No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPRIL 22, 2003 AGENDACITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYEtL4 E OBERNDORF, At-Large VICE MAYOR LOUIS R JONES, Baysute- Dtstrtct 4 HAP, RYE DIEZ, EL, Kempswlle -Dtstrtct 2 MARGARET L EURE, Centervdle -Dtstrtct 1 REBA S McCLANAN, Rose Hall- Dtstrtct 3 RICHARD A MADDOX, Beach -Dtstrtct 6 JIM REEVE, Prtncess Anne- Dtstrtct 7 PETER W SCHMIDT, At-Large RON A VILLANUEVA, At-Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At-Large dAMES L WOOD, Lynnhaven -Dtstrtct 5 JAMES K SPORE, City Manager LESLIE L LILLEE Ctty Attorney RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMC Ctty Clerk CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 22 April 2003 CITY HALL BUILDING I 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE (757) 427-4303 FAX(757) 426-5669 E MAIL Ctycncl~vbgov com I. CITY MANAGER'S WORKSHOP -Conference Room - 1:00 PM Ao B, PUBLIC LIBRARIES Martha J. Sims, Library Director RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 Catheryn Whltesell, Director Management Services 1. Quality Organization II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS Ill. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION -Conference Room - 4:00 PM Ao Bo CALL TO ORDER- Mayor Meyera E Obemdorf ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION D. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION V. CITY COUNCIL INFORMAL DISCUSSION VI. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER- Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Rabbi Israel Zoberman Congregation Beth Chavenm C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1. Star Spangled Banner - Anthony Sweeney D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS April 8, 2003 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. MAYOR'S PRESENTATION 1. PROCLAMATION a, Special Olympics Day - May 3, 2003 Robert S. Miller III, President I. CONSENT AGENDA J. ORDINANCES / RESOLUTIONS 1. Resolution re procedures for the assessment, receipt and collection of TRUSTEE TAXES . Ordinance to AMEND § 21-300 of the Motor Vehicle and Traffic Code to AUTHORIZE the use of photo monitoring systems re Red Light Photo Enforcement. , Ordinance to AMEND § 113 of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance re written notice and posting of signs for Variances. . . , . o . 10. Ordinance to AMEND the City's Open Air Caf6 regulations regarding permitted improvements and operations.(Deferred April 8, 2003) Ordinance to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachment into a portion of the right-of-way on Crab Creek by JOHN A. MERENDA to construct and maintain a boat llfr and catwalk at 3561 Piedmont Circle. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachment into a portion of the nght-of-way of S. Woodhouse Road by ALANTON CIVIC LEAGUE, INC. to construct and maintain electrical and water conduit, lighting and a sprinkler system at the intersection of South Woodhouse and Mill Dam Roads. Applications to the U.S. Department of Justice re "pass-through" funding to localities re preparedness and response to weapons of mass destruction (WMD): a. Resolution to express support to fund grants for equipment and to AUTHORIZE an agent to submit apphcations and take pohce and fire related actions to address tactical rescue and hazardous materials should an event occur. bo Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $233,614 in grants from the U.S. Department of Justice re the purchase of necessary equipment for tactical response: (1) (2) (3) Communications and Information Technology Department: $151,284 Fire Department: $ 53,240 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department: $ 29,090 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $1,805,270 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) re the Housing Choice Voucher program and increase revenues from the Federal Government accordingly. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $119,512 from various sources and $78,845 from the fund balance ~n the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse ("MH/MR/SAS") to the FY 2002-2003 operating budget re purchase and ~nstalling a lift system at the Skillquest facdity. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $40,000 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the Fire Department's FY 2002-2003 operating budget re a community emergency response team and citizen corps council, ~ncreas~ng the federal revenue accordingly. K, PLANNING o Application of MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. re Change ofZontng Dtstrtct Classtficatton from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District to construct a mini warehouse use on the west side of Centerville Turnpike and north of Kempsville Road, containing 6.724 acres. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Deferred: Recommendation: March 25, 2003 APPROVAL , . . . Application of ROYAL COURT, INC. re Change ofZomng Dtstrtct Classtficatton from AG-1 Agricultural District, AG-2 Agricultural District and R-20 Residential District to R-SD Residential Duplex District with a PD-H2 Planned Unit Development D~strlct Overlay for residential land use on the north side of Pnncess Anne Road and Crossroads Trail, contmmng 9.963 acres. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Deferred: Staff Recommendation: Planning Recommendation: March 25, 2003 Defer to May 13, 2003 APPROVAL Applications of GLAMOUR CORPORATION on the south side of Dam Neck Road, west of Corporate Landing Parkway: (DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE) a. Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 Agricultural Dtstrtct to Conditional 0-1 Office Dtstrtct, containing 2 acres b, Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 Agrtcultural Dtstrtct to Condtttonal H-1 Hotel District, containing 4.4 acres Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of FREDERICK E. LEE, II for a Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage on property at 1153 Jensen Drive, containing 9,680 square feet. (DISTRICT 6- BEACH) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of REHOBOTH BAPTIST CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit for church expanston and stormwater management at 176-182 South Blrdneck Road, containing 2.4 acres. (DISTRICT 6- BEACH) Recommendation: APPROVAL Applications re property on the east side of Little Neck Road, north of Poplar Bend (864 Little Neck Road), containing 5.319 acres. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) ao VOICESTREAM GSM II, L.L.C. for MODIFICATION of Proffers Nos. 1, 2, 4 and REVISE Proffer No. 3 re a Change of Zoning in the application of Hubert L. Daft and Mona H. Dail from R-3 Restdenttal Dtstrtct to 0-1 Office Dtstrtct (approved by City Council on February 9, 1981) b. VOICE STREAM WIRELESS for a Conditional Use Permit re wtreless communtcatton facthty/communtcatton tower The applicant request DEFERRAL to May 13, 2003 Recommendation: APPROVAL . Application of LAUNDRY/CARWASH USA for a Conditional Use Permit re a carwash on the northwest comer of Newtown Road and Cabot Avenue, containing 1.57 acres. (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL . Application of City of %rginia Beach for a Change of Zoning Dlsmct Classification from R- 5D Restdenttal Duplex Dtstrict to Condtttonal I-1 Ltght Industrtal Property on the east side of Princess Anne Road, north of Dam Neck Road and south of Concert Drive, contmning 21.5 acres. (DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL) Recommendation: APPROVAL . Ordinance to AMEND §§ 105, 106, 107, 108, 221, 1405 and 1605 of the C~ty Zoning Ordinance (CZO), pertalmng to written notice and posttng ofstgns for applications. Recommendation: APPROVAL 10. Ordinance to AMEND § 901 of the City Zomng Ordinance (CZO) to include public or private colleges and universities in the B-2, B-3, B-3A, and B-4 Business Districts. NO ACTION NECESSARY L. APPOINTMENTS MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION THE PLANNING COUNCIL VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (VBCDC) M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS 1. ABSTRACT OF CWIL CASES RESOLVED - March 2003 O. ADJOURNMENT 2003 Time Resource Manaeement Schedule Apnl 24 April 24 Apnl 29 May 1 May 1 May 6 May 13 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm Safe Community RMP Workshop 6:00 pm Public Hearing - Proposed FY 2003-04 Resort Management Planning - Kellam High School - 6:00 P.M. Quality Physical Environment 2:00 to 5:00 pm Family and Youth opportunities RMP Workshop 6:00 pm Public Hearing -Proposed FY Resort Management Planning- City Council Chamber - 6:00 P.M. Reconciliation Workshop 6:00 pm City Council ADOPTION FY 2003-04 Resort Management Plan City Council, in trying to be more responsive to the needs of citizens who attend the meetings, has adopted the following time limits for future Formal Sessions Applicant or Applicant's Representative Attorney or Representative for Opposition Other Speakers - each Applicant's Rebuttal 10 Minute 10 Minutes 3 Minutes 3 Minutes THESE TIMES WILL BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO. If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303 Hearing impaired, call: TDD only 427-4305 (TDD- Telephomc Device for the Deaf) Agenda 04/22/03 slb www.vbgov.com CITY MANAGER'S WORKSHOP Ao PUBLIC LIBRARIES Martha J. Sims, Library Director Bo RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 Catheryn Whitesell, Director Management Services 1. Quality Organization - Conference Room 1:00 PM II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS llI. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS · I I I I I I i I i I I i IV. INFORMAL SESSION -Conference Room - 4:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER- Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION D. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION V. CITY COUNCIL INFORMAL DISCUSSION I r i I i i i r CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virgima Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Vlrgima 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 thas Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber- 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER- Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Rabbi Israel Zoberman Congregation Beth Chavenm C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1. Star Spangled Banner- Anthony Sweeney D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS April 8, 2003 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted an conformity with Virginia Law NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virglma Beach City Councd 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 ttus Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. H. MAYOR'S PRESENTATION 1. PROCLAMATION ao Special Olympics Day - May 3, 2003 Robert S. Miller III, President I. CONSENT AGENDA Whereas: Speoal Olymlncs ~s an ~nternational program of sports training and comp~ ~ohich gives chddren andadults ~vho are mentally chat~edan opportumty to develop the~rplrysicalskills, duplay their abilities ana~ most zmportantly, fulfill therr human potential; and The Virgrnta ~Beach Specml Olympgs provules mentally chalked cit~ens · vith the opportunity to partwrpate tn athletic trmmng andcompetition as ~ell as other social events; and Whereas: This year, the Area II Annual Track and q:~eld games ~ncludrng Virgmm Beach Speoal Olymlncs ~vill be held on Saturday, May 3, 2003 at ~Bays~de 21~h School in VrBrma O~each; and Whereas: This ~be the eleventh year of the V~rgznm $each Oty Councff's trad~twn of hononng Speoal Olympics: Hoxv, TherGcore, I, Meyera B. Oberador~, Mayor of the Oty of V~rgmm $each, Virginug do hereby ~roclaim May 3, 2003 Special Olympics ®ay In Virg~nm $each, and I encourage all c~t~zens to support the games on 5~tay 3, 2003. I .further encourage MIcit~ens to recogmze the courage of Spec~al O~ympmns, the spr~t and adventure of SpecialOOmpics, andthe contributions of allmentalIy chal~edc~t~ens to In q4,1'tness Whereof I have hereunto set my handandcaused the Officuff Sedof the Oty of V~rg~ma $each, V~rg~nug to be ~ffixed this T~venty-second day of Apri6 T~vo Thousand Three. Meyera B. 06erndo~ Mayor I ORDINANCES / RESOLUTIONS 1. Resolution re procedures for the assessment, receipt and collection of trustee taxes. . Ordinance to AMEND § 21-300 of the Motor Vehicle and Traffic Code to AUTHORIZE the use of photo momtoring systems re Red Light Photo Enforcement. o Ordinance to AMEND § 113 of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance re written notice and posting of signs for Variances. . Ordinance to AMEND the City's Open Air Caf6 regulations regarding permitted improvements and operations. Deferred: April 8, 2003 . Ordinance to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachment into a port~on of the right-of- way on Crab Creek by JOHN A. MERENDA to construct and maintain a boat lift and catwalk at 3561 Piedmont Circle. . Ordinance to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments into a portion of the right-of- way of S. Woodhouse Road by ALANTON CIVIC LEAGUE, INC. to construct and maintain electrical and water conduit, lighting and a sprinkler system at the intersection of South Woodhouse and Mill Dam Roads. . Applications to the U.S. Department of Justice re "pass-through" funding to localities re preparedness and response to weapons of mass destruction (WMD): a. bo Resolution to express support to fund grants for eqmpment and to AUTHORIZE an agent to submit apphcations and take police and fire related actions to address tactical rescue and hazardous materials should an event OCCur. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $233,614 in grants from the U.S. Department of Justice re the purchase of necessary equipment for tactical response: (1) Communications and Information Technology Department: $151,284 (2) Fire Department: $ 53,240 (3) Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department: $ 29,090 . ordinance to APPROPRIATE $1,805,270 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) re the Housing Choice Voucher program and increase revenues from the Federal Government accordingly. . Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $119,512 from various sources and $78,845 from the fund balance in the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse ("MH/MR/SAS") to the FY 2002-2003 operating budget re purchase and installing a lift system at the Sklllquest facility. 10. ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $40,000 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the Fire Department's FY 2002-2003 operating budget re a community emergency response team and citizen corps council, increasing the federal revenue accordingly. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution Regarding Procedures for the Assessment, Receipt and Collection of Trustee Taxes MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 Background: At its meeting of November 12, 2002, the City Council was asked to consider amendments that would codify the existing practice in which the Commissioner receives trustee tax payments, while adding new language to assign the Treasurer the responsibility of collecting those delinquent accounts. During the Council's discussion of this matter in its agenda review session, Mayor Oberndorf appointed Vice-Mayor Jones and Councilmember McClanan to serve on a committee to meet with the parties, investigate the issues, and make a report and recommendation back to the City Council. Vice-Mayor Jones and Councilmember McClanan have presented their report dated April 8, 2003; the attached Resolution accepts and approves the report and directs the City Manager and City Attorney to implement the recommendations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RESOLUTION REGARDING PROCEDURES FOR THE ASSESSMENT, RECEIPT AND COLLECTION OF TRUSTEE TAXES WHEREAS, the City Council has received the attached report 8 of Vice Mayor Jones and Councilmember McClanan dated April 8, 2003 regarding the assessment, receipt and collection of trustee taxes (i.e., retail meal, lodging and admission taxes collected 11 by businesses directly from patrons); and 12 WHEREAS, the Council accepts and approves the recommendations of the report and desires to implement the 14 recommendations. 15 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of 16 Virginia Beach that the City Attorney is directed to draft any amendments required by the City Code to provide for a system in 18 whmch trustee taxes are received and collected by the City 19 Treasurer, with the Commissioner of the Revenue having the 20 responsibilities of discovering, registering and auditing 21 businesses responsible for trustee accounts. 22 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is d~rected to 23 utilize the authority provided by City Charter Sections 8.06 and 24 8.07 to create a working relationship between the Commissioner 25 of the Revenue and City Treasurer that is consistent with the 26 City Code and the findings of this report. The end result must 27 be an efficient, effective system that wmll ensure the flow of 28 information between these two vital offices and result in the 29 prompt collection of all taxes due to the City. 30 ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 31 Virginia, this day of , 2003. 32 33 CA-8852 34 F: \Data\ATY\Ordin\NONCODE\Recommendation. Res. Doc April 17, 2003 R-2 LOUIS R JONES COUNCILMAN - DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE City of Virginia PHONE (757) 583-0177 FAX (757) 426-5669 April 8, 20O3 The Honorable Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf Members of City Council City of V~rg~nla Beach Municipal Center Virgima Beach, Virginia 23456 Re: Report to the City Council on the Administration of Trustee Taxes Dear Mayor Oberndorf and Members of City Council: Back~round At its meeting of November 12, 2002, the City Council was asked to consider a proposed ordinance that would have made significant revisions to the procedure by which trustee taxes (retail meal, lodging and admissmn taxes collected by businesses directly from patrons) are administered. In essence, the amendments would have codified the existing practice in which the Commissioner receives these tax payments, while adding new language to assign the Treasurer the responsibility of collecting delinquent accounts. During the Council's discussion of this matter in ~ts agenda review session, it became apparent that this ordinance did not address unresolved issues regarding the implementation and coordination of the assessment and collection functions. Mayor Oberndorf appointed Vice Mayor Jones and Councilmember McClanan to serve on a committee to meet w~th the parties, investigate the issues, and make a report and recommendation back to the City Council. In the course of our work, we reviewed the pertinent sections of the City Charter, the City Code and the State Code, as well as a prior opinion on the subject prepared by the City Attorney's Office. To gather the necessary factual background, we also met with the following persons: 1. City Manager James K. Spore; 2. ChiefF~nancial Officer Steven T. Thompson; 3. Finance Director Patricm A. Philhps; 4. Chief Information Officer David Sullivan; 5. Commissioner of the Revenue Philip J. Kellam; 1008 WITCH POiNt TRAIL, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23455-5645 The Honorable Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf -2- April 8, 2003 Re: Report to the City Council on the Administration of Trustee Taxes 6. City Treasurer John T. Atkinson; 7. City Attorney Leslie L. Lilley; and 8. Associate City Attorney Lawrence S. Spencer. Findint~s -- In our review of the City Charter, the City Code and the State Code, it seems clear that the powers and duties of the Commissioner of the Revenue relate to the assessment of taxes,I while the Treasurer's duties and powers concern the receipt and collection of taxes? The ordinance that the Commissioner of the Revenue has presented formalizes a practice that has evolved over years in which payment of trustee taxes is made directly to the Commissioner of the Revenue. It also proposed moving collection responsibilities to the City Treasurer. In our view, transferring the collection process to the Treasurer is a step in the right direction, but it serves to highlight a more fundamental issue: that the initial receipt of these taxes, under current practice and as proposed by the ordinance, is by an assessing officer rather than the officer charged by state law with receiving and collecting local taxes. Furthermore, the proposed changes would create a dysfunctional collection system in which the Treasurer would not have adequate knowledge of what he is to collect or how much is being collected. With regard to trustee taxes, the relevant sections of the City Code provide that each assessment is a certain percentage of the amount paid for a meal, hotel room or an admission? Businesses make these assessments each month and forward the assessments and tax payments to the Commissioner of the Revenue. If these reports and remittances went directly to the Treasurer, he would be able to rely upon the language of the City Code, along with a report of monthly sales, to determine, at least initially, whether the taxpayer has paid a proper amount. Once the tax is paid, the Commissioner of the Revenue is empowered to audit the return and determine if the correct amount has been reported, and we believe that auditing businesses, as well as identifying businesses that should be collecting these taxes, is the proper role for the Commissioner of the Revenue. ~The duties of commissioners of the revenue, as set forth at V~rgima Code § 58.1-3109, include assessing "all property and income subject to assessment by h~s office." 2"The treasurer's primary duties are the receipt, collection and disbursement of pubhc monies." 1978-79 Report of the Attorney General 289. 31t should be noted that admimstenng trustee taxes ~s not a statutorily prescribed duty of a commissioner of the revenue; the administration of such taxes is a duty that a commissioner of the revenue may assume upon request or by &rect~on of the governing body. 2000 Report of the Attorney 204. For th~s reason, it ~s difficult to conclude that the commissioner of the revenue must "assess" these taxes before the treasurer could receive them. The Honorable Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf -3- Re: Report to the City Council on the Administration of Trustee Taxes April 8, 2003 As stated above, the practice that has evolved over the years has the Commissioner of the Revenue receiving both the monthly reports of reports, as well as the taxes, collected by the businesses; the Commissioner then transmits the tax payments to the Treasurer at a later date.4 The proposed ordinance changes do not solve the problem of collecting delinquent trustee taxes in an efficient manner. In fact, the proposed ordinance would codify the current procedure which is not, in the writers' opinion, acceptable. Powers and Duties of the City Treasurer and the Commissioner of the Revenue The City Charter, in Chapter 8, "Financial Administration," provides for the duties ofthe City Treasurer and the Commissioner of the Revenue? Section § 8.03 addresses the duties of the City Treasurer and reads as follows: [t]he city treasurer shall be the custodian of all public monies of the city and shall have such powers and duties as are provided by general law. He shall perform such other duties as may be assigned by the director of finance or the council not inconsistent with the laws of the commonwealth. Section 8.04 addresses the duties of the Commissioner of the Revenue and states that It]he commissioner of revenue shall perform such duties not inconsistent with the laws of the commonwealth in relation to the assessment of property and licenses as may be assigned by the director of finance or the council. The clear intent of the Charter, in our opinion, was and is to create a system in which the Commissioner of the Revenue assesses taxes and the Treasurer collects taxes. There is no reason that we have been able to discern as to why the City Code should be changed to endorse the current system, in which the Commissioner actually receives tax payments. In the event that the current practice is changed, so that all taxes are received and collected by Treasurer, as provided by the City Code, the Treasurer can file a daily report with the Commissioner of the Revenue of the taxes collected. The Commissioner of the Revenue may then audit any or all of those taxes paid to determine whether the businesses have been properly reported and self-assessed the taxes in question. 4The C~ty Code, at §§ 35-140 and 35-162, actually provides that businesses selhng prepared meals or lodging submit monthly repons (self-assessments) of the taxes due, as well as taxes collected from patrons, to the City Treasurer. However, C~ty Code § 35-187 provides that these reports and remittances be made to the Commissioner of the Revenue. ~To maintmn a quality workforce, the C~ty Council, currently and historically, provides supplements to state compensation board salary levels for employees of both the Commissioner of the Revenue and the City Treasurer. These supplements total seventy-seven percent of total salaries and fringe benefit costs budgeted for FY 2002-03. The Honorable Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf -4- April 8, 2003 Re: Report to the City Council on the Administration of Trustee Taxes The reason to return the City Treasurer to the role of receiving tax payments and collecting delinquent accounts is simple: by law, treasurers have extraor&nary power to collect taxes.6 These powers can be exercised much faster and efficiently then the process the Commigsioner of the Revenue must follow in order to collect delinquent taxes.? In fact, it is our understanding, that because of the limited collection powers possessed by commissioners of the revenue, situations can be created in which trustee taxes are not collected in a timely manner and significant amounts of tax revenue lost. Conclusion We respect the efforts of the current Commissioner of the Revenue to vigorously pursue collection efforts, but it is apparent to us that the City Treasurer, given his statutory powers, can accomplish more with less effort. Furthermore, we believe that, with a system of the City Treasurer receiving tax payments and the Commissioner auditing the payments, the proper system of checks and balances will be established.8 Therefore, it is our opinion that the current City Code is sufficient to provide for proper collection of trustee taxes; it is the process of administering the receipt and collection of trustee taxes that needs to conform to the current Code provisions. Recommended Action Based on our findings, we recommend that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Direct the City Attorney to draft any amendments required to the City Code to provide for a system in which trustee taxes are received and collected by the City Treasurer, with the Commissioner of the Revenue having the responsibilities of discovering, registering and auditing businesses responsible for trustee accounts. 6Only Treasurers may distrain and sell the property of debtor to collect taxes (or even seize money in cash registers), use third party tax hens to attach the debtor's bank accounts, or use the state's set-off&bt program. Virginia Codes §§ 58.1-520,-3919 and -3952. 7Commissioners have the power to institute criminal charges against business that fail to report or remit trustee taxes (Virgima Code §58.1-3 907), and they may ~nmate c~vfl procee&ngs to collect dehnquenl taxes (as any another cre&tor can). Both of these processes can result in considerable delay. 8The Supreme Court of Virg~ma addressed the issue of separating the duties of commissioner of the revenue and treasurers ~n Warren v. Commonwealth, 136 Va. 572 (1923). "The two offices of the commissioners ofthe revenue and of the treasurer, and the funcnons of assessing and collecting hcense taxes to be performed by the respecnve officers, are reqmred by the statute to be kept separate. The reports of the commissioners of the revenue furmsh the sole independent evidence by which the treasurer ~s charged and held accountable for the license taxes collected. Hence, obviously, the statute allows no consohdat~on of these two offices .... " The Honorable Mayor Meyera E. Obemdoff -5- .April 8, 2003 Re: Report Io the City Council on the Administration of Trustee Taxes 2. Direct the City Manager to utilize the authority provided by City Charter § 8.06 and 8.07 to create a working relationship between the Commissioner of the Revenue and City Treasurer that is consistent with the City Code and the findings of this report. The end result must be an efficient, effective system that will ensure the flow of information between these two vital offices and result in the prompt collection of all taxes due to the City. We look forward to discussing these matters with you in person and answering any questions you may have. Very truly yours, Louis R. Jones Vice Mayor Reba S. McClanan Councilmember LRJ/RSM/LLL CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: MEETING DATE: Ordinance to Amend the Motor Vehicle and Traffic Code by Authorizing the Use of Photo-Monitoring Systems to Enforce Traffic Signals April 22, 2003 Background: This ordinance authorizes the C~ty of Virginia Beach to use photo-monitonng systems to enforce compliance with traffic light signals and incorporates the provisions of V~rg~n~a Code § 46.2-833.01 into the City Code. Virginia Code § 46.2-833.01 permits certain localities in Virginia (including the City of Virginia Beach) to use these photo-monitoring systems to deter motorists from running red I~ghts. The law provides that when a vehicle is detected running a red light by the photo monitoring system, the operator of the vehicle will be assessed a $50 fine. (no court costs will be imposed.) Two photos will document the vehicle's entry into an ~ntersect~on after the I~ght has turned red, and they will constitute prima facie evidence that the owner, lessee or renter of the vehicle was also the operator of the vehicle when the photographs were taken This penalty will not be considered a conviction or become part of the v~olator's driving record, nor may ~t be used for insurance rating purposes. Vehicle owners, lessees and renters w~ll also have the opportunity to contest the presumption that they were operating the vehicle at the time of the violation. Considerations: The use of photo-monitoring systems wdl allow the C~ty to provide objective, consistent and precise enforcement of red light wolations, and, in turn, create a safer driving environment for the public. The Police Department has studied the use of these systems ~n other jurisdictions and believes it has come up with a program that considers the rights of motorists as well as public safety. Currently, no funds have been set aside for this program, but the City will incur no up-front costs associated with this program. Furthermore, all costs will be included in the fixed monthly fee to the selected vendor and covered by the program income The City will out- source the majority of the items involved in running the program to the vendor. Public Information- This program will be advertised as a typical agenda item The City Council has previously been briefed and a public hearing conducted. Recommendations: Adoption of Ordinance Attachments: Ordinance Copy of Virginia Code § 46.2-833.01 (for reference) Recommended Action: Adopt Submitting Department/Agency: Pohce Department~/~ City Manager~¥~ ~.- ~~ F:\Data~'l'~Ord~n\NONCODE~. 1-300arf.wpd 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC CODE BY AUTHORIZING THE USE OF PHOTO- MONITORING SYSTEMS TO ENFORCE TRAFFIC LIGHT SIGNALS SECTION ADDED: ~ 21-300 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That, pursuant to the provisions of Virginia Code ~ 46.2- 833.01, a demonstration program using photo-monitoring to impose monetary liability on operators of motor vehicles failing to comply with traffic light signals is hereby authorized. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 21-300 of the City Code is hereby added to read as follows: Sec. 21-300. Use of photo-monitoring systems to enforce traffic light signals; penalty. Section 46.2-833.01 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, which pertains to the use of photo-monitoring systems to enforce traffic light signals, is hereby adopted and incorporated mutatis mutandis into this section by reference, as authorized by section 46.2-1313 of the Code of Virginia. Pursuant to the provisions of section 1-13.92:2 of the Code of Virginia, the 25 incorporation of the above-referenced section of the Code of 26 Virginia shall include all future amendments to that section. This 27 section shall be effective until July 1, 2005. 2 8 COMMENTS 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 This ordinance authorizes the City of Virginia Beach to use photo-monitoring systems to enforce compliance with traffic light signals and incorporates the provisions of Virginia Code § 46.2- 833.01 into the City Code by reference. Incorporating this section by reference ensures that all elements of the state law are contained in the City's ordinance. (The latin phrase "mutatis mutandis" means that any necesarry changes will be made when considering this state law as a local ordinance.) Virginia Code § 46.2-833.01 provides that when a vehicle is detected running a red light by the photo monitoring system, the operator of the vehicle will be assessed a $50 fine. (No court costs will be imposed.) Two photos will document the vehicle's entry into an intersection after the light has turned red, and they will constitute primafacie evidence that the owner, lessee or renter of the vehicle was also the operator of the vehicle when the photographs were taken. This penalty will not be considered a conviction or become part of the violator's driving record, nor may it be used for insurance rating purposes. The summons may be served by personal service or by mailing the summons via first class mail; typically, the summons will be mailed. Notice of the violation will include a copy of the summons and instructions for contesting the presumption that owner, lessee or renter was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the violation, as will as instructions for filling out an affidavit to contest the presumption. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2003 CA8784 Ordin / Propos ed/21- 300 ord. wpd R-4 April 15, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Title 46.2 Motor Vehicles Chap. 8 Regulation of Traffic, §§ 800 - 946 Art. 3 Traffic Signs, Lights, and Markings, §§ 830 - 836 § 46.2-833.01. Use of photo-monitoring systems to enforce traffic light signals; penalty. (Effective until July 1, 2005)-- A. The governing body of any city having a population of more than 390,000, any city having a population of at least 200,000 but less than 225,000, any county having the urban county executive form of government, any county adjacent to such county, and any city or town adjacent to or surrounded by such county except any county having the county executive form of government and the cities surrounded by such county may provide by ordinance for the establishment of a demonstration program imposing monetary liability on the operator of a motor vehicle for failure to comply with traffic light signals in such locality in accordance with the provisions of this section. Each such locality may install and operate traffic light signal photo-monitoring systems at no more than twenty-five intersections within each locality at any one time. B. The operator of a vehicle shall be liable for a monetary penalty imposed pursuant to this section if such vehicle is found, as evidenced by information obtained fi.om a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, to have failed to comply with a traffic light signal within such locality. C. Proof of a violation of this section shall be evidenced by information obtained from a traffic light signal violation monitoring system authorized pursuant to this section. A certificate, sworn to or affirmed by a technician employed by a locahty authorized to impose penalties pursuant to this section, or a facsimile thereof, based upon inspection of photographs, microphotographs, videotape, or other recorded images produced by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. Any photographs, microphotographs, videotape, or other recorded images evidencing such a violation shall be available for inspection in any proceeding to adjudicate the liability for such violation pursuant to an ordinance adopted pursuant to this section. D. In the prosecution of an offense established under this section, prima facie evidence that the vehicle described in the summons issued pursuant to this section was operated in violation of this section, together with proof that the defendant was at the time of such violation the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a rebuttable presumption that such owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle was the person who committed the violation. Such presumption shall be rebutted if the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle (i) files an affidavit by regular mail with the clerk of the general district court that he or she was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation or (fi) testifies in open court under oath that he or she was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. Such presumption shall also be rebutted if a certified copy of a police report, showing that the vehicle had been reported to the police as stolen prior to the time of the alleged violation of this section, is presented, prior to the return date established on the summons issued pursuant to this section, to the court adjudicating the alleged violation. Pnnted from CaseFinder~. Geronimo Develooment Conxa'auon - Current through: 1/31/2003 E. For purposes of this section "owner" means the registered owner of such vehicle on record with the Department of Motor Vehicles. For purposes of this section, "traffic light signal violation-monitoring system" means a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with a traffic light that automatically produces two or more photographs, two or more microphotographs, a videotape, or other recorded images of each vehicle at the time it is used or operated in violation of §§ 46.2-833, 46.2-835, or § 46.2- 836. For each such vehicle, at least one recorded image shall be of the vehicle before it has illegally entered the mtersection, and at least one recorded image shall be of the same vehicle after it has illegally entered that intersection. F. Imposition of a penalty pursuant to this section shall not be deemed a conviction as an operator and shall not be made part of the operating record of the person upon whom such liability is imposed nor shall ~t be used for insurance purposes in the provision of motor vehicle insurance coverage. No monetary penalty imposed under this section shall exceed fifty dollars nor shall it include court costs. G. A summons for a violation of this section may be executed pursuant to § 19.2-76.2. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 19.2-76, a summons for a violation of this section may be executed by mailing by first-class mail a copy thereof to the address of the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle as shown, in the case of vehicle owners, in the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles or, in the case of vehicle lessees or renters, in the records of the lessor or rentor. Every such mailing shall include, in addition to the summons, a notice of (i) the summoned person's ability to rebut the presumption that he was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation through the filing of an affidavit as provided m subsection D of this section and (ii) instructions for filing such affidavit, including the address to which the affidavit is to be sent. If the summoned person fails to appear on the date of return set out in the summons mailed pursuant to this section, the summons shall be executed in the manner set out in § 19.2-76.3. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of a person summoned by mailing shall be instituted for failure to appear on the return date of the summons. H. In any action at law brought by any person or entity as the result of personal injury or death or damage to property, such evidence derived from a photo-monitoring system shall be admissible in the same method prescribed as required in the prosecution of an offense established under this section without the requirements of authentication as otherwise required by law. I. On behalf of a locality, a private entity may not obtain records regarding the registered owners of vehicles which fail to comply with traffic light signals. A private entity may enter into an agreement with a locality to be compensated for providing the traffic light signal violation-monitoring system or equipment, and all related support services, to include consulting, operations and administration. However, only an employee of the locality may swear to or afl'am the certificate required by subsection C. J. The provisions of this section shall expire on July 1, 2005. (1995, c. 492; 1996, c. 392; 1998, cc. 663, 685; 1999, c. 884; 2000, c. 575.) Printed from CaseFmder~. Geronimo Develovraent Corooration - Current throur, h' 1/31/2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend Section 113 of the Chesapeake Bay Preservabon Area Ordinance Pertaining to Written Notice and Posting of Signs for Variances MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 · Background: There has been concern expressed that the public needs more information in regard to variances granted by various City boards and Commissions. Councilmember Margaret Eure has requested that notification of public hearings as well as the posting of signs ~n regard thereto be given earlier. This amendment applies to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. It requires the Board to give adjacent property owners written notification of variances 15 days, instead of 5, prior to the hearing. Signs posted on the property to notify the community must be posted 30 days, instead of 15, prior to the public hearing. Public Information: Regular advertising. · Recommendations: Approval of the attached ordinance. · Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Planning Dept~[ DepartmentJAgen. cy: City Manager:~~.~ /~ ~~.~ ~v 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 113 OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO WRITTEN NOTICE AND POSTING OF SIGNS FOR VARIANCES SECTION AMENDED- ~ 113 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA- That Section 113 of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 113. Variances. · · · (D.1) The board shall notify, by first class mail, all property owners adjacent to the subject property and each waterfront property owner across the waterway from the subject property, if the water body is less than five hundred (500) feet wide, of the public hearing at least ~ fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. (E) In addition to the foregoing requirements, the applicant shall cause to be posted on the property which is the subject of the hearing a sign, of a size and type approved by the board. One (1) such sign shall be posted within ten (10) feet of every public street adjoining the property and within ten (10) feet of any body of water or waterway less than five hundred (500) feet wide adjoining the property. Such sign shall be posted not less than fifteen {15) thirty (30) days from the public hearing and shall state the nature of the application and date and time of the hearing. Such signs shall be removed no later than five (5) days 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 after the public hearing. In the event such sign is removed, obscured, otherwise rendered illegible or if the board determines that the requirements of this section have not been met prior to the hearing, the board may deny or defer the application. Any application deferred by the board by reason of noncompliance with the posting requirements of this section shall not thereafter be heard unless and until an additional fee in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00) is paid. COMMENT: The proposed amendment requires written notice of Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area variance applications to be given to adjacent property owners and certain other persons at least 15 days prior to the public hearing before the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board. It also requires the signs containing information about CBPA variance applications to be posted 30 rather than 15 days before the public hearing before the CBPA Board. