILLION who
reside in the noise zones. Mr. Barrett registered in OPPOSITION and requested DEFERRAL until
completion of the Citizen BRAC Committee report and Economic Study
A MOTION was made by Councilman Dyer, seconded by Councilman Wood, to ADOPT Ordinances re
AICUZ, noise, traffic and JLUS:
a. AMEND andREORDAINthe CZOREPEALING Section 221.1
and ADD a new 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
October 25, 2005
-41-
Item V-K.1.
PLANNING ITEM # 54544 (Continued)
Ray Breeden, 1433 North Bayshore Drive, Phone: 422-1666, represented the Breeden Companies of
Virginia Beach and spoke in SUPPORT of adoption of the Ordinances
Alan Kent Little, 1634 Cutty Sark Road, Phone: 496-0448, represented the City of Oceana Coalition
(a coalition of businesses in Virginia Beach comprising professional, medical, real estate, construction,
retail - 10, 000 employees and approximately $1-BILLION of the tax base), spoke of SUPPORT. Oceana
represents 17% of the jobs in the City.
Hu Odom, 4506 Oceana Front Avenue, Phone: 491-4362, operates Golden Corrals in Virginia Beach
and Hampton Roads, spoke in SUPPORT. In 2006, the three (3) Virginia Beach Golden Corrals will
have approximately $15-MILLION in sales and generate over $800, 000 in food and beverage taxes
for this City. During the Summer of 2006, the restaurants will employ approximately 450 in addition
to the 22 office personnel in Kempsville
Jim Arnhold, 1612 Centerville Turnpike, Phone: 621-8868, owner of a local development construction
business for the past thirty (30) years, life-long resident of Virginia Beach. Mr. Arnhold requested
DEFERRAL until completion of the Citizen BRAC Committee report and Economic Study.
Captain Patrick Lorge, Commanding Officer - Naval Air Station Oceana, spoke in SUPPORT and
requested ADOPTION of the Ordinance
Janice Roller, 2444 East Chester Drive, Phone: 486-2854, spoke on behalf of the residents
of Cheltenham Square as per request of Joe Ferrara. Ms. Roller registered in OPPOSITION
and requested DEFERRAL until completion of the Citizen BRA Committee report and Economic Study.
The BRA mandated plan does not have to be in place until March 2006
Jerry Chaplain, 913 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Phone: 428-6302, property owner at the Resort strip,
registered in OPPOSITION. Citizens have a right to develop their property. The safety of our young
pilots and the citizens are the most important. Eminent domain should not be considered
Joseph Arnhold, 1077 Frazee Lane, Phone: 749-4805, resident since 1981, spoke in OPPOSITION.
More than 50,000 residents live within the 70 decibel or higher noise level. Pilots cannot even train
properly because of restricted access
Attorney R. E. Bourdon, Phone; 499-8971, advised he is not OPPOSED to Oceana's continued presence
in the City. Attorney Bourdon requested DEFERRAL for further discussion and refinement and continued
public information gathering. Approximately $114-MILLION was expended to build a Convention Center
on 19`" Street and is now considered an incompatible land use. Redevelopment of the Resort is essential to
the success of the new Convention Center
Bob Horton, 3288PageAvenue #309, Phone: 685-5064, spoke in OPPOSITION, concerned re encroachment
by the Navy on the quality of life. Mr. Horton advised Oceana only represents 5% of the employment in the
City of Virginia Beach. Mr. Horton spoke to nine Mayor's (or their representatives) throughout the United
States and researched various Military closures and their economic results
Bill Lee, 3521 Indian River Road, Phone: 427-6404, spoke in OPPOSITION. Amendment 5 of the Bill
of Rights allows private property owners the economic viable use of their property. Mr. Lee requested
DENIAL or DEFERRAL
October 25, 2005
Item V-K.1.
PLANNING ITEM # 54544
The following registered to speak:
Linwood Branch, President - Virginia Beach Motel/Hotel Association, 720 Windwood Drive,
Phone: 422-0256, expressed concern re the redevelopment strategy for the Oceanfront not being apart
of this proposal. Under this Ordinance, hotels are an incompatible use from 341" Street to the Cavalier
Hotel as well as the area surrounding the Convention Center. Over thirty (30) redevelopment
projects are "on hold" in the Resort area. A successful resort industry will require a mix of
retail, restaurant and hotel development, which is currently not practical with the current zoning. Only
a portion of the JL US recommendations are being considered.
The Honorable Owen Pickett, spoke in SUPPORT and advised these ordinances are another step in the
direction of implementing the Joint Land Use Plan (JL US). Chesapeake and Norfolk are moving ahead with
similar changes
Mom Prevette, Chairman - Virginia Beach Division of the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce, Vice
President of Government Affairs for Cox Communication, Phone: 222-8496, spoke in SUPPORT
Admiral Fred Metz, 805 Circuit Court, Phone: 481-3248, served on the Joint Land Use Task Force, spoke
in SUPPORT
David Gracie, 2532 South Adventure, Trail, Phone: 486-8341, requested DEFERRAL until the
Virginia Beach Citizen BRAC Committee report is completed.
Dr. Christopher Hooper, 2916 Gaines Landing, Phone: 496-3411, Dentist, Executive Committee- Tidewater
Dental Association, spoke in SUPPORT of the Ordinances and Oceana
Sam Reid, 1533 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Phone: 437-5648, President - Oceana Garden Coalition
Civic League, requested DEFERRAL until completion of the Virginia Beach Citizen BRAC Committee
and Economic Consultant reports
Stephen R. Davis, Vice President - Virginia Beach Visions and Chair of the JL US Task Force and now
member of the Citizen BRAC Committee, requested DEFERRAL until completion of the Citizen BRAC
Committee report and Economic Study
Jimmy Capps, 940 Cardinal Road, Phone: 428-4099, hotel owner in the Resort Area, spoke in support
of the Resort Area as a year `round destination area with the opportunity to develop the 19`" and 31"
Street Corridor. Mr. Capps requested DEFERRAL until completion of the Citizen BRAC Committee
report and Economic Study.
Tom Snyder, 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1700, represented the Taylor Group (Linda Chapel and
Barbara Creech), owners of approximately 1, 000 acres of land located west and south of Oceana
Naval Air Station. Mr. Snyder participated as a stakeholder in the JL US process. Mr. Snyder requested
DEFERRAL until completion of the Citizen BRAC Committee report and Economic Study
Tim Faulkner, 1026 Spotswood Avenue, Norfolk, Phone: 626-0220, property manager, advised 50%
of'the tenants are military related with 25%from Oceana. Mr. Faulker urged adoption of the Ordinances
October 25, 2005
a�c�BEa�� j
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: November 22, 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).
This item was deferred by City Council on October 25, 2005.
■ 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: t 1L'VVV��"�
"""
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
7RDINANCE
mcla Item :# 8
Pa e 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
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, 1803, 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. Speeifie--standards fer eer-tain aendi:tiena' uses
leeated within airpert nei9e and aireraft
aeeident petential zenesw- [Repealed] .
2
.. .T.sw
Tre r a f-
�C
TSG Gi'QLZTC
Pe tenti a-1 Zen e
GZ
APZ 170 7S dBLd�n Aire t aeeident petential—zene-1
neis ezzene 70 7 S dBLdn
TPZ T .+ FT
�T��rea-t��than '�-�B �3 r��a t-t �--awe-i���r���ral Tie�rT,
lAn ne i se-zzene-greater than 75 dB n
APZ 11,170 7 S dBL dot Awe r a f-taae i dent petenialze n e11,
neise- zene7SdB-Ldn
r..mp t ; � ., har-aehiste-
r. t ibl
mr-
tr� Gempatible— with —aeeustieal t t,,, +-
fer-r-eefctiilings/ emteTrer walls 39
B TF , deers / wmews-z 5-S C .
Y(b)
€er=ree fl/eeilmgs-/e3Eterierwalls 44
STG, deers/ indews 33 S C.
Y(e) ram-ibie with aeeust.ieal treatments
f-er-reef/ee i l i ng/eieteri er walls 49
ST-C-deers / windews-3,8 SG .