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That this Ordinance shall not apply to any application, otherwise subject to the provisions hereof, filed prior to the date of adoptions of this ordinance. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2003. CA-8813 DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/chesbayll3ord.wpd R1 - March 21, 2003 ENTS: APPRO~VED ~S TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Law ~'e p a-r t'm~ n { April 8, 2003 COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Well, it's confusing the way it says no bar or dispensing of alcohol, which is saying that you can't have a glass of wine or a drink, because ~t says no d~spens~ng of alcohol. You have to have ~t d~spensed to consume lt. COUNCIL LADY EURE: And what is A, B, C and D? COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I mean, is th~s the way we want this stated? MAYOR OBERNDORF: CITY ATTORNEY: MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Mr. Lllley. Yes, ma'am. As the Attorney for the C~ty, can you resolve this concern? CITY ATTORNEY: It's clear to the Staff and to me that dispensing means the actual pouring of the drink or preparing the dr~nk and that's what can't happen ~n the Cafe' area. But if the Council is uncomfortable w~th that language, we can come up w~th some other way to say ~t. We can say ~t another way to make it so that -- if it's caused any confusion at all, we will say it another way, because ~t shouldn't cause any confusion. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I th~nk anybody who reads it ought to be able to understand what it says. MAYOR OBERNDORF: In other words, they can bring out a glass that's already been poured, but they can't put a bottle in an ice chest and then have somebody take that out of that chest and pour it in the glass. CITY ATTORNEY: No dispensing of the alcohol w~thln that area. MAYOR OBERNDORF: That's what it means, Rosemary. April 8, 2003 INFORMAL SESSION VICE MAYOR JONES: This ~s the revised version of an Ordinance to amend -- is that for Item 2A? COUNCIL LADY EURE: Yeah. CITY MANAGER: MAYOR OBERNDORF: What I th~nk you're looking at, Mr. Jones, is on the Open Cafe's. Yeah. VICE MAYOR JONES: Okay. CITY MANAGER: That ~s 2A, that's correct. The only change is we originally had a f~ve-foot planting bed, and actually going down there and looklng and measuring up the planting beds that were in place and the ones that looked attractive, they are a little wider than that. We 3ust don't want to have to mandate a minimal lmttle five-foot strip around them. We want to give the people the ability to do a better landscaping 3ob. So, ~t says not less than five, no more than ten. We will work w~th them on the design of those. That's the only change. MAXOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Mrs. Wilson. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: J~m, on this one Part 2C it talks about that there's no dispensing of alcohol. So, if you're s~ttlng at those little tables outside, they don't serve a glass of wine or anything like that? That seems kind of odd. ASSISTANT CITY ATTOBNEY: What they are referring to is the fact that the bar is not allowed to be constructed w~thln the Cafe' confines. You can have a dr~nk. You can order a drink, but as far as dispensing or having a bar set up within the Cafe' that's not allowed by the regulations. V~rgin~a Beach Cxty Councxl April 8, 2003 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor Vice Mayor Louzs R. Jones Harry E. Dmezel Margaret L. Eure Reba McClanan Richard A. Maddox Jim Reeve Peter Schm~dt Ron A. V~llanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood At-Large Bayslde - D~strlct 4 Kempsvllle - Dzstrzct 6 Centervllle - Dlstrmct 1 Rose Hall - Dlstrzct 3 Beach - Dmstrzct 6 Pr!ncess Anne - Dzstrzct 7 At-Large At-Large At-Large Lynnhaven - District 5 CITY~%NAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lzlley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Open A~r Cafes' - 28 - Item V-K.2.a. ORDINANCES/RESOL UTION ITEM # 51027 Matt Falvey, President - Virgima Beach Restaurant Association, Phone. 717-1002, spoke tn SUPPORT of the Resolution and requested hours not be extended for publtc performances on stages Upon motton by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Council Lady Wilson, Ctty Council DEFERRED until the City Council Session of April 22, 2003, to allow for amendments. Ordinances re Open Atr Cafes: a. REVISE regulattons on scope of improvements on ctty property and operation repermitted landscaping, watter service windows, entertatnment hours, dispensing of alcohol and sohcitatton of any type Voting. 11-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye Harry E. Diezel. Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmtdt, Ron A. Vdlanueva, Rosemary Wdson and James L. Wood Councd Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent. None Aprtl 8, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: MEETING DATE: An Ordinance to Amend the City's Open Air Caf6 Regulations April 22, 3003 Background: By resolution adopted November 25, 1985 (Resolution #85-1424), City Council, upon the recommendation of City staff and the Resort Advisory Commission, authorized the City Manager to promulgate Open Air Regulations. Since then, additional revisions to the regulations have been made as the caf6s have continued to evolve and grow as an amenity in the Resort area. Currently here are 43 cafes in the Open Air Caf~ Program. Considerations: City staff, in consultation w~th the Resort Advisory Commission, have revised and updated the Resort Open Air Caf~ Regulations. One proposed change would be to clarify the scope of improvements on City property allowed by the franchise agreement is limited to: a caf~ (maximum 800 sq. ft.), one planting bed of not less than five (5) feet nor more than ten (10) feet, and one five (5) foot walkway. Other changes relate to the operation of the cafes. One proposal would allow waiter service windows in connector park cafes only. Another would extend the hours of entertainment allowed in cafes to 11:00 p.m. (currently the I~mit is 10:00 p.m.). Finally, the proposed changes would provide that the following activities will not be allowed w~th~n the cafes: (i) no bar(s) or dispensing of alcohol w~ll be allowed within any Category A, B, C, or D cafe, but patrons may consume alcoholic beverages ~n other cafes; and (ii) solicitation of any type, as described in Section 26-3 of the City Code, from any caf~ will result ~n immediate termination of franchise agreement. Changes have been reviewed and recommended by both the Resort Advisory Commission (RCA) and the staff-level Resort Area Process Management Group. Changes to the greenbelt policy and landscaping requirements for caf6s are expected during the franchise period. Existing franchises are not exempt from changes to these requirements. Public Information: This item will be publicized as part of the City Council's agenda. Recommendations: Approval of Ordinance [] Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Convention and Visitor Development City Manager: ~~'~ ~.~D~ F:kDataXATY~OrdmXNONCODE\cafcrcgarf. wpd 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY'S OPEN AIR CAF~ REGULATIONS REGARDING PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS AND OPERATIONS WHEREAS, by resolution adopted November 15, 1985, City Council authorized the City Manager to promulgate Open Air Caf~ Regulations, which were drafted, reviewed, and endorsed by the Resort Advisory Commission ("RAC"); WHEREAS, the Regulations have been amended, from time to time, upon recommendation of the RAC, to address concerns and issues that have arisen during the development of the open air program; and WHEREAS, City staff have recommended clarification in the level of physical improvements permitted at open air cafes, as well as minor changes regarding the operation of these cafes, and these proposals have been presented to and endorsed by the RAC. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to amend the Open Air Caf~ Regulations to clarify that improvements on City property allowed by the franchise agreement are limited as follows: Improvements on the public property are limited to a caf~ (maximum 800 sq. ft.), one planting bed of not less than five (5) feet nor more than ten (10) feet, and one five (5) foot walkway. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 2. That the City Manger is hereby authorized to amend the Open Air Caf~ Regulations regarding the operation of open a!r cafes as follows: a. To allow waiter service windows in eligible connector parks only; b. To extend the hours of entertaInment allowed in cafes to 11'00 p.m.; c. To provide that the following activities are not allowed in cafes: (i) caf~ employees shall not prepare or pour alcoholic beverages for delivery or sale to patrons within any Category A, B, C, or D cafe; provided, however, that patrons may consume alcoholic beverages in these cafes in compliance with state regulations; and (ii) solicitation of any type, as described in Section 26-3 of the City Code, from any caf~ will result in immediate termination of franchise agreement. 3. That these amendments to the Open Air Caf~ Regulations shall become effective May 1, 2003. 48 49 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2003. CA-8818 ORDIN\NONCODE\openairregsordrev.wpd R-6 - April 15, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Convention & Visitor Development Law Department April 8, 2003 CITY ATTORNEY: But I hear what Mrs. Wilson is saying and if you would like to give us an opportunity we are happy to change that language. I mean, I hear what you're saying and it should be clear to everyone. When I say it should be clear, I mean that language should be such that everyone understands it and if it's not we can change lt. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I would prefer clarity, if you don't mind, Les. CITY ATTORNEY: Sure. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Are we going to put the Declaration of Citizens Appreciation Day on Consent? How about the Richard Maddox Memorial Appreciation? COUNCILMAN VI?.?.m/~JE%rA: impact in regards to -- I have a question, Madam Mayor. Richard, have you thought about the fiscal COUNCILMAN MADDOX: It's $35,000 is what it would cost. To me that's a small price to pay for the dividend of living in the City and being able to come down and enjoy the Boardwalk and the Beach for a citizen -- and that's another reason why we also picked Wednesday. That would have the lowest impact financially. If we do it on Saturday, that's a day that the parking lots are fairly full or Sunday is a day that the parking lots are fairly full. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Because those are the two days people don't work. COUNCILMAN MADDOX: I know. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Peter. COUNCILMAN SCHMIDT: So, are we doing Sunday or are we doing April 8, 2003 MAYOR OBERNDORF: Wednesday? We're doing Wednesday. COUNCIIA~%N SCHMTDT: Okay. MAYOR OBERNDORF: This is a trial. COUNCILMAN SCH~_IDT: Yes, ma'am. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Did you have a question? COUNCILM~N SCHMIDT: That was my question. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Oh, that was your question. Okay. Ail right. The Ordinance re Open Air Cafe's, can we get that wording fixed before the -- CITXATTORNEY: Hopefully, we will. Mr. Spencer is going to work on it right know. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Ail right. So if we can get it corrected, can we put it on Consent? Yes, Mrs. Eure. COUNCIL LADY EURE: What happens to like a bottle of beer~ Do they just simply "uncap" it before they bring it or -- I agree with Rosemary. I don't understand it. CITY ATTOP/TEY: Well, we are in the process of changing COUNCIL LADY EURE: Okay. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Reeve. COUNCILMAN REEVE: It might be that, have no bar out there, right? April 8, 2003 CITY MANAGER: No bar. CITY ATTORNEY: But we also don't want somebody putting a keg out there and tapping a keg out on the patio. Do you think that might happen? MAYOR OBERNDORF: No. I'm shock and appalled. CITY ATTORNEY: You probably don't need the language then. MAYOR OBERNDORF: I don't dr~nk, so I don't care. Ail r~ght Under C, the renewal of the franchises. No one has a problem w~th renewing those franchIses, do they? Okay. COUNCIL LADY EURE: And B as well. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yeah, and the grant for the new franchises. FORMAL SESSION MAYOR OBERNDORF: Resolutions. Mr. Jones. I close the public comment port~on of the Agenda and go onto the Ordinances and the VICE MAXOR JONES: Madam Mayor, under the Consent Agenda, I would l~ke to move approval under Ordinances K-2B Grant for new franchise agreement Atlantic B~stro and Baja Cantina. Item 2C, the renewal of the franchise agreements for Angelo's by the Sea, Boardwalk Cafe', Connector Park Cafe', Fish Bones Restaurant, Guadalaara's, LatItudes and Attitudes, Rockfish Boardwalk Bar and Sea Grxll, Seaside Galley and Waterman's Cafe' COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Under 2 are we pulling A? VICE MAYOR JONES: We're pulling A. We have two speakers on April 8, 2003 that. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: VICE MAYOR JONES: them. I thought we were deferring We are. We're going to defer it, but we have two speakers. We are going to hear COUNCIL LADY WILSON: VICE MAYOR JONES: COUNCIL LADY EURE: I 3ust wanted some clarity. Thank you. The motion is to approve the Consent Agenda. Second. MAYOR OBE~ORF: There's a motion by Mr. Jones seconded by Mrs. Eure to adopt the Consent Agenda. Are we ready for the question? CITY CLERK: By a vote of 11 to 0, you have approved the Consent Agenda as read by the Vice Mayor and the conditions that are being added to Number 4, which is a variance to Section 4.4B. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Encroachment Request to construct and maintain a boat lift and catwalk for John A Merenda MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 Background: Mr. Merenda desires to construct and maintain a boat hft and catwalk on Crab Creek which is adJacent to the eastern portion of his property. Considerations: City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachment and has recommended approval of same, subjected to certain conditions outlined m the agreement There are encroachments of the same nature all along Crab Creek where Mr. Merenda desires to construct and maintain h~s proposed encroachment. Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda. Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as presented, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by City Council. Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map, Agreement, Plat, and Pictures Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works I Real Estate~[~ ~P~ City Manager:~)L. ~~/. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 Requested by Department of Publmc Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON CRAB CREEK BY JOHN A. MERENDA, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, John A. Merenda, deszre to construct and mamntazn a boat lift and catwalk mnto the City's right-of-way located at 3561 Pmedmont Cmzcle. WHEREAS, City Councml is authorized pursuant to ~ 15.2- 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virgmnma, 1950, as amended, to authorize a temporary encroachments upon the Cmty's rmght-of-way subject to such terms and condmtmons as Council may prescrmbe. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contamned in ~ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virgmnia, 1950, as amended John A. Merenda, asszgns and successors mn tmtle are authormzed to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for a boat lift and catwalk in the Cmty's rzght-of-way as shown on the map entmtled: "PROPOSED BOAT LIFT Crab Creek Lynnhaven Rmver Va. Beach, VA. Date: Oct. 31, 2002", a copy of which ms on file mn the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular descrmptmon; and 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained an the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and John A. Merenda, (the "Agreement") which as attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Manager or has authorized designee zs hereby authorazed to execute the Agreement. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such tame as John A. Merenda and the City Manager or his authorazed designee execute the Agreement. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virgmnia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2003. 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 CA-# gsalmons/merenda/ord. R-1 PREPARED: 01.13.03 ROVED AS TO CONTENTS SIGNATURE DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENC]~ AND ~ PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTIONS 58 1-81 l(a)(3) AND 58 1-811 (c)(4) REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 AGREEMENT, made this ~ day of "~'~/"// , 20031, by THIS and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and CRAB CREEK UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, a Virginia Corporation, John A. MERENDA, and William A. COX, III, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WI TNE S S E TH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee, John A. Merenda, is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "3 STORY DUPLEX DWELLING UNIT 7" as shown on "EXHIBIT B CONDOMINIUM PLAT PHASE 4 CRAB CREEK CONDOMINIUM VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", as recorded in M.B 304, at page 50 and being further designated and described as 3561 Piedmont Circle, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455; with an undivided interest in certain common areas and limited common areas as shown on said plat. GPIN 1489-58-6459-3561 WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee John A. Meranda to construct and maintain a boat lift and catwalk, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee John A. Meranda encroach into a portion of an existing City property known as Lynnhaven Promenade "The Temporary Encroachment Area"; and WHEREAS, the Grantees have 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 John A. Merenda 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. "Proposed Boat Lift Crab Creek Lynnhaven River Va. Beach, Va. Date: Oct. 31, 2002", 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 Grantees, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee(s); and that the Grantee(s) will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the John A. Merenda 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 Grantees agree to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee John A. Merenda must obtain a permit from the Office of Developmem Services Center/Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that no commercial use of the community boat dock shall be permitted. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the community boat dock shall be used exclusively by the owners, occupants, and invited guests of lots 7, 8, 9, and 10 as shown on the submitted site plan. It is further expressly understood and agreed no buildings, boat houses, boat launches or additional parking shall be permitted. It is further expressly understood and agreed that no vessels larger than 33 feet in length shall be permitted. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the community boat dock is subject to all applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations. It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a right of way permit, the Grantee John A. Merenda must post bond or other security with a surety acceptable to the City, in accordance with their engineer's cost estimate, to the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee John A. Merenda 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 John A. Meranda 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 John A. Merenda 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 John A. Merenda assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that William A. Cox, III as owner of Unit 8 having an undivided interest in the common areas and limited common area consents to the application but assumes no responsibility or obligation under this agreement. 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 Grantees, and collect the cost ~n any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantees to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantees 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 Grantees; 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, Crab Creek Unit Owners Association, Inc., John A. Merenda, and William A. Cox, III the said Grantees have caused this Agreement to be executed by their signature and seal duly affixed. 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. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk CRAB CREEK UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. Jq~mie Chellew, President ffSrhn A. M~nda / William A. Cox, III STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,20 , by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. Notary Public My Commission Expires' STATE OF CITY/CO~TY OF~Ck .~(k C.~ ,to-wit' The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .~~ day of (~, Ax~ , 2003, by Jamie Chellew, President, on behalf of Crab Creek Unit Owners Association, Inc.. My Commission Expires: Notary Public CITY/CQ~Y OF~,'~k. ~II()_~ , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this e~~ day of O_~Ax~ 2003, by John A. Merenda. My Commission Expires: STATE OF CITY/COJd~4-T-Y OF [/~[~iP, l~4 ~& 'CJQ, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this''/-~~ day of 2003, by William A. Cox, III. Notary Public My Commission Expires: I was originally commissioned as Pamela T. Stil[man, Notary Public APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICI~Y [ CITY ATT6RN~Y APPROVED AS CONTENT C. t. TO LOCATION LOCATION MAP SHOWING ENCROACHMENT REQUESTED BY JOHN A. MERENDA INTO CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY ATLYNNHAVEN PROMENADE ON CRAB CREEK SCALE: 1" -- 200' PREPARED BY P/W ENG. DRAFT. 20-DEC-2002 W~OE x 41 5' LONG SHADOW OF WFFLANDS CRAg: 50 MARSH/WATER / )/ LOW T/OE MAR,<ER ('TYP / WIDE IRC / / / -'"--- BOTrO,¥ - ,. (~?) MOORING PI . .... I _~E ....... - _... ¢__., .z ~._~_:,,,-=,-c:,¥/~41 ' n].o~ Maaaen / [Crab Creel{ 3577 Piedmont Git 2090 Tazewell Rdl 'Lynnhaven River Va. Beach, Va. Va. Beach, Va. ] jVa. Beach, Va._ ....... ~~ ~ I Exhibit "A" JOHN A. MERENDA - CRAB CREEK East side of Merenda property. The catwalk will be on the right side adjacent to Sfip #1's catwalk. Property to the southeast showing encroachments of the same nature. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Encroachment Request - S. Woodhouse Road for Alanton Civic League, Inc. Electrical and Water Conduits, Lighting and Sprinkler System MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 Background: In September of 1995, the Alanton Garden Club received approval by the City of Virgima Beach to install fencing, landscaping, a sprinkler system and electrical conduit into the dghts of way at S. Woodhouse Road and Mill Dam Road (ref. recorded Encroachment Agreement - DB 3555, Pg. 2176). Considerations: Alanton Civic League, Inc. is requesting permission to upgrade and extend the electrical sennce (for lighting and the sprinkler pump) and spnnkler system currently located within S. Woodhouse Road and Mill Dam Road. In doing so, additional larger conduit will need to be ~nstalled ~thin the dght of S. Woodhouse Road per the attached drawing to support the lighting and extended sprinkler system. City Staff have reviewed this request and have recommended approval. Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda. I Alternatives: Deny the application. Recommendations: Since an encroachment had previously been approved by the City ~n 1995 and, even though the current request extends beyond that previously approved area, the current request is similar ~n nature and approval of the Ordinance is recommended Authorize the City Manager or his designee to sign the Encroachment Agreement. Attachments: Ordinance, Drawing, Agreement Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate i Requested by Department of Pubhc Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF S WOODHOUSE ROAD BY ALANTON CIVIC LEAGUE, INC, ITS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, ALANTON CIVIC LEAGUE, INC., desires to construct and maintain 9 electrical and water conduit, lighting and a sprinkler system into the City's right-of-way of S. 10 Woodhouse Road near ItS intersection with Mill Dam Road 11 WHEREAS, City Council is authonzed pursuant to §§ 15 2-2009 and 15 2-2107, 12 Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize a temporary encroachments upon the City's 13 right-of-way subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe 14 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 15 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 16 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 15 2-2009 17 and 15.2-2107, Code ofVlrglma, 1950, as amended ALANTON CIVIC LEAGUE, INC its heirs, assigns and successors in title is authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for electrical and water conduit, lighting and a spnnkler system an the City's right-of-way as shown 20 on the drawing entitled. "ENCLOSURE," a copy ofwhlch is on file in the Department of Pubhc 21 Works and to which reference is made for a more particular description, and 22 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly 23 subject to those terms, cond,tlons and criteria contained ~n the Agreement between the C~ty of 2 4 V~rgima Beach and ALANTON CIVIC LEAGUE, INC, (the "Agreement") which is attached 25 hereto and incorporated by reference, and 26 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the C~ty Manager or hm authorized demgnee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement 28 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such 29 t~me as ALANTON CIVIC LEAGUE, INC and the City Manager or h,s authorized designee 3 0 execute the Agreement 31 Adopted by the Council of the City of V~rg~nla Beach, Vlrg~ma, on the ~ day 3 2 of ,2003 CA- PREPARED 04/04/03 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS SIGNATURE DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATrORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTIONS 58 1-81 l(a)(3) AND 58 1-811(C)(4) REIMBURSElVlENT AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 THIS AGREEMENT, made this ~ day or~ 2003, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and ALANTON CIVIC LEAGUE, INC, a Virginia corporation, ITS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee" WITNESSETH. That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of those certain lots, tracts, or parcels of land designated and described as GPIN's 2408-48-6593 and 2408-48-7497, and That, WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a electrical and water conduit, lighting and a sprinkler system, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City right of way known as S Woodhouse Road, "The Temporary Encroachment Area"; and the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachmem 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 GPIN's 2408-48-6593 and 2408-48-7497 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 "ENCLOSURE," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will beat 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 Development Services Center/Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachment Area It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a right of way permit, the Grantee must post sureties, in accordance with their engineer's cost estimate, to the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance polities 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 s~ngle 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 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 ALANTON CIVIC LEAGUE, [NC has caused this Agreement to be executed in its corporate name and on its behalf by its president. 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. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager 4 (SEAI ) ATTEST Ruth Hodges Smith, CMC City Clerk ALANTON CIVIC LEAGUE, INC., a Virginia corporation DORIS M KRANTZ, p(~dent STATE OF VIRG~A CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2003, by , City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on its behalf. He/She is either personally known to me or has produced a as idemification Notary Public My commission expires STATE OF VIRGI2~A CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of 2003, by Ruth Hodges Smith, CMC, City Clerk ofthe City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on its behalf She is either personally known to me or has produced a as identification Notary Public My commission expires STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF V~GINIA BEACH, to-wit: · h~ ~or,~o~ ~n~,r~m~t w~ ~kno~'~d~,d ~or~ m~ t~, ~ -~d~y o~/d,~,,/' , 2003, by DORIS M KRANTZ as President of ALANTON CMC LEAGUE, INC, on its behalf. She ;° ~:"- .........."--' ............ has p od ed ~~"as ........ ~,,.,ow,,,,,,j ,,~,w-1, ,,.. er r uc a identification Notary Public My commission expires. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CITY iTT~~ APPROVED AS TO CONTENT ~ITY REAL ESTATE AGENT LC,- EXHIBIT "A" CORPORATE RESOLUTION OF ALANTON CIVIC LEAGUE February 17, 2003 To whom it may concern: Doris Krantz is hereby authorized to represent the Alanton Civic League in dealing with the City of Virginia Beach conceming placing water and electrical lines underground at the entrance to the Alanton sub-division. ALANTON CIVIC LEAGUE Proposed Improvements ALANTON EnU3~vay Enclosed is a diagram of the proposed improvements to the gardens and roadside at the Entryway to the Alanton Subdivision. The Alanton Garden Club maintains gardens on Civic League property, and city fight of way at the entry to the subdivision. This site, at the intersection of South Woodhouse Rd and Mill Dam Rd., has an existing irrigation system and an approved electrical lighting system. The pump and electrical breaker box are located on the south side of South Woodhouse Rd. The garden on the north side of South Woodhouse has very limited 12 Volt electrical system and insufficient underground irrigation outlets. The existing one inch PVC conduit will not support needed irrigation for plantings extending down South Woodhouse for a distance of approximately 200 it Additionally there are electrical outlets needed for enhanced lighting and garden maintenance of this north side It is proposed to lay approximately 90 feet of 2 1/2" conduit from the south side to the north side of South Woodhouse Road. ( See enclosed diagram.) A licensed contractor will be employed to perform this task. Two 1" conduits will be placed within this 2 1/2" conduit. One will carry water for the proposed extension of the irrigation system, and the other will contain an electrical line extending the 110/115 volt system to the north side. A licensed electrical contractor will be employed for all electrical work. It is proposed to use this new irrigation capability to extend the irrigation line east down the city fight of way to irrigate existing plantings. This extension will mirror an exiting irrigation line on the opposite side of the street. ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF ALANTON CIVIC LEAGUE, INC. We hereby associate to form a non-stock corporation under the pro- visions of Chapter 2 of Title 13ol of the Code of Vlrglnla, and to that ~:nd ~et fr)rlh the follnwlnq: I. The name of the corporation Is ALANTON CiViC LEAGUE~ INC. 2. The purpose or purposes for which this non-profit organization is orqanlzed are to promote the genera! welfare of and good-will bet~een the residents of the Alanton area in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. 3. Hembership - All residents or property awners of the Alanton area over the age of twenty-one years shall be eligible for membership. 4. Hembership dues shall be $5.00 per annum per family payable in advance. 5. Tl~e persons comprlslnq the initial Board of ten Directors for the term set forth are as follo~s: One Year Virginia Nevlns - Dr. Oarry .;t Il lean - Sol Kaplan - C. F. Fogleman Wm. ~,~cr t feqer - Herbert Britain - Jean Cordle - Two Years Kci th Holsen Three Years E H. Overbay - Reba Kern - 1820 S. Woodhouse Rd., Virginia Beach, Va. 13~ Stephens Rd., Virginia Beach, Va. 1376 Stephens Rd., Virginia Beach, Va. i 1826 S. Woodhouse Rd., Virginia Beach, Va. l 1417 Franklin Dr., Virginia Beach, Va. ! 182~ S. Woodhouse Rd., Va. Beach, Va. I 140~ Whittier Rd., Va. Beach, Va. ; 13~ Whittler Rd., Va. Beach, Virginia 1372 Stephens Rd., Va. Beach, Va. 1828 Cooper Rd., Va. Beach, Va. I £ncl~ member shall be entitled to one vote in the election of directors andi the directors shall elect the officers for the ensuing year. G. The post office address of the initlal registered office is 3221Virqlnie Beach Roulevard, In the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. The nane o~ the registered agent is Owen D. Pickett, who Is a resident o~ Virqinia, and a member of the Virginia State Bar, and whose business office is the same as the reqtstered office of the corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this COMMONWEALTil OF VIRGINL~ STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION AT RICHMOND, l~rch 22a 2.967 The ,~cc,)mpan)ink art;cle~ having ~en delivered to the State Corl~ration Commk~ion on beMtl! o! AJ. ant, on CIvto League, Znc. :m,! the ¢',,mmi.sl,m I,a~ lng f.und that the artkle~ c(mtply with the .qulftmfnta of Imw and t~t all t~ui~d fm Imve ~en paid, it is ()Ri)El(El; dmt fhi, CERTIFICATE OF ~NCOflPORATION he i. ufd, .n,I that lid. order, t~ther with t~ article, be ~mhted to r~rd in the ~ d the ~im; end that the cflr~rafifln h,we the authority ~nfer~d ~ it ~ ~w in s~rdan~ ~th t~ an~ln, mbj~ m t~ ~~ and rfltrlctlf,nl hn~ by law. U~n the ~pletlon ~ eueh r~rd~t~, thh otdff and t~ artsci, thall ~ ~omaM~ ~ ~rdat~ in ~e ~,'I RGIN IA: in the Clerk's Off~ce of the Circuit Court o£ the City o1' Vlz*glnia Beach. The foregoing ,ertit~cate (including thc ~mp~n~nt articles) hu hem duly recorded in my ¢d~.e thh ~ returned m the State (;orporaticm Commim~t by BOOK t5 15th day of February, STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA 9EACH, to-wit: I, Jean Cordia, a Notary Public in and for the City and State aforesaid, do certify that N. Capl~ln, M. K. Holsen and E. H. Overbay, whose names are signed to the foregoing Artl¢les of Incorporation, bearing date on the 15th day of February, 1~67, have acknowledged the same before me In my City and State aForesa id. term of office exNres on the 16th day of February, 1970. Given under my hand this lSth day of February, I~?. / I '" Certify the qvo£fowing from the ~gcor~s of the Commission: The foregoing is a true copy of all documents constituting the charter of ALANTON CiViC LEAGUE, INC. on file in the Clerk's Office of the Commission. Nothing more is hereby certified. CIS0448 Signecf ancf SeafeaCat ~'chmoncf on this ~ate: Cf'e~ruary 25, 2003 ~tfie Commisst~ A CORD., CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/'YYYY) 2/20/2003 PRODUCER 3iLEX H BELL II /BELL INStTRANCE 3213 VIRGINIA BF~CH BOULE%~=~,D VIRGINIA BEACH VA 23452 757-340-0028 INSURED ~TON CIVIC LEAGUE PO BOX 4337 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23454 I THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURER A NATIONWIDE MUTUA~ INS CO INSURER B INSURER C I INSURER D INSURER E COVERAGES NAIC# THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE F~R THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS · POLI~:Y I.-ppI--~ I IVl- I POLICY E,X,I-'II'C~ lION LI'R TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE (MM/DD/YY) DATE (MM/DD/YY) LIMITS GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ i 000 000 DA~,GE TO RENTED X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PREMISES (Ma occurence) $ I CLAIMSMADE ~] OCCUR MED EXP (Any one person) $ 5,000 A 53PR884170-0001 01/11/03 01/11/04 PERSONAL&ADVINJURY $ 1,000 f000 GENERAL AGGREGATE S 2,000,0 GEN'L AGGREGATE UM~T APPUES PER PRODUCTS- COMP/OP AGG S I, 000 ~ 0 JECT ~-- LOC AUTOMOBILE LIABILrP~ COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT ANYAUTO (Ma acadent) $ ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per person) HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY NON_OWNEDAUTOS (Per accident) PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) $ I GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY- EA ACCIDENT $ I ANYAUTO OTHERTHAN EAACC $ AUTO ONLY AGG EXCESS/UMBRELLA LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ I OCCUR ~-I CLAIMS MADE ] AGGREGATE $ $ I DEDUCTIBLE $ RETENTION $ $ WORKERS COMPENSATIONAN0 TORYLIMI'I'S I ER ' I I EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ~ E L EACH ACCIDENT $ ANY PROPRIETOPJPA RTNERJ~XECUTIVE OFFICEPJMEMBER EXCLUDED? E L DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEI $ If yes, describe under SPECIAL PROVISIONS below E L DISEASE- POLICY LIMIT $ OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS ! VEHICLES / EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT I SPECIAL PROVISIONS ENCROACHMENT CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE BUILDING 2 VIRGINIA BEACH%fA 23456 ACORD 25 (2001108) SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATIO~ DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 10 DAYS WRI'I-rEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT. BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER. ITS AGENTS OR AUTHORI REPRES N IV © ACORD CORPORATION 1988 ITEM: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM Department of Justice Competitive Equipment Sub-Grants MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 · Background: In August of 2002, the City was notified that the Department of Justice would be providing pass-through funding for localities to support equipment needs related to preparedness and response to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) events. The Virginia Department of Emergency Management has instituted two competitive equipment sub-grants, a single-city grant and a regional grant, as part of this federal initiative. The Police department has proposed a $100,000 single-city application to purchase a bomb robot to assist the City's bomb squad, which will ~ncrease officer safety by reducing exposure to explosive devices. The Fire Department has coordinated a $243,057 grant proposal w~th Chesapeake Fire-Rescue to purchase an array of equipment to address tactical rescue and hazardous materials events · Considerations: This funding will provide better capabilities to safely address everyday emergency response in addition to increasing the City's preparedness to respond to events involving terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. · Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. · Alternatives: The city currently does not have the capacity to fund the requested items within current revenue projections. · Recommendations: Adopt the resolution to support to the applications for the competitive grant proposals totaling $343,057 to address ongoing emergency response need and ~ncreasing the City's capability to effectively respond to WMD events. · Attachments: Resolution Recommended Action: Approval /~ Submitting Department/Agency: Management Serv~ce~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR TWO APPLICATIONS TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR GRANTS TO FUND EQUIPPfENT NEEDED FOR RESPONSES TO THE USE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND TO AUTHORIZE AN AGENT TO SUBMIT THESE APPLICATIONS AND TAKE RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach has applied for two grants from the U.S. Department of Justice for equipment related to local responses to the use of weapons of mass destruction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia: 1. That the Council of the City of Virginia Beach hereby expresses its support for two applications made to the United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, for grants to fund the purchase of equipment needed for local responses to the use of weapons of mass destruction. 2. That Clarence Warnstaff, Interim Chief Operating Officer, is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, a public entity established under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, these applications and to file them in the appropriate state office for the purpose of obtaining certain federal financial assistance under the Office of Justice Programs, National Domestic Preparedness Office Grant Program, administered by the Commonwealth of Virginia. 3. That the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, a public body established under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereby authorizes its agent to provide to the Commonwealth and to the Office of Justice Programs, for all matters pertaining to such Federal financial assistance, any and all information pertaining to these grants as may be requested. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of , 2003. CA-8850 Ordin/Noncode / j us t i cegrantres, wpd R-3 April 15, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTEN~ Management Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Department of haw ' v ITEM: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM Department of Justice Equipment Grant MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 · Background: In August of 2002, the City was notified that the Department of Justice would be providing pass-through funding for localities to support equipment needs related to preparedness and response to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) events. The Virginia Department of Emergency Management has awarded the City $233,613.67 through a population formula. A committee began to meet to assess the needs and priorities for the City as a whole. This committee determined that this initial funding was best spent on public-safety related equipment. This includes an interoperable backup radio system to benefit all public safety agencies, a hazardous materials detection monitor, a fit-test machine to evaluate responder protective equipment, and miscellaneous medical equipment. · Considerations: This funding will provide better capabilities to safely address everyday emergency response in addition to increasing the City's preparedness to respond to events involving terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. · Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. · Alternatives: The city currently does not have the capacity to fund the requested items within current revenue projections. · Recommendations: Accept and appropriate the $233,614 Department of Justice Equipment Grant to address ongoing emergency response need and increasing the City's capability to effectively respond to WMD events. · Attachments: Ordinance Award Letter from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Management Servlce~ City Manager~ ~.x~ (~"~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE $233,614 IN GRANTS FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS TO PERMIT THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR RESPONDING TO THE USE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach has received federal pass- through grants that will fund equipment necessary for responding to the use of weapons of mass destruction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia: 1. That $233,614 in grant funding from the U.S. Department of Justice is hereby accepted and appropriated to buy equipment necessary for responding to the use of weapons of mass destruction, as set forth below: (a) $151,284 to the Communications and Information Technology Department's FY 2002-03 operating budget; (b) $53,240 to the F~re Department's FY 2002-03 operating budget; and (c) $29,090 to the Emergency Medical Services Department's FY 2002-03 operating budget. 2. That the FY 2002-03 Operating Budget is hereby amended to reflect $233,614 in new federal revenue. 