N Net ml -
tible
NGTES
(I) Aireraft aeeident petential zenes =p apply enly to military
airfields.
Use
E
ems,
dB Ada
1,17c) s
dB- d
ll/�,7s
dB- d
-
IMF�
EIB LEI
T7 5
dB
Ldn
70 75
dB- Ld
65 79
dB Ldn
Auditoriuxrts,
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y (b)
y (a)
binge ,-, L, -, l l .,
'J^
Child
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y(b)
eare eenters
ehape-l-s
Clubs;
N
N
N
N
N
Y(e)
Y (b)
Y(a)
private er
rr-,f L.l etcnxccrc
GelleJ__ ___-.'7
+ ,
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y(b)
Y(a)universi-
eena-le t hemes
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y(b)
Y- a-}-
s ee
r,...,,,,,,,. e amarinasN
-Y
3F
i
-Y
3F
-Y
y
establishments
manufaetur-4—
steraged
Family eare hemes
N
�3
N
�Tdi
�3TT
Y(b)
Y4- +
Fraternity �, rl
sererityheuses
N
T�T3
N
N
N
N
TT
+ \w/
TTai
Hemes f-er aged ,
disabled ar
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y (b)
y (a)
Hess; f -.l s c
f
ariume
N
N
N
N
N
N
"�T
Y(a)saniT
Indeer
reereat , l
f l t ,
=r
N
N
N
T
Y
Fraternal ledges
N
N
N
N
N
-Y (e)
Y(b)
-
`'/
`` .^,+
Plebiles here—park-s
N
N
N
N
N
Nb)
Y4-a-�
M..,-. -, s F .- r ,-. and
eenvents
N
N
N
N
N
N
�T
Multiple family
d:.,..l lw,- -- n,
N
N
N
N
N
N
y (h)
Y(a)
N,a r se s' he,nes&
sifail h
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y (b)
Y(a)
deer
reereat , - l
amphitheaters
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
y
N
N
N
N
N
_Y
Y
music shells
N
N
N
N
N
N
£3
Y
f-.e ' l��
P a-s seRge-r
terminals
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
_Y
Y
_Y
preeessing
Private l,,a,.e�
N
N
N
N
N
y(e)
Y(b)
y-a-
Satellite e
N
_N
N
N
N
Y(e)
Y(b)
Y (a)
iiy
Shelter fer far
N
N
N
N
N
N
TTVT
Y (a)
empleyees
TttaeL,e.] dwellings
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y(b)
Y(a)
1S e e i-al eenCe S s
N
M
N
N
N
N
ZT�
-Y (a)
€er live
N
N
N
_N
N
N
try
Y(a)
Theaters
pred,aetien
70
71 T ncrrmzced uses andyested rig is T N
72 Az— cT is seetienr hull net afzcet any use
73 permitted any persen by right er any vest
75 , 1 ll ti ,a } f� e tti,
zzt—�i���tT�rAn� 3uzrr� �. c��-.�zTcrcc�cA—cc�L-c
76
79
80
81 neise zee—
W."
MN
5
79
80
81 neise zee—
W."
MN
5
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 70-75 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.
99
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 requirements 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, safety 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
s
ill overall quality of life of those who live, work and recreate in
112 the City of Virginia Beach.
113 COMMENT
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 1943 and was designated as a major
121 Navy jet 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 (BRAG) 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
A
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 brouqht 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
P]
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 zoning 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 (cont'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
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
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 rinds
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 Agricultural Districts), single-
285 family residential development in Agricultural Districts shall
286 be permitted as a conditional use at the following density in
287 that portion of the Princess Anne/Transition Area designated as
288 "Interfacility Traffic Area" on the official zoning ma
289 Noise Zone Maximum Permitted Density (Single-
290 Family Dwellings)
291
292 70-75 dB DNL: One (1) per five (5) acres of
293 developable land
294
295 >75 dB DNL: One (1) per fifteen (15) acres of
296 developable land
297
298 (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 acreaqe 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
remaininq 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:
lv-lei-ate
Planni g Department
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
mh4 �, #wel,
City Attorney's Office
CA-9596
OID\ordres\AICUZ Overlay Ordinance.doc
R-12
October 12, 2005
22
Page 1 of 1
Karen Lasley 41 c,'-t
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
10/ 11 /2005
Page 1 of 1
Karen Lasley lC1-
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
y� A
�r
sV.�v
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — Amendment to the Airport Noise Attenuation and
Safety Ordinance
MEETING DATE: November 22, 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.
This item was deferred by City Council on October 25, 2005.
■ 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 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."
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
Page 2of2
■ Recommendations:
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:
City Manager: S K$
Planning Department
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 WITY 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 aircraft 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
40 ( 3 ` E re- that purehasers , renterser lessees -ef
41 preperty within -airport noise zenes and aircraft
42 aeerdent petenti-al-zzenes- are -aware -ef the asseciated
43 neise levelsandthe --hazards -=whieh may endanger t the
44 lives andpreperty of the eeeupants of ---..'-., reperty.
45 The-aeeidst.ieai pe fermanee standards set ferth in this
46
47 diselesure reqairements sems-€er}ch in this erdinanee--deal -with
48 di-selesire-te- petit al purehas =s,renters er lessees of--th-e
49
50 airera € t ae e idents--a s s e eiated with pre
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
K
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
N.
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
ordinance.
COMMENT
The amendments delete the reference to disclosure requirements in residential property
transactions, as legislation adopted during the 2005 General Assembly made such requirements a
matter of state law and provided aggrieved persons with effective legal remedies for violation of the
statute. Lines 35-41 are deleted as unnecessary.
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 as-e Use group bui dir . All buildings and str ,et,,res
83 The classification of buildinqs and structures as to the use and
84 occupancy thereof as set forth in Chapter 3 of the International
85 Building Code elassified in theoirini-a—Uniferm St-atewidew
86 Building Cede -asuse -gr-eup R (residentia 4.
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
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 Ld33 DNL ;
105 (2) Noise Zone 65-70 dB lAn DNL;
106 (3) Noise Zone 70-75 dB idn DNL;
4
107 (4) Noise Zone greater than 75 dB Irvin 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, Velufnez.
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
N.
158 standards as set forth in section 5 of this ordinance unless
159 otherwise modified by the building official pursuant to se��n
160 1:3.2 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—diselesure requirements set ferth in seetien9 of this
171 ordinance shall not apply to the construction of residential idse
172 gip buildings or structures in any Noise Zone less than 65 dB
173 -T=,dFt DNL ei—buildings er sticuetures elassiffied in the Vii-g±n± r
174 Uniferm Statewide Bidilding Cede as se—greitp--B (business.-
17 5 e f f i ees `, E ( e did eatienal) , F ( f Ere t erp and industrial),
176 (, st, t„t; e 3 ,a T
a-l�-P4--(-r�c��~�=e`-��--r��oz-age , oar-e�re�rs �-,—�r�a
177 -(util ; ty and e , ^ ) .
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
f iled, 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 t4a-e applicable provisions of the Administrative
207 Process Act, Artie-le-4, Se-eien-a.14�5 of Chapter ' 1 : 4of
208 Title 9 ef the Gede ef Virginia.
209 COMMENT
210
211 The amendment deletes unnecessary language from the section.
Csl
212
213 See. 9. Diselesure. [Reserved]
214 (a) Efleetive-- Nevember , 1998,
215 preperty fer sale, rental er lease within any neise zene er
216 aeeident pet-ential zene shall pr-evide writtenidi-selesusece--all-
217
218
219
220 sales eentraets and leases. The feregein.g, ----irement shall net
221
222 purpeses.
223 (b) The—dent--ef planning shall ake availab!
224 infermatien e3Eglainingthe —effeet of the designatien of—sue.h.
225 airera t—aeeidentz and aiipert neisezenes--and —a p abl
226 building requirements.
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
9
239 4 misdemeaner punishable -by a fine- in air-ameunt net to exeeeel
240 .
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.
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. 4. Ef€eetive Date—.