24 25 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of , 2003. CA-8832 Ordin/Noncode/justicegrantord. wpd R-5 April 15, 2003 Approved as to Content Management Services Approved as to Legal Sufficiency MICHAEL M. CLINE State Coordinator GEORGE W. FORESMAN Deputy Coordinator COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA Department of Emergency Management 10501 Trade Court R,chmond. V~rg~n~ 23236-3713 (804) 897-6500 (TDD) 674-2417 FAX (804) 897-6506 November 26, 2002 Mr. James K. Spore City Manager Virginia Beach City Municipal Center, Building #1 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Dear Mr. Spore: Attached are the applications and the supporting information for the U.S. Department of Justice Equipment Grant Program. As you will recall from my last letter, this Grant is to assist Virginia localities in preparation for their response to weapons of mass destruction incidents. The Virgima Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) is the designated state agency charged to manage these Grants and help you in applying for and receiving these equipment funds. The Department of Justice Grants are intended to allow local governments to purchase response equipment that you identify as being needed in your locality. The funding is restricted, however, to the purchase of equipment from a specified and limited number of commodity areas. The funding xs derived from three separate federal grants that have just become available to Virginia. The total mount of funding allocated to your community under these three grants is as follows' "Vtrorkinl~ to Protect Peot~le. Prot~ertv and Our Camrnun, t,,,~" Mr. James K. Spore Page Two November 26, 2002 GRANT 1999 GRANT 2000 GRANT 2001 GRANT 2002 GRANT TOTAL $ AWARD AWARD AMOUNT $31,887.84 $33,089.27 $168,636.57 $233,613.67 FUNDS MUST BE OBLIGATED BY: March 23, 2003 July 31, 2004 July 31, 2004 July 31, 2004 These funds do not require any local government match. The equipment purchased under these grants must come only from the commodity areas targeted by the federal government. No other equipment may be purchased with these funds under the DOJ conditions of the grant. The attached binder describes the details of the grants and contains the applications (you must complete an application and required federal documents for each Grant year 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002) required of your jurisdiction in order to receive funding. The application contains a Designation of Applicants Agent for the grant process through which the grants must flow as well as certain standard and required certifications. Returning to VDEM executed copies of these forms and an executed copy of the U.S. Department of Justice Equal Opportunity Employment Program (EEOP) form provided in my October letter to you constitutes yottr required documentation for these Department of Justice Equipment Grants. Upon receipt of these grant applications and the EEOP required information, VDEM will transfer your total grant mounts to you. It is the responsibility of the jurisdiction to determine what equipment you wish to purchase and to ensure that only eligible equipment is procured. It will be necessary that you provide timely evidence of each piece of equipment purchased under this grant program to VDEM for audit purposes. VDEM will accept receipts, invoices, or other evidence that the equipment has been purchased and the cost(s) incurred in the procurement of these items. Please note that the 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 grants must be reconciled before your jurisdiction will be eligible for any furore equipment grants under this program. Any monies not spent on the required items will not be allowed and ftmding will be required to be returned to VDEM. Mr. James K. Spore Page Three November 26, 2002 The attached binder provides details regarding all of these Department of Justice Equipment Grants as well as guidance fi.om Justice regarding the expected and allowable costs of eligible equipment items. The binder also provides some guidance developed by VI)EM regarding appropriate selection of equipment you may wish to purchase. The equipment may be purchased by you directly from vendors through standard procurement procedures. As an alternative, DOJ has entered into purchasing agreements with the U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command and the Defense Logistics Agency. As a subgrantee, your community may avail itself of their services. A description of their capabilities and contact information is supplied in the binder. Please note that DOJ requires that the 1999 funds be obligated by March 23, 2003. The 2000, 2001, and 2002 funds must be obligated by July 31, 2004. A portion of the DOJ Equipment Grants is to be distributed to local governments on a competitive sub-grant basis. We anticipate mailing information on the competitive sub-grants to you in approximately two weeks. We all recognize the importance you place on ensuring the safety of your first responders and protecting the vitality of your community. I am pleased to provide you with this information so that the Department of Justice Equipment Grants can be used to better equip your locality to protect its citizens and their property. If you have any questions regarding the grants or equipment eligibility please feel flee to contact Mr. Julian Gilman of my staff at (804) 897-6500, extension 6534. Sincerely, Michael M. Cline Attachment MMC ITEM: MEETING DATE: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM Ordinance to Appropriate $1,805,270 of Additional Federal Revenue to the FY 2002-2003 Operating Budget of the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation for the Housing Choice Voucher Program April 22, 2003 Background: The Secbon 8 D~vision of the Department of Housing & Neighborhood Preservation operates the Houstng Choice Voucher Program, which provides rental assistance to Iow and moderate-~ncome households The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has allocated 1,686 vouchers to the C~ty of V~rg~nJa Beach. The renewal of the funding for these vouchers ,s based upon the average costs of each voucher Over the course of the past several years th~s cost has increased due to ~ncreas~ng cost of rents in the Vtrg~n~a Beach area In addJhon, HUD prowdes renewal funds ~n m~d fiscal year. Dunng the budgehng process we esbmated the cost of the renewals based on our best information at the bme. However, the actual renewal funding exceeded our esbmates. It ~s therefore necessary to appropriate the add~honal funding ($1,277,953) awarded to the C~ty by HUD. In add~bon, due to an accounhng change, ~t ~s necessary to appropriate $527,317 that represents funds received from Iocahties for program parbc~pants who have moved to V~rg~n~a Beach from elsewhere. Th~s amount represents approximately 6 months of subsidies for 190 households who have prewously moved here. We are experiencing a "net move ~n" of approximately 12 participant households per month, or 144 per year. To put th~s ~n context, according to the Census, 12% of the population ~n 2000 had hved outside the c~ty ~n the prior year This means that approximately 51,000 people, or 19,000 households, moved ~nto Virginia Beach ~n one year Therefore, program participants mowng ~n represent approximately 7/10ths of 1% of those moving ~n Considerations: Without the appropriation of these funds, the City will not be able to fulfill commitments made to the Section 8 recipients and w~ll be ~n wolahon of the program rules and regulations. Public Information: Information will be provided to the public through the normal council agenda process · Alternatives If the C~ty d~d not wish to administer the program, ~n all hkel~hood HUD would solicit for and choose an alternative administrator of the funding for parbc~pants hv~ng ~n V~rg~n~a Beach. It ~s therefore m the C~ty's best interest to conbnue to administer the program ~n ahgnment w~th C~ty gu~dehnes and pohc~es, rather than hawng ~t administered by an outside agency over which we would have less control · Recommendations: Approval of the attached ordinance · Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval of the attached ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Housing and Ne.~'~b~~r~oVod~;~s~'~at~,reservat~on City Manager: (~~~ ~/--- '~b'v'~ AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $1,805,270 OF ADDITIONAL FEDERAL REVENUE TO THE FY 2002-03 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION FOR THE HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM WHEREAS, an additional $1,805,270 in mid-year renewal funding has been allocated to the City of Virginia Beach by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for use in the 12 Housing Choice Voucher Program. 13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 14 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia: 15 That $1,805,270 in anticipated revenue from the Department 16 of Housing and Urban Development is hereby appropriated to the 17 FY 2002-03 operating budget of the Department of Housing and 18 Neighborhood Preservation for use in the Housing Choice Voucher 19 Program, with revenues from the federal government increased 20 accordingly. 21 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 22 Virginia on the day of , 2003. CA-8830 Noncode/word/Housing Choice Voucher.ord.doc April 14, 2003 R3 Approved as to Content Management Serv Approved as to Legal Sufficiency __ Department o~Law I CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM J~_ JIlL .................................. ITEM: Appropriation Request from the MH/MFUSAS Department MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 · Background: The MH/MR/SA Department will receive $23,223 from community donations that can be used to pay for dental care for clients, and $96,289 in federal and State funds above the amount originally budgeted to be used to enhance services to mentally ill and chemically dependent clients. None of this $119,512 in funding has been appropriated. In addition, the Skillquest Program, which provides training services and support activities to individuals with mental retardation, needs to install a lift system to meet the needs of persons in wheelchairs. Over 40 consumers are in wheelchairs and require daily lifting assistance. The number of severely disabled clients participating in the program continues to rise, as does the average age of staff members assisting them. Installation of a lift system will allow the staff to better and more safely serve clients, prevent injuries and lost work to staff, and reduce nsk to the Department and the City. The estimated cost of the installed lift system is $78,845, and funds balance is available for appropriation to cover this expense. · Considerations: Revenue from donations and additional federal and State revenue are not included in the Department's FY 2002-03 Operating Budget and have not yet been appropriated. There are no FTE's associated with any of these revenues, and no additional City funds are required. There is sufficient fund balance in the MH/MR/SA Department's Special Revenue Fund to purchase the Skillquest lift system. This is a one-time expenditure without recurring costs beyond normal maintenance and repair. · Public Information: Initiatives being funded with the additional revenue have been discussed at public meetings and approved by the Community Services Board at its regular meeting on March 27, 2003. All other public information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. · Alternatives: There are no alternative means of funding. These additional funds will allow the Department to meet pressing service needs. Without this funding the services would need to be provided through current appropriations, which are already designated for other services. · Attachments: Ordinance. Recommended Action: Adoption of ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Department of MH/MR/SA City Manage~ ~--.~'v~ (MHMRSAS Services & Skillquost. arf. doc -Microsoft Word) AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $119,512 FROM VARIOUS FUNDING SOURCES AND $78,845 FROM FUND BALANCE IN THE MH/MR/SAS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND TO THE FY 2002-03 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE MH/MR/SAS DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE INCREASED SERVICES AND NECESSARY EQUIPMENT FOR CLIENTS WHEREAS, the Virginia Beach Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services ("MH/MR/SAS") has $119,512 in funding available that may be appropriated by the City Council to provide enhanced services to clients; and WHEREAS, $78,845 is available in the fund balance of the MH/MR/SAS Special Revenue Fund to purchase and install a lift system needed for the Skillquest facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That $119,512 is hereby appropriated to the FY 2002- 03 Operating Budget of the MH/MR/SAS Department to provide increased services to clients, with the sources of this appropriation to be as follows: (a) $3,558 in estimated revenue from donations; (b) $19,665 of previous donations in the fund balance of the Mental Health Center Gift Fund; (c) $81,942 in estimated revenue from the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services; and (d) $14,347 in federal government funding. 2. That $78,845 from fund balance in the MH/MR/SAS Special Revenue Fund is hereby appropriated to the FY 2002-03 operating budget of the MH/MR/SAS Department for the purpose of purchasing and installing a lift system at the Skillquest facility. 3. That in the FY 2002 operating budget estimated revenue from donations is hereby increased by $23,223, estimated revenue from the Commonwealth is increased by $81,942, estimated revenue from the federal government is increased by $14,347,and estimated revenue from fund balance is increased by $78,845. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2003. CA-8831 Ordin/Noncode/MHMRSAS Services & Skillquest.ord.doc April 14, 2003 R3 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Management Services .! APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: D~ar tmeA~%~U~ntv ~- CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: MEETING DATE: Citizen Corps Grants April 22, 2003 · Background: In the summer of 2002, President Bush announced a Homeland Security initiative called Citizen Corps, a volunteer program supporting emergency services. Federal funding has been made available through the State of Virginia to support Citizen Corps efforts. The Fire Department has been awarded two related grants. The first grant provides $5,000 to support a Citizens Corps Council Committee. Funds will be used for marketing and public relations/outreach efforts to support existing local emergency planning committees. The second grant targets one of the five national endorsed programs under this initiative, the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). The purpose of CERT is to train individuals in basic emergency response skills to augment the established emergency service providers in the event of a large-scale manmade or natural disaster. Virginia Beach has been awarded $35,000 to initiate a CERT program in the local community. · Considerations: The City has a substantial and viable volunteer program already in place. The Volunteer Council will be a significant participant in Citizens Corps, as well as the City's Emergency Management Coordinator. City staff will initiate a program to train citizens to be instructors to extend the program beyond the designated performance period of December 3, 2003. Basic personal protective equipment necessary for deployment at an event will be provided to at least 120 citizens during the grant period. The grant provides for all instructor expenses, printed materials and audio-visual equipment. · Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. · Alternatives: Do not accept these grants. The City currently does not have the funding required to initiate such a program. · Recommendations: Adopt ordinance · Attachments: Award Letters for the Citizen Corps Grants Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department City Manager: ~ ~ .~~ F:\DataV¥1'Y~Ord~n\NONCODE\CitlzenCorpGrant.arf.wpd AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE $40,000 FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S FY 2002-03 OPERATING BUDGET TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM AND A CITIZEN CORPS COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach Fire Department has $ received two (2) grants totaling $40,000 from the Federal Emergency 9 Management Agency. 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 11 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 12 That $40,000 in grant funds from the Federal Emergency 13 Management Agency is hereby accepted and appropriated to the Fire 14 Department's FY 2002-03 Operating Budget, with $35,000 of this 15 amount to be used to establish a Community Emergency Response Team 16 and the remaining $5,000 to create a Citizen Corps Council, with 17 federal revenue increased accordingly. ]8 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia ]9 on the day of , 2003. 20 CA-8829 21 Ordin/noncode/word/CitizensCorpsGrant. ord. doc 22 April 14, 2003 23 R3 24 25 Approved as to Content 26 28 ~' 29 ' 30 31 Approved as to Legal Sufficiency Department o~aw COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA MICHAEL M. CLINE State Coord,nator Department of Emergency Management JANET L CLEMENTS Deputy Coordinator April 1, 2003 L RALPH JONES, JR. Deputy Coordinator Mr. Gregory Cade Fire Chief City of Virginia Beach Building 21, Municipal Center Virginia Beach, VA 23456 10501 Trade Court Richmond, Virginia 23236-3713 (804) 897-6500 (TDD) 674-2417 FAX (804) a97-6506 Dear Chief Cade: We are pleased to notify you that Citizen Corps Grant Funds have been approved for your locality in the amount of $35,000 for Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). Payments are being processed for the award amount. As a limited amount of federal funding was received for this project, awards were based on the strength of applications, rishs, population and a demonstrated commitment to program sustainment and implementation. All grant recipients are responsible for using program funds in accordance with the grant guidelines and according to the approved budget. This is a federal grant administered by the Commonwealth through the Virginia Department of Emergency Management and it requires no local match. In accordance with the federal requirements for the Citizen Corps Grants, the following conditions apply to the project: The performance period extends to December 3, 2003. All funds must be committed no later than December 3, 2003 - and all funds must be expended no later than March 3, 2004. · Localities must provide the Commonwealth with a won schedule including milestones for the approved project within 30 days of receipt of this letter. · All requirements outlined in the grant must be completed within the grant period. Programmatic and financial reports for the project need to be submitted by July 1, 2003, October 1, 2003 and January 1, 2004. Final closeout reports are due March 10, 2004. Mr. Gregory Cade April 1, 2003 Page 2 · We will follow up in the next several weehs with more guidance on the quarterly reporting and other grant requirements. Once again we congratulate you on your award and thanh you for your participation in this program. We Iooh forward to worhing with you in developing preparedness programs in your community. As we receive details from the Department of Homeland Security on the distribution of the 2003 Citizen Corps funding, we will also forward that information to you. If you have any questions regarding the administration of this award or its finances, please contact Leigh Estes, Grants Administrator, at the Virginia Department of Emergency Management at (804) 897-6500, extension 6518 or lestes~vdem.state.va, us. If you have any program questions, contact Suzanne Simmons, Virginia Corps Coordinator at (804) 897-6500, extension 6512 or ssimmons@gov.state.va.us Sincerely, Chief Deputy State Coordinator, VDEM Executive Diredcor, Virginia Corps Office of the Governor JLC:mmb C: Suzanne Simmons Leigh Estes COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA MICHAEL M CLINE State Coordinator JANET L CLEMENTS Deputy Coordinator L RALPH JONES, JR Deputy Coordinator Mr. James K. Spore City Manager City of Virginia Beach Building #1 2401 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 2:~456 Department of Emergency Management OSOl Trade Court Richmond, Virginia 23236-37111 (804) 897-6500 April 1, 2003 (TDD) 674-241~, .................... FAg(' (804) ~97-6506 APR - 2 2003 Dear Mr. Spore: We are pleased to notify you that Citizen Corps Grant Funds have been approved for your locality in the amount of $5,000 for Citizen Corps Council. Payments are being processed for the award amount. As a limited amount of federal funding uJas received for this project, awards were based on the strength of oppliccrEions, rishs, population and a demonstrated commitment to program sustainment and implementation. All grant recipients are responsible for using program funds in accordance with the grant guidelines and according to the approved budget. This is a federal grant administered by the Commonwealth through the Virginia Department of Emergency Management and it requires no local match. In accordance with the federal requirements for the Citizen Corps Grants, the following condItions apply to the project: The performance period extends to December 3, :2003. All funds must be committed no later than December 3, 7_003 - and all funds must be expended no later than March 3, 2oo4. · Localities must provide the Commonwealth with a worh schedule including milestones for the approved project within 30 days of receipt of this letter. · All requirements outlined in the grant must be completed within the grant period. Programmatic and financial reports for the project need to be submitted by July 1, :2003, October 1, 2003 and January 1, 2004. Final closeout reports ore due March 10, 2oo4. Mr. James K. Spore April 1, 2003 Page 2 · gJe u~ill follow up in the next several weehs with more guidance on the quarterly reporting and other grant requirements. Once again ~ue congratulate you on your award and thanl~ you for your participation in this program, gl,/e Iooh forward to ~uorhing ~uith you in developing preparedness programs in your community. As ~ue receive details from the Department of Homeland Security on the distribution of the 2003 Citizen Corps funding, ~ue ~uill also for~uard that information to you. If you have any questions regarding the administration of this auuard or its finances, please contact Leigh Estes, Grants Administrator, at the Virginia Department of Emergency Management at (804) 897-65OO, extension 6518 or lestes@vdem.state.ua, us. If you have any program questions, contact Suzanne Simmons, Virginia Corps Coordinator at (804) 897-65OO, extension 6512 or ssimmons@gou.state.ua, us Sincerely, Chief Deputy State Coordinator, VDEM Executive Director, Virginia Corps Office of the Governor JLC:mrnb C: Suzonne Simmons Leigh Estes i PLANNING . Application of MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. re Change ofZontng Dtstrtct Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District to conslruct a mini warehouse use on the west side of Centerville Turnpike and north Kempsville Road, containing 6.724 acres. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) . Application of ROYAL COURT, INC. re Change of Zontng District Classificatton from AG-1 Agricultural Distri.'ct, AG-2 Agricultural District and R-20 Residential District to R-5D Residential Duplex District with a PD-H2 Planned Unit Developmenl District Overlay for res~demial land use on the north side of Princess Anne Road and Crossroads Trail, containing 9.963 acres. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Applications of GLAMOUR CORPORATION on the south side of Dam Neck Road west of Corporate Landing Parkway: (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) ao Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 Agricultural Dtstrict to Conditional 0-1 Office Dtstrtct, containing 2 acres b, Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 Agricultural Dtstrict to Conditional H-1 Hotel Dtstrtct, containing 4.4 acres . Application of FREDERICK E. LEE, II for a Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage on property located at 1153 Jensen Drive, containing 9,680 square feet. (DISTRICT 6- BEACH) . Application of REHOBOTH BAPTIST CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit for church expanston and stormwater management at 176-182 South Btrdneck Road, containing 2.4 acres. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) 0 Applications re property on the east side of Little Neck Road, north of Poplar Bend (864 Little Neck Road), containing 5.319 acres. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) a. VOICESTREAM GSM II, L.L.C. for MODIFICATION of Proffers Nos. 2, 4 and REVISE Proffer No. 3 re a Change of Zoning in the application of Hubert L. DaiI and Mona H. DaiI from R-3 Residential Distrtct to 0-1 Office Dtstrtct (approved by City Council on February 9, 1981) bo VOICE STREAM WIRELESS for a Conditional Use Permit re wireless communtcat~on facility/communication tower . Application of LAUNDRY/CARWASH USA for a Conditional Use Permit re a carwash on the northwest comer of Newtown Road and Cabot Avenue, containing 1.57 acres. (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) . Application of City of Virginia Beach for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-SD Residenttal Duplex Dtstrict to Condittonal I-1 Light Industrial Property o~1 the east side of Princess Anne Road, north of Dam Neck Road and south of Concert Drive, containing 21.5 acres. (DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL) I I I I I II I ir I I ' i I i i I i i iii Ii I iT i i i I i i I . Ordinance to AMEND §§ 105, 106, 107, 108, 221, 1405 and 1605 ofthe City Zoning Orchnance (CZO), pertaining to written nottce and posttng of signs for apphcations. 10. Ordinance to AMEND § 901 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) to include public ol private colleges and universities in the B-2, B-3, B-3A, and B-4 Business Districts. NO ACTION NECESSARY i I i ' ' i i March 25, 2003 MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. There's a motion and a second to approve the items on the Consent Agenda. Are we ready for the question? I'm still holding mine. CITY CLERK: It's not showing. MAYOR OBERNDORF: It Isn't? CITY CLERK: No, ma'am. MAXOR OBERNDORF: Yes, is my answer. CITY CLERK: With a vote of 11 to 0 on all items, except Number 1, under 0rdlnances, 10 to 1. You have approved the Consent Agenda as read by the V~ce Mayor. March 25, 2003 INFORMAL SESSION MAYOR OBERNDORF: Moving onto Michael Sifen. Oh, Mrs. Eure. I have a feeling -- is this what we were hearing from your neighbors that they want purchased? Is this the one? COUNCIL LADY EURE: This is a no-bralner. I have asked for a 30-day deferral and the attorney and his client have agreed to a 30-day deferral. And, yesterday the Open Space CommIttee was to review this and they did not have enough for a quorum, but those that were there saw lt. They will meet again the day before this will come up again. So, the intenslon is that we are looking at buying that piece of land for open space. So, they have agreed to the deferral. And, I didn't appreciate that. MAXOR OBERNDORF: I didn't mean to. Mine was oh, because I had gotten a letter from the people on that. I dxdn't th~nk it would go on Consent the way it was. COUNCIL LADY EURE: Well, you have 30-day reprieve. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Got-cha. FORMAL SESSION VICE MAYOR JONES: Under Planning, Item 7, Consent the Application of Michael D. Slfen, Incorporated, for a 30-day deferral. Those are all of the items on the Consent Agenda, Madam Mayor, I move approval. COUNCIL LADY EURE: Second. Item V-L 7. - 58 - PLANNING ITEM # 50968 Upon motton by Vtce Mayor Jones, seconded by Councd Lady Eure, Ctty Councd DEFERRED to the City Council Session of April 22, 2003, Ordmance upon apphcation of Michael D. Sifen, Inc. for a Conchttonal Change of Zoning Distrtct. ORDINANCE UPONAPPLICA TION OF MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM R-5D RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX DISTRICT TO CONDITIONAL 1-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Ordinance upon Application of Mtchael D. Sifen, Inc. for a Change of Zomng District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Condittonal I-1 Light Industrtal Dtstrict on the west side of Centerville Turnpike approxtmateIy 1600feet north of tts tntersectton wtth KempsvtIle Road (GPIN 1455 73 7940). The proposed zoning to Conditional I- 1 ss for light tndustrial land use. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of thts parcel for business parks, offices, tndustrial, and employment support land use Parcel contains 6 724 acres DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE Voting. 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye' Harry E. Dtezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louts R. Jones, Reba S McClanan, Richard A Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndo~ Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmtdt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wdson and James L. Wood Counctl Members Voting Nay None Counctl Members Absent None March 25 2003 V~rginia Beach City Council March 25, 2003 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones Harry E. Dlezel Margaret L. Eure Reba McClanan Richard A. Maddox Jim Reeve Peter Schm~dt Ron A. V~llanueva Rosemary W~lson James L. Wood At-Large Bayslde - D~str~ct 4 Kempsvllle - District 6 Centervllle - D~str~ct 1 Rose Hall - Distr~ct 3 Beach - D~str~ct 6 Princess Anne - District 7 At-Large At-Large At-Large Lynnhaven - Dlstr~ct 5 CITY MANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. L~lley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Planning Application of Michael D. Sifen, Incorporated Item V-L. 7. - 58 - PLANNING ITEM # 50968 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Council Lady Eure, Ctty Councd DEFERRED to the City Council Session of April 22, 2003, Ordinance upon application of Michael D. Sifen, Inc. for a Conditional Change of Zoning District: O~INANCE UPON APPLICA T[ON OF MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC FOR -d CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CL-d$SIFIC-dTION FROM R-SD RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX DISTRICT TO CONDITIONAL 1-1 LIGHT [ND USTRIAL DISTRICT Ordinance upon Application of Michael D. Stfen, Inc. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-SD Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-1 Ltght Industrial District on the west side of CentervtHe Turnptke approxtmately 1600feet north of its intersectton with Kempsville Road (GP1N 1455737940). The proposed zoning to Condtttonal I-1 ts for light industrtal land use. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for business parks, offices, industrial, and employment support land use. Parcel contains 6. 724 acres. DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE Vottng: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting .dye: Harry E. Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard .d. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndo~ Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmtdt, Ron .d. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Councd Members Vottng Nay. None Council Members .dbsent: None March 25, 2003 ¥~ap B-10 M~ ~'~o~ -co $c~1e R-SD Michael D. R-5D 2 8-2 R-SD Crpin 1455-73-7940 ZONING HISTORY 1. Reconsideration of Conditions- Approved 9-26-95 Conditional Use Permit (Fill Borrow Pit) - Approved 3-26-90 Conditional Use Permit (Borrow Pit) - Approved 1-28-63 2. Reconsideration of Modified Conditions-W~thdrawn 1-14-97 Modification of Conditions - Approved 11-12-96 Conditional Use Permit (Borrow Pit) - Approved 2-23-93 Rezon,ng (R-8 Residential to B-2 Business)- Approved 3-18-85 3. Rezoning (R5-D Residential to B-2 Business) - Approved 2-12-00 4. Rezoning (R5-D Residential to R5-D Residential with a PD-H2 Overlay) - Approved 1-12-99 Modification of Conditions - Approved 9-28-99 Conditional Use Permit (Two Communication Towers) - Approved 1-22-90 Conditional Use Permit (Communication Tower) - Approved 8-28-89 Rezoning (R-8 Residential to B-2 Business) - W~thdrawn 12-19-88 Conditional Use Permit (Borrow Pit) - Approved 2-13-84 . Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Condibonal Use Permit (Communication Tower) - Approved 5-18-81 (Antenna) - Approved 11-18-74 (Communication Tower) - Approved 1-16-73 (Church Expansion) -Approved 3-26-02 (Church Expansion) - Approved 9-28-99 (Church) - Approved 1-11-88 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Michael D. Sifen, Inc. - Change of Zoning District Classification MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Michael D. Sifen, Inc. for a Chan,qe of Zonin,q District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District on the west side of Centerville Turnpike approximately 1600 feet north of its intersection with Kempsville Road (GPIN 1455737940). The proposed zoning to Conditional I-1 is for light industrial land use. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for business parks, offices, industrial, and employment support land use. Parcel contains 6.724 acres. DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE The purpose of this request is to rezone the site from R5-D Residential District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District and to construct a mini-warehouse facility. This item was deferred by City Council on March 25, 2003. Considerations: The property is undeveloped and is zoned R5-D Residential District The site has an extensive zoning history with regard to the previous borrow pit operation. Before 1973, the site was zoned R-D 1 Residence Duplex. A Conditional Use Permit for a borrow pit was approved on the site in 1963. In March of 1990, a Conditional Use Permit to fill the existing borrow pit was approved. Several conditions of this Conditional Use Permit were modified on September 26, 1995. The applicant proposes to rezone the site from R5-D Residential to Conditional I- 1 Light Industrial and develop a mini-warehouse facility. The site development plan depicts seven buildings containing a total of 136,450 square feet of mini- warehouse area and 1,400 square feet of office and residence area proposed for the site. There are seven parking spaces, including one handicap accessible space, illustrated on the site. The entire frontage of the site along Centerville Turnpike will be landscaped and bermed with the exception of the entrance to the site and four parking spaces. Mike Siren Page 2 of 2 The request to rezone the site from R5-D Residential Distdct to Conditional I-1 L~ght Industrial District and develop the site as a mini-warehouse facility is acceptable. The request is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan Map recommendations for the area, and is in keeping with the surrounding uses. While the applicant has proffered several acceptable uses for the site, as previously stated in the report the only use that will be permitted on the site at this time is the mini-warehouse facility, office and residence as proffered in Proffers 1 and 2. Should the applicant wish to add any of the other proffered uses to the site, Proffers 1 and 2 will have to be modified. The proposed landscaping along the frontage of Centerville Turnpike exceeds City ordinance requirements. The proposed meandering and undulating berms planted with evergreen and deciduous trees will add an attractive touch to the frontage. Foundation screening will soften and add to the appearance of the buildings. The proposed screening and buffering of the proposed use along the side and rear property lines is adequate. The proposed elevations depict the use of a good mix of building materials, including brick, and architectural details, such as tile, metal caps, and exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) accents, that will provide visual relief to the building. Staff recommended approval. There was opposition to the proposal. · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 4-3 with 2 abstentions to approve this request. Attachments: Staff Rewew Disclosure Statement Planning Commission M~nutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Comm~ss,on recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planmng Department City Manager: MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC./# 8 February 12, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: B10-211-CRZ-2002 REQUEST: Change of Zoning District Classification from R5-D Residential Duplex to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial ADDRESS: The West side of Centerville Turnpike, north of Kempsville Road. ~"~ ~-~ Michael D. Mo ~ot, to Sc~le R-5O R-5D 0-2 R-5D 8-2 C~n 1455-73-7940 Planning Commission Agenda ~.~~,~ February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8 Page 1 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 14557379400000 1 - Centerville 6.724 acres Faith Christie To rezone the s~te from R5-D Residential Distnct to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District and to construct a mini-warehouse facility. Major Issues: · Compatibility with surrounding uses Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoninq The property is undeveloped and ~s zoned R5-D Residenhal District. Surrounding Land Use and Zonina North: South: East: West: · Undeveloped property/R5-D Residential · Undeveloped property / B-2 Business · Centerville Turnpike · Across Centerville Turnpike is a Church and school, a Post Office facihty, and an Office- Storage and Mini-warehouse Facility / B-2 Bus~ness and I-1 Light Industrial · Undeveloped property/R5-D Residential Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D. SlFEN, INC. I # 8 Page 2 Zoninq and Land Use Statistics With Existing Zoning: Any of the principal and conditional uses permitted in the R5-D Residential District such as single-family and duplex dwellings, churches, borrow pits, golf courses, recreational facilities and schools. With Proposed Zoning: The submitted proffer agreement specifies the following uses to be allowed on the property: a) Wholesaling, warehousing, storage or distribution establishments; b) Business, medical, financial, non-profit, professional and similar office buildings; c) Public Utility installations; d) Commercial parking lot; and e) Public Buildings and grounds. While these uses are acceptable for the site, Staff notes that Proffer 1 of the proffer agreement states that the site shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "PRELIMINARY LAYOUT FOR PIKE SELF STORAGE ON CENTERVILLE TURNPIKE", prepared by Site Improvement Associates, Inc., dated 11-8-02, and that Proffer 2 states that the buildings shall contain the architectural features and utilize the high quality building materials depicted on the "Proposed Elevations for Pike Self Storage, Virginia Beach, Virginia", prepared by Covington, Hendrix Architects. Therefore the only use permitted on the property will be the proposed mini- warehouse facility. If the applicant or property owner wishes to use the property for any of the proffered uses then Proffers 1 and 2 must be modified. Zonin ~q History The site has an extensive zoning h~story with regard to the previous borrow pit operation. Before 1973, the site was zoned R-D I Residence Duplex. A Conditional Use Permit for a borrow pit was approved on the site in 1963. In March of 1990, a Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8 Page 3 Conditional Use Permit to fill the existing borrow pit was approved. The following conditions apphed: 10. 1. The borrow pit filling operation will be operated in a dust free manner. 2. Operating hours shall be 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No Sunday operation shall be permitted. 3. Un-drained pockets and stagnant pools resulting from surface drainage shall be sprayed in accordance with requirements of the State Board of Health to eliminate breeding places for mosquitoes and other insects. 4. In accordance with the City's current Master Street and Highway Plan, a right- of-way dedication will be required along the entire Centerville Turnpike frontage to provide for an ultimate six lane divided arterial with bikeway and scenic easement. A variable w~dth right-of-way dedication is required. 5. Right and left turn lanes are to be installed on Centerville Turnpike before the beginning of the filling operation. Additional right-of-way dedications may be required for the installation of these turn lanes. 6. The subdivision of the subject site into residential lots, as shown on the conceptual, is not approved with this application. 7. Only inert, non-toxic material shall be deposited on the site. 8. The property adjacent to the antennae farm is to be conveyed back to that owner. 9. During the hours of operation, the owner shall provide and maintain a full-time, on-site inspector to inspect the trucks and maintain a daily log to verify only inert, non-toxic materials have been deposited on the site. These reports, when requested by the City, shall be submitted for review. Several conditions of this Conditional Use Permit were modified on September 26, 1995. The following conditions were modified: 5. If the existing Centerville Turnpike entrance to this site is to be used by vehicles depositing construction demolition and debris in the borrow pit reclamation site, right and left turn lanes are to be installed on Centerville Turnpike before the beginning of the filling operation. Additional right-of-way dedications may be required for the installation of these turn lanes. 7. Only construction demolition and debris, non-toxic materials shall be deposited on this site pursuant to a permit for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 9. During the hours of operation, the owner shall provide and maintain a full-time on-site ~nspector to inspect the trucks and maintain a daily log to verify only construction demolition and debris; non-toxic materials have been deposited on this site. Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. I # 8 Page 4 11. Operational conditions contained hereinabove, in the event of a natural disaster or similar situation may be waived in whole or in part by order of the City Manager or the designated Emergency Operations Coordinator on a temporary bas~s pursuant to an adopted Emergency Plan. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The site has been filled. It is grassed and there are no environmentally sensitive features on the site. The site is ~n the Resource Management Area of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation area. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is a ten-inch water main in Centerville Tumpike. The site must connect to City water. City sewer is not available to the site. Health Department approval for a septic system is required if a septic system is utilized. The applicant may connect to City sewer, but will bear the expense of extending lines. The applicant may obtain sewer hookup from several sources: · There is a sewer line that stops at Jake Seam Road, north of the site. · A new pump station has been installed on the Tallwood Elementary School property to the west of the site. · If there is a Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) line in Centerville Turnpike, the applicant may use a private grinder pump and force main, subject to HRSD approval. Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. ! # 8 Page 5 Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Centerville Turnpike in front of th~s site is considered a two lane undivided minor suburban artenal. It is designated on the Mater Transportation Plan as a 120 foot divided right of way with a multi-use trail. There are currently no Capital Improvement Program projects listed to improve this right of way. A right of way reservation for future improvements to Centerville Turnpike may be required during detailed site plan review. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 13,600 ADT ~ 17,000 Level of Existing Land Use 2_ 626 Centervdle Turnpike ADT I Service "C" Proposed Land Use 3_ 343 ,=, Average Da~ly Trips 2 as defined by 58 slngle-famdy un~ts 3 as defined by 137,850 square feet of self-storage space Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work w~th the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. A fire hydrant must be located within 400 feet of commercial structures. Private fire hydrants must be maintained annually as identihed in N.F.P.A. 25. The minimum fire lane width must not be less than 20 feet. Under some conditions, greater width will be by the authority having jurisdiction. Gated sites must provide for Fire Department access using the Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8 Page 6 Knox or Supra key system. Gates must have failsafe operation ~n the event of a power failure. The units must not be used for office purposes, band rehearsals, residential dwellings, or any other purpose not consistent with the storage of non-hazardous goods. Portable or auxiliary power supplies will not be allowed for tenant use. A certificate of occupancy must be obtained before occupancy of the building. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as an area planned for a variety of employment uses including business parks, offices, appropriately located industrial and employment support uses. Summary of Proposal proposal · The applicant proposes to rezone the site from R5-D Residential to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial and develop a mini-warehouse facility. The site development plan depicts seven buildings containing a total of 136,450 square feet of mini-warehouse area and 1,400 square feet of office and residence area proposed for the site. There are seven parking spaces, including one handicap accessible space, illustrated on the site. The entire frontage of the site along Centerville Turnpike will be landscaped and bermed with the exception of the entrance to the site and four parking spaces. The site is on Centerville Turnpike near the Woods Corner section of the city. It was previously a borrow p~t that has been filled. Directly across Centerville Turnpike, to the east, are Atlantic Shores Baptist Church and School, and a United States Postal Service (USPS) facility. Slightly northeast of the USPS facility is an existing office park and min~-warehouse facility. Directly north of the site ~s the City's Landfill 2, more commonly known as Mount Trashmore II. Site Design · The site is rectangular in shape, with 1,486 feet of width along Centerville Turnpike, and varying in depth from approximately 220 feet to 250 feet. The proposed mini- Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. ! # 8 Page 7 warehouse development maximizes the area of the site. Seven buildings are proposed on the site. Four buildings are proposed parallel to Centerville Turnpike, 35 feet from the property line. These buildings range in length from 150 feet to 400 feet, and are 56 feet wide. Three buildings are proposed along the back of the site, ranging ~n length from 360 feet to 490 feet, and are 50 feet wide. These buildings are proposed to be positioned 32 feet from the rear property hne. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · A single entrance to the site, 40 feet in width, is proposed directly in line with the existing entrance to the post office site across Centerville Tumpike. The proposed drive aisles on site are a m~mmum of 25 feet in width. It appears that vehicular maneuvering will be adequate on the site. Architectural Design · The applicant proposes to develop the site with buildings that use a variety of building materials to provide visual appeal. The proposed buildings are one story with the exception of the office and residence. The office will have storefront type windows and brick exterior walls. The second floor residence will have exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) exterior walls tan in color with a cream exterior ~nsulation finish system (EIFS) accent band. A hipped metal roof complements the building. Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. I # 8 Page 8 The portions of the mini-warehouse buildings that are facing Centerville Tumpike are to be constructed with a split face block water table, and brick and exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) exterior walls. The long expanse of the walls is broken with incremental projections to provide for architectural and visual relief. Three different projections are proposed. The end of the building projections will have a band of accent brick around the exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) wall, with a tile accent. A hipped metal roof covers this projection. The middle of the building will have the same design projection except an exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) pediment will complement th~s roof area. The other projection is simple in that it does not have any facade or roof element. It is simply trimmed with a metal cap. Landscape and Open Space · The entire frontage of the site along Centerville Turnpike is depicted as landscaped area with the exception of the entrance into the s~te and four parking spaces. The landscape area will contain berms that are planted with both evergreen and deciduous trees, as recommended by staff. Foundation screening of the fronts of the buildings along Centerville Turnpike is also proposed on the submitted plans. The required Category VI screening is depicted along the sides and rear property lines. A variance to the required 15-foot setback from the R5-D Residential District is required. The applicant will make application to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the vadance upon approval by the City Council of this Rezoning request. Proffers PROFFER # 1 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 2 When the property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "PRELIMINARY LAYOUT FOR PIKE SELF STORAGE ON CENTERVlLLE TURNPIKE", prepared by Site Improvements Associates, Inc., dated 11-8-02, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan). The proffer is acceptable. It insures that the site will be developed as depicted on the submitted preliminary layout plan. When the Property is developed, the buildings depicted on Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D. SlFEN, INC. ! # 8 Page 9 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 3 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 4 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 5 Staff Evaluation: the Site Plan shall contain the architectural features and utilize the high quality building materials depicted on the "Proposed Elevations for Pike Self Storage, Virginia Beach, Virginia", prepared by Cowngton, Hendnx Architects, which has been exhibited to the V~rg~n~a Beach City Council and is on file with the V~rginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Elevations"). The proffer is acceptable. It insures that the proposed buildings will be constructed in accordance with the submitted elevations. The freestanding monument style sign designated on the Site Plan shall be brick based monument style sign no greater than eight feet (8') in height. The proffer is acceptable. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property. The proffer is acceptable. It insures that lighting on the site will not interfere with adjacent uses. Only the following uses will be permitted on the Property: a) Wholesaling, warehousing, storage or distribution establishments; b) Bus~ness, medical, financial, non-profit, professional and similar office buildings; c) Public Utility installations; d) Commercial parking lot; and e) Public Buildings and grounds. The proffer is acceptable in that it limits the proposed uses for the site. However as staff previously noted in this report, Proffer I states that when the site is developed it shall be developed substantially as shown on the submitted preliminary site plan. Proffer 2 states that the buildings will contain the architectural features and utilize the high quality buildlng materials depicted on the elevations. Therefore, the only use permitted on the site Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D. SlFEN, INC. / # 8 Page 10 will be the mini-warehouse facility, office for the facility and caretaker residence. Should the developer or property owner wish to introduce any of the uses listed in this proffer on to the site, Proffers 1 and 2 will have to be modified by the City Council. PROFFER # 6 Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated November 10, 2002, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request The request to rezone the site from R5-D Residential District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District and develop the site as a mini-warehouse facility is acceptable. The request is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan Map recommendations for the area, and is in keeping with the surrounding uses. While the applicant has proffered several acceptable uses for the site, as previously stated in the report the only use that will be permitted on the site at this t~me is the mini-warehouse facility, office and residence as proffered in Proffers 1 and 2. Should the applicant wish to add any of the other proffered uses to the site, Proffers 1 and 2 will have to be modified. The proposed landscaping along the frontage of Centerville Turnpike exceeds City ordinance requirements. The proposed meandering and undulating berms planted with evergreen and deciduous trees will add an attractive touch to the frontage. Foundation screening will soften and add to the appearance of the buildings. The proposed screening and buffering of the proposed use along the side and rear property lines ~s adequate. The proposed elevations depict the use of a good mix of building materials, including brick, and architectural details, such as tile, metal caps, and exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) accents, that will provide visual relief to the building. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of the request to rezone the site from R5-D Residential District to Conditional I-1 L~ght Industrial District to develop a mini- warehouse facility. Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC./# 8 Page 11 NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D, SlFEN, INC,/# 8 Page 12 Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D. SlFEN, INC. / # 8 Page 13 0 0 o Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC./# 8 Page 14 Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D. SlFEN, INC./# 8 Page 15 Z Z Z Z I ' I I II I I II I I I '1 iiiii iii Applicant's Name: M]-chael_~_.__S~.__~_en, ~[_nc_._~._a__V3_~.F~_nga__c_o_~_gr~io~ ..... List All Current Property Owners: _W_~_lti_am_s__H,,old_~_n~m__C_o_rp. ~_~_a V_i__r. gA_n_i_a corporation PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) E. ,__R. Bowler_L~_P_r_e_s_i_dentfTre~s_~Lr_~_r. Ed Mc K · n 1 e y~S e_c r__e_t_a_ri If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) i"i Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. if the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) M~chael .D. S~f_e_n~__Pr e_s~ de_ri_t_/Sec r et ar_5' If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) I-i Check here ~f the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Michael D.__ / .~ ~/. ~Sifen' Inc. .~ / _By:~l¢~_~/ ~. _~~.~ Michael D. Slfen, President Signature Print Name Cond;tional Rezoning Application Page 10 of 14 Planning Commission Agenda ~;~~-'~ February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / # 8 Page 16 Z Z Z Z i II I I I i ii i Applicant's Name: _~icJ~a_e_L.I)_,_~iea,.~~__Vcu:gin~ ~ ~-~r?~,-~r ~ ~= List All Current Property Owners W~ll~ams Hold~ng_C_%or_p., a V~rg~in~a corporation PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below. (Attach list if necessary) E. R. Bowler, President/Treasurer Ed McKinley, :_S_e_c_retarv If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) [] Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other o unincorporated organization. ff the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below. APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) Michael D. S~fen, Preszdent/Secretarv If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach hst if necessary) [] Check here if the property owner ~s NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization CERTIFICATION: ! certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. ~_~ Wi ¥1'i~a~ Ho~d lng Bv~ _~2z~ E. R~ B~wl~r~ President ~ , Signature / ~ ~e,~ Print Name Conditional Rezomng Application Page 10 of 14 Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. / it 8 Page 17 Item #8 Michael D. Sifen, Inc. Change of Zomng District Classification West s~de of Kempsvdle Road District 1 Centerville February 12, 2003 CONSENT Charhe Salle': The next Item on the Consent agenda is Michael D. Slfen. A Change of Zomng Classification from R-5D Residentml Duplex District to Conchtional I-1 Light Industrial District on the west side of Centerville Turnpike. Ronald Ripley: Charhe, I hear we have opposition to this. So, we need to drop that down and hear that. Charlie Salle': Okay. REGULAR AGENDA Robert Miller: The next item is Item #8, Michael D. Sifen, Inc. Ronald Ripley: On this particular application, I'm going to step away from the chair on tbs because although I don't think I have any bias to this at all, but I do have an ~nterest to purchase a piece of land adjacent to this, and a company that will purchase a piece of land adjacent to this. I think I w~ll be abstmning and I think Mr. Miller has a need to abstain because I beheve he represents... Robert Miller: The owner of the property. Ronald R~pley: The owner of the property. So, I've asked again, Charlie Salle' to pinch- hit for us, and Charhe would you please take the chatr. Charlie Salle': Sure. I'll be glad to. Do we have anybody representing Michael D. Slfen? Robert Miller: We do right there. Who is that guy? He was up so late last night. Eddie Bourdon: My apologies for the delay. Charlie Salle': Before you get started, Joe might have a comment. Joseph Strange: I'd just hke to make a comment. I also own property across the street this project. I don't think it's going to have any bearing on my consideration of th~s project so I will participate. Item #8 Michael D. S ifen, Inc Page 2 Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon. I'm a Virginia Beach attorney and it's my privilege to represent Mr. Michael D. Sifen on this application. Many of you, not all of you know may know Mr. Sifen. He is a developer of some, I believe, renown in the area. He does a wonderful job with his projects. He has been in the self-storage and commercial development, office development business, for over a quarter of a century. He's been dmng storage faciht~es for 23 years ~n this area and throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. It's also my privilege the landowner EVW Group, EV Wilhams. And, the piece of property that we are here to talk about is a long rectangular shaped p~ece of property that fronts on the west side of Centerville Turnpike, north of Kempsv~lle Road and south of Indian River Road, south of CBN. The property is zoned R-5D. It is the ring road or outside of the borrow pit, now landfill. There ~s still some excavation taking place, on a small part of it, but it's essentially a landfill. The property while zoned R-5D is certainly not statable for residential development. D~rectly to the south of th~s property is a 14-acre parcel that ~s zoned B-2. Across the street you got B-2 property. A storage facility and a post office is there, and a church here owns some additional B-2 property in the area. The proposal is to put a very attractive self- storage facility on the property. The staff, I think has done a very fine job in terms of describing it, evaluating it. Do you all have the copies of the elevation? This ~s the elevations that Crumb and Associates showing very attractive brick and split face block buildings w~th extensive landscaping on Centerville as well as foundation landscaping to create a very attractive appearance. One that certainly is s~gnificantly racer ~n quahty than the older storage facihty that exists across Centerville from the site that's essentially split block type of a facility. The thing you may hear from the opposition ~s there a demand in this area for storage. And, the answer is inequitable yes from all of the folks that I've talked, to and I have been talkang to a lot of them lately with the application that I know you're all familiar with at Kempsv~lle/Centerville Associates that City Council approved last evemng. Within a three-rmle radius of the intersection of Kempsville Road and Centerville Turnpike, the population ~s roughly 85,000 people. And, w~ttun that three-mile radius there is a significant quantity of both multi-famdy development and small lot residential development. There is also a significant student population associated with Regent Umvers~ty. All of those type of housing create additional demand for these type of storage facility. Within that three- mile radius today there are 137,000 square feet of storage facility by contrast w~thin a three-mile radius within a three mile radius at the intersection of Dam Neck Road and Holland Road, which we chose that because you get the same central population 85,000 people, but within that three male radius, little b~t larger lot sizes, generally speaking, and no college student population. There are today within the three mile radius of Holland and Dam Neck 535,000 square feet of storage facihty. So, and the people who are the experts n the industry and Mr. Sifen, who is here, certatnly qualifies as that because he's got these facilities throughout the Commonwealth, will tell you that ~s not an adequate amount of storage facility. With what the City Council approved for Kemspville/Centerville Associates, and ~f this apphcation ~s approved and is bruit, that will increase the square foot of storage area in this locality within a three mile radius due around 390,000 square feet, still 30 percent less than exists at the Dam Neck/Holland Comdor three-mile radius. And, there's suffiment demand to support this type of use in Item #8 Michael D. Sifen, Inc. Page 3 this location. And, the facility across the street is as of this morning fully occupied. I think they said one small area 10 x 10 that's available. Everything else is completely full. Also, I want to let you that I was contacted about three weeks ago by another chent looking at another s~te m this area for a storage facihty. I indicated to them that I thought wasn't something they should look at, but they gave me the same ~nformation that there is a lack of available space in th~s area to serve the needs of the people that are there and additional development. Although, not significant ~n terms of the amount that's going to take place in th~s area. So, the ant~-compet~t~on argument that I think is the genes~s of the opposition here today. We th~nk competition is good. We think that competition bnngs out the best and frankly, the appearance of this facility is second to none. The other thing, if you look at this piece of property and try to envision what would be a better use for this piece of property, I'm hard pressed to think of a better use for this piece of property. It ~s a low traffic generating use. If you try to do something commercial there it couldn't lay out anyway other than a strip commercial, and even then it would just be pretty difficult to envisxon something attractive or beneficial. And, there really isn't a demand in this area for commercial development. And, the idea of putting a bunch of single family homes adjacent to the borrow p~t landfill right on Centerville Turnpike, which is what the zomng R-5D would suggest, just doesn't make any sense from a land use perspective. So, w~th that you recogmze this was on the consent agenda. I'm going to end the presentation and answer any questions, and I'd like to respond to the opposition. Charlie Salle': Any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Charlie Salle': Eddie, is that all the speakers in favor of the project? Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Siren is here but he d~d not sign up to speak. Charlie Salle': Okay. Those in opposition? J~m Arnold: Chairman Ripley. Members of Planning Conmussion, today is quite role reversal for me. I'm Jim Arnold, hfe long mt~zen of Virginia Beach. I'm in the real estate development construction bus~ness. I am one of the partners in America Classic Self Storage d~rectly across the street from this proposed rezoning. I apologize before I go through this list that I d~d not g~ve this information to everybody prior to today's meeting. It was a difficult dec~sion for me to come and speak against this rezonmg and, my used to be old friend Mr. Bourdon. Perhaps being viewed as anti competitive but even as a competitor I hope you realize my concerns are not completely self-serving. My partners and I have substantial investments m this area and want what's in the best interest of the bus~ness and residential communities as a whole. The debate of too much of anything ~s not anti competitive. It causes vacancies ~n propemes because of cash flow, that may in fact fall in disrepmr and not be maintmned to a h~gh standard. The project across the street that Mr. Bourdon was talking about, we own, received a design award from the City of Virginia Beach a few years back. We're very proud of that property. A view of Item #8 Michael D. Sifen, Inc. Page 4 the City records and ~nformation I obtained from Brian Dunden, Commercml Appraiser, shows this market has more than ample storage facilities in all s~zes to accommodate the commumty's needs. I believe Mr. Bourdon suggest that you should only look at the facilities w~thin a three-mile radius. I and Mr. Dunden, the appratser, certainly suggest that analogy ~s flawed. Depending upon where you shop, work, take your children to school or other activities, you'll be introduced to avmlable storage facilities wahin at least a five rmle radius. I, was told by Mr. Dunden that the appraisal ~ndustry would use a five-mile radius to assess value competition. A five-rmle radius would show there are eleven competing facilmes, two of which will be developed within the next few years. One, 120,000 square foot facility was approved last night by City Council at the comer of Kempsville Road and Centerville Turnpike, and 56,000 square foot expansion on Providence Road that is coming up on Jack Rabbit facility. These facilities equate to almost 740,000 square feet of storage space of which over 170,000 square feet will come online that will have to absorbed over the next few years. Our facility is 94,000 square feet across the street. It was developed in two phases. It took approximately five years to get to an acceptable occupancy. It will take at a minimum that long to absorb the new umts that are already approved. I believe ~t will take a httle bit longer and surely occupancy of the existing property will be hurt. There are storage units available in all sizes at every facility ~n its market. To suggest that the market is not to be accommodated is just not true. We have built over the past five years 360 apartments in this area, which have garages and storage facilities on site for our residents. And, with those not completely filled by our own residents that live there. It's just this property being rezoned from res~dennal to industrial is adjacent to an existing church and the entire Gomez borrow p~t property, which is zoned residential. All of the recent rezomng adjacent to the borrow pit property has been rezoned to multi-family residential. Other than the City of Virgima Beach City view recreation site. This property is adjacent to ex~st~ng residential zoned property and should remain residential not intrude ~t w~th industrial. I recognize the Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial and or industrial on the site. I expect that will be rewewed during the Comprehensive Plan update in light of all the multi-family rezoning adjacent to the Gomez borrow pit. The Gomez borrow pit property has been designed ~n the past, and far as I know still is, and will probably be developed as residential by the owners. Even though you look at that big hole out there today, it doesn't necessarily look like that what's going to happen. I know that p~t ~s supposed to all be filled and come back up. There should not be support for another storage facility rezoning after the approval last mght. How many could we possibly need m one marketing area? Hopefully all Commission members will see the wisdom of not adding more of this business type to the area. Over supply of any business type always creates vacancies. The facts of this may have been an acceptable use under different c~rcumstances just as Orchard Park Shopping Center over the Chesapeake line is an acceptable use for commercxal when that was zoned. That now s~ts 50 percent vacant. Because of an over built retml environment, which Mr. Bourdon agrees, and eluded to last mght on the other storage facility rezoning, I'm sure even he doesn't beheve the only v~able business rezoning for this area ~s storage facilities. We just don't need another facility at this time. I realize this item was on the consent agenda prior to my opposition. I respectfully request all Comnussion members to th~nk agmn your approval of th~s Item #8 Michael D. Slfen, Inc. Page 5 project and recommend denial of this request, or at the very least send this item back for additional staff review in light of this new information and comments. Thank you very much. Charhe Salle': Any questions for Mr. Arnold? Thank you. Are there any other speakers m opposition? Robert Miller: There's no one else listed. Eddie Bourdon: Let me begin by insuring you that I'm not a former friend of Mr. Arnold, and I certmnly don't consider myself to be an "old" friend of Mr. Arnold. We will be friends as we came into today as friends. Certmnly we can do a five-mile radius study of Holland and Dam Neck and again, the numbers are still going to be the same. This area is underserved. I don't know, and I may have misunderstood Jim's comments in terms of their being units available in all sizes in his facility, again, we checked this morning and we were told it was full except there was one small unit. And, that was all that was avmlable. Everything was full. If he meant the entire five-mile radius, that may well be true. There may be units avmlable in all sizes witban a five-mile radius. But the fact remains that he indicated in his comments. People in the market place are trying to expand, are expanding, and that is because there is demand out there, significant demand. The folks who are operating the facility, American Classic are in fact building a facility at London Bridge and Potter's Road today. There is significant demand for this type of facility. Now, London Bridge and Potters is probably not within a five-mile radius of this location. But, that doesn't change the fact that this is a type of use for which a lot of the thmgs that we're doing in zoning and eliminating accessory structures on lots and storage spaces becoming a premium for homeowners as well as for people in various businesses. This is the best use for tbas piece of property. It is a very attractive one and again, my intention was not to suggest that the American Classic facility across the street was unattractive, and at the time it was built it won an award, but as you well know the appearance of these facilities have been upgraded phenomenally over the course last five years in terms of what they look like and what people are willing to do in terms of makang them look very attractive. This not a shopping center. It is a use that has a lot of characteristics that are far different than a shopping center. An empty shopping center does create problems. A storage facihty that is 50-60 percent occupted versus 90 percent occupied still looks the same in terms of what you see driving by that facility. And, remember also that the people ~n the bankang industry are going to be lookang at the numbers, study the numbers as to giving financing for the construction of these and again, they' re there. The numbers support it. That's why there are expansion opportunities that are taking place, and the people who are in the business are looking for s~tes in this particular area. So, with that, I would hope that the Comrmsslon would look at it from a land use perspective and not from a protectionist or any competition perspective. And, I don't mean to mischaracterize what Jim smd but that is a part of what's there. That may not be the only part but that is a part of what's there. And, from a land use perspective I don't think you can come up with a better land use for this piece of property. Thank you. Item #8 Machael D. Sifen, Inc. Page 6 Charhe Salle': Any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Wall. William Din: Eddie, do you have any idea, the borrow pat development that you talked about here, when that will be going back up for some kind of development? Eddie Bourdon: I honestly don't know that at will. I'm tryang to remember there's a contract. It's an excellent questaon. I don't know that it will ever be developed. Because there is the landfill contract w~th Sani Fil, and there will be resadential development there. I don't tinnk there wall be any development there for 30 years, if there is any. William Din: Okay. There is a piece of property there B-2 just down the road from you there. Eddie Bourdon: Right next to it. William Din: Right next to it. And, I do find that ti'ns as maybe an attractive self-storage unit, but I really beheve that the development of this site as a self storage area might, you know, if you looked at it comprehensavely with the borrow pat and the B-2 and what they have surrounding ~t, you know, ~t does lead me down the road as "what's goang to be around tins" if we allow this self-storage to go in there. Will it be compatible with what we will be putting in there? Right now it's zoned R-5D. Is that compatible with this self- storage unit in front of ~t? Let's assume it developed an R-5D. Eddie Bourdon: You talking about the borrow p~t? The landfill? William Din: Yeah. Eddie Bourdon: Will, I don't know any other way to tell you that this landfill is not going to be in any of our life times, including the youngest person here, going to be developed with houses on them. Tins ~s just not going to happen. Now, the only thing that you're gmng to see development on ~s tins B-2 paece here, which is going to be developed commercially, in my est~manon, commercially or a multa-faimly development. One or the other, which this would be completely compatible with either of those, but to suggest that this former borrow pit, now samtary landfill is going to be a residentaal development at some poant ~n the future, I hesitate to look at what technology may have ~n store and how people may live, you know, generations to come but nothing that we're dealing with in tins lifetime that's goang to be residentml development. Walliam Din: I don't know if anyone on our staff knows when this landfill is projected to be closed but that's just a projection. I think that is probably one of my major issues here wath tins self-storage umt. In addition, is there too many? But, the compatibihty of tins unit in this area may be there. Whether you're looking 30 years down the road or 50years down the road or even 10 years down the road, I'm not sure that ~f you put a self-storage umt right up in the front of the road here, what's going to be built between that and the Item #8 Michael D. Sifen, Inc. Page 7 City line at Mount Trashmore back there. It is zoned R-5D at this time. Compatibility is part of what we should be lookang at here, compatibility and proper land use. Eddie Bourdon: Also in the Comprehensive Plan, Will, the Comprehensive Plan calls for the area to be ~ndustrial and commercial not residential. William Din: Okay. Thank you. Charhe Salle': Any other questions? Donald Horsley: I don't have a question. I'd just like to make a statement. This use appears to me to be a good buffer along Centerville Turnpike for the borrow pit and filling operations that's going over there. It's an attractive use and the competitive issue, you know that xs sometbang we need to think about, but you know, I let business people be business people when that comes about, but if it's a land use, I think pits, I think this fits this area, so I'm going to be in support of the application. Charlie Salle': Joe? Joseph Strange: Yeah. I didn't hear any opposition of this from anybody, so I kind of thought that it was not a bad land use here, but one of the things that really bothers me about tlus ~s that we're rushing in and putting all these storage units up there. I not a developer, but I have had to rent a lot of spaces and own some spaces. It just kind of mrs my nerves up to see what we're doing in that httle section of the City over there. I mean, tbas looks like storage haven over there, and I don't understand how we're going to ever reach the economic development in this City right here if we keep taking parts of our City and sacrificing for other parts of the City. I just hate to say lt. Agmn, I'm not a developer. I can't s~t here and say I know there is a better use for this land. But, I just wonder why we just couldn't rash here and put all these storage units in here right on top of another. So, in lieu of the fact that there are developers who are agatnst this, I'll probably be voting against this at this time. Charlie Salle': Any other comments? Kathy Kats~as: I intend to agree with Joe. I think that it probably ~s a good use for this p~ece of property. But, with the approval of the additional warehouse spaces last night, I th~nk this area ~s probably saturated at this time, or probably getting saturated, with too many units. So, I'm not ~n favor of the application. Charhe Salle': Any other comments? I think I'll be vottng in favor of the application. I am concerned w~th what Kathy and Joe had to say. Unfortunately, I think this application is a good one, and probably the one approved last night was a bad one. And, I'm not sure I want to choose to penalize this landowner for the actions of others with respect to the other property. And, in general I think that zoning is not a great tool in regulating business as far as competitiveness. I think if the land use is applicable, and I th~nk ~t ~s Item #8 Michael D. Sifen, Inc. Page 8 here, then that's where we should concentrate our efforts and probably let the private markets cope with the idea of competition, saturation with respect to the number of storage units in tlus area. So, with that, I'I1 be support the motion, and I guess, would anybody like to make one? Janice Anderson: I'll go ahead and make motion to approve the application of Michael Sifen with the conditions. Charlie Salle': Do we have a second? Donald Horsley: Second. Charhe Salle" Motion of Jan Anderson and seconded by Don Horsley to approve the application. AYE 4 NAY 3 ABS 2 ABSENT 2 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS KNIGHT MILLER RIPLEY SALLE' AYE STRANGE WOOD NAY NAY NAY AIlS ABS ABSENT ABSENT Charhe Salle': By a vote of 4-3, with two abstentions, the application of Michael D. Sifen has been approved for a Change of Zoning Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all. FO RM NO 1:3 $ 1 B City o£ Vir'¢inia Reach INTER-OFFICE CORRESPOtqDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5671 DATE: April 10, 2003 TO: Leslie L. Lilley DEPT: City Attorney .~ ,.--~ FROM: B. Kay Wilson~5-) DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application Michael D. Siren, Inc. and Williams Holding Corp. The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on April 22, 2003. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated November 10, 2002, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel flee to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure PREPARED BY /S'y~$. A#EP~ & LEVY. PC MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC., a Virginia corporation WILLIAMS HOLDING CORP., a Virginia corporation TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH THIS AGREEMENT, made this 10t~ day of November, 2002, by and between MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC., a Virginia corporation, Grantor, party of the first part; WILLIAMS HOLDING CORP., a Virginia corporation, Grantor, party of the second part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the thtrd part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the Centerville District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 6.724 acres as more particularly described in Exhibit ~A' attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property'); and WHEREAS, the party of the first part, being the contract purchaser of the Property has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from R-5D Residential District to I-1 Light Industrial District; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to permit differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the Grantor's proposed rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and GPIN: 1455-73-7940 PREPARED BY S'YI~, t~OImDON. WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in tifle 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 makes the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "PRELIMINARY LAYOUT FOR PIKE SELF STORAGE ON CENTERVILLE TURNPIKE", prepared by Site Improvement Associates, Inc., dated 11-8-02, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter ~Site Plan"). 2. When the Property is developed, the buildings depicted on the Site Plan shall contain the architectural features and utilize the high quality building materials depicted on the ~Proposed Elevations For Pike Self Storage, Virginia Beach, Virginia", prepared by Covington, Hendrix Architects, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on f~e with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter ~Elevations~). 3. The freestanding monument style sign designated on the Site Plan shall be brick based monument style sign no greater than eight feet (8~ in height. PREPARED BY lSYl~S. l~oot~l~. ~1~ & ~.p.c 4. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property. . Only the following uses will be permitted on the Property: a) Wholesaling, warehousing, storage or distribution establishments; b) Business, medical, financial, non-profit, professional and similar office buildings; c) Public Utilities Installations; d) Commercial parking lot; and e) Public Buildings and grounds. 6. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. All references hereinabove to I-1 District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Smd ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said PREPARED BY Attl~ & LrvY. pc instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the C~ty of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantor and the Grantee. PREPARED BY Ak~P~ & lt~Y. PC WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC., a Virginia corporation Michael D. Siren, ~resi~Ient (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 13th day of November, 2002, by Michael D. Sifen, President of Michael D. Sifen, Inc., a Virginia corporation. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 PREPARED BY _~ S'Y~$. t~OUm~N. AII~N & It'VY. PC WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: WILLIAMS HOLDING CORP., a Virginia corporation E. R. Bowler, President (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, m-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 15~ day of November, 2002, by E. R. Bowler, President of Williams Holding Corp., a Virginia corporation. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 PREPARED BY ~. t~OURDON. AIt[~N a Inn/. P.C EXHIBIT "A" All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, situated in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, being designated as ~Parcel A' containing 6.724 acres as depicted on that Plat subdividing property of Williams Holding Corp., prepared by Miller-Stephenson, P.C., recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 282, at Page 82. GPIN: 1455-73-7940 CONDREZONE/SIFEN/CENTERVTr.!.]~./PROFFER March 25, 2003 COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I have no problems with it not being single-family, because I think there's a real need for this type of product. And the quality is there, but there's just too many of them. EDDIE BOURDON: We have had a very, very fantastic favorable response from the people around us who have parents who would want to live there. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Right. Thank you, Madam Mayor. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Does anybody else want to be recognized before we vote? We're voting on the 30-day deferral. Are we ready for the question? CITY CLERK: By a vote of 11 to 0 you have agreed to a 30-day deferral. EDDIE BOURDON: Thank you. 30 CITY ATTORNEY: MAYOR OBERNDORF: CITY ATTORNEY: consensus of the Council. March 25, 2003 Excuse me, Madam Mayor. Yes, Mr. Lllley. From a Parliamentary standpoint to withdraw it would take a vote of the Council or MAYOR OBERNDORF: CITY ATTORNEY: Okay. You could have a substitute motion, however. VICE MAYOR JONES: COUNCILM~N REEVE: VICE MA¥OR JONES: for 30 days. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Do you want me to do it, Jim? That would be fine, sir. Okay. Madam Mayor, I move that we make a substitute motion that we defer this item I second MAYOR OBERNDORF: Are we ready for the question? Oh, Mrs. Wilson has to be recognized. COUNCIL LADY ~7/LSON: So, when you come back you're going to have less units; is that correct? And try to create some more open space? EDDIE BOURDON: Well, we are going to explore doing that, yes. Obviously, it would be helpful to get feedback, but I think we also need to get a clearer picture or hopefully a better understanding of our respected position. I think that is the crucial issue. But the answer to your question, I would expect so; but, you know, one of the things that we would want to look at is what level you-all are comfortable with and I think your comfort level is going to depend in part upon the traffic issue, which I don't think they have their arms around. 29 March 25, 2003 don't think there's a whole lot of question there. But, we will take a look at, talk to Staff again and try to get our hands around the numbers. If it's going to be single-family, it will be single family. I'm perfectly comfortable to tell you that it's an R-10 Development, which I don't think can be anything, but you're going to have more traffic. COUNCIL LADY EURE: And I don't debate that, Eddie. I'm saying you're going from R-20 and AG is what I said. I think R-10 is certainly reasonable. EDDIE BOURDON: And that type of development in our Comp Plan doesn't say anything about, it doesn't deal with, you know, thinking outside of the box when you're dealing with age-restricted, other than the general statements that are in there about encouraging them and that it has less impact on traffic. It says that right in our Comp Plan. We will go back and talk to Staff and try to get on the same page number-wise with them. i'm willing to do that, because I know the Brown Family don't want this to -- you know thls quality pro3ect to be defeated because of a lack of clear information. We can work with you-all to try to come up with a slightly less number of units, but we have to look at people and look at buildings too. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Reeve. COUNCILM~=N REEVE: Thank you, Mayor. In listening to the Applicant, I would like to withdraw my motion and modify it to defer this for 30 days, if that is reasonable with the Applicant, to give them more time to look at the numbers, get with Staff and find ways to, you know, bring more of a comfort level to this. VICE MAYOR JONES: Second. COUNCIL LADY EURE: Is that enough time, Eddie? 28 March 25, 2003 numbers are. I think Staff on one side has looked at age-restricted versus age-targeted. I would kind of like to see it revisited as well. I think that I would really like to see the Applicant go back and try to work with Staff to redesign this, minimize it or be a little blt more creative in terms of the density and layout and see what we can do. I think that that would probably be the best bet. That would be where I would fall down on that. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Is that enough for you, Eddie? You've been counting noses. EDDIE BOURDON: Let me suggest that we will be amenable to a deferral, but I do have to simply say that, you know, I agree with what Jim Wood lust said. We have got to get our arms around the traffic issue, because what's being said here in terms of traffic is I believe based on the experts that we have hired, you know, and are not consistent with what we as a City have said in our Comp Plan -- and I quoted -- and what we have done previously with these types of developments. So, you know, I do think a deferral will help if nothing else to clear up this traffic issue, because we don't think it's a close call. You know we didn't and don't want -- the Brown's are here. They've obviously been waiting for a long time. You know, they are part of this equation. We want to have an idea that there is a consensus on where we're trying to go with this. You know some slight reduction may be doable. We're not talking about going -- single-family homes, Mrs. Eure, this property is surrounded by R-10 Development. I don't think there's any -- part of this property is Zoned Agriculture. You know that's not what it's going to be. So, the idea that it's going to be anything other than R-10, which what it is surrounded by, you know, from a legal zoning issue, I 27 March 25, 2003 there -- but when you have a Staff denial as powerful as this Staff denial is, I really have to question this. And, Mr. Moore, I really respect you; but, I would like to see him go back and make this less dense. Even if it's Zoned R-20 or Ag and you're going to go down to R-10, that's drastic enough. But, this is 3ust too dense. When I ride into these projects that I voted for and supported and look at the density and see how close those people are. There's no where to go. There's no where to play. If you're going to build apartments, you know, build apartments, but in this particular area I think this is a little overkill and it's a little dense for me. And, I don't think I'm going to be able to support this proDect, but I would certainly support Mr. Moore going back, working with Staff and trying to get this to be less dense and a more acceptable pro3ect to the community. It is pretty radical to go from what it is zoned for to what's proposed. So, as hard as it is for me, I think I'm going to have to go with Mr. Scott's recommendation. And, I apologize for that, but we're getting really too dense. MAXOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Wood. COUNCIL~4~/~W~OOD: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I don't think anybody here has said it's an Issue of quality. I haven't seen any of the e-mails, the 30 or 40 e-mails that we've received, to say It's an issue of quality. Everything I hear is density. Everything I hear is traffic. I agree w~th Mr. Reeve that it's certainly the City's responsibility to have an adequate infrastructure to do that, but I think it's also incumbent on this Council not to unnecessarily aggravate the situation by approving something that may be too dense. I don't think we have our hands firmly wrapped around what the 26 MAYOR OBERNDORF: March 25, 2003 Mrs. Eure. COUNCIL LADY EURE: I have known about Donald Moore for years and I don't think there's any question at all about the quality of his work or that he's an excellent builder in the City. It's not a question of quality, but if I'm looking at this front page it's currently Zoned R-20 and we're kicking around the idea of R-10. I've voted for some real dense projects in the not far distant past, fairly recently and since they've been constructed. When you go in there, they are so tight. I don't know hardly how a fire truck or if more than one thing happened at a time. They are ]ust absolutely stacked. They are sitting right on the road. And I have revisited several of those pro~ects and I have to sit here and tell you that I'm sorry that I voted for some of them. I certainly symphathlze with the community that they want to keep it single-family and that is what I would like to see. I would like to see Mr. Moore work with Staff and reduce the density of this project. I don't see any open space to speak of. I don't think this project is intended to be open space, unless you're going to look up at the sky and count the trees as open space. The thing about people being 55, you know most of them don't retire until they are 65. If you look at the work force today, they are way up in their 70's. So, I don't think the fact that they are 55 is going to reduce traffic at all. The other thing that I really am unhappy about is that th~s project falls under the PD-H Overlay. When you go -- and I really truly think that this Council ought to have Staff revisit this, because it does away with setbacks. And, Stephen, you can correct me if I am wrong. I don't want to put you on the spot. But you can do pretty much anything in a PD-H Overlay. It really eliminates all of those conditions that are set up to have a less-dense development and I -- this is a hard decision for me. When I look at a 5 to 3 vote, and I know that there was one abstention and two people were not 25 March 25, 2003 the quality issue, look at the long-term benefits of this, the fact that these houses will not generate school kids, which in this area as probably the baggest concern. Second as the traffic issue. I belaeve that the people that will lave an thas area a good portion will be retared, will be able to travel at thear leasure. There was actually some dascussaon in the Plannang Commassaon where the gentleman that talked about at saad that he does travel off hours. He does not go at rush hour. He has the abalaty to go out when he needs to go out and plans has schedule accordingly. Wath that I would make a motaon that we do approve at and that we move forward. MAXOR OBERNDORF: There's a motion. Is there a second? COUNCIL~ SCHMIDT: I'll second MAYOR OBERNDORF: Discussion? COUNCILM~N VILLANUEVA: MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mayor. Mr. Vlllanueva. COUNCILM~NVIIJ~%A~u'EV~: I would have to agree w~th Rosemary. You know it seems on the face value that this project is excellent an merit; but, you know, looking at the picture does seem kind of dense. I was wondering af the Applacant would consider meetang back with the Staff and conslderang less densaty an the units. EDDIE BOURDON: answer? Well, you put me ~n a tough spot. I haven't heard from all of you yet. Can I defer an COUNCILM~NVI?.?~: Sure. 24 March 25, 2003 Yes, there are more units on thms pro3ect than I think Staff would lmke to see, but we have had several in the past. In the Princess Anne D~strmct, we have dmscussed, you know, quality versus quantmty and I think from the other subd~vms~on and other projects that Mr. Moore has done I think the quality ms evident. Mrs. Graham spoke tonight of her lmvmng mn the other one down the road, which ms much hmgher density. It ms a high-quality development. It is h~gh density, but It's of hmgh-qualmty nature. We have been promoting in thms City maybe unoffmc~ally, but we've been promoting senmor-style housing. That's where we've seen the market go. We even talked about that tonmght earlmer on another project on Shore Dr~ve and that seems to be where the market is gomng. I believe the price point to these will reflect kindly on the surrounding neighborhoods. I have talked wmth the Brown Family who live just south of it on a l~ttle cut-out p~ece. I belmeve they st~ll live there. They are going to backup to this. They are not sellmng or moving away. They are staymng right there and they support this. Other people have supported thms. Unfortunately some of the ~nformat~on that got out was less than accurate and when it was revealed what the truth was and what these were actually going to look l~ke -- it's even mn the Planning Commission wrmte-up that people that were opposed became supportmve of ~t. I do not think the level of constructmon of this and the qualmty mssue should be a concern. I am concerned about traffmc count. I'm concerned about traffmc count, because the Cmty has not done there ]ob to ensure that we get the roadways mn place that need to be there and that being Nmmmo Parkway and I wmll push that that maintain the 2005-2006 time schedule. The questmon ms what to do tonmght. Do we reject thms because we have not met our oblmgatmons or do we approve thms to the concern of residents who live in that area~ Because, once agamn, we have not done our job. It's a tough questmon, but I believe we should look at 23 March 25, 2003 would be subdivided into lots and, again, I'm going to make another assumption. You may or may not agree with this, but I'm going to assume the size of the lots you're talking about would be 10,000 square-foot lots. You might not agree on that. But if you looked at that -- you know a 10,000 square-foot-lot has a certain amount of openness to it; whereas, these units are k~nd of closer together. The un,ts in a subdivision would be much farther a part. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Uh-huh. ROBERT SCOTT: Also, you do have your Subdivision Ordinance. This is a ten-acre piece of property that we would be, through the Subdivision Ordinance, acquiring probably not enough open space to 3ustlfy the Parks and Recreation Department taking it over as a park site or a recreation site. It would probably be too small. We would seek to do ~t by other means, possibly ~ncrease setbacks from ?rlncess Anne Road or, you know, some other method like that. But, I th~nk that with a ser~es of 10,000 square-foot-lots you are probably going to achieve the greater feeling of openness than you would with a condominium development like this. But, that's ~ust my opinion. COUNCILMAN REEVE: But it wouldn't be what we've been calling open space for the Issue of the Transition Area Guidelines. Open space has been common space that everyone can enjoy and in the sense use, correct? ROBERT SCOTT: A ten-acre subdivision is not going to give you very much of that. COUNCII/~%N REEVE: Okay. Traffic is a concern, but I think that burden should not fully be born on this ApplIcant. We've caused the problem. We have caused the problem by not putting in Nlmmo V back when it should have been done. 22 March 25, 2003 ROBERT SCOTT: Well, again, that's all -- I tell you what, I drive this road very frequently and I drive Shore Drive very frequently and Shore Drive is a pleasure to drive compared to this road. COUNCI~ REEVE: During certain times of the day I will agree with that. ROBERT SCOTT: That's my opinion. COUNCILMAN REEVE: How do we determine service levels, then it's not based on backup time or -- ROBERT SCOTT: Well, It is based on all of those things. And there is -- it's based on a combination of all of those factors: Vehicle trips-per-day, delay points at certain intersections and those sort of th~ngs. The letters help to describe the circumstance somewhat. But there are also a series of pictures that can be explained to people to say here's a road that has Level of Service D or E or F or whatever it and it's sometimes easier to grasp the situation if you see those pictures. COUNCIL~ REEVE: The discussion between duplex-style buildings and single-family and open space, if this went to a single-family would they have the same requirements for what we are looking to achieve on open space? I mean, this is north of the Green Line. This is not in the Transition Area. How could they develop this as single-family? Looking at a similar quality issue that we have here, I think most people will look at this and think it is of a high-quality nature. Even though ~t's duplex by design, it's of high quality. Would there be any guarantees of that nature with single-family? ROBERT SCOTT: Well, typically with the single-family 21 good. March 25, 2003 But, the other issue Ks the numerous access points on and off the road, which Ks increasing with tame as development occurs along there. Put all of that together and you have what everyone would conclude is a bad situation. COUNCILMAN REEVE: And that's really been the reason for getting Nlmmo V put in place, correct? ROBERT SCOTT: Absolutely. COUNCIIA~;kN l~: Is there any way to model what Princess Anne traffic volume will be once Nlmmo is completed? Is there any way to determine how much stress -- I mean from my understanding, it's going to take off a considerable amount of stress. Is there any way to model that? ROBERT SCOTT: Well, you can model It, but it's all based upon assumptions. We have done this an the past. I can go back almost 30 years and Providence Road bypassed Old Providence Road. First Colonial bypassed Mill Dam Road. Kempsvllle Road bypassed 01d Kempsvllle Road. I mean, we do have some history to look at and it does decrease the traffic a good blt. How much, we don't know. I mean, at could vary considerably from case to case. I would hope that it -- I really do hope that it takes 15,000 cars a day off of that road. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Uh-huh. ROBERT SCOTT: have to see. We hope that it does. Whether it will or not, I don't know. We are just going to COUNCIIAXAN REEVE: We're talking about Level of Service E. Weren't we just talking earlier about Shore Drive is actually at Level Service F? 20 ROBERT SCOTT: March 25, 2003 Well, compared to zero. COUNCILMAN RE~: Right. Compared to zero, it would get worse. And you're still not sure how much the difference would be with age-restricted or single-family houses? ROBERT SCOTT: Well, I think it's in general terms. I mean, don't get too exact about this, but I think that it's somewhere around 300 trips per day by one method and somewhere between 450 to 500 trips per day by the other method. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt as far as age-restricted goes. I don't think it will be as high as 520 or whatever that number was. COUNCILMAN REEVE: ROBERT SCOTT: think. Okay. I think that will be reduced a little blt. But there's going to be more traffic I COUNCIL~ REEVE: I think the biggest thing with traffic is -- I mean, Hlghgate Greens is the cause of lt. Three Oaks is the cause of lt. Everyone who lives in the corridor has caused some of it, but I think most of it has been generated by outside the area thorough traffic. Would you agree wlth that, Mr. Scott, that most of it is coming as thoroughfare traffic probably between Virginia Beach and Chesapeake? ROBERT SCOTT: I don't know that the most of it is, but I think that a lot of it is. This road now serves two purposes. It used to lust serve one purpose. It used to be a road to get from west of here to east of here. Now, it serves in addition to that role as an access to numerous subdivisions along there. You put those two together, it's not lust the volume of traffic. There are some curves in that road and a lot of them have been straightened out in the last two years and that's 19 March 25, 2003 appears your Staff write-up seemed to be focused on the age-targeted, not the age-restricted. There's been some e-mails that we got and mainly the one from Mr. Kernodle again stating -- and I will read verbatim what he said. That does not negate the fact that the Condo Association could possibly amend the "Age 55 Rule" when resale time rolls around. Could you comment on what it would take down the road for this development to go from age-restricted to open for anyone? ROBERT SCOTT: Yeah, two things. We have a number of these in the City and generally they are not problematic. In fact, I don't know of any problems we have had enforcing this so far. But, two things: Number 1, there's an internal restriction covenanted, if you will, that's usually applied by the AssociatIon, upon all of the people who buy or move in there. If it's a proffer, then it becomes tantamount to a zoning restriction as well and Karen Lasley is the Zoning Administrator and has the ability to do that. Now, I think you can understand we don't want to go knocking on doors asking residents how old they are, but we will be responding probably in cases like that to some problems that are brought to us. But, we have not generally had that happen in these neighborhoods. COUNCILMAN REEVE: If they're marketed as an age-restricted community and people abide by that. ROBERT SCOTT: for us. Whatever problems they may present we do not think they present an enforcement problem COUNCIIA~%N REEVE: Okay. Traffic is probably the biggest issue out there. I drive that area everyday and it is overloaded, but to do s~ngle-famlly houses you would contend that the traffic would get worse as well, correct? 18 EDDIE BOURDON: misleading. COUNCIL LADY W-/LSON: March 25, 2003 Mrs. Wilson, what that says is that the Central Park represents 6%. Again, it is Okay. Well, how much open space EDDIE BOURDON: Depending on how you define ~t, xf you simply put 10,000 square-foot lots on it's three-and-a-half acres of open space or 35%. If you look at what's actually open, because there are no lot lines and no fences other than the small fences that are referenced. It's close to 70% that is open. So, it far exceeds 6%. That write-up was simply saying that the Central Park area represents, they say slx to 8%. I can't recall. But, again, there's no ~ssue. It's a whole lot more than 6%. There may be issues about the way ~t's laid out. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I still have to agree with Mr. Scott that It's pretty busy and pretty crowded -- EDDIE BOURDON: It's crowded with a whole lot of landscaping. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: -- with all the units. EDDIE BOURDON: buildings themselves. You know, that's what that shows. What you see is a lot of landscaping as well as the COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I do agree with Mr. Scott that it's pretty busy. I would really like to see the Applicant go back and decrease a few of the units and create some more open space for th~s, because I th~nk there's a real need for it and I think he does a superb ]ob in his product. Thank you. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. Mr. Reeve. COUNCII~AN REEVE: Thank you, Ma'am. Mr. Scott, about that, 17 March 25, 2003 terms of whether we could recommend approval. I would like to see a nice condominium pro3ect of this nature. We certainly have supported them in the past. We certainly have supported the age-restricted developments like this in the past, but this density at this location is problematic for us. COUNCIL LADY EURE: And one of your comments in this was that you had talked to the Applicant about additional pedestrian access be provided to the public neighborhood park that adjoins the northeast corner of the property. However, the Applicant has not shown this access on the land use plan. Is that still the same? ROBERT SCOTT: Stephen says, yes. COUNCIL LADY EURE: I guess I will walt and make my comments later, Madam Mayor. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. COUNCIL LADY EURE: Thank you, Mr. Scott. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Wilson. COUNCIL LADX WILSON: Thank you, Madam Mayor. F~rst of all, I want to say that Donald Moore builds an excellent product. I have personally sold some of h~s units and shown over in the Crescent and they are very, very nice. He builds a unit that there's a real need for. Us baby-boomers that are getting older and having those first-floor bedrooms, I think they are really nice. What I would really like to see -- and I'm sorry that it's at this point in time -- is for the Applicant to go back and work with the Staff and to create -- 6% of open space for this, especially when -- I'm sorry, Eddie. This is what it says, 6%. Is it not 6%? 16 March 25, 2003 unit to the fence. Eighteen feet. COUNCIL LADY EURE: EDDIE BOURDON: the back. And how wide? Well, it depends on the width of the back of the unit. It's roughly 30 to 34 feet across COUNCIL LADY EURE: Ail right. Thank you. Okay. I have a couple of questions for Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott, the Staff has recommended denial of this and the vote was 5 to 3 on the Planning Commission. Do you still feel that your statement for denial is good? ROBERT SCOTT: Yes. COUNCIL LADYEURE: Could you elaborate on lt. ROBF~T SCOTT: There are three things that can be said about this Application from our vantage point. One would have to do with the units. I think that we don't have a problem with units. They are good-looking units, so we would not ob3ect based on the appearance of the units. However, I think that some others may have had some problems with that. The second is open space. He indicated to you that units aside -- to our eye at least that is a fairly busy s~te plan. There isn't a lot of open space in lt. You can count the berm if you want. You can count some other things if you want, but I lust think that taken as a whole MUD Plan it ought to have more open space than that. Number 3 -- and this really is the big one for us -- is the issue of traffic. Of all the roads in the City you could take chances with, this would be the last one I would suggest you try it on. This road is very, very overloaded. I do think -- once again I have said it, but I do think that this is going to result in more traffic on it than a standard subdivision. How much more, you know, we could debate; but, I do think that the net is going to be plus in terms of traffic and that's really the thing that pushed us over the limit in 15 March 25, 2003 COUNCILM;kN WOOD: So, I guess my questmon ms, the proposed generated traffmc, ms that based on age-restrmcted or age-targeted? It would seem to me mf it was age-restrmcted mt would be less traffmc than age-targeted. EDDIE BOURDON: Yeah. COUNCILMAN WOOD: I don't know mf that's a questmon for Mr. Scott or who, but mf we know that the school data ms mnaccurate based on a change mn the Applmcatmon, then I'm wondermng ms thms traffmc data also somewhat flawed. ROBERT SCOTT: My statement on that ms that I thmnk mt mmght be less, but not substantmally less. COUNCILM;kN WOOD: Okay. ROBERT SCOTT: You know the mndmcated number here ms 523. I thmnk mt mmght be somewhat less than 523, but not that much less as compared to if you have -- thms is a 10-acre smte, wmth 10,000 square-foot lots on mt, as you have around mt. You're gomng to get about 30 lots times ten trmps a day. There ms 300 trips. So, compare that to the numbers. I thmnk there's gomng to be an increase mn traffmc, whether mt's age-targeted or age-restrmcted. I think that the number of units there are gomng to generate an mncrease mn traffmc. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Eure. COUNCIL LADY EURE: I have one questmon for Eddme and then I need to ask Mr. Scott a couple. Eddze, what ms the szze of the lmttle backyards? EDDIE BOURDON: They are -- I belmeve mt ms 12 feet. Emghteen? Eighteen from the back of the 14 March 25, 2003 How do you arrive at that number if the proffers indicate that there will be no school-age children? ROBERT SCOTT: Well, that's what we got from the school Staff that looked at lt. I think that you could -- if the proffers indicate that there are no school-age children, then I think you can safely say that the school, in fact, is going to be zero. I don't have any problem telling you that. EDDIE BOURDON: Okay. That I believe stayed in. This was not originally age-restricted. It was age-targeted; and, you know, in defense that was in the -- this went to the Planning Commission twice before we went to age-restricted. So, I think it ~ust didn't come out until after we went age-restricted with that. That's why it's in there. COUNCILMAN WOOD: Well, then that klnd of goes back to Mr. Schmldt's question then. If it's age-targeted versus age-restricted, how does that impact the traffic number here? I don't know who to ask that question to. EDDIE BOURDON: Well, if it was age-targeted which was the way we initially were going, then It's less definitive in te~ns of you could have with an age-targeted community, which this is now not, you could have people living there who were school-age. You could have and would have some families that were larger. That was one of the purposes for going age-restricted, which does put you into a scenario where you're not going to have school-age children living there to be educated and you're going to have fewer people living in these homes and that can be shown through statistics throughout the country -- COURCIIA~%N SCHMIDT: Right. EDDIE BOURDON: -- in an age-restricted community. And that's what this is. I think that, you know, the defense of the Staff -- that was in their write-up all along. It lust didn't come out when we went to age-restricted. 13 March 25, 2003 That's, you know, less than 30% more units. Where if you only have half the reduction you're still less than what you're dealing with w~th an R-10, 35-development. When you look at the number of people demographically that live ~n these units, you can't help but conclude, as our Traffic Engineer did, that you're going to have less traffic because of the fewer number of people and the fewer children. Then, when you combine that with the schools that are all to the west of here -- you know, the lack of chmldren, 40 chmldren mn a 35-unmt, R-10 development that would be educated mn Prmncess Anne Middle, Prmncess Anne Elementary and Kellam Hmgh School all of whmch have to go west, the section of two-lane road that's least able to handle lt. We don't have that w~th these type of a communltmes. We don't thmnk you can conclude reasonably anythmng to the contrary that this w~ll not add traffmc to the roadway above what a R-10 development would entail, even an R-15 development would entaml. Because of the fact that there are fewer people. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. W~lson. Okay. I have a number of people mn lmne wa~tlng. Mr. Wood, Mrs. Eure then COUNCIIA~ANWOOD: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Bourdon, if I could ask you a questmon and then follow-up wmth one for Mr. Scott. You lndmcated in the proffers that mt ms age-restricted, no school-age children. EDDIE BOURDON: Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN WOOD: Okay. Mr. Scott, I have a question then based on that same page that Mr. Schmmdt was looking at. Page 5 under Schools, mt mndmcates a generation of -- what's that 26 students and then a change of 14 students? It mndmcates here generatmon represents the number of students the development will add to the school. 12 March 25, 2003 that I think the traffic engineers who did that calculation assume, as the note indicates, a four-unit duplex unit. So, the age-restricted nature -- I don't think they Included that into their process. We kind of did look at it though. I think you can tell we're not really buying that calculation is that much off. I think there will be some reduction, not by v~rtue of the fact that the people living in there are 55, because I think that when you cross the threshold it's not that big of a change; but, the absence of children to some degree may have a slight reducing factor on the numbers. I still think that there is going to be an increase in the traffic as a result of. COUNCILMAN SCHMIDT: And as a follow-up, Mr. Bourdon, I guess using your numbers in your narrative before the Planning Commission, I think by my calculation came up with about -- well, I mean, that's about the number of folks that were in the various units. But, what was your traffic study count, if you have that information, compared to the existing land use to 224? EDDIE BOURDON: Well, the weekday total or existing agriculture and R-20, not R-3.5. COUNCIIA~AN SC~MIDT: Okay. EDDIE BOURDON: Our total weekday trips per day is 394 with the age-restricted community. We looked at it as your Comp Plan says as we have all noted clearly in the Transition Area and with the Villages of West Neck and what TATAC recommended. If you have age-restrIcted, you know, there's clearly a significant reduction in traffic. In fact, 50% reduction is what's been recognized previously. Mr. Scott has indicated that since there aren't commercial and other uses on this site that there is not that same degree of reduction. We think there ~s a significant reduction, but we don't even have to disagree with that to be able to still show that, because we are only talking about 13 more units versus a R-10, 35-unit development. 11 March 25, 2003 at the emergence of Virginia Beach as an inner generational City, putting in place those conditions that invite people to choose to live here for their lifetime and to encourage other generations and their families to do the same. We have gotten that kind of reaction from a number of people in this community and I passed out a portion of the Comp Plan Building Plot Number 2, which says when speaking about a maturing population, quote, there are some that consider themselves retired, but not elderly. There are others that consider themselves elderly, but not retired. What can be said about this group as a whole is that they generally place much less burden upon the roadway system and the schools systems than do the members of the population in general. Because of this diversity, we must be sure to provide a variety of solutions to their housing needs. That is in our Comp Plan. This project does just that and there are other citations to the Comp Plan that I could make, but I am out of time. I appreciate your favorable action as the Planning Commission recommended favorable on this Application in that it will generate less traffic in a typical subdivision and is less dense than a typical subdivision. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Schmldt. COUNCILMAN SCHMIDT: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would like to ask Mr. Scott a question. If we go to the traffic calculations on Page 5 of the Presentation, it talks about present volume up at the top in the chart. Princess Anne Road present volume 24,836 average daily trips. The volume of capacity 13,100. So, obviously it's an issue. My question is, proposed land use is 523 generated traffic. That does not reflect this Application that's age-restricted. Does that go back to the original one? ROBERT SCOTT: I am not sure, but I would tell you 10 March 25, 2003 EDDIE BOURDON: No. Madam Mayor, we've spent since July of last year meeting wmth the Courthouse-Sandbrmdge Coalmtmon of the Cmvlc Organizations and the community. We have gotten extensive posltmve feedback wmth this type of development. It ms completely different and foreign from the condominium project that Mr. Kernodle refers to which ms at the corner. It has 9.3 units per acre, which ms not age-restricted and is a town-home condominium pro3ect. That would not fit on thms piece of property. Since Mr. Kernodle sent out mnaccurate facts in a flyer before the Planning Commlssmon and people came to the Planning Commmsslon, we have talked to a number of them. After they saw the pro]ect lmke a lot of other people said, it makes a lot of sense and they changed their position and told the Plannmng Commmsslon that. We e-mailed Mr. Kernodle and the other people since the Planning Cormmlssmon and we got posltmve responses from a number of those people. We offered to meet with Mr. Kernodle and his group. In fact, the Presmdent of the Three Oaks Civic League was at the Courthouse-Sandbrmdge Coalltmon Meeting back last summer, you know, and indicated they thought it was a good project. We did not hear from Mr. Kernodle. He did not respond and did not accept our offer to meet and dmscuss this. And, agamn at the eleventh hour, sent out a flyer that doesn't even mentzon the fact that this ms an age-restrmcted community in any way and does attempt to compare it to the condo complex at the corner, about 1,300 feet away, which it doesn't compare to. These are very beautmful twin homes that fit mnto the communIty. It's a secure community for seniors. We thmnk mt's a great place for Staff, in their evaluation, cmte some general provmslons mn the Comprehensmve Plan; but, one thmng that they don't cmte ms that the current plan itself says if there is one condition that this plan, our Comp Plan, should str~ve to achieve above all others, it would be March 25, 2003 Princess Anne lust cannot handle anymore traffmc, and Staff also reported that thms does not meet the Comprehensmve Plan. The development way exceeds the unmt per developable acre. If you look where I have B marked on thms map, mt Ks Hmghgate Crossmng. There are only 25 homes bumlt on that property and zt's a much larger pmece of property than the Applmcant's property. We're not agamnst development of thzs property. We lust would lzke mt to be smngle-fammly homes, not these cluster-duplex homes to take away from the surroundmng nemghborhoods. Every nemghborhood surroundmng thms Ks smngle-fammly homes -- and the 138 unmts rzght down below mt I thmnk Ks way too much. I understand zt's rmght on the corner of General Booth and Nmmmo and the traffmc ms horrmble there. I represent the Three Oaks Homeowners Assocmatmon also tonmght. I'm on the Board of Dmrectors and we voted unanmmously to please have thms denmed. It's a matter of densmty. We're in Southern Vlrg!nma Beach and we don't mmnd development, but we lust don't want over development of a pmece of property; and, you know, there are too many homes on here and they're clustered. These streets are gomng to be narrow from my understandmng and that no cars can even park on these streets. If you look at the setbacks for the pagoda[smc]or whatever they have, mt's only fmve feet from the street. Thms developer ms clustermng these mn here. Thank you for your tmme. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. CITY CLERK: That's all the speakers, Your Honor. EDDIE BOURDON: Ruth, how long do I get? CITY CLERK: Three mmnutes. MAYOR OBERNDORF: There are no other speakers? March 25, 2003 for this time. Do you have any questions? MAYOR OBERNDORF: You did a very fine ]ob. Thank you. Thank you. MAYOR OBERNDORF: While Mr. Kernodle is coming up, Mr. Bourdon. EDDIE BOURDON: Yes, ma'am. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Did everyone get mailed this little booklet? EDDIE BOU'RDON: Yes, ma'am. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Because I haven't seen this before. EDDIE BOURDON: I apologize. We did mall you and all the other Council Members that about three weeks ago with a four-page cover letter from yours truly and we did send one to your office. I apologize if you did not get lt. MAYOR OBERNDORF: No, I didn't. But, thank you. EDDIE BOURDON: I'm very sorry. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Good evening. LARRY KERNODLE: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. My name is Larry Kernodle. I live at 2225 Shingle Wood Way in the Three Oak Subdivision. We are very disappoInted that the Planning Commission approved th~s, because Staff recommended non-approval. What I passed around I would like for you to take a look at and follow with me please. On the map Royal Court has another pro]ect where I have marked A on this map and it's 138 units of condominiums right at the corner of Princess Anne and General Booth. CITY CLERK: March 25, 2003 Mrs. Graham, you have three minutes. MAXINE GRAHAM: Good evening. I'm Maxlne Graham and I am a retired Realtor, who lives at 2202 Crescent Condos across the street from Nlmmo Church and within walking distance to the subject property. I am delighted with my new home, which was built by the Applicant. I have spoken with many of my neighbors and have gotten to know quite a few of them in the year that I have been there. There was not a one of them that was opposed to anything here. Mr. Moore is a well-known, qualified builder. I think he's putting something before you that should be highly acceptable for a number of reasons. For one thing It's location, location and location, which would provide affordable housing for such people as the new Sentara and the LlfeNet -- and, thank you-all for supporting that. I am very excited about lt. The older people are still in the working class. They don't need big yards. I think this proposal will offer some diversion from all of these big homes under the new Transition Area that you-all have just adopted. It appears we are going to be looking at monestrous homes that you pay from $400,000. I really have done my homework on this. I have a habit that I can't break. But, I do ask that you support this. I know that the traffic situation is one of your major concerns, but who in this City doesn't have that same concern? I think this would minimize it because of the age factor and when you think of the size -- Mr. Reasor's property, Red Mill Commons Shopping Center and Lake Gem that's right behind this Application with the apartments, then you have the Red Mill Commons Condominiums. Something is going to have to be done. I believe it's still slated for the Year of 2005 for Nlmmo Parkway and when you build that that's going to eliminate a lot of this traffic that we have. I think that pretty well covers all of my comments. And, I thank you March 25, 2003 Traffic, we have provided a traffic study. It clearly shows that we will have less traffic wmth this development. You know we will have fewer people, because mt's an age-restrmcted community and has an average of two people or less living in each unat versus an R-10 typmcal subdavasaon home in thas area, which has more than three and-a-half people living an each unat. The densaty is the other -- well, traffac as the Number 1 assue we think we posatlvely addressed clearly. The other assue is density. People actually laving there as densaty. We have fewer mn the physical appearance of the communaty. Clearly thas has a lot less dense appearance because of the fact that we have fewer unats, no pools, no accessory structures and no fences. CITY CLERK: Mr. Bourdon. EDDIE BOURDON: Yes, ma'am. That's a quick ten manutes. I do have some other thangs that I would lmke to say. I will hopefully get a chance after, if there are speakers an opposition here to speak to those assues; but, I wall sat down untal that tmme. Thank you. MAYOR OBERNDORF: You are still entitled to your closing argument. EDDIE BOURDON: Thank you. CITY CLERK: John Gabson. Excuse me. That's on another one. I'm sorry. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Is there a Larry Kernodle? CITY CT.~-RK: favor. Yes, I have at. Larry Kernodle. Well, let's get Maxlne Graham fmrst because she MAYOR OBERNDORF: Oh, okay. March 25, 2003 around us have, we would be seeing fence against fence along the back property line with all the backyards fenced in, not open space. Furthermore, if we were to layout 24, 10,000 square foot lots, duplex lots, on this property rather than doing the condominium pro~ect where we don't have lot lines, those 24, 10,000 square-foot duplex lots would occupy five and-a-half acres. The roadway occupies less than one acre of land, thus there are three and-a-half acres of open space outside of a 10,000 square-foot lot for each unit and roadway, which is 35% of this property being open space even under your classic 10,000 square-foot duplex lot scenario. That 35%, three and-a-half acres, if you use that type of a development regimen. It is more than double the 15% open space under PD-H2 Guidelines. So, it would far exceed the open space requirements under the PD-H2 Guidelines; and, you know, the only thing that we m~ght be able to do to enhance the open space would be to put more trails within the buffer berm and highway landscaped area. The elevations, I think you will agree as Staff has, are high quality one-and-a-half story units, downstairs master suites, second-floor windows and very few. They are not big units, you know, that look over into other people's backyards. Each has a two-car garage. The selling price of the units will be a quarter of a million dollars, which results in each of the 24-twin homes having a market value of half a million dollars. As I stated this Chelsea Place Application is age-restricted by proffer and by Condominium Declaration. Each unit must be occupied by a resident 55 or older and no one under the age of 20 may reside in a unit for more than 90 days in a calendar year. It's positive economic growth with no ~mpact upon schools and that ~s if you contrast it w~th the typical R-10 community of 35 homes. Condominium owners pay for their maintenance, pay for things that simple people do not pay for. March 25, 2003 There's one circular street that enters the property off of ?r!ncess Anne Road and the homes front on that circular street. We have a Central Park feature that includes trails, pergola benches. We also have a BMP as an amenKty out on the frontage of Princess Anne Road. We have an extensKve landscaped, 40-foot berm between us, HKghgate and Southgate. We also have a 20-foot area here of open space. It's a Central Park feature with traKls. We have not put trails through here, but we certainly can do that if that seems to be an added amenity that someone would 1Kke to have. We also have the homes set back further from Princess Anne Road than is required. We have provided a proffer fencing plan, a very detaKled attractive plan. Again, the Staff has indicated theKr agreement with that. We have put screening, either shrubbery or fencing, around the driveway areas where cars will be parked on these twin-home sites. These homes, as you can see from the elevatKons, are designed to look 1Kke a single-family home and I would suggest they clearly do. There are small courtyards at the rear of the homes that will be fenced and that's shown on the plan. The type of fencKng has been again proffered. The area of the sKte that is developed with homes, the small courtyard fencing and the roadway, Ks 3ust 30% of the site. The rest of the sKte Ks open area that Ks not occupied by buildings or a fenced-in courtyard or road. In the Staff's review comments on the ApplKcatlon, they were somewhat dlsmlsslve of our open space and did not give us credit for the 40-foot wide, 48,000 square feet of berm, beautifully landscaped buffer, at the rear of these units between us and the adjacent communities. They state that the remainder of the open space Ks wlthKn building setbacks or along the perKmeter of sKte behind the units, which is in a conventKonal subdKvKslon. This is a quote in the Staff write-up. It would remain open, but would be private yards instead of community open space. Well, I'm sorry to have to say this; but, we all must clearly recognize that were this property developed as a conventKonal subdivision, as those March 25, 2003 I also want to mention that in addition to Mr. Moore, who is here this evening, are members of the Brown Family, the owners of the property. The long-time owners of the property are also here. The aerial photograph, which I have put up here and I'm sure the Staff has one on the pinpoints that shows that th~s ~s the last ~nflll parcel in the Immediate area that's adjacent to it -- you can see up there and you can see ~t here -- are homes that are R-10 Zoning, three-and-a-half un.ts per acre, Southgate and H~ghgate Crossing. The property ~s on Prancess Anne Road and you will note that to our east Princess Anne Road is four-lane davaded as ~t heads to the intersection here at the 7-Eleven and the N~mmo Church area and remains a two-lane undlvaded as at heads on up to N~mmo Parkway. Then as it goes this way towards Sandbradge and towards Pungo, It's two lanes. To our west the road, as ~t narrows here, goes down to two lanes and extends westward as a two-lane h~ghway to Seaboard Road, Holland Road and to here, where we are tonight, at the Municipal Center Complex. N~mmo Parkway, as you-all are well aware w~ll be extended and at's shown better on what I have here than what's up there. You can see where N~mmo w~ll go all the way across, come ~n and t~e anto Seaboard, Holland and Prancess Anne north of the Municipal Center. In the area that we are located, you w~ll see how close -- th~s ~s the Prancess Anne Recreation Center raght here. There is slgnafacant commercial development ~n the area: Shopping, entertaInment, movie theaters, skating rink, restaurants and a number of golf courses all ~n the ~mmedaate area where this property ~s located. The development is a proposed New England estate-style development of beautiful twan homes, only 24 of them. We have proffered a beautiful br~ck-entry feature which includes stack-stone accents and extensive landscapang along the frontage on Prancess Anne Road whach you-all have seen. Staff has and~cated that they thank that that's very attractive. MAYOR OBERNDORF: March 25, 2003 Now, moving onto the Application of Royal Court, Incorporated. CITY CLERK: Yes, Your Honor. We have Eddie Bourdon representing this Application as well. EDDIE BOURDON: I have a number of handouts, which I'm going to provide to Mrs. Smith to pass around. Madam Mayor, for the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon; and, again, I'm a V~rg~n~a Beach Attorney representing th~s Applicant, Royal Court, Incorporated. What is being passed around to you are copies of the elevations of the -- and they are not all of them, but there are more than one. They are all similar in nature to the elevations of the homes that are proposed w~th this development. Also, I have passed around letters of support and provided you with -- unfortunately, I lust received ~t tonight -- a letter of support from the adjacent PresbyterIan Church, from the Minister of the Church. I have also provided you w~th a flyer that was sent and e-ma~led out on Saturday of which I w~ll speak to briefly as part of my presentation. What I have here is a poster that shows the pro]ect, but you have that on p~npolnt. So, I'm not going to put that up. I also have a poster with the elevations, which I am actually giving to each of you. So, I won't put that up. I will lust suffice to have the aerial photo up. This is a proffered Conditional Rezonlng Appllcat~on for a age-restricted active-adult condominium community to be known as Chelsea Place, a community of 24-twin homes on 10 acres of land, on the north side of Princess Anne Road ad3acent to Grace Covenant PresbyterIan Church on Princess Anne, to the Southgate and Hlghgate Crossing Neighborhoods and to the area of the Brown Family home sites. March 25, 2003 COUNCILM~N SC~MIDT: Yeah. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Number 9. We're going to pull Number 8 and hear lt. March 25, 2003 INFORMAL SESSION M]%YOR OBERNDORF: Number 8, the Application of Royal Court for a change of zoning district classification for AG-1 to AG-2 and R-20 to R-5D. COUNCILMAN REEVE: We will have to hear this one. M;~YOR OBERNDORF: You're going to hear COUNCILM~N REEVE: By the way, I didn't get any of the e-malls that everyone else seemed to have gotten. CITY CLERK: you look in your package? COUNCILMAN REEVE: Even in my package, no, ma'am. COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: A lot of it came yesterday. COUNCILMAN REEVE: But on your system though, right? COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: Yes. CITY CLERK: think it's in your package because we put in today. COUNCILMAN VILJ~AN~A: You didn't get any of the Royal Court ones? COUNCILMAN REEVE: they had 30. No, I only got three or four of the Royal Court through the e-mall system. They say CITY CLERK: Well, I didn't have 30. COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: There were several. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Was !t from vbgov.com? Item - 60 - PL4NN1NG ITEM # 50969 (Continued) Vottng. 11-0 Counctl Members Vottng Aye' Harry E Dtezel, Margaret L Eure, Vtce Mayor Louts R Jones, Reba S McClanan, Rtchard A Maddox, Mayor Me)era E Oberndorf Jtm Reeve, Peter W Schmtdt, Ron A Vdlanueva, Rosemary V?ilson and James L Wood Councd Members Votmg Nay None Councd Members Absent None Item Vo.L.8. PZANNING - 59- ITEM it 50969 The following regtstered m SUPPORT: Attorney Edward Bourdon, Pembroke One 5ta Floor, Phone' 499-8971, represented the apphcant Mr Bourdon dtstrtbuted cop,es of the elevattons of the homes proposed for the development, letters of support and a flyer The apphcatton ts for an age restructure, active adult condomtntum communtty known as Chelsea Place (24-twtn homes on ten (10) acres of land) Maxme C Graham, 2202 Ventce Court, Phone 430-9933 The follo~ng regtstered tn OPPOSITION: Larry Kernodle, represented the Three Oaks Homeowners Assoctatton, who voted unantmouslyfor DENZ4.L, 2225 Shznglewood Way, Phone 423-1147 Mr. Kernodle dtstrtbuted coptes of the apphcatton Royal Court has another project of 138 umts at the corner of Pnncess Anne and General Booth ,4 MOTION was made by Councilman Reeve, seconded by Councdman Schmutt to ADOPT an Ordtnance upon apphcat~on of Royal Court, Inc. fora Change qf Zonz.n.g Upon SUBSTITUTE MOTION by Vtce Mayor Jones, seconded by Councdman Reeve, Czty Councd DEFERRED unttl the C~ty Counctl Sesston of Aprt122, 2003, Ordinance upon apphcatton of Royal Court, Inc. for a Change of Zontng.. ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ROYAL COURT, INC, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION, FOR d CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-I, AG-2 AND R-20 TO R-5D RESIDENTIAL DUPLF_.XDISTRICT W1TH A PD-H2 Ordtnance upon Apphcatton of Royal Court, Inc , a F~rgtnta Corporatton, for a Change of Zonmg Dtstrtct Class#~catton from AG-1 Agrtcultural District, AG-2 Agricultural District and R-2 0 Restdent~al District to R-5D Restdenttal Duplex Dtstrtct wzth a PD-H2 Planned Untt Development Distrtct Overlay on the north side of Prtncess Anne Road, 344feet west of Crossroads Tratl (GPIN 2404-75-8161) The proposed zontng to Condttzonal R-SD wtth PD-H2 ts for restdent~al land use at a dertstty not to exceed 6 dwelltng umts per acre The Comprehenstve Plan recommends use of thts parcel for restdenttal land use at or below 3 5 dwelhng units per acre Satd parcel contatns 9 963 acres DIST~CT 7- PRINCESS ANNE Virginia Beach City Council March 25, 2003 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones Harry E. D~ezel Margaret L. Eure Reba McClanan R~chard A. Maddox J~m Reeve Peter Schm~dt Ron A. Vlllanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood At-Large Bayslde - D~str~ct 4 Kempsv~lle - D~str~ct 6 Centervllle - D~str~ct 1 Rose Hall - D~str~ct 3 Beach - D~strlct 6 Princess Anne - Dlstr~ct 7 At-Large At-Large At-Large Lynnhaven - D~str~ct 5 CITY MANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. L~lley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM PlannxngApplzcat~on of Royal Court, Incorporated Robert J. Scott, Director April 11, 2003 Page 2 gSYI~S. ]}OUtlDON. AttEtlN & LL'VY. P.C. With kind regards, I am REBjr/arhm cc Donald L Moore Very truly yours, R. Edward Bourdon, ,Jr. Samuel W Scott, Jr, Inmgma Thallumer CONDREZONE / ROYALCOURT/SCOTT8 PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK - BUiLDiNG ONE 281 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD FIFTH FLOOR VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462-2989 TELEPHONE 757-499-8971 FACSIMILE 757-456-5445 Via Hand Delivery. SYKES, ] OURDON, Att[t N & [BrY. P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW April 11, 2003 JON M AHERN SCOTT N ALPERIN R EDWARD BOURDON, JR JAMES T CROMWELL L STEVEN EMMERT DAVID S HOLLAND KIRK B LEVY JENNIFER D ORAM SMITH HOWARD R SYKES JR Robert J. Scott, Director Department of Planning Building 2, Room 115 Municipal Center Virginia Beach, Virginia 234.56 ATTN: Stephen White AppUcation for Change of Zoning District Classification from AG~I lk AC~2 Agricultural District and R-20 Residential District to R-SD Residential Duplex District with a PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay; 9.963 Acres north side of Princess Anne Road, west of Huckleberry Trail; Proposed Chelsea Place - Age-Restricted Community Dear Stephen: This shall confurn the substance of our conversation on Wednesday, April 9, 2003 whereto you advised that you had not yet received feedback from Traffic Engineering regarding the Traffic Study which was provided by Intermodal Transportation. Given our need to revise the S~te Plan based upon, what we all hope will be an agreed upon traffic figure, and the looming deadline for an April 22nd City Council public hearing, we do formally request that the application be deferred and rescheduled for consideration by City Council at its public hearing on Tuesday, May 13, 2003. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to sit down w~th you, Barbara and, possibly someone with Traffic Engineering once they have provided you with their feedback so that we can rewew the information and proceed to finahze a revised S~te Plan. In addition to the foregoing, I have also been advised that Councilman Reeve zs not expected to return from a trip out of the country until after the April 22, 2003 City Council public hearing. Given that the subject property is in his D~stnct it is certainly best for all concerned that this matter be deferred until May 13, 2003. Thank you m advance for your having this matter formally deferred. Item V-~8. PLANNING ITEM # 50969 (Continued) Voting 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye. Harry E Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louts R Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf J~m Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay' None Council Members Absent: None March 25, 2003 Item V-L.& PLANNING - 59 - ITEM # 50969 The following regtstered in SUPPORT: Attorney Edward Bourdon, Pembroke One 5~ Floor, Phone: 499-8971, represented the applicant. Mr Bourdon distributed copies of the elevations of the homes proposed for the development, letters of support and a Jlyer. The application is for an age restrictive, active adult condominium community known as Chelsea Place (24-twtn homes on ten (1 O) acres of land). Marine C Graham, 2202 Venice Court, Phone: 430-9933 The following regtstered in OPPOSITION: Larry Kernodle, represented the Three Oaks Homeowners Association, who voted unanimously for DENIAL, 222.5 Shinglewood Way, Phone: 423-1147. Mr. Kernodle distributed copies of the application Royal Court has another project of 138 units at the corner of Princess Anne and General Booth. ,4 MOTION was made by Councilman Reeve, seconded by Councilman Schmidt to ADOPT an Ordtnance upon application of Royal Court, Inc. for a Chan~e of Zoning Upon SUBSTITUTE MOTION by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Reeve, City Council DEFERRED unttl the City Council Session of Apri122, 2003, Ordinance upon applicatton of Royal Court, Inc. for a Chan~e o~f Zontng ' ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ROYAL COURT, INC.. .4 VIRGINIA CORPORATION, FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-I, AG-2 AND R-20 TO R-5D RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX DISTRICT WITH A PD-H2 Ordinance upon Application of Royal Court, Inc., a Vtrginia Corporation, for a Change of Zoning District Classfficati. on from A G-] Agrtcultural District, A G-2.4gricultural District and R-20 Residenttal Dtstrict to R-5D Residential Duplex Distr~ct with a PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay on the north side of Princess Anne Road, 344feet west of Crossroads Trail (GPIN 2404-75-8161) The proposed zoning to Conditional R-SD with PD-H2 is for residential land use at a denstty not to exceed 6 dwelhng units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for residential land use at or below 3.5 dwelling untts per acre. Satd parcel contains 9.963 acres DISTRICT 7- PR1NCESS ANNE March 25 2003 Map K-12 R, Coul/'t, M~ Not ~co ~¢oie 2404-75-8161 ZOHiNG HISTORY 1. AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural and R-20/R-10 Residential to Conditional R-10 Residential- Granted 4/8/97 2. AG-1 Agricultural to R-5 Residential- Granted 3/19/84 3. CUP for church - Granted 10/23/87 and 7/9/96 4. R-3 Residential to R-5 Residential- Granted 2/15/84 5. CUP for chumh and school- Granted 4/25/88 and 8/13/96 and 8/11/98 6. R-20 Residential to B-lA Neighborhood Business - Granted 3/26/90 Modification of Conditions - Granted 11/24/98 7. R-3 Residential to R-5 Residential- Denied 7/5/83 Downzone to AG-I/AG-2 Agriculture- Den~ed 8/27/86 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Royal Court, Inc., a Virginia Corporation - Change of Zoning District Classification MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Apphcat~on of Royal Court, Inc., a V, rginia Corporation, for a Change of Zon~nq D~stnct Class~ficabon from AG-1 Agricultural D~strict, AG-2 Agricultural District and R-20 Residential D~stnct to R-5D Res~denttal Duplex District with a PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay on the north s~de of Princess Anne Road, 344 feet west of Crossroads Trail (GPIN 2404-75- 8161). The proposed zoning to Conditional R-5D w~th PD-H2 ~s for res~denhal land use at a density not to exceed 6 dwelhng units per acre The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for res~denbal land use at or below 3 5 dwelling units per acre Sa~d parcel contains 9.963 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE The purpose of this request ~s to rezone the property to allow 48 twin houses (duplex units) to be constructed as a condomimum This item was deferred by City Council on March 25, 2003 Considerations: The property ~s vacant and ~s zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agncultural Districts and R- 20 Residential Distnct. The properties surrounding the subject s~te have all been rezoned and/or developed consistent w~th the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for density at 3.5 dwelling un~ts acre or less. The neighborhoods to the north and east of the s~te were rezoned to R-10 Residential District in 1984. The neighborhood south of the site, across Pnncess Anne Road, was developed with an underlying zoning of R-20 Residential Distnct in the late 1980's after a downzoning to AG-1 and AG-2 was denied Most recently, property to the west of the subject site was rezoned from AG-1 and AG-2 and R-20 and R-10 to Cond~bonal R-10 in 1997. There is a church immediately adjacent to the east of the subject site, which was granted a condibonal use permit ~n 1989 and again in 1996. The number of umts and density requested, 48 un~ts and 4.8 un~ts/acre, ~s not ~n keeping with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area. Although Royal Court Page 2 of 2 the actual number of buildings shown on the proposed plan would be substantially the same as the number of buildings allowed with a conventional subdivision, the number of households w~ll double The traffic created by the additional households, even households led by indiwduals age 55 and over as the applicant has proffered, wdl negatively ~mpact Princess Anne Road ~n this location. Th~s is a hm~tmg factor that cannot be ~gnored, as th~s roadway ~s severely over capacity and no rehef ~s anticipated untd the second half of th~s decade. The submitted PD-H2 plan does not provide substanbal pubhc benefits over what could be gained through development under the ex~sbng zoning. Staff feels that a rezoning for a planned community could be supported on this property, but not ~n excess of the density recommended by the Comprehensive Plan The ComprehensIve Plan pohc~es do not support the additional density requested in th~s location. Staff concludes that th~s request should be den~ed or substanbally modified to more closely match the specific land use recommendabons of the Comprehensive Plan Staff recommended den~al. There was opposibon to the request. · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 5-3 with 1 abstention to approve th~s request. A continued deferral to the May 13 C~ty Council meebnq is recommended to allow staff and the apphcant additional t~me to d~scuss outstandinq issues The apphcant ~s aqreeable to the deferral. · Attachments: Staff Rewew D~sclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Deferral to the May 13 C~ty Councd meebng Submitting Department/Agency: Planmng Departmen~ City Manager: ~V~'~ IL- , ~ 0y'~l. ROYAL COURT, INC./# 27 February 12, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: REQUEST: ADDRESS: K12-210-PDH-2002 Chanqe of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 Agricultural District, AG-2 Agricultural District and R-20 Residential D~strict to R-5D Residential Duplex District with a PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay. North side of Princess Anne Road, 344 feet west of Crossroads Trail ~, K-~. Ro~ Court, M~p N~I. to Sco].e AG-I Gpm 2404-75-8161 Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27 Page I GPIN' ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: APPLICATION HISTORY: 24O4758161 7- PRINCESS ANNE 9.963 acres Barbara Duke To rezone the property to allow 48 twin houses (duplex units) to be constructed as a condominium. The apphcant requested a deferral of this item at the January 8, 2003 hearing. Major Issues: · Degree to which the proposal is in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan · Degree to which the proposal is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods Planned Development Distnct when compared to the development potential under the existing zoning Degree to which the proposal is beneficial and meets the intent of the PD-H2 Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existin~q Land Use and Zonin.q The property is vacant and is zoned AG- 1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts and R- 20 Residential District. Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27 Page 2 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: South- East: West: · Single-family homes / Conditional R-10 Residential District · Single-family homes / R-20 Residential District · Church / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts and R-20 Residential District · Single-family homes / Conditional R-10 Residential District Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing Zoning' The property ~s split into three zoning categories. Approximately 6.7 acres is zoned R-20 Residential District and approximately 3.2 acres is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. On 6.7 acres zoned R-20 - 6.7 acres x 2.5 units/acre = Sixteen (16) single family dwellings. On 3.2 acres zoned AG-I/AG-2 - One single-family home and/or permitted agricultural related uses. With Proposed Zoning: On 9.96 acres zoned R-5D with PDH2 Overlay- 9.96 x 4.8 units/acre = 48 twin houses (duplex units) developed in accordance with the proffered land use plan. Zoning History The properties surrounding the subject site have all been rezoned and/or developed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for density at 3.5 dwelling units acre or less. The neighborhoods to the north and east of the site were rezoned to Planning Commission Agenda ~'~L~_~ ' ~ February 12, 2003 ~-.~ ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27 Page 3 R-10 Residential Distnct ~n 1984. The neighborhood south of the site, across Princess Anne Road, was developed with an underlying zoning of R-20 Residential District in the late 1980's after a downzoning to AG-1 and AG-2 was denied. Most recently, property to the west of the subject site was rezoned from AG-1 and AG-2 and R-20 and R-10 to Conditional R-10 in 1997. There is a church ~mmediately adjacent to the east of the subject site, which was granted a conditional use permit in 1989 and again in 1996. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of 65-70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The site is a grassy field with no signihcant physical characteristics other than a 36 inch Cedar tree shading a small cemetery mound in the northwest corner of the site. The proposed site plan shows this area to be preserved. The only other large tree is in the center of the site and cannot be preserved because it is located in the area of the future roadway. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is a 16 inch water main in Princess Anne Road fronting this property. There ~s a 6 inch sanitary sewer force main in Princess Anne road south of the median fronting this property. There is an 8 inch sanitary sewer force main in Volunteer Trail that extends through utdity easement and abuts the northwest comer of this property. This development must connect to City water and sewer. Sewer analysis and pump station calculations are required. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP): Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. ! # 27 Page 4 Princess Anne Road in the vicinity of this application is currently a two lane undivided minor arterial roadway. The facility is not identified for upgrade on the Master Transportation Plan and there is no CIP project listed to improve this facility. Traffic on this section of Pnncess Anne Road is consistently well over capacity and the roadway operates at a level of serv,ce E. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 24,836 ADT Ex~st~ng Land Use z_ 224 Pnncess Anne Road (2002 counts) 13,100 ADT Proposed Land Use 3. 523 Average Dady Trips 2 as defined by 16 s~ngle famdy homes and 3.2 acres agriculture 3 as dehned by 48 duplex umts Schools School Current Capacity Generation ~ Change 2 Enrollment Princess Anne 947 928 12 + 7 Elementary Princess Anne 1511 1615 6 + 3 Middle Kellam Sen~or High 2276 1995 8 + 4 I "generahon' represents the number of students that the development wdl add to the school 2 "change" represents the d~fference between generated students under the ex~st~ng zomng and under the proposed zomng The number can be pos~hve (additional students) or negatwe (fewer students). Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Fire and Fire safety items will be addressed during detailed site plan Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. ! # 27 Page 5 Rescue: review. Comprehensive Plan On the Comprehensive Plan Map, the subject site is located in an area recommended for a residential density of 3.5 units/acre or less. The subject site is located in the Courthouse/Sandbridge Study Area. The Comprehensive Plan text for the Courthouse/Sandbridge Study Area further states "endorse no development proposal that contributes to strip residential or commercial development, sprawl, or a disorderly arrangement of uses" (p.76). Developing at residential densities that are above the density an area is planned for can result in urban sprawl. The Comprehensive Plan is the City's official policy guiding its physical growth and development. It serves as a guide to the public and private sector by providing a relatively predictable picture of how land will develop, how public facilities and services will be provided, how our environment will be protected, how jobs will be attracted, how open space will be secured, how roads will be improved, how housing will be made available, and generally what constant guiding principles will be employed to balance competing interests (pg ii). The Comprehensive Plan does not address these issues individually, but presents a coordinated strategy that integrates the approaches into a single philosophy of improvement for the city. The uniqueness and health of the various places of the city cannot be effectively addressed by looking at them only one property at a time. To focus solely on the snapshot of one project and to 'pick and choose' from among the Plan's various pohcies to support that project, as can be done with this and other similarly situated projects, is a reactionary approach to development. The Comprehensive Plan discourages this approach because it erodes the effecbveness of the Plan to manage resources over the long term. Summary of Proposal Site Desiqn The proposed site plan depicts a central entrance roadway with duplex units on both sides. The roadway continues into the property and forms a circle with units lined along both the outside and inside of the circle. There are 24 buildings shown on the site plan, each will contain two units. The roadway is 26 feet in width. Guest parking is provided in several spots along the roadway. Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27 Page 6 Architectural Desiqn · The applicant has provided several different elevations for the buildings. Buyers will choose the design of the individual buildings from these. All of the buildings are two story structures containing two units. Each building will have one front- loading garage unit and one side loading garage un,t. Each unit will have a two- car garage. Each unit will contain approximately 1,800 square feet. · Covered porches at the entryways, varied roof lines and fireplaces are some of the architectural features shown on the elevations. · The front-loading garages are recessed and do not extend past the front of the building. · The building materials that are listed as part of the Land Use Plan are as follows: o Premium vinyl simulated cedar shake siding o Brick o Premium vinyl siding o Trim will be aluminum clad o 30 year dimensional shingles will be used · The Land Use Plan also states that ten (10) of the paired homes (buildings) will be predominately brick. Landscape and Open Space · The applicant has provided a forty (40) foot buffer along the northem and western property lines. The buffer is proposed with a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. Additional plantings will also be provided within the 20 foot setback areas along the eastern and southern property lines and along the western property line behind Buildings 1 and 2. A Iow white painted brick wall with decorative columns is proposed along the frontage of Princess Anne Road. In front of the wall, there will be a small berm that will be planted with a mixture of evergreen trees. There will also be a small median with landscape plantings at the entrance. · The applicant has shown that the existing small cemetery and the existing Cedar tree in the northwest corner of the site will remain. The cemetery ~s located Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27 Page 8 between Buildings 13 and 14. A common area has been provided in the center of the development. Trees will be planted in this area and along the walkways leading to it. Proffers PROFFER # 1 Staff Evaluation: In order to better foster a sense of community and achieve a coordinated design and development of the site in terms of vehicular circulation, parking, landscape buffering, tree planting, berming, building orientation, stormwater management facilities and open space amenities, the "COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF CHELSEA PLACE for ROYAL COURT, INC.", dated September 12, 2002 prepared by John C. Sirine and Associates, Ltd., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan") shall be substantially adhered to. This proffer is not acceptable. Although there are some aspects of the concept plan that are noteworthy, the plan as a whole does not distinguish this community as substantially higher in quality of life than a conventional subdivision. The interior landscaping along the roadway and the stormwater management area are equivalent to what would be found in a conventional subdivision. Open space requirements within a conventional subdivision are between 6% to 8% of the site versus 15% of the site under the PDH-2 overlay guidelines. One of the intents of the PDH-2 guidelines is to create a community recognized by its open space amenities. The proposed plan does not meet this intent. The central open space shown on the proposed plan is approximately 30,000 square feet or 6% of the site, the same percentage of open space required in a conventional subdivision. The remainder of the open space on the plan is within building setbacks or along the perimeter of the site, behind the units, in a conventional subdivision these areas would also remain open but would be considered private yards instead of community open Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. I # 27~~'"~ ....... " Page 9 for construction until between 2005 and 2007. In a true planned community, where recreational and commercial needs are provided in addition to residential units, age restncted units may result in a decrease of vehicle trips on surrounding main roadways because of the opportunities to walk or drive to activities and services provided within the development. This project, however, is exclusively residential, thus, no decrease in traffic due to the age restriction proffered is anticipated. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated September 12, 2002, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request The request for a rezoning from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District and R-20 Residential District to R-5D Residential Duplex with PD-H2 Planned Development Overlay is not acceptable. The number of units and density requested, 48 units and 4.8 units/acre, is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area. Although the actual number of buildings shown on the proposed plan would be substantially the same as the number of buildings allowed with a conventional subdivision, the number of households will double. The traffic created by the additional households, even households led by individuals age 55 and over, will negatively impact Princess Anne Road in this location. This is a limiting factor that cannot be ignored, as this roadway is severely over capacity and no relief is anticipated until the second half of this decade. The Comprehensive Plan is the City's official policy guiding its physical growth and development. It serves as a guide to the public and private sector by providing a relatively predictable picture of how land will develop, how public facilities and services will be provided, how our environment will be protected, how jobs will be attracted, how open space will be secured, how roads will be improved, how housing will be made available, and generally what constant guiding principles will be employed to balance competing interests (pg ii). The Comprehensive Plan does not address these ~ssues ~ndividually, but presents a coordinated strategy that integrates the approaches into a single philosophy of improvement for the c~ty. The Comprehensive Plan text for the Courthouse/Sandbridge Study Area further states "endorse no development proposal Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27 Page 13 that contributes to strip residential or commercial development, sprawl, or a disorderly arrangement of uses" (p.76). Developing at residential densities that are above the density an area is planned for can result in urban sprawl. The submitted PD-H2 plan does not provide substantial public benefits over what could be gained through development under the existing zoning. Staff feels that a rezoning for a planned community could be supported on this property, but not in excess of the density recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan policies do not support the additional density requested in th~s location. Staff concludes that this request should be denied or substantially modified to more closely match the specific land use recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. 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 Cit~ Codes~ Planning Commission Agenda ~'~~-.~ ~ February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. ! # 27 Page 14 0 0 Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. ! # 27 Page 15 ~ ---! ,,,;.r' j~!~,:.: ~, PROPOSED SITE PLAN .33V"ld v3~'1~H3) · ./ W iu w 0 0 PROPOSED "OVERALL MASTER PLAN" Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. ! # 27 Page 16 / PROPOSED ENTRY PLAN ,OdO~d I- Z 0 0 PROI~OSED ENTRY PLAN Planning Commission Agenda ~[~.~~ February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27 Page 17 .... iii ii ~ _ Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27 Page 20 Planning Commission Agenda ~ '*~%~~ February 12, 2003 ~¢~,~-" ROYAL COURT, INC. ! # 27 ~ Page 21 Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27 Page 26 LLJ Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. ! # 27 Page 27 Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. ! # 27 Page 28 APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 4 CO ~NBI~IONAL REZONING 0F VIRGINIA BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Appficant'sName: Royal Court, Inc~, a Virg~nxa corporst~on Li~t All Curre~ Proper~yOwllers: Jennxfer Brown Estes PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner ~s a CORPORATION, hst all officers of the Cotporataon b~low~ (Attach hst ~fnecesyary) If th~ pwperty ow~r ~s a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or othe~ UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, hst all meml~rs or par~ra m the orgamzauon b~low:. (Attach hst ~nece~sary) Check here if the property owr~r is NOT a corpora~on, partngsh~p, finn, or other umncorporate0 If the applicant tr not th# current owner of the property, core, lite the Applicant Dis¢lo~zre section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the apph~an/~s a CORPORATION, hst all officers of the Corporation below (Attach l~ ~fnece:;sary) ,, Do. nald L. Moore~ President~Secretary If~c apphcant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION. hst all mcmbem or partncr~ m thc orgamzauon below (Attach l~t if necessary) I~ Cl~ck here if th~ apphcant as NOT a corporauon, partncmh~p, firm, or other unincorporated orgamzauon CERTIFICATION' I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Cour.t~/Inc../'/';,,/'9 ~ Royal ~ · , ~/ , S~gnamre Donald L. Moore, President Pnn~ N~mc Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. ! # 27 Page 29 Item #27 Royal Court, Inc. Change of Zomng D~stnct Classfficat~on D~strict 7 Princess Anne February 12, 2003 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item ~s Item #27, Royal Court, Inc. Donald Horsley: Ron? Kathy Katsias: Mr. Chatrman, I have to abstain from this due to the business dealings with the applicant. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: I don't know what happened to our easels. Robert Miller: I don't know. Eddie Bourdon: I may take that down because I don't want to obstruct anyone's view of the PowerPoint. For the record, my name ~s Eddie Bourdon. I'm a Virginia Beach attorney and I'm here before you representing Royal Court, Inc., Mr. Don Moore who ~s here w~th us this afternoon. As is Jennifer Brown Estes, on behalf of the Brown Family who owns this p~ece of property located on the north side of Princess Anne Road just to the west of the Nimmo church area. First th~ng I want to touch on before I get ~nto the v~ew of the presentation, this application has been pending for quite a number of months. We have spent a considerable amount of time over that period meeting w~th the Courthouse/Sandbndge Co-op c~v~c leagues, meeting with residents of Southgate and H~ghgate Crossings and Sandbndge/Courthouse and they sent representatives from their civic leagues going over th~s proposal, explmnmg the proposal. This application has been on your agenda twice previously. You're aware that you deferred the last time for the purpose of changing th~s to an age restricted commumty. Apparently, over the course of the last three days, some information was distributed ~n a couple of the neighborhoods by flyer that contained ~naccurate ~nformation, which precipitated a number of emails that have come out of the blue that we've not deemed previously when th~s application was on the agenda and when people have been notified. We have today have had the opportumty to talk to a number of people who came down. Let's see, we talked to everyone and have gone over the proposal and many left very pleased. But, I wanted to put that out there because you all were given packages of emails th~s morning that and qmte a vast majority of them talked about six unit per acre townhouses, which this is not and has not been an application for that type of a use. I wanted to get that out there. We welcome the opportumty today and th~s ~s televised and it w~ll be replayed to continue the educational process and we welcome the opportunity as we told the folks who were here Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27 Page 25 Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27 Page 24 PROFFER # 2 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 3 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 4 Staff Evaluation: space. In addition, there is no connection to the adjacent public park. The number of units is double the number that could be developed under a conventional subdivision using the underlying zoning of R-20 existing on the site. The additional amenities that are unique to this project and that would not likely be included/n a conventional subdivision are the increased landscaping along Princess Anne Road and perimeter buffer areas. These additional amenities do not offer enough community benefits to offset the increase in density requested. When the Property is developed, vehicular Ingress and Egress shall be limited to one (1) entrance from Princess Anne Road This proffer is acceptable. When the Property is developed, all landscaping and berming shall substantially adhere to the detailed landscape plan prepared by Siska Aurand and depicted on the "OVERALL SITE MASTER PLAN- CHELSEA PLACE" dated 9/12/02, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. This proffer is acceptable. There will be no more than twenty-four (24) residential buildings, each one being two (2) stories in height, and containing two (2) dwelling units per buildings. The total number of dwelling units permitted to be constructed on the Property shall not exceed forty-eight (48) and no dwelling units shall contain more than three (3) bedrooms. This proffer is not acceptable. The density requested by the applicant equates to 4.8 units/acre and is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, which recommends a maximum of 3.5 units/acre in this section of the Courthouse/Sandbridge Study Area. All of the surrounding neighborhoods have consistently developed at a density of less than 3.5 units/acre. Princess Anne Road in this location ls already operating at a level of service E and is Planning Commission Agenda ~¢~~,~ February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27 Page 10 PROFFER # 5 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 6 Staff Evaluation: severely over capacity. No widening or other major improvements to this road are planned, and Nimmo Parkway, the roadway designed to provide relief to this section of Princess Anne Road, is currently not slated for construction until between 2005 and 2007. The architectural design of the residenhal buildings will be substantially as depicted on the exhibits entitled "Chelsea Place Elevation A", "Chelsea Place Elevation B", Chelsea Place Elevation D", Chelsea Place Elevation E", dated September 12, 2002, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and area on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevations"). The primary exterior building material shall be brick and synthetic cedar shake siding, and the colors used may vary from those on the exhibits but all will be earth tones. This proffer is acceptable. The building materials listed are of high quality. The elevations depict dwellings that are architecturally compatible with the surrounding single- family homes m this area. It should be noted that the paired homes would have a larger building footpnnt than most of the single family homes in the surrounding area. When the Property is developed, a landscaped entrance feature shall be constructed with a brick wall, signage externally illuminated from ground level, decorabve columns and estate style fencing as depicted and described on the "ENTRY CONCEPT FOR: CHELSEA PLACE ROYAL COURT, INC.", PAGES ONE AND TWO, DATED September 12, 2002, prepared by Siska Aurand Landscape Architects, inc., and shall have an appearance substantially similar to that depicted on the perspective entitled "ENTRY WALL FOR CHELSEA PLACE", dated September 12, 2002, prepared by Siska Aurand Landscape Architects, Inc., which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Entrance Plans"). This proffer is acceptable. The entrance planned for this community is aesthetically pleasing Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27 Page 11 PROFFER # 7 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 8 Staff Evaluation: When the Property is developed, the fencing throughout the community shall be installed ~n a coordinated manner by the Developer and governed by the Condominium Association so that the types of fencing and location of fences shall be as depicted on the FENCE AND PLANTING CONCEPT FOR: CHELSEA PLACE ROYAL COURT, INC.", and five (5) exhibits entitled "30 IN. HT. DECORATIVE FENCES FOR CHELSEA PLACE"; "4 FT. HT. PROPERTY FENCE FOR CHELSEA PLACE","6 FT. HT. PROPERTY FENCE FOR CHELSEA PLACE","4 FT. HT. PRIVACY FENCE FOR CHELSEA PLACE", "6 FT. HT. PRIVACY FENCE FOR CHELSEA PLACE", dated September 12, 2002, prepared by Siska Aurand Landscape Architects Inc., which have been exhibited to the Virginia beach city Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. This proffer is acceptable. The Grantor shall record a Declaration of Restrictions ("Deed Restriction") as a condition of Site Plan Approval, which shall be applicable to the Property. The Deed Restriction shall be enforced by a Condominium Association, which will be responsible for maintaining the Property and enforcing the provisions of a Condominium Declaration governing the Property. The Deed Restriction shall require that every occupied residential unit be occupied, on a full time basis, by at least one (1) adult resident over fifty-five (55) years of age. The Deed Restriction shall also prohibit persons under twenty (20) years of age from resIding in any residential unit or units for more than ninety (90) days in any calendar year. This proffer is acceptable; however, the age restriction does not mitigate the density issue on this site. All of the surrounding neighborhoods have consistently developed at a density of less than 3.5 units/acre. Princess Anne Road in this location is already operating at a level of service E and is severely over capacity. No widening or other major improvements to this road are planned, and Nimmo Parkway, the roadway designed to provide relief to this section of Princess Anne Road, is currently not slated Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. ! # 27 Page 12 Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27 Page 22 ?o~; -~- ~ Planning Commission Agenda ~'~[~..~ ~ ,~ February 12, 2003 ;~-~-_'~ ROYAL COURT, INC. ! # 27 Page 23 Item #27 Royal Court, Inc. Page 7 residential neighborhood. John Gilroy was here and was opposed and is now in support and also w~th Highgate Homeowners Association. Maxine Graham. Maxine Graham: Good afternoon. Ronald Ripley: Good afternoon. Max~ne Graham: I think a lot of you recognize me. I'm from Sandbridge. Ronald Ripley: I recall you were here for that church up there. Maxlne Graham: Thank you for this opportunity. I'll try to be as brief as possible. You had a long day. I'm here to speak on behalf of this application. I think it's beautiful. I ttunk its location. It's a very appropriate use for this p~ece of property and that it lends itself to the people that will be cormng in and many are already there on Princess Anne Road with the Sentara new medical facility which is not that far away. Meanwhile, you got all of this educational over there. I was really a little upset and I've even talked to Mr. Moore about this 55-age limit. I th~nk it's maybe a little discriminatory to shut out people who would be professional and career people and I am a nurse of 56 years as well as realtor for two states for 37. And, I think this would be a wonderful location for people who would be in college, teachers, schools, nurses, what have you. And, when you get into $200,000 plus quality homes and that doesn't really doesn't include much land. You're talking about quality. I'm very proud to say two things. First of all, Mr. Moore didn't know I was going to be here. And, I wasn't asked to be here. I'm here on my own. Primarily due to the fact that I live in one of Mr. Moore's Crescent Condos across from Nimmo's church. And, I never meet a stranger and there's about a 100 sold and about 25 left to go and I think it may shock you all to know that when I bought mine in October 2, 1991, I prod $40,419 ~n that same unit model now, today selling for a $164,900. And, being still my license is inactive, I'm still out there doing what I've been doing for 37 years. I just took my hcense from referral to GSH but ~f you're concerned primarily between the impact on the traffic flow, I stay on top of all th~s just like I still am earning a living. And, I called Engineering, 2005 ~s suppose to be online. The City Council just Tuesday agreed to vote on the Transition Area the 28th of th~s month and the C~ty Council will be voting on Ferrell Parkway in March and you're lookang at one of the primary people that got sand, sewer, water and fighting hke it was my life on the line to get Ferrell Parkway. These are roads that will alleviate and give some rehef to any ~mpact of traffic. Furthermore, these homes are beautiful. They don't even look like what they are labeled. And, you all know better than I do even though I have been doing this for 37 years, you're going to have NIMBYS everywhere you go. I th~nk I've said just about enough. And, I'll be happy to answer any questions that you maght have of me. One last thing here and you talked about open space. Don't overlook the fact that your open space which is created by the parking lot for the church is not going to have cars there seven days a week or 24 hours a day. I lived out here in Sandbndge for 37 years. I remember when ~t was a strawberry farm. They sold fresh eggs down here on London Bridge Road and Strawbridge was Strawbridge Field so I know the h~story of this area Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. / # 27 Page 18 ,% Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 ROYAL COURT, INC. ! # 27 Page 19 Item #27 Royal Court, Inc. Page 6 William Din: Okay. Donald Horsley: Okay. Ronald Rxpley: You got a traffic study in there? Eddie Bourdon: I passed out the traffic study today. When you came back from lunch you should have had the traffic study in front of you. I'm sorry. I thought you all had these packages from last month. Robert Miller: We didn't get the traffic study. Eddie Bourdon: You didn't get the traffic study? Ronald Ripley: No. I didn't see it. William Din: There was a traffic study in our report. Robert Miller: We didn't get yours. Eddie Bourdon: I put those in front of everyone's seat at about quarter to twelve. Robert Miller: Somebody picked them up and demded they were very valuable. We'll use them on another application. I put my stuff in here first and there was notlung in here. Eddie Bourdon: That's amazing. I put one in front of everyone's seat. Robert Miller: You violated some lctnd of security issue. Eddie Bourdon: I must have done something that violated some kind of security issue. Robert Miller: Security. It's all about security. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: Alnght. I apologize. I thought you have gotten them when you came in. Ronald Ripley: Okay. We have some other speakers. Robert Miller: We have some other speakers. Leslie Pomeroy was here and was going to be xn opposition but evidently you spoke with her and decided she was in support. She's from Highgate Crossing Homeowners Association, which is the adjacent Item 4/27 Royal Court, Inc. Page 2 and left that we would be happy to meet with anybody, anytime to review this proposal, which we are qmte proud of. The application ~nvolves an age-restricted community to be known as Chelsea Place. It is proposed on 1 O-acre parcel of property that is surrounded by church on our east side and R-10 residential development, single family homes, 10,000 square foot lots on north and west s~de. To our north ~s the Southgate Commumty to the west ~s the Highgate Crossings Community. Across Princess Anne Road ~n the transition area is the Three Oaks Subdivision, which ~s an R-20 residential subdivision. The project, Chelsea Place ~s one that has been designed using a New England rural architectural theme. We have a total of 24 structures, buildings on the 10-acre s~te. Each of those 24 braidings contains two residential umts. Those umts, again will total 48 umts on the property. The umts have and you got elevations, you got packages, I think you all have that we provided to everyone through the Planning Department, the architectural appearance of the elevations ~s very attractive. They're two story umts. They contain between 2,000-2,300 square feet of hv~ng space. Each unit has downstmrs master suite and a two-car garage. It's design so the buildings appear to be s~ngle-family homes. There ~s only one garage per building that face the ~nternal roads within this condominium and that's important. This is a condormnium property as well. The other two garage space face internally so you don't see them from the road. There's a road coming ~n off of Pnncess Anne Road is a loop road through the project. And, we have where the s~de loading driveways are we have a very detmled plan that includes hedgerows or fences. In some places hedges and ~n some places fences and there's a very, very detailed plan which you all have and the staff have which screen the parking area in front of the garage doors on the side loading garage doors. That's an excellent part of this plan. It's just a detail and Don as most of you know is an award-winning builder in th~s community. He's done some projects that have gotten awards from th~s Planning Department as well as from the T~dewater Builder's Association. The frontage along Princess Anne Road is exceptional. One that he's designed along that frontage and I think your staff has noted that and noted that's something would clearly not be replicated ~n a s~ngle-family residential development on th~s p~ece of property. You got a pmnted brick wall along the frontage with extensive landscaping on the roadside of that wall and then there are dry stack stone accents that would be reminiscent of a stone farm field wall ~n New England as well as there are gold leaf accents on the s~de ~tself and there ~s a gate feature. The gate does not close but to give the appearance that it would be a gated commumty but the gates are permanently locked open, nothing that would able to be closed. The project involves extensive green area along the eastern side of the property where you got the BMP and landscaping buffer adjacent to the church parking lot and the area closest to Pnncess Anne Road. We got a 40-foot landscaped and bermed buffer along both the north and west property hnes adjacent to South Gate and adjacent to Highgate Crossing. Betund each unit there is a small fenced in courtyard area and agmn, all the fencing types, all very detailed plans. I know that staff would tell that ~s the best part of the plan that they think is certmnly attractive and no objection to the architecture and the way its been lind out in terms of the fencing and what have you. That area of buffer is well over an acre of land and that ~s one of the th~ngs that ~s not really pointed out in one point of the staff's write up where they talked about open space. You got a center green here w~th walkway, trellis area and benches and paths going across here. Item #27 Royal Court, Inc. Page 3 We've also left an open area here where there's one of the two trees with the property w~ll remain and there are some grave sites there that will remmn and will provide parlong there. Some of the guest parkang is ~n front of the area of the property as well. And, we have provided guest parking throughout the commumty Along the churches parlong lot we do have fencing in that area right in here. Overall, the 52 percent of the site is open space and that is area outside the footprints of the home and the road that circles around through the project. The price points of these units are $250,000 per unit. You're looking at basically 24 half million dollar to maybe as $600,000 buildings. Again, age restricted. You must have someone 55 years or older in the umt and no one under the age of 20 can reside ~n the unit for more than 90 days dunng a calendar year. It's the same restriction that exists on the residential developments at the Villages at West Neck and the Signature golf course that Mr. Foster has done and enjoyed fantastic success with. Th~s precludes there being children hving in this community who w~ll be educated in the schools in the area. Now, again on a temporary basxs there nught be for a matter of weeks a planned child or something like that living there but anyone buying here will not be someone who has children living in the home. And that's a very, very important part of this application. The sense of community that we think th~s creates ~s fantastic and we know there is a demand for ~t in the area. The area is very developed all around as you see on the aerial photographs. This ~s the last infill piece that remains in the area. It's also interesting to note that this property is right at the point where Princess Anne Road has four lanes from here heading east and north. Th~s is where the road comes down to only being a two-lane road. And, it ~s undemable that the area from here heading over to where we are today at the Courthouse, there ~s a traffic issue that exists today. That's not to say that there's not traffic concerns here but they are far less than they are in this area. We all know that N~mmo Parkway when ~t is built and this is not the part that's controversial. Th~s part is not going to Sandbridge. The traffic problem principally is pass through traffic. And, ~t certainly does exist in this area where Princess Anne Road comes down to two-lanes. When ti'ns ~s built and is in the CIP, the s~gnificant amount of traffic that passes through here today will clearly use ti'us Nimmo Parkway as opposed to Princess Anne Road. But because this ~s right at the beginmng of the farthest that's four lanes that ~s ~mportant. And, the reason I thnk it ~s important is we provide each one of you with a traffic report. And, I th~nk this morning in your informal I think you heard pretty clearly that there ~s an issue ~nvolvmg th~s application is one of traffic. And, we beheve and we're quite certmn of this that if you develop tlms property at 3.5 units per acre, R-10 as it is around this developed you will create far greater traffic. Our traffic report that was done by Intermode Transportation has estimated the traffic generated by this proposed development with the age restriction in place would be 240 vehicle trips per day. On the other hand, if you developed the property at your typical family residential, three to four bedroom home, your traffic generation per day is 394 trips per day. Now, why is that? There are a couple of reasons. The primary reason ~s that you have ~n these umts your average number of people living in each umt is slightly less than two. Where as, in a typical s~ngle family residential and we're tallong about average, the average ~s between three and half and four persons living in each dwelling. We're proposing 48 dwellings versus 35 dwelhngs under an R-10 zoning. That's 13 more units but the total number of people likely to be living in the 13 more units, a total of 48 units xs far less, 35 Item//27 Royal Court, Inc. Page 4 percent less than if you had your typical single family residential development. And, it ~s the children, and a s~gnificant part of ~t is ~n fact the children living there create more of a need for trips during peak hours. The school age children generated by this development and were done in a R-10 development around 40. With this ~s zero. And, ~t's very ~mportant when you look at where those children would go to school. Those children would go to school at Princess Anne Elementary, Pnncess Anne Middle, and Kellam H~gh School. All of those schools are located to the west of this property down the portion of Princess Anne Road that is most severely impacted. And, something that is essential to be recognized that if you develop this property as a single family residential property R-10 zomng, you're going to create more traffic and you're going to create more traffic in the direction that the road can least bare it. And, this is all temporary. We all recognize that xs a temporary situation, not a permanent s~tuation. Staff has indicated to you this morning that unlike the Villages of West Neck, where it was recognized that traffic generation by age restriction commumties ~s significant or less then will be the case in a typical residential community of single family homes because there's no commercial component in this project where someone would be able to walk to and not go out to meet their needs that eliminates that savings. Well, I would beg to differ. I wouldn't disagree entirely. I think there may be some lessening of the benefit as opposed to the Villages of West Neck whether there's a commercial component included within that, but not an ehminatlon of it. And, because remember single family folks get all the same thing and have to take their children to ball practices, to all school activities, etc., which you do not have wlth this type of project. So, I really don't believe its even arguable that th~s type of a development with these restrictions m place would produce more traffic than a single family residennal R-10 zomng on this piece of property. I just don't believe that's the case. Even if you do say that the figures our traffic engineer have come up w~th, which I think are very much defendable and justifiable because those aren't 50 percent either because she's already taken that into account. I don't th~nk you can come up to conclusion that we have a situation here that produces more traffic. I don't believe it to be the case. The fact that these units will be age restricted, we already see in our Cxty, there was a study done a few years ago and I can't remember the name off the top of my head about the econormc benefits of development for seniors and th~s clearly meets that criteria as a condominium project, high value homes. It's an economic posmve. You have all this area that's maintained versus single-family homes where ~t's fence to fence on either side of the project. Everyone has their yards fenced in and you don't have any where near the beauty that's being created by this along Pnncess Anne Road and throughout the community that we propose on th~s p~ece of property. The benefits of the project we think are readily apparent. We would take issue with the notion that we haven't provided open space amenities sufficient to warrant a PD-H plan approval. Agmn, we got park, land and buffer area on this property and the area where the cemetery is that ~s ~n excess of two acres on this 10-acre parcel and the rest of the area and that, close to four ~ncluding the area along the church parlong lot along Princess Anne Road. And, all the rest of the areas are open and landscaped with the exception of this small fenced ~n courtyard behind the houses. The houses themselves are 60 feet from the property line along H~ghgate Crossing and along the boundary with Southgate. And, they are two story attractive, not tall bmld~ngs where you're looking at someone's fence Item #27 Royal Court, Inc. Page 5 with the setback and the landscaping there won't be any impact on any of the adjoining property owners. There is a quemon and there is a statement in there about the fact that we did not provide a path going to an existing C~ty park up in the comer of the property on the Southgate s~de. That certmnly can be done. But, we don't feel that either the residents of Southgate or the residents of this community that will necessarily be a beneficial thing. We certainly are not completely foreclosing that as an option or an opportumty but ~t wasn't thought on what we're trying to create here and its d~stinction from what's here in Southgate that necessarily was going to be a positive. If down the road if the folks at Southgate or our resxdents or we believe in our marketing that's a good thing, we can do that but we don't believe that's necessarily going to be a benefit for either of the two communities not that we necessarily think they need to be segregated from each other. With that, again, traffic is the issue. We think we've addressed that, not completely but I would point out that we got a semor housing facility. A different type of facility that the Catholic D~ocese has less than a half a mile up Princess Anne where it tums into General Booth at London Bridge and General Booth in this same area which is much higher density. As an intergenerational community and what we're trying to achieve under our Comprehensive Plan I think that this fits very well in this area. It's sometlung that ~s needed and would be a benefit to the community. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you all have. Ronald Pdpley: Thank you Eddie. We have a question from Don. Donald Horsley: Go over the open space. Where did you say the community open space is? Eddie Bourdon: We got 30,000 square feet of open space in th~s area through here. All of ~t ~s open except these little areas that are fenced in behind here. This area is open and along here. Th~s 40-foot bermed landscaped buffer all the way around is all open and then the area ~n here where there is a large tree and a couple of grave sites that remains open. And, along here you got a fence. This is not open thts one section that's adjacent to the parlong lot behind those umts. The amount, I would call continuous open space and you got a lot of it out here on the road frontage. You add all of ~t together you got about four acres of continuous and then you got the smaller areas that get it to over 52 percent and that's ~n the package. Fifty-two percent of the s~te is not incorporated within the bmlding envelopes and the roadways, parking and fenced in areas. And, you got the information that we provided ~n the package I think. I'll point you to the page. Wilham Din: Eddie? Eddie Bourdon: Yes sir. W~lliam Din: I don't think we got that package. Robert Miller: We got ~t last month. Item 4/27 Royal Court, Inc. Page 8 maybe a lot better than some of you on this Commission. But, with the most humble and deepest respect I would ask for you to approve th~s and do not ~mpose that 55 reqmrement. I've already talked to some people and incidentally, I was ready to speak in January and I've had th~s book and I've been passing it around m the Crescent Condos and there hasn't been one out of 12-15 people that hasn't been in support of it. Ronald Rlpley: Okay. Max~ne Graham: Mr. Moore is a fine builder and I can tell you one thing. I wouldn't take a million dollars for my place. I think I d~ed and went to heaven. Ronald Ripley: That's good appreciation there. Thank you Ms. Graham Maxine Graham: Thank you. Robert Miller: Who knows how many more units Mr. Moore just sold. William Ahearn was here to speak in opposition. H~s concern was traffic. He had to leave. Bernard Byme. Bernard Byme: Thank you Mr. Chmrman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Bernard Byme. I hve at 2728 Esplanade Court, which is the Foxfire neighborhood. I am reluctantly opposing th~s development proposal. I think that the desxre to provide upscale semor housing ~s good. The only problem xs that there are two many umts. The plan calls for 48 townhouses, 4.8 per acre, which greatly exceeds the Comprehensive Plan hmit of 3.5 per acre. Now pointed out ~n the staff report, Princess Anne Road is a two lane road that ~s currently well over capacity. It operates at a level of service E and it's getting worse each day as more homes are developed along that stretch of road. And, there's no relief ~n sight. The stretch of Nimmo Parkway, Phase V, I think ~t's called between Holland Road and General Booth is now projected to be maybe 2005- 2007. I've been here since 1994 and all the years that I've been here it's been on the map and it was going to happen about three or four years from now, each year the same kdnd of story. Now, I'm not trying to blame that on anyone lnclud~ng this developer but that ~s something to keep in mind. If that stretch of road was in, that Nimmo Parkway stretch of Road was ~n, Princess Anne Road would not be at Serv:ce Level E right now and this proposal rmght make more sense. What I'd hke to pmnt out is just because thxs development ~s limited to seniors does not mean the traffic ~mpact will be mimmal. You're talking about $250,000 umts. I thxnk that most seniors buying these homes will be healthy and acuve. They have two car garages and ~f there are two people living there most of them will have two cars. On my street where I live we have three retired couples ~ncluding myself. We all have two cars. I'm here today and my wife is somewhere else. And, it happens all the t~me. I don't think you can compare apples and oranges because there is senior housxng and there is semor housing. The Sullivan House is full of low- income people. There are very few cars there because the residents don't have enough money to afford a car. These people are going to be able to buy a car and my experience w~th seniors my age and condiuon are that we have cars so we can get to where we want Item #27 Royal Court, Inc. Page 9 to get do what we want to do. It's unfortunate that the traffic s~tuation is the real problem w~th this development but that is a reality. And, I th~nk as long as we have a Comprehensive Plan ~n place, ~t's very important to support ~t. You're now workang on a new plan. When that plan gets put ~nto effect and Nimmo Parkway, Phase V or whatever it ~s in place, perhaps it will different development roles. But until we have something in hand, I don't see why we can justify taking a bad traffic situation and deliberately making it worse. So, I don't think we should. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Any questions? Could I ask you a question? Bernard Byme: Yes. Ronald Ripley: And, I haven't had a chance to study this traffic report that was handed to me but there's a statement in here and we're tallang about seniors and driving and I think your point is well made. You need a car to get around. But, it's noted in here that an elderly restricted development such as Chelsea Place that many of the residents will be retired and plan their trips outside normal morning and afternoon peak hours. Do you find that to be generally true or not? Bernard Byme: I think that's partially true. I don't deliberately go out with the morning rush or totally plan my day to come back with the evening rush but I do get caught in it sometimes and the other thing that I've heard that many of my senior neighbors complain about ~s during the middle of the day they say where is all tl'ns traffic coming from, well besides us semors there are other people out on the road, delivery trucks and you name it. And, so I think part of the problem ~s that I believe, and I'm sure, Mr. Bourdon's consultants acted ~n good faith and gave you numbers but I don't know how they drew a model. You know, you can possibly select a 100 d~fferent communities and come up w~th and maybe not 100 different answers but probably four or five different answers and I just don't want to count on all these people staying home a lot when the property develops so we don't get the traffic problems on Princess Anne Road. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Bernard Byme: You're welcome. Robert Miller: Next speaker ~s Larry Kernodle. Larry Kernodle: Mr. Chmrman and members of the Commission. My name ~s Larry Kernodle. I live at 2225 Shingle Wood Way and the Three Oaks Subdivision. I'm also here representing on the Board of Directors for the Three Oaks Subdivision and I'm here representing the Homeowners Associanon. I also have another board member here w~th me. There is great opposition to th~s project in Three Oaks. I know the traffic ~ssue is what you hear the most of but it's the high density. I've been a homeowner ~n V~rg~ma Beach since 1979 and I moved to Southern V~rginia Beach to get away from the townhouses, the cluster houses and the apartment complexes. I hope you would take into Item #27 Royal Court, Inc. Page 10 consideration that this many homes clustered together on this tight lot that's across from our neighborhood that it' s just a bad situation. There are four neighborhoods surrounding this piece of property. It's Three Oaks, Highgate Greens, Hlghgate Crossing and Southgate. I have talked to homeowners in Southgate, Highgate Green and Highgate Crossing and of course our own neighborhood. And there is great opposition for putting clustered homes in an area where it's only single-farmly homes on all four sides. And, if you approve this then you're going to have this cluster in the rmddle of all these nice single-family homes. And, I'm not sure if the people of our neighborhood did the email correctly are putting their names on there correctly. Maybe we noticed the sign late but I'm not sure how long this projects been going on but I've notice the sxgn only 30 days ago and we tried to have a meeting and get the ball rolling on opposition. I'm not sure I understand the 55 age hnut because I'm a new father and I calculate that I'm going to have my little daughter in Virginia Beach Public Schools until I'm of age 65, so I don't know if you're saying these homeowners can't have any children who are living there. Is that constitutional? I don't know. Ronald R~pley: It ~s. Larry Kernodle: And, so the big thing we would rather look at an empty lot over there then cluster housing when you have nice homes on all four sides of tins. I don't know what more I can say. The traffic we all know ~s an issue. And, it is very hard getting in and out of the neighborhoods that are there now. But, the big issue is lets not rain Southern Virginia Beach and put cluster homes in with nice single family homes on all four sides when it doesn't conform. And, llke I said we have a great opposition mounting over there. Half the people don't notice these s~gns. They don't call and then they get mad later and once we start telling our neighborhood what that conditional zoning sign meant they throw their hands up in the oar and say, "wow, what ~s the Planning Commission, what's the City doing to Southern Vxrgima Beach." Please don't allow this to happen. And, I don't know if you have any questions but we're really agoanst it. Ronald R~pley: We do have a question. Robert Miller: Would you be opposed to R-10 rezoning on that same piece of land, which would be the 10,000 square foot lots which are down at Hlghgate Crossing's next door. Larry Kernodle: What's that equal per acre? Robert Miller: Well, I guess the 3.5 units per acre or something like that. Larry Kernodle: The board at Three Oaks were all ~n agreement that we would accept the 3.5 homes per acre but single family homes not a cluster home or what have you, but please keep it s~ngle family because you can call it duplex homes, town homes but you know ~t's a cluster home and ~t's going to rain our neighborhood out there. This is a nice part of Virg~ma Beach and I just hate to see it start mining it. Item #27 Royal Court, Inc. Page 11 Ronald Ripley: Any other questions? Thank you for coming down. Larry Kemodle: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Any other speakers? Mr. Bourdon? Edche Bourdon: I wish I had kept the flyer that one of the gentleman showed me and I guess we now know where that flyer generated. We would be very happy to meet with the folks at Three Oaks. The representative of the community was at a couple of the meetings we had w~th the coalition and the idea that this has turned into something we're talking about "clustered homes" and townhouses and things like that, s~x units per acre and impact on schools and roads which was in this flyer. It's sad. Reasonable people can d~sagree but hopefully disagree based on the facts and not on sending out information that was totally erroneous. Those things happen and we want to move on. We want the community to understand because we're proud of what ~s being proposed here. We're not doubling density here. We're not doing like the Village of West Neck. That was a situation two-units versus one unit per acre because the traffic was deterrmned to be roughly half. We're talking about a difference ~n unit counts of 13 umts, 27 percent above and not of doubling by any stretch. And, with the age restrictions and with the lack of school children, with the clear economic benefits of these half million dollar buildings to $600,000 buildings that have the appearance of one house. The units are one and half stones as the appearance together of a two story with only one bedroom upstairs ~n each of these beautiful homes. We tlxtnk ~t's clearly a situauon which would be a better scenario both for the City from an economic standpoint with a condo and no services and that has to be provided as far as maintaining the roads, etc, then would be R- 10 single farmly homes where you would have children to educate with over 40 would be the number. All of those children would go to Princess Anne Elementary, Princess Middle or Kellam High School. All of those would have to go west of this s~te on the two-lane section of Princess Anne Road until another three or four years go by and N~mmo Parkway would be open and we won't have the traffic ~ssue. It's interesting too that on the same agenda today, a very beautiful apartment complex was recommended for approval. That is also ~n th~s area less than a rmle away on a p~ece of property zoned B-2. There are differences. If the gentleman said we don't want apartments. We don't want th~s but all we want are single-family homes in this area. I th~nk our Comprehensive Plan looks to try to create some d~vers~ty m housing and no way does th~s impact negatively upon the property values of those people who hve around this proposal. I have also for you as a further showing of the quality that Mr. Moore does, this is just four of his projects that in showing when they were built, the original sales pnces versus current market value prices and these are not the same type of buildings that we're talkdng about here but there's tremendous growth in the value which shows what is being built into the projects that Don has done. I will pass these around to everybody. I appreciate all the other speakers. I am very, very happy to and would be glad to meet w~th the people at Three Oaks who have expressed concerns for no other reason but to make sure that they clearly understand, as we know the representative who came to earher meetings understood what was being proposed. It ~s not townhouses. It's not slx units per acre. Item #27 Royal Court, Inc. Page 12 And, it's clearly an age- restricted community. I'll be happy to answer any questions that any of you may have. Ronald Ripley: Any questions? Charlie. Charlie Salle': Eddie, you probably said it and I probably missed ~t reading something. The coalition of mvic leagues that pretty well pohces a lot of development in this area, what was their stand? D~d they take a stand? Eddie Bourdon: They generally try not to take a stand. They leave ~t to the communities that adjoin it, unless they have a strong feeling. In fact, I did talk to Glen Painter again last week and Glen stated to me that the meetings were very pleased. Everyone at the meeting was pleased. He had absolutely notl'nng from anybody indicating any heartburn about it. And, they knew and we told them well before last month we told them that we were going to age restricted. Since we done that he heard nottung negative whatsoever from anybody. This popped at the 1 lt~ hour but again, I've always had some concerns with the fact how information was passed by the representatives who come to these meetings to the people in the neighborhoods. And, we generally aren't invited, not disinvited but there aren't meetings set up for us to go individual civic leagues. Don, did go to Southgate and met with the people and sent out flyers and had them come to meetings with those that were adjoimng this property and the same with Highgate Crosslngs. We will be glad to attend. I would welcome the opportunity to attend. I know that not necessarily everyone would agree with the proposition but be happy to attend a meeting of Three Oaks or any of the other commumties out there. So, we can make sure that we are all going from the same base of information. Again, some people may disagree. Mr. Kernodle may certainly disagree but I think ~t's important to the process that everybody understand what is being proposed and that we not get ~nto hysterics which some of those emails I th~nk represent because a flyer was sent out that says, you know, oppose a rezoning for townhouses, slx units per acre, which ~s not what this application is. Ronald Ripley: I think Mr. Miller has a question. Robert Miller: Mr. Bourdon. W~th your proposal to meet with the community would you entertam a deferral? Eddie Bourdon: Well, we've been through th~s for months. Robert Miller: I'mjust trying to understand your statement or do you just prefer to do that between now and Council. Eddie Bourdon: I would prefer to do that since we've gone to great lengths to meet w~th all the commumties for months. I don't think that a deferral and the farmlies here have been waiting patiently. I would propose to do it between now and City Council. I would also say however, that because of travel plans that my family has, th~s w~ll not go to Item #27 Royal Court, Inc. Page 13 Council before the fourth Tuesday in March. So, there is plenty of time for that to take place because I can't attend the second Tuesday in March. There is plenty of time for that to happen. Ronald Ripley: I think Will has a question. William Din: I appreciate your information on the history of the values of the communities that have been built here but I'm not sure that I'm totally convinced our staff yet that the quality is there. And, the service of the Princess Anne Road is still service E. I lond of agree with the statements that age 55 people are driving. I'm 55 and I still drive a lot. There will be a lot of driving and whether there are kids in these units or not, there will still be a lot of traffic going both d~rections there. Eddie Bourdon: Will, if I could. We are not suggesting that there will not be traffic. And, we have not suggested that there would be minimal traffic. What we have clearly suggested and I think it's clearly been recognized both by the staff on previous applications and with the information that we provided, is that the traffic impact is if you compare this development to a R-10 development will not result in any increase in traffic over the R-10 development in our opinion will be a decrease in traffic. We also don't believe anywhere in the write up or any point that staff has indicated that there's a lack of quality in what is being proposed here from the development standpoint. The ~ssue and I don't want to speak for staff but I don't the report can be read any other way is that it's a question of the number of umts and the number of units in their rmnd creates more traffic. I don't thin there's been a statement from the staff that they don't think ti'ns is a quality proposal in terms of the development aspects of it. William Din: Well, the staff evaluation on the proffer one xt says, "it does not distingmsh this community as substantially higher in quality of life than the conventional subdivision", what I'm refernng to here. Okay. So, the statement is there. As with the previous application that you referenced over on the apartments, I th~nk we appreciate the diverse housing umts. I ttunk we approved that because ~t was diverse. I th~nk I mentioned that. I think this diversity in this area would be good too. I don't totally agree that all single units in this area either. And, I think you're correct. Every area needs a diverse type of housing. And, housing for 55 and older is nice. But, I tend to agree with the staff has written in here that to ~ncrease the density that you're asking for I think there has to be substantial tugher quality then what we're seeing here. And, I don't know if you showed that to the staff by the statement. Have you gone into the type of materials that you're using? Eddie Bourdon: The type of materials has been provided to staff and we're talkang brick and vinyl shake s~d~ng on the buildings. We got all the fences have been depicted ~n terms of their materials and their style. It's an exceptionally detailed plan that has been provided and again, I th~nk that staff's issue boils down to the number of units and their desire to be fewer units on the property. Again, I don't believe in all the meetings that we've had there has never been any comment to us that these units aren't high enough Item #27 Royal Court, Inc. Page 14 quality. That has never been part of the dialogue. It's the number and the impact that creates on traffic from the way they have perceived ~t. And, those discussions regarding the quality predated our determination to go age restricted. And, it ~s the age restricted ~nto the equation that we th~nk tums the application a different direction then it was before it was age restricted. So, again, I'm repeating myself but the age restricted aspect and the small number of the additional umts on a percentage bas~s, we just don't beheve there's any strong argument to be made that we're going to have more traffic generated on thxs development as would be the case wxth a sxngle family residential development. Ronald R~pley: Bob Miller then Charlie Salle'. Robert Miller: My feeling is that we're talking about the traffic issue and nobody is going to change Pnncess Anne Road in that area as everyone has understood and stated from both sides and from every side that we could think of. I don't think that situation changes. The s~ngle-farmly houses and the facts are they will be on public streets. They will have school children and I'm certainly not against school children but they will school ctuldren. There wall be school buses cormng and going through that community in order to service that. There would be trash p~ck up cormng and gmng through that community, which would not be in a private commumty. And, I think the ~ssue ~n regards to traffic. I'm still just somewhat struck. The consultant comes back with the statements that ~t's about 50 percent traffic for seniors based on national information and we stand here and there are certainly questions about which seniors d~d they talk to and I don't know which ones they talked to. URI and other people put together information that's based on hopefully a very broad concept of malong sure that we understand when we look at numbers that they are representative of the group they have identffied and we're tallong about. Even ff its' not quite 50 percent, ~f ~t's 70 percent or somewhere in that range, it's still is substantially less than what the s~ngle farmly would generate from our own knowledge of that. And, I'm stuck right there. I think the product is a good quality product. I don't have any doubt about it. I think the use of this product in this location at th~s time ~s something that is appealing to me. And, it is appeahng and not because of anything that it does to traffic but ~t has with the age restriction. I think ~t has the right note. And, Mr. Bourdon referred to the Villages of West Neck and the success of that project. There's somethtng to be smd to the fact that this what many our citizens want communities that are set up that are somewhat set up and restricted so they can have ~n their perception that quality of life which has something to do with agmn, with what they are loolong for in a community and in a house. I think they look like s~ngle-farmly homes. I don't t~nk ~f you drive through there you're going to feel like you're driwng through anything else. That word cluster just doesn't come to mind, so I'm in support and I feel like the open space concept agmn, all of the th~ngs that I heard that were emphasized appeal to me and particularly the fact that I do not believe th~s in any way, shape or form presents the same issues traffic w~se that we would see w~th R-10 zoning. I th~nk R-10 zoning would create even more issues then what we would have in this community. Ronald R~pley: Charhe. Item #27 Royal Court, Inc. Page 15 Charlie Salle': I'm going to support the application and I think what tums me in that direction is the age restrictive aspect of the apphcatlon. Because I look at this in the Comprehensive Plan calls for 3.5 units per acre and then in order to deviate from that I think we have to find something compelling about the application that would justify going to the increased density. And, in my case I find that the addition of the age restrictive aspect of the development adds that d~mens~on to ~t, which I think allows me to go against the strict 3.5 units per acre that's set out ~n the Comprehensive Plan. We all recognize the Comprehensive Plan is a plan but ~t is a tool that we don't deviate from lightly and but I believe in this case that the application has really turned around into something new with the age restriction that didn't exist when it was originally put forth and so I can find myself supporting it now and I would not have before. So, that's my feehng in terms. Ronald Ripley: Don. Donald Horsley: I ktnd of echo with what Charhe said. You know, the age restriction, the lack of strain on City services with schools, w~th trash pickup and these things. I think it' s a good amenity and even if it is encircled by single-family homes, I think that makes ~t stands out that much more. It ~s a traffic issue but I still believe that we're better off here then we would be with the 3.5, so I'm prepared to support the apphcation. Ronald Ripley: I also support the apphcation. I think for the reasons that have been stated here but also my experiences we manage for 55 plus older apartment commumties. And, what I've found is that you really don't find 55. You find people older than 55 because of that resmction. I wouldn't quahty. I'm 53 and I have a child that would be trip me out of this particular market because I wouldn't be permitted to be there for that reason. So, I think for the bulk of the market but the bulk of the market is going to push you a httle h~gher age ~n your thinking here but there's a market for it. Apparently, we're seeing in the Village of West Neck we're seeing a big demand for this and in fact, down ~n the Village of West Neck in that particular apphcat~on if I recall, it was approved on traffic counts sigmficantly lower than what ~s ~n the report here. And, also was approved on no ~mpact on schools and th~s report ~s suggemng they are ~mpact on schools. I would differ on that I think But what turned me also, I was strugghng with the density. The number of structures maybe the lot coverage is greater but the number of structures ~s probably less, I think than if it were approved under a R-10. And, so what we're looking at ~s a bonus density of about 13 units if my math is correct. And, I think the ~ntent of the 55 older provision of the zoning ordinance was to provide those type of densities as Charlie said, if it was a compelling reason for lt. And, I think the quality and the way this ~s designed, I th~nk it's there. So, prior to that 55 regulatxon going into th~s particular apphcation, I would have maybe not have support ~t. Yes. Eugene Crabtree: Ron. I thnk I fall probably in the category that just about fits the whole shebang. I'm well over 55. In my dealings with the retired commumty which I deal with day by day, we see a need for more of th~s type thing and th~s is what we've been striving for our senior citizens for the quality of life for our senior citizens within the City. A development like this I feel and I'm going to support ~t because I feel like ~t Item #27 Royal Court, Inc. Page 16 is going to improve the quality of life for our semor c~nzens that will move into this area. And, the amenities that are avmlable to them ~n proximately w~th this community would fit the style that if I was going to look for a retirement community for someone that was going to live in an area other than assisted living, this is what I would envision. The traffic I don't tinnk is no big problem. The traffic for older c~t~zens depends on their style of life and their health at the t~me. My wife and I are both 69 and we come and go all day long and we don't consider ourselves old. So, be as ~t may, I tinnk tins is a quality project that w~ll enhance the quality of life for our seniors so I'm going to support it. Ronald Ripley: Jan has a question or I think a comment and I tinnk Joe will be next. Janice Anderson: I tinnk ~t's a beautiful plan. I think the idea of a senior facility is a wonderful ~dea. I just don't think it fits here. I think the traffic issue could be written each way. If it's developed as is or R-10 you're going to have traffic. If you're going to have semors there you're going to have traffic to, so I don't think and my big defining thing is does it come with the surrounding areas. And, they are single-family homes all surrounding. You heard from the gentleman there. I think the emmls spoke also that they don't want the change in the community. Yes, some emails are shoed. They say six and they say town homes but a lot of them do say duplexes. And, I think what they're really talking about ~s it's a change in that commumty. And, it is southern as you heard the gentleman says, "you are changing this." Now, I think this is a great idea. It's a beautiful plan and nicely done but I don't tinnk it sits here. It ~s completely surrounded by single- family homes. And, also, you are increasing the density in this area and open spaces are not as clear so just because of that. And, the other big reason is the plan. Our Comprehensive Plan does not go forward. And, hke Charles said you should find one thing that bnngs you out of that plan but I think tins property can be developed as it ~s, a R-20, R-10. There's no reason to bring it out to be built differently because it can be in the Comprehensive Plan. So, for mmnly, I don't think it rmxes w~th the surrounding or w~th Comprehensive Plan, I'm going to vote agmnst Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you. Joseph Strange: You know, I agree with almost everything smd from both s~des. I don't necessarily think that this could not be worked out with single-fanuly dwellings back there. I don't tinnk because they're cluster homes or somewhat or another are going to be less quality or less quality of hfe. I think the thing that concerns me is that since ~t does not fit into the Comprehensive Plan, since it does not meet the PD-H Guidelines that by not deferring this I tinnk we're taking away from the Planning Cornrmsslon the ability to modify tins a httle blt and to go in and do a httle bit of bargaining. They didn't recommend that necessarily that we turn it down. They recommended that either we reject it or give them the ability to modify. So, personally I think a deferral ~s in order but having said that there looks like there's enough support for ~t to go forward. Ronald Ripley: Any other comments? So do we want to make a motion? Item #27 Royal Court, Inc. Page 17 Charlie Salle" I'll make a motion that we approve the applicanon. Ronald Ripley: A motion to approve by Charlie Salle'. Donald Horsley: Second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Don Horsley. We're ready to vote. AYE 5 NAY 3 ABS 1 ABSENT 2 ANDERSON CRABTREE AYE DIN HORLSEY AYE KATSIAS KNIGHT MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE WOOD NAY NAY NAY ABS ABSENT ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 5-3, with one abstention, the motion cames. Eddie Bourdon: Have a Happy Valentines Day. Ronald Pdpley: Thank you. And, Mr. Scott, thank you agam for a good agenda and I don't know how you stayed awake. Meeting adjourned. FORM NO P S 1 B City of Virginia Beach In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5645 DATE: March 12, 2003 TO: Leslie L. Lilley DEPT: City Attorney .-~ FROM: B. Kay Wilson~0'~ DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application Royal Court, Inc., et als The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 25, 2003. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated September 12, 2002, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure PREPARED BY SY[I:$. t~OUm)ON. MIeN & Lt'Vy. p C ROYAL COURT, INC., a Virginia corporation JENNIFER BROWN ESTES, LINDA BROWN SHELL formerly known as LINDA NELLIE SHELL and YVONNE BROWN WHITWORTH formerly known as YVONNE NORA WHITWORTH TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 12th day of September, 2002, by and between ROYAL COURT, INC., a Virginia corporation, Grantor, party of the first part; JENNIFER BROWN ESTES, LINDA BROWN SHELL f/k/a LINDA NELLIE SHELL and YVONNE BROWN WHITWORTH f/k/a YVONNE NORA WHITWORTH, parties of the second part, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the third part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties of the second part are the owners of a certain parcel of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 9.963 acres which is more particularly described in Exhibit ~A' attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel is herein referred to as the 'Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of the parcel described in Exhibit "A' and has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from R-20 Residential District, AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to R-SD Residential District with a PD-H2 Overlay; 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: 2404-75-8161 PREPARED BY SYI~S. t~OURDON. AtlUIN & I.