280 This —er-dinanee—shall beeeme—effeetive—en the first day e�f
281 January—,--149T
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:
Planning Department
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
City Attorney's Office
12
7
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: November 22, 2005
■ Background:
An Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning Map by the designation and
incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area.
This item was deferred by City Council on October 25, 2005.
■ 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.
City of Virginia Beach
Page 2of2
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department"
City Manager: k . 5
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 COMMENT
19 The ordinance amends the zoning map to incorporate and designate the NAS Oceana —
2 0 NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area.
21
22 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on this
23 day of , 2005.
24
25
26 CA-9737
27 OID\ordres\ITA Map ordin.doc
28 R-1
29 August 17, 2005
30
31
32 Approved as to Content: Approved as to Legal Sufficiency:
33
34
35 W.04en 10'14•09-
36 Planning Department
City Attorney's Office
c'PZ��',IA BPA�I.
rSf sy.�.
rod',
f�k 'vzy
auS =si
L ga
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: November 22, 2005
■ Background:
An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by the incorporation of the NAS
Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area Map.
This item was deferred by City Council on October 25, 2005.
■ 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 2 of 2
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
—
City Manager: •�
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.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH- ITA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY THE
INCORPORATION OF THE NAS OCEANA -
NALF FENTRESS INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC
AREA MAP
WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare
and good zoning practice so require;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
11 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
That the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach be,
and hereby is, amended to incorporate that certain map entitled
"CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC AREA," dated August
2005, which map has been displayed before the City Council this
date and is on file in the Department of Planning.
COMMENT
The ordinance amends the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the map of the NAS Oceana —
NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on this
22 day of
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
2005.
CA-9739
OID\ordres\Comp Plan ITA Map ordin.doc
R-1
August 18, 2005
Approved as to Content: Approved as to Legal Suffici ncy:
Y,o
fool
Planning Department City Attorney's Office
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — amend the Comprehensive Plan
MEETING DATE: November 22, 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.
This item was deferred by City Council on October 25, 2005.
■ 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 of Virginia Beach
Page 2 of 2
City Manager:`L-
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.
H
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:
C](/ill /V� /y/1'My
ity Attorneys 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 by the regional 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 with
limited additional retail. ,compatible with the Joint Land Use Study.
Strategic Growth Area #6
North London Bridge Area
2
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 Motel.
Strategic Growth Area #7
Hilltop/North Oceana Area
t
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 ffli of ..esi nt ' and 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. Exeept as
feeommended in the P fineess Aftne Cof fide f Plan, No residential or hotel uses i-s 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 &velling „its o aer-e d 100,000 squar-e feet .,f ,..r,�.,...eial use. Access to land uses
li \/1111111�11�1C11 UJV.
in this Sub -Area is provided by an interior fead traffic and pedestrian circulation s. sy tem that
is safe and efficient is paFtFt of a larger- lao el g the Dam "Toe'' and D n
1 lSIl{�IJJJ I111111.�
Roads into-seetio . Equally, Iin order to ensure safe and efficient transportation movement
in to this area, no more than one direct access to this site to Dam "Teek 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 not
r-eeommende
Strategic Growth Area #11
West Holland Area
M
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 the fe should be ^o- development
proposals must be consistent with the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance provisions that and should
not contributes to strip residential er 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 eo al reW
Such residential development should include affordable housing units.
TheFe is suffieient existing and zefled eemmefeial retail pr-opeFty in the South Genffal Booth
reeenifnended. FuFdief-,-tThe 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 family uses beyond those
ai-0,,.1y eyel.,peor- zonedf6f should only be o,,,-lorserl i the south Gene .,l Booth
uaavuu� ua.
Beulevai:d eer-r-idof! if they are leeated in areas designated in this ehapter far- sueh use and af!-e
consistent with the
' In addition, a Traffic Impact Study must be
conducted for proposed developments affecting any of these specified areas.
5
South General Booth Koulvard Corridor
Site 4
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,—net4h of Edison The sou
Edison Read, north of Gunn Hall Road and west of Upton Estates is appropriate for- single
family detaehed, neighbefhood ser-viee uses and multi family residential use at densities ne
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 i-s
developed apaft fFofn any etheF pr-epef:fies, then it should aeeemmedate single fiam4y
detached units at densities eempar-able to institutional, edueational OF SuffOufidiflg afea.
Developments that, in the Planning Commission!s opinion, go beyond the minifRum design
guidelines may be eensider-ed for- slightly higher densi 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 Halll Edison Area
Site 4.1
t
Hl-
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.
Residentialinfi" an 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 physical characteristics of the adjoining r-esidential 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
E
North General Booth Boulevard Corridor
Site 8
... e
y�
st
��
...
.. j
af<1
3
3
v
3
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
N
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC AREA WW55 DB
\t�'� Auyus12005
3
�v 5;
...........
70 DB
�,.1 `r �•r .e t � 7� /DB , s, kj 65 �B ' f
r\ 65 DB h;" \''=r;'� J ? r J ✓`�6'"y"e:
(w�,�
/
75 DB
- 75 DB
a«
'i
70 DB � •
Protlucetl by the CAy of Virglnla Beach Planning Department
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 PLAIN DETERMINATION.
Development potential in the Transition Area is kept purposefully low. The density of
fesidential development is ealeulated at one &,II,elling unit E)F less per- developable aef:e
depe... ing , the degf!ee to which o eh development proposal ,Y, ets the C ty's define
U Vt./V11U111� U1JV11 111V 11V �1 VV lV VO Illy II li Ulill C[�YG
^rimer- 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. his Mmaximum 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 E)f one dwelling unit pe
developable aefe 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 City Council.
14
Appendix of Policy Document
Page A-3 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report
Agenda for Future Action
Delete the following language:
n IGUZ B fine do
Page F-1 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
Nearlyfive ive years after adoption of the Princess Anne Corridor Study, the Virginia Beach
City Council approved the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Stuff, 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 desefibed and shown on 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. Althougl3 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. ^ffeFs tremendous ^ ^,.-,,,,:ties • t-h thA. ^^*R^* A] f^r
ot the adjaeent fesidential afeas as well as the needs of Pr-ineess Anne . 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.
General Location Map
Princess Anne Corridor - Sub -Area 1
19
Pages 24 and 25 of the Pri ncess 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 effi hotel or other
uses that may be deemed by the city to be incompatible within applicable noise zones or the
APZ's. Equivalent density that othefwiseweuld be allowed in the APZ afea may be applie
to . s located autside this
3. Site/Building/Landscape Design: Significant well -programmed and landscaped public (and
private, if applicable) open space. Well spaee eonneetions to future or- existing residential
areas.
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).
20
B. Area -specific Recommendations
The following land use recommendations apply to Sub -Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4:
1. Sub -Area 1
The development potential of Sub -Area 1, above that allowed under current zoning, will
be based upon Aadherence to the following "ineextive"planning and design Performance
development Ceriteria:
iii.a. Incorporate as a significant part of the development D"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 maior focus of the development.
rather than the typical 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 residen 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.
goadvistial 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. No-Ceommercial uses should be leeated adjaeefit to separated from the Landstown
Meadows and Landstown Lakes neighborhoods. Tistead, s Such area should include
:the,- well landscaped afeassingle family detached units at or below 4 dwelling
units-peFae-re 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 Roadwa access within €er- proposed uses in Sub -Area 1 to
Pr-ineess Anne and r,,,,-., Neek Roads will „ltifn tely should be provided by an safe,
efficient and attractive, tr-eelined, , the general a4ignmen
of whieh is pfesented in this plafl.. internal circulation system. " twE) lace r��d
eonstfueted within a right of way wide enough te aeeammodate an ultifnate fouf lane
divided f4eility may be built as paFt E)f a phased development plan, provided it fneets
aeeeptable levels .,f se,.viee s defined by the e t y 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 reg}efml 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
Dam Meek Road
princess Ante
Road
Access point
I, .M
Singh
family
MiltiArpost
Trail
kident Potential
loot (API) Limits
100' min.
Buffer
Noah
Example of Undesirable
Piecemeal Development
Using Baseline Option.
Now Drawing Not to stale.
Sub -Arta I
23
Page 27 of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan
Figure 15 of Subarea I to be deleted
Pritscm Anne —
Road
((ontrolledl ka
(emwoeqfy )
Entrance JL
.1
fironia Pow
Buffer
Trail
Local
Road
M,
R
77-
Data Neck Road
!Natr kirrent of Dan Nkk Road
bewto ?fires Arwe Rod a Loop
had x be (Oftriolk] stress.i
hail Connection
Whrit Potential
Im (011) Umirs
t—ifflrpost Tfail
Opin Spa(ehrk
kia Power hmi
Iff Kin. Buller -
to include exist.
Trees stands
Lonnection to
Exist. Park
:of one of several
Oosw concepts for
based development.
kil: Drawing not to scale.
Sub -Area I
24
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 1. 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 171h Street and Old Beach, which is 22nd
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-51) 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 22nd 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 19th 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
19th 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 I to 15 in certain areas, probably I 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 issues. As to the recent changes, there
evidentially has been an adjustment made to the OPNAV Instruction that truthfully we
did just find that out about very recently. And we made that known as soon as we found
out about them, which was today. We did know that there was a change having to do
with the applicability to hotels. And I think that has been accurately reflected in the
ordinance but we decided to compare the two versions of the OPNAV Instruction to see if
we could find other discrepancies, and we did find one or two others most noted the
nursing home thing. We made those changes known as soon as we discovered them. I do
feel that and I have said it before. A couple of times today and I'll say it again. Mr.
Ripley brought it up in his comments. I think 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 33�d up to about 401h 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 33`d, 34`h, 35`h, 36", 371h 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 process 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
Hairier 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 -I 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 APZI, 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-1 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 speakers. I guess we will have discussion. I would
like to thank the members of the Police Department that were here today. Thank you so
much for coming and I think now we're just going 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
BRAG, 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 that 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 19tn
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.
L. APPOINTMENTS
BEACHES and WATERWAYS COMMISSION
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA BOARD
COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR HISTORIC SITES
HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE
HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE — PPEA
PERSONNEL BOARD (Alternates)
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (RAC)
SENIOR SERVICES OF SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA (SEVAMP)
VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORAITON (VBCDC)
WETLANDS BOARD (Alternates)
M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
N. NEW BUSINESS
1. ABSTRACT OF VOTES — GENERAL ELECTION — November 8, 2005
O. ADJOURNMENT
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia,
at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for:
GOVERNOR
NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITN PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIGURES)
JERRY W. KILGORE - R.............. .... ....... 46,471
TIMOTHY M. KAINE - D ......................... 47,120
H. RUSS POTTS, JR. - I ......................... 3,178
Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION]
[Valid write -Ins * Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes]...... .
120
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office ............... 23
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 10 to day of No,
A copy teste:
Electoral
Board
Sea]
Chairman
Chairman
Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia,
at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for:
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIGURES)
WILLIAM T. "Bill' BOLLING - R ..................... 52,354
LESLIE L. BYRNE - D ............................. 41,225
Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] $63
[Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins Total Write -In Votes] .........
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office..... ........ 16
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the .office indicated above.
Given under our hands this
A copy teste:
Electoral
Board
Seal
10 th day of November, 2005.
Chairman
Chairman
Secretary
4 fir., .<<.� E� �c -� Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia,
at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for:
ATTORNEY GENERAL
NAMES OF CANDIDATES MTN PARTYID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIGURES)
ROBERT F. "Bob" McDONNELL - R ................. 54,885
R. CREIGH DEEDS - D ............................ 41.1 AR
Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION]
[Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes]........... 11 R
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office ................. 15
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 10 th day of No
A copy teste:
Electoral
Board
Seal
Chairman
Chairman
Secretary
%�� _4 Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia,
at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for:
MEMBER
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
21 st District
ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER
NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARrY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT
John J. Welch III - R
TOTAL VOTES
RECErvED
(IN FIGURES)
10,877
Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION]
[Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] 440
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office..... .... 0
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 10 th day of November, 2�05. �
A copy teste:
Electoral
Board
Sea]
Chairman
Chairman
1
�� Secretary
x � Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia,
at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for:
MEMBER
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
81 st District
ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER
NAMES OF CANDlDATEs WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT
Terrie L. Suit - R
TOTAL voles
RECEIVED
ON FIGURES)
8,145
Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] 258
[Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] .........
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office .................. 0
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and. correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 10 th day of
A copy teste:
Electoral
Board
Seal
Chairman
Chairman
Secretary
w�-�-- -t--� Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia,
at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for:
MEMBER
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
82 nd District
ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER
NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT
TOTAL VOTES
RECENED
(IN FIGURES)
Harry R. "Bob" Purkey - R ................. 14,339
John O. Parmele, Jr. - I
................. 5,838
Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION]
[Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ......... 58.
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office..... 4
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and. correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 10 th day of November, 2Q05.
A copy testes I -
Chairman
Electoral j �� , Vice Chairman
Board
Seal
Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the „ City of Virginia Beach , Virginia,
at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for:
MEMBER
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
83rd District
ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER
NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIGURES)
Leo C. Wardrup, Jr. - R ................. 99241
Georgia F. Allen - D ................. 69139
Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION]
[Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes) .........
12.
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office..... .... 2
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and. correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 10 th day of November, 2005..
A copy teste:
Electoral
Board
Seal
Chairman
Chairman
Secretary
��y T Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia,
at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for:
MEMBER
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
84th District
ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER
NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIGURES)
Sal R. laquinto - R 8 269
Supriya Christopher - D I ... _ .. ....... 6,615
Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION]
[Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] .........
20
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office..... 1
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Cleric of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this
A copy teste:
Electoral
Board
Sea]
10 th day of November, 2005.
Chairman
Chairman
-a , Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia,
at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for:
MEMBER
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
85th District
ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER
NAMES OF CANDIDATEs WITH PARTY /D AS SHOWN ON BALLOT
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIGURES)
Robert "Bob" Tata - R ................. 16,692
Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] 287
[Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] .........
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office................. 4
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and. connect
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this
A copy teste:
Electoral
Board
Sea?
10 th day of No,
Chairman
Chairman
Secretary
--�-a Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia,
at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for:
MEMBER
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
90th District
ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER
NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIGURES)
Algie T. Howell, Jr. - D 797
Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION]
[Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ......... 9
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office..... 0
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and. correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this
A copy testa:
Electoral
Board
Seal
10 th day of Novembor,-200t.
c,
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of City of Virginia Beach , Virginia,
at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for:
COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY
NAMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIGURES)
Harvey L. Bryant III 77,028
Total Write -In Votes
[Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write-in Votes) .......... 744
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person has
received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election:
Harvey L. Bryant III
Given under our hands this loth day of November, 2005,-. �
A copy teste:
Electoral
Board
Seal
Chairman
Chairman
`---y. , Secretary
�� Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of City of Virginia Beach , Virginia,
at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for:
TREASURER
NAMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT
John T. Atkinson, Sr. ..............
ToTAI VOTES
RECENED
(IN FIGURES)
80,639
Total Write -In Votes
[Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] .......... 887
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person has
received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election:
John T. Atkinson, Sr.
Given under our hands this 10 th day of November, 2005.
A copy teste:
Electoral
Board
Seal
Chairman
Chairman
Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of City of Virginia Beach Virginia,
at the November 8, 2006 General Election, for:
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
NAMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES)
Philip J. Kellam 79,094
Total Write-in Votes 619
[Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ..........
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the.
Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person has
received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election:
Given under our hands this
A copy teste:
Electoral
Board
Seal
10 thday of Nc
Philip J. Kellam
Chairman
Chairman
Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of City of Virginia .Beach , Virginia,
at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for:
SHERIFF
TOTAL VGTES
RECEIVED
NAMES OF CANDIDATES AS SNOWN oN BALLOT ON FIGURES)
Paul J. Lanteigne .......... 77,418
Total Write -In Votes
[Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] .:........ 711
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person has
received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election:
Paul J. Lanteigne
Given under our hands this 10 th day of Noven
A copy teste:
Electoral
Board
Seal
Chairman
Chairman
�✓' "`� `� , Secretary
�� -__V ' Secretary, Electoral Board