[VY. P.C WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantors' rezoning application gives rise; and, WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered, m writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the R-5D, with PD-H2 Overlay, Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, for themselves, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pr.o quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, budding permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title: 1. In order to better foster a sense of community and achieve a coordinated design and development of the site in terms of vehicular circulation, parking, landscape buffering, tree planting, berming, building orientation, stormwater management facilities and open space amenities, the ~COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF CHELSEA PLACE for ROYAL COURT, INC.", dated September 12, 2002, prepared by John C. Sirine and Associates, Ltd., which has PREPARED BY ~. l~Ota~DOl~. ~ & I. LrVY. P.C been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virgima Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan") shall be substantially adhered to. 2. When the Property is developed, vehicular Ingress and Egress shall be limited to one (1) entrance from Princess Anne Road. 3. When the Property is developed, all landscaping and berming shall substantially adhere to the detailed landscape plan prepared by Siska Aurand and depicted on the "OVERALL SITE MASTER PLAN - CHELSEA PLACE" dated September 12, 2002, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Landscaping Plan"). 4. There will be no more than twenty-four (24) residential buildings, each one being two (2) stories in height, and containing two (2) dwelling units per building. The total number of dwelling units permitted to be constructed on the Property shall not exceed forty-eight (48) and no dwelling units shall contain more than three (3) bedrooms. 5. The architectural design of substantially as depicted on the exhibits the residential buildings will be entitled ~Chelsea Place Elevation A", "Chelsea Place Elevation 3", "Chelsea Place Elevation D", "Chelsea Place Elevation E", dated September 12, 2002 , which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning {"Elevations"). The pr/mary exterior building material shall be brick and synthetic cedar shake siding, and the colors used may vary from those on the exhibits but all will be earth tones. 6. When the Property is developed, a landscaped entrance feature shall be constructed with a brick wall, signage externally illuminated from ground level, decorative columns and estate style fencing as depicted and described on the "ENTRY CONCEPT FOR: CHELSEA PLACE ROYAL COURT, INC.", pages one and two, dated September 13, 2002, prepared by Siska Aurand Landscape Architects, Inc. and shall haven an appearance substantially s~milar to that depicted on the perspective entitled ~ENTRY WALL FOR CHELSEA PLACE", dated September 12, 2002, prepared by Siska Aurand Landscape Architects, Inc., which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Entrance Plans"). PREPARED BY I$vI~$. t}OUP, I>ON. Attt~ & IX~. P.C 7. When the Property is developed, the fencing throughout the community shall be installed in a coordinated manner by the Developer and governed by the Condominium Association so that the types of fencing and location of fences shall be as depicted on the "FENCE AND PLANTING CONCEPT FOR: CHELSEA PLACE ROYAL COURT, INC." and five (5) exhibits entitled "30 IN. HT. DECORATIVE FENCES FOR CHELSEA PLACE"; ~'4 FT. HT. PROPERTY FENCE FOR CHELSEA PLACE"; "6 FT. HT. PROPERTY FENCE FOR CHELSEA PLACE"; ~4 FT. HT. PRIVACY FENCE FOR CHELSEA PLACE"; "6 FT. HT. PRIVACY FENCE FOR CHELSEA PLACE", dated September 12, 2002, prepared by Siska Aurand Landscape Architects, Inc., which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. 8. The Grantor shall record a Declaration of Restrictions ("Deed Restriction") as a condition of Site Plan Approval, which shall be applicable to the Property. The Deed Restriction shall be enforced by a Condominium Association which will be responsible for maintaining the Property and enforcing the provasions of a Condominium Declaration governing the Property. The Deed Restriction shall require that every occupied residential unit be occupied, on a full time basis, by at least one (1) adult resident over fifty-five (55) years of age. The Deed Restriction shall also prohibit persons under twenty (20) years of age from residing in any residential unit or units for more than ninety (90) days in any calendar year. 9. Further condxtions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant C~ty agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantors and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent _amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even ff the subsequent amendment ~s part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specificany 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 PREPARED BY ~. l~oulmol~. ~ & L/:vY. p.c 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 Virgima, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along wath 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 restrictaons, 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 ansure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantors shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and xn the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the Grantors and the Grantee. PREPARED BY /§Yl~S. t~OUI~ON. AtlEP~ & I.[VV. PC WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: Royal Court, Inc., a Virginia corporation By: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this L~~ day of September, 2002, by Donald L. Moore, President of Royal Court, Inc., a Virginia corporation. Notary Public My Commission Expires: PREPARED BY SYI6ES. tlOUtlDON. AtI[RN & [,IVY. PC WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: ~/~Jenni~er Bro~m~r~ E~tes The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this September, 2002, by Jennifer Brown Estes. Notary Public My Commission Expires: (SEAL) of PREPARED BY gSY['[$. I~OUt~DON. WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: Linda Nellie Shell (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this \~'~ day of September, 2002, by LindaBrown Shell f/k/a L±nda Ne11±e Shell. My Commission Expire~ PREPARED BY MII~ & Ix'rY. p.C WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: ~ Yvonne ~ Whitworth. STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~t.~ day of September, 2002, by Yvonne ~rown ~.lh±tworth f/k/a Yvonne l~ora ~/h±t~corth. My Commission Expires ~'~~-~ ~:::~"X~, '~'-% CZ ~ PREPARED BY &[iVY. PC EXHIBIT #A~ ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and known, numbered and described as ~Parcel D (9.963 acres)", as shown on that certain plat entitled ~Subdivision of John L. Brown Estate 0N.B. 15, Pg. 2), Princess Anne Borough, Virginia Beach, VA", dated December 7, 1983, made by Miller-Fox-Stephenson, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors, which plat is duly of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 176, at Page 2, reference to which plat is hereby made for a more particular description thereof. GPIN: 2404-75-8161 CONDREZN/ROYALCOURT/PROFFER 10 Map K-lO Not to So~le Glamour A6 AO-I '-' 2 Cond/honol ,. I_ PD-HI 41) Gpm 2405--94-5638 ZONING HISTORY 1. Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to Condibonal B-2 Bus~ness) and Conditional Use Permit (Commercial Recreational Facility) - Approved 10/29/03 2. Modiflcabon of Conditions- Approved 6/25/96 Reconsideration of Conditions - Approved 11/9/93 Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial) - Approved 11/9/93 Reconsideration of Cond~bons- Approved 9/17/91 Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to I-1 L~ght Industnal) - Approved 8/14/89 Rezonlng (AG-1 Agricultural to I-1 Light Industrial) - Approved 6/13/88 3. Rezoning (I-1 Light Industnal to AG-1 Agncultural) - Approved 9/14/93 Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to I-1 L~ght Industrial) - Approved 6/13/88 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Glamour Corporation - Change of Zoning District Classification MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Glamour Corporabon for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 Agncultural District to Condibonal O-1 Office District on the south side of Dam Neck Road, approximately 2,730 feet west of Corporate Landing Parkway (GPIN 2405945638) The proposed zomng to Conditional O-1 Office ~s for office and compatible land use The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of th~s parcel for employment uses including business parks, offices, and appropriately located ~ndustnal uses Sa~d parcel contains 2 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. An Ordinance upon Apphcat~on of Glamour Corporation for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 Agricultural District to Conditional H-1 Hotel D~strict on the south s~de of Dam Neck Road, 2,530 feet west of Corporate Landing Parkway (GPIN 2405945638) The proposed zoning to Conditional H-1 Hotel is for hotels. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of th~s parcel for employment uses including business parks, offices, and appropriately located industrial uses. Said parcel contains 4.4 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. The purpose of the requests is to rezone the site from AG-1 Agricultural District to Conditional O-1 Office D~stnct and Cond~bonal H-1 Hotel D~stnct ~n order to develop a bus~ness class hotel, restaurant and bank on the site Considerations: The applicant proposes to rezone the site from the current AG-1 Agricultural District to Conditional H-1 Hotel Distr~ct and Conditional O-1 Office Distnct and to develop a bus~ness class hotel, accessory restaurant, and a bank that cater to users of the adjacent Corporate Landing Business Park The existing site is 6.46 acres. The proposed Conditional H-1 Hotel District, which w~ll accommodate the hotel and restaurant, wdl encompass 4 44 acres of the s~te The proposed Conditional H-1 Hotel D~stnct will front on Dam Neck Road. The proposed bank will occupy 2.02 acres of the site in the proposed Conditional O-1 District, adjacent to Penmeter Parkway Glamour Corporation Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission placed these items on the consent agenda because the uses are compatible w~th the surrounding area and are consistent w~th the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan Staff recommended approval There was no oppos~bon to the request. · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a mobon by a recorded vote of 10-0 with 1 abstention to approve th~s request. · Attachments: Staff Rewew Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planmng Commission recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager~JV~ GLAMOUR CORPORATION / # 1 2 March 12, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: K 10-212-C RZ-2002 REQUEST: I Change of Zomng District Classification from AG-1 Agncultural D~strict to Cond~bonal O-1 Office Distnct 2. Change of Zoning D~stnct Class~flcabon from AG-1 Agricultural D~strict to Condibonal H-1 Hotel D~strict ADDRESS: The South rode of Dam Neck Road, west of Corporate Landing Parkway ,,., ,,-,o Glamour ,, AG-I ,aG- PD-H1 <l) Coqdltlor~ ~ Gpm 2405-9,t-5638 GPIN: Part of 2405945638 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION / # 1 & 2 Page i ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE. STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: #7- PRINCESS ANNE 6 46 acres (Cond~bonal O-1 Office D~stnct = 2.02 acres and Cond~bonal H-1 Hotel D~stnct = 4 44 acres) Faith Christie To rezone the s~te from AG-1 Agricultural D~stnct to Conditional O-1 Office D~stnct and Condihonal H-1 Hotel D~stnct ~n order to develop a bus~ness class hotel, restaurant and bank on the s~te. Major Issues: · Compatibility with the adjacent Corporate Landing Office Park. · Consistency w~th the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoninq The property ~s wooded, and ~s zoned AG-1 Agncultural D~stnct. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: South: · Dam Neck Road · Across Dam Neck Road ~s undeveloped property / AG-1 Agricultural · Perimeter Parkway · Across Perimeter Parkway ~s the GEICO and the Lockheed Martin office facdities / Conditional I-1 L~ght Industrial District Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION I # 1 & 2 Page 2 East: West: · Vacant parcel/AG-1 Agricultural D~stnct · Office building / Conditional I-1 L~ght Industrial · An undeveloped, wooded parcel/Conditional B-2 Bus~ness D~stnct Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing Zoning: W~th the ex~st~ng AG-1 Agncultural Zoning D~strict, the s~te may be developed w~th any of the pnnc~pal and conditional uses that are permitted such as agricultural, aquaculture and horticultural uses, airports, hehports, borrow p~t, churches, community centers, s~ngle family dwellings, firewood preparation, game preserves, golf courses, hospitals, pubhc and private schools, pubhc parks, public ublity ~nstallations and substations, recreational and amusement facilibes, and riding academies. With Proposed Zoning: W~th the proposed Cond~honal H-1 Hotel Distnct, the only uses permitted on the site will be the hotel, with 127 umts, and the restaurant, as proffered ~n the submitted proffer agreement. With the proposed Conditional 0-1 District, the only use allowed on the site wdl be the bank, as proffered in the submitted proffer agreement Zoning History The site has been zoned for agricultural uses s~nce the City of Virginia Beach and the prewous Pnncess Anne County have had zoning ordinances. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of more than 75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana The Department of the Navy rewewed the development proposal and finds ~t conditionally compatible w~th NAS Oceana a~rfleld operations, subject to appropriate sound reduction measures as outlined ~n Secbon 221.1 of the C~ty Zoning Ordinance. The Department advises the applicant that the s~te I~es under the departure corridor for runways 23 and 5. These runways account for approximately 92 percent of the annual fhght operations at NAS Oceana. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION I # 1 & 2 Page 3 Natural Resource and Physical Charactenstics The s~te is wooded, and ~s w~thin the Southern Watersheds Management Ordinance area. There does not appear to be any environmentally sens~bve features on the s~te Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: A twelve-inch water ma~n exists ~n Perimeter Parkway, on the south s~de of the site, and a twenty-~nch water ma~n exists ~n Dam Neck Road on the north side of the s~te The development must connect to C~ty water A ten-~nch sanitary sewer ma~n exists ~n Perimeter Parkway on the south s~de of the s~te In Dam Neck Road, on the north side of the s~te, exist a twelve-inch sanitary sewer ma~n and a forty-two ~nch force ma~n. The development must connect to City sewer. A pump stabon analys~s and sewer study may be necessary to determine ~f sewer and pump station capacity are avadable to serve the proposed development. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) I Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Dam Neck Road ~n front of th~s s~te ~s a four lane major arterial road. Per~meter Parkway, along the rear of the s~te, ~s a minor arterial road that serves Corporate Landing Industrial Park There are no plans ~n the current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to ~mprove either roadway Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 31,700 ADT ~ Dam Neck Road 36,597 Service Ex~sbng Land Use 2. N / A ADT ~ Level "E" Proposed Land Use 3_ 2,610 Average Dady Trips Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION / # 1 & 2 Page 4 2 Agricultural uses generate very Iow traffic 3 as defined by Hotel - 892, Restaurant - 657, and Bank -1,061 Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work w~th the Crime Prevention Office w~thin the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevenbon Through Enwronmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to th~s s~te A site I~ghting plan w~ll be required dunng detailed site plan rewew Among other I~ghtlng specifics for the site the plan should address the location of the hght poles / fixtures and the tree canopy so that there ~s no conflict between the two. Fire Department issues will be addressed during detaded site and building plans rewew. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map depicts the s~te as suitable for suburban employment, an area planned for a vanety of employment uses including bus~ness parks, offices, appropriately located ~ndustnal and employment support uses. Summary of Proposal Proposal · The applicant proposes to rezone the s~te from the current AG-1 Agricultural D~strict to Conditional H-1 Hotel District and Conditional O-1 Office District and to develop a bus~ness class hotel, accessory restaurant, and a bank that cater to users of the adjacent Corporate Landing Bus~ness Park The exisbng site is 6.46 acres. The proposed Cond~bonal H-1 Hotel District, which wdl accommodate the hotel and restaurant, will encompass 4.44 acres of the s~te The proposed Condibonal H-1 Hotel D~stnct will front on Dam Neck Road The proposed bank will occupy 2.02 acres of the sIte ~n the proposed Conditional O-1 D~stnct, adjacent to Perimeter Parkway. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION I # 1 & 2 Page 5 The s~te is on Dam Neck Road, a httle less than one half mile west of the ~ntersection of Dam Neck Road and Corporate Landing Parkway. To the south of the site are the GEICO office complex and the new Lockheed-Marbn office, ~n the Corporate Landing Business Park To the west of the site ~s an undeveloped wooded parcel, zoned Conditional B-2 Bus~ness District. To the east of the site ex~st an undeveloped parcel, zoned AG-1 Agricultural District, and an office building ~n the Corporate Landing Business Park Site Design · Currently, a 40-foot landscape buffer exists along the Dam Neck Road frontage of the sIte. The conceptual s~te plan proposes retention of many of the existing trees in the landscape buffer area. A 30 foot private regress / egress easement exists across the s~te, east to west, adjacent to the landscape buffer. Th~s easement prowdes access to the s~tes to the east and west. A port~on of the easement will be relocated between the hotel s~te and bank s~te in order to prowde for better traffic c~rculabon for the site to the west. A right turn lane to the site and a curb cut for the site ex~st on Dam Neck Road There ~s also a curb cut to the s~te on Perimeter Parkway. A 30 foot ~ngress / egress easement ~s proposed along the eastern side of the property, from Dam Neck Road south to Perimeter Parkway. The proposed uses will access their areas from the ~ngress / egress easement and not directly from Dam Neck Road or Perimeter Parkway. The first 500 feet of the s~te, south of Dam Neck Road, is to be rezoned Conditional H-1 Hotel District The total area ~s 4 44 acres In th~s area, a business class hotel w~th 105 un~ts and a restaurant are proposed There ~s a 22-unit hotel addition proposed for the future. The proposed hotel and restaurant are positioned 140 feet from the property hne along Dam Neck Road, 120 feet from the eastern property hne, and 80 feet from the western property I~ne. The proposed parking areas are d~spersed around all four s~des of the proposed building. The proposed parking areas are depicted at 60 feet from Dam Neck Road, a m~n~mum of 50 feet from the eastern property hne, and 10 feet from the western property hne. Ex~sbng trees are to be retained setback areas The balance of the site, 2.02 acres, ~s to be zoned Cond~bonal O-1 Office District In th~s area, a 4,000 square foot bank ~s proposed. The proposed budding is positioned 120 feet from Perimeter Parkway, 35 feet from the western property line, and 250 feet from the eastern property hne. The conceptual s~te plan depicts a 75-foot landscape area, retaining the ex~sting trees, adjacent to Perimeter Parkway. A proposed 30-foot cross access easement separates the bank s~te from the hotel s~te When the easement ~s developed for the parcel to the west a landscape area will be maintained on both sides of the access a~sle The parking area is to be located on the east s~de of the building and the teller drive a~sles on the western side of the Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION I # 1 & 2 Page 6 budding. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access , · Currently, a right turn lane, curb cut and s~dewalk ex~st ~n front of the s~te on Dam Neck Road. Additionally, a 30 foot private ~ngress / egress easement ex~st along the entire front of the s~te, running east to west. Th~s easement provides access to the sites to the east and the west A porbon of the easement will be relocated between the hotel site and bank s~te to prowde a smoother traffic flow for the parcel to the west The conceptual s~te plan proposes a 30 foot ~ngress / egress easement along the eastern s~de of the site, runmng south from Dam Neck Road to Perimeter Parkway. The proposed uses - hotel, restaurant and bank - will access their sites from the ~ngress / egress easement A curb cut to the site currently exists on Perimeter Parkway. That curb cut wdl be closed and replaced with another curb cut that will be ~nstalled to ahgn with the proposed north - south ~ngress / egress easement. Architectural Design · The proposed bus~ness-class hotel ~s contemporary ~n design The proposed structure is six stories. The lobby and registration area, meeting rooms, exercise and pool area, and restaurant are located on the first floor, with the hotel rooms located on floors two through six. The entrance ~s emphasized with an attractive Porte- cohere. The roofing for the porte-cochere and pool area ~s a fiberglass skylight system. The budding ~s to be constructed of brick, ~n earth tone colors, w~th pre-cast concrete coping and band accents The bronze t~nted w~ndows will be aluminum trimmed in a medium bronze color The proposed roofing for the restaurant section of the building wdl be standing seam metal ~n a medium bronze color. The applicant did not proffer elevations for the proposed bank s~te, however the proffers do address the external budding materials for the bank as being ~n keeping w~th those suggested ~n the Corporate Landing Design Criteria. Landscape and Open Space · The submitted conceptual s~te plan also ~ncludes the proposed landscaping for the s~tes. A 40-foot landscape buffer exists along the front of the site adjacent to Dam Neck Road. The submitted conceptual s~te plan ~ndicates that the ex~sting trees are to remain in th~s area. The proffers also prowde for a tree protection plan to be submitted for review during the detaded s~te plan rewew of the s~tes The proffers state that conbnuous evergreen and or Iow berm screening shall be provided within the 40-foot landscape buffer along the frontage on Dam Neck Road. This wdl further Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION I # 1 & 2 Page 7 enhance the appearance of the property from Dam Neck Road. A screening hedge ~s proposed along the edge of the parking area adjacent to the landscape easement Th~s w~ll provide add~honal screening of vehicles parked ~n the lot. Along the eastern and western property hnes, the s~te plan depicts ex~bng trees to remain. The proposed north - south ~ngress / egress easement wdl also be screened w~th the ex~st~ng trees and add~bonal landscaping along the western side of the easement. It appears that sufficient landscaping is proposed for the ~nterior landscaping coverage in the parking areas and for the budding foundations. Th~s w~ll be further reviewed during the detaded s~te plan rewew of the s~tes to insure that the proposed landscaping meets the landscaping requirements in the S~te Plan Ordinance and complements the landscape design cntena for Corporate Landing Bus~ness Park. The conceptual s~te plan depicts a 75-foot w~de landscape area adjacent to Penmeter Parkway Again, the plan indicates that the ex~sting trees are to remain Rewew of the detailed tree protection plan will insure that the area ~s protected from proposed construcbon activity. Staff will ask the apphcant to replant the area shown as closed on the conceptual plan (the ex~sbng curb cut on Perimeter Parkway) with trees. Proffers The following proffers are for the proposed Conditional H-1 Hotel D~stnct: PROFFER When the Property ~s developed, it will be substantially ~n accordance w~th the "Conceptual S~te Layout Plan of Dam Neck Hotel, Dam Neck Road, Virginia Beach, VA.", dated 12/31/02 and prepared by MSA, P C, which plan has been exhibited to the V~rg~n~a Beach C~ty Council and is on file w~th the Virginia Beach Planning Department (the "Site Plan") Staff Evaluation: The proffer ~s acceptable. It Insures that the site will be developed In a coordinated manner according to the submitted conceptual site development p/ans. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION / # 1 & 2 Page 8 PROFFER # 2 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 3 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 4 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 5 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 6 When the Hotel ~s constructed, the exterior design, material and colors will substantially adhere to the elevations shown on the exhibit entitled "Comfort Suites Dam Neck" prepared by Sampson & Associates Architects, P C dated 01/31/2003, which have been exhibited to the V~rg~nia Beach C~ty Councd and are on file w~th the V~rg~nia Beach Planning Department (the "Elevations"). The proffer is acceptable The applicant proposes to construct buildings that are complementary in design and materials to the ex~st/ng buildings/n the adjacent Corporate Landing Bus/ness Park When the restaurant ~s constructed, the exterior design, materials and colors w~ll substantially adhere to the Elevations. The proffer is acceptable It insures that the building wdl be constructed in accordance with the submitted elevabons. When the Property ~s developed, the party of the first part shall use Best Management Practices for controlhng stormwater runoff, which are reasonably applicable to the development of the s~te and ~n keeping w~th the recommenc'a~:~ons of t.qe Sou[,~ern Watershed Management Ordinance While the proffer/s acceptable it is not necessary as storm water management ~s a requirement that must be met during the detailed site plan review of the project When the Property ~s developed, the party of the first part shall submit a detaded tree protection plan at the time of s~te plan submittal The proffer is acceptable It ~nsures that the proposed tree retenbon areas depicted on the conceptual site plan will be examined/n detail for tree protection measures dunng the detailed site plan review of the sites. Continuous evergreen and/or Iow berm screening shall be Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION I # '1 & 2 Page 9 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 7 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 8 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 9 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 10 Staff Evaluation: prowded w~th~n the 40 foot Landscape Buffer along the Property's frontage on Dam Neck Road as depicted on the S~te Plan. Berms and landscape screening shall be employed to screen any loading areas Exterior storage w~ll not be permitted. The proffer is acceptable it provides for additional landscaping to attractively screen the site along Dam Neck Road. The proposal of berms and landscape screening of loading areas is in keeping w/th the requirements of the design cdteda ~n the adjacent Corporate Landing Business Park. Stabng exterior storage w/Il not be permitted is unnecessary, as it is not permitted w/thin the H-1 Hotel D/strict, either as a pnnc/pal or conditional use. The use of fencing on the Property, other than for required screenIng of trash or equipment, ~s not permitted The proffer is acceptable. It/s in keeping with the design cdteria for the adjacent Corporate Landing Business Park. LIghting shall adhere to the design criteria currently on file with the C~ty Clerk, for commercial areas w~thin the adjacent Corporate Landing Development. The proffer ls acceptable. It/s in keeping with the design cdteria for the adjacent Corporate Landing Business Park Free-standing s~gnage shall be of a monument style and externally illuminated w~th hghting pos~boned at ground level and designed to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. The proffer/s acceptable. It ~s /n keeping with the design criteria for the adjacent Corporate Landing Business Park. Exterior budding material shall primarily be e~ther glass, stone, stone faced block, pre-cast concrete, brick or stucco. The exterior surfaces shall be ~n an earth tone color w~th any trademark colors hm~ted to accents and s~gnage. The proffer is acceptable. It ~s /n keeping with the design Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION I # 1 & 2 Page 10 PROFFER # 11 Staff Evaluation: City Attorney's Office: cntena for the adjacent Corporate Landing Business Park. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee dunng detailed Site Plan and/or SubdMs~on rewew and administration of apphcable City codes by all cognizant Cty agenc es and depa~en;s to meet ~J" ~pp"cab'e C'ty code requirements Any references here~nabove to the H- 1 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the C~ty of Virginia Beach, V~rg~n~a, ~n force as of the date of approval of th~s Agreement by C~ty Councd, which are by th~s reference ~ncorporated here~n. The proffer/s standard and acceptable. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated the10th day of February, 2003, and found ~t to be legally sufficient and ~n acceptable legal form. The followIng proffers are for the proposed Conditional O-1 Office D~stnct PROFFER # 1 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 2 When the Property is developed, it wdl be substanbally ~n accordance with the "Conceptual Site Layout Plan of Dam Neck Hotel, Dam Neck Road, V~rgin~a Beach, VA.", dated 12/31/02 and prepared by MSA, P C, which plan has been exhibited to the V~rg~n~a Beach City Council and is on file w~th the V~rginia Beach Planning Department (the "Site Plan") The proffer/s acceptable. It insures that the site w/Il be developed in a coordinated manner according to the submitted conceptual site development plans. When the Property ~s developed, the party of the first part shall use Best Management Pracbces for controlling stormwater runoff which are reasonably apphcable to the development of the site and m keeping with the recommendations of the Southern Watershed Management Ordinance. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION / # 1 & 2 Page 11 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 3 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 4 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 5 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 6 Staff Evaluation: While the proffer is acceptable it is not necessary as storm water management/s a requirement that must be met dunng the detailed site plan review of the project. When the Property ~s developed, the party of the first part shall submit a detailed tree protechon plan at the time of s~te plan submittal The proffer is acceptable It insures that the proposed tree retenbon areas depicted on the conceptual site plan w/il be exam/ned/n detail for tree protection measures during the detailed site plan revlew of the sites. Continuous evergreen and/or Iow berm screening shall be provided within the 40 foot Landscape Buffer along the Property's frontage on Dam Neck Road as depicted on the Site Plan. Berms and landscape screening shall be employed to screen any loading areas. Exterior storage will not be permitted The proffer is acceptable. It provides for add/bona/ landscaping to attractively screen the site along Dam Neck Road. The proposal of berms and landscape screening of loading areas/s/n keeping w/th the requirements of the design guidelines/n the adjacent Corporate Landing Business Park Stating extedor storage will not be permitted is unnecessary, as/t is not permitted w/thin the 0-1 Office District, e/ther as a principal or conditional use The use of fencing on the Property, other than for required screening of trash or equipment, ~s not permitted. The proffer is acceptable. It is/n keeping with the design cdteda for the adjacent Corporate Landing Business Park. Lighbng shall adhere to the design criteria currently on file with the City Clerk, for commercial areas within the adjacent Corporate Landing Development. The proffer is acceptable. It/s/n keeping with the design criteda for the adjacent Corporate Landing Business Park. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION I # 1 & 2 Page 12 PROFFER # 7 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 8 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 9 City Attorney's Office: Free-stand,ng slgnage shall be of a monument style and externally ~llum~nated w~th I~ghbng pos~boned at ground level and designed to avoid glare onto adjacent properties The proffer/s acceptable. It/s in keeping w/th the design criteria for the adjacent Corporate Landing Business Park Exterior building matenal shall primarily be e~ther glass, stone, stone faced block, pre-cast concrete, brick or stucco. The extenor surfaces shall be in an earth tone color with any trademark colors I~m~ted to accents and s~gnage. The proffer/s acceptable. The applicant proposes to construct buildings that are complementary in design and rnatenals to the exisbng buildings in the adjacent Corporate Landing Business Park. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed S~te Plan and/or SubdivisIon review and administration of apphcable City codes by all cogmzant C~ty agencies and departments to meet all apphcable City code requirements Any references heremabove to the O- 1 Zoning Distnct and to the requirements and regulations apphcable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdiwsion Ordinance of the C~ty of V~rg~nia Beach, V~rg~n~a, ~n force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by C~ty Council, which are by th~s reference ~ncorporated here~n The City Attorney's Office has rewewed the proffer agreement dated the 10th day of February, 2003, and found it to be legally sufficient and ~n acceptable legal form Evaluation of Request The request to rezone the s~te from AG-1 Agricultural D~strict to Conditional H-1 Hotel D~stnct (4 44 acres) and Conditional O-1 Office District (2.02 acres) to develop a Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION I # 1 & 2 Page 13 bus~ness-class hotel, accessory restaurant, and bank is acceptable. The applicant could have requested a rezon~ng to Conditional I-1 L~ght Industrial ~n th~s case since the Corporate Landing Bus~ness Park ~s zoned I-1. However, staff believes the requested zonings of Cond,t~onal H-1 Hotel and Conditional O-1 Office are more appropriate, as they are more restrictive zoning categories relative to uses and setbacks. The proposed bus~ness-class type hotel, accessory restaurant and bank uses are consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and complementary to the adjacent Corporate Landing Bus~ness Park, prowd~ng support amenities that are not currently available to the users of the business park The applicant has ~ncorporated much of the design cntena set forth for the bus~ness park ~n relation to s~te access, budding design and materials, hghting and landscaping. Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the site from AG-1 Agricultural D~stnct to Conditional H-1 Hotel D~stnct (4.44 acres) and Cond,t~onal O-1 Office District (2.02 acres) to develop a business class hotel, accessory restaurant, and bank. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. , Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION I # 1 & 2 Page 14 )tel [ezoning .roi Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION I # 1 & 2 Page 15 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION I # 1 & 2 Page 16 Planning Commission Agenda March '12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION Ift 1 & 2 Page 17 APPLICATIOY P4GE ' OF ' CONDITIONAL REZONING CITY OH VIRGINI. k BEACH DISCLOSURE STATE.MENT PROPERTY 01,t, \ER DISCLObURE [:'~a ~-c,-e-', o~ ~,z- , a C()RPOR~TION, I _~ ," ct' .c'- -'~ (' ~ ,, '" n :z,~' ' fi:ne v,o:e-: ' o~,,~.-r,s a PARTNERSHIP FIRM, cr :,~er UXI%CORPOR-XTED ORG kNIZ-X~ IOX all mc~cr~ or ~m~ncrs l:n,la [~,1,-~ Chzp~el!, General Lx~xtee Parcna, B,lrb,*r. ?.~,'ior Creech. Geaerai Lz~ ~c P~.ttner orgamza:'oa ~f tqc apphcant zs trot the current ow.er of t~zc proocrtv, complete rite 4pphcant Dt~ cto rur., sectton .oelaw APPLICANT DISCLOSURE :I tae aft. ~c. n ~; c I)a. RTN'ER$tlIP FIRM. t o' ':' 1 ",INCORf}OR~ 1 FI) OR£, \\IZ4 Fit),, -n~,m~grs or p~rtpcrs ,v V': orgat ,:r :o- pc ~, , '"ac,, ' ~' '., e. :~ CERTIFIC ~,TIO\ ! cert,~v that thc tnfiormatton contatrtcd ]tot ctn t.~ true and a~c ut ate Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION I # 1 & 2 Page 18 APPLICATION P.~G£ .-' O? ' CONDITIONAL RE ONING CITY OF VIRGI'qA BEACH DISCLOSURE ST 4~TEMENT kpphcan~'s Name: ';: ....... _ ~ ~ : · ~ L:st 411 Current PROPERTY OW'~ER DISCLOSURE h .ne p-c.=cm o"~, ~r . a CORPOR41'I0\ I ;, ~1 c'~ ::' ' ~'e C',~',c,~ ,,.n belt, J ~ Check ne,'e 'f q'e :to-err; o.,,,n-..- :s NOT a co~a"a mr -artversh r firm orgap lga'4 0 ri tf the app!rcant ts not thc current o}.ttcr of the properO, t ompkte thc .lRphcant Dt$closnre ;pcttolt below APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If tN: apvttcar, r ~s a CORPOR4TION, l,~t all officers cr he Ccr'Twa' or he ,.',~ -t, ,~ ~':~,: :' ,,~,~. ,s~"-' CERTIFICATIO', t certify that the m~rmanon contained hereto ~s true and accurate Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 GLAMOUR CORPORATION I # 1 & 2 Page 19 Item #1 & 2 Glamour Corporation Change of Zoning District Classification South side of Dam Neck Road, 2,530 feet west of Corporate Landing Parkway District 7 Princess Anne March 12, 2003 CONSENT Ronald Ripley: The next order of business ~s our Consent agenda and Dot Wood who is Vice Chairman of the Commission is going to conduct this pomon of the meeting. Dot? Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ron. This afternoon we have rune items on the Consent agenda. As I call the item, would you please step to the podium, either the applicant or his representative, and state your name and if you have read the conditions, and agree with them. If there is anyone who has any ob3ection, please come up when we call your name, and we will certainly drop the ~tem down to its regular place in the agenda. The first ~tem ~s Items #1 & 2, Glamour Corporation. It's an apphcation of Glamour Corporation for a Change of Zoning D~strict Classification from AG-1 Agricultural District to Conditional O-1 Office District on Dam Neck in District 7, Princess Anne District. And there are 11 proffers on that. I will read the second one also s~nce it is the same applicant. Number two is Glamour Corporation. It's an ordinance upon application of Glamour Corporation for a Change of Zoning Classification from AG- 1 Agricultural District to Conditional H-1 Hotel District on the south side of Dam Neck Road near Corporate Landing Parkway. And this ~s D~stnct 7, Princess Anne. There were nine proffers on them and no conditions. Yes sir? Scott Alpenn: Good afternoon. My name is Scott Alperin. I'm an attorney for the law firm Sykes, Bourdon, Ahem and Levy here on behalf of the applicant. We agree with all the proffers presented by staff and we'll standby for any questions. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Alpenn. Is there any objection to Items #1 & 2, Glamour Corporanon? Heanng none. Mr. Strange would you please comment on the first items? Joseph Strange: Well, on Items #1 & 2, this was a change of zoning classification of 6.46 acres, 2.02 of those acres to be zoned O-1 Office District and 4.44 acres to be zoned H-1 Hotel District. The major issue concerning this would be the capab~hty with the adjacent Corporate Landing Office Park, and the consistency with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does depict th~s s~te as suitable for a suburban employment, an area planned for a variety of employment uses. The applicant proposes to rezone the site from the Agricultural D~stnct to a Hotel District and also to the Office District. What they want to do ~s they want to build a hotel there and a restaurant and a bank that caters to the users of the adjacent corporate business park. Item #1 & 2 Glamour Corporation Page 2 They also want to braid a bank that will occupy 2.02 acres of this land right here. There have been a total of eleven proffers for the hotel district and nine proffers for the office dxstrict. This business type hotel/restaurant and bank uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and we feel that it would be complimentary to the adjacent corporate landing business park, providing support amenities that are not currently available to the users of the business park. There is no opposition to this, so we are recommending approval of it. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Strange. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve these items. Item #1, with no conditions and eleven proffers, and number 2, also Glamour Incorporated with nine proffers. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda as read. Do we have a second? Charlie Salle': Second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Charlie Salle'. Motion made by Dot Wood. Any discussion? Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: I need to abstain from Items #1 & 2. My firm is working those projects. Ronald Rlpley: Are there any other abstentions? We're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS Ronald Rlpley: By a vote of 10-0 with the abstention so noted, the motion passes. FORM NO P S I E~ OUR #~'~°~ City of Virginia Beach In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5662 DATE: April 10, 2003 TO: Leslie L. Lilley DEPT: City Attorney FROM: B. Kay Wils DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application Glamour Corporation and The Taylor Group, L.P. The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on April 22, 2003. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated February 10, 2003, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure PREPARED BY &l.[~. PC GLAMOUR CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation THE TAYLOR GROUP, L.P., a Virginia limited partnership TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH THIS AGREEMENT, made this 10t~ day of February, 2003, by and between GLAMOUR CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, Grantor, party of the first part; THE TAYLOR GROUP, L.P., a Virginia limited partnership, Grantor, party of the second part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the third part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 2.02 acres of land and described in Exhibit UA' attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, said property hereinafter referred to as the ~Property'; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part as contract purchaser of the Property has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from AG- 1 to O- 1; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's pohcy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, ce~ain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and GPIN: 2405-94-5638 (Part) PREPARED BY ffiS'Y[£s. I~OUItDON. Att[liN & [BrY. P C WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the B-2 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby 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 rifle: 1. When the Property is developed, it will be substantially in accordance with the ~Conceptual Site Layout Plan of Dam Neck Hotel, Dam Neck Road, Virginia Beach, VA.', dated 12/31/02 and prepared by MSA, P.C., which plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department (the "Site Plan"). 2. When the Property is developed, the party of the first part shall use Best Management Practices for controlling stormwater runoff which are reasonably applicable to the development of the site and in keeping with the recommendations of the Southern Watershed Management Ordinance. 3. When the Property is developed, the party of the first part shall submit a detailed tree protection plan at the time of site plan submittal. 4. Continuous evergreen and/or low berm screening shall be provided within the 40 foot Landscape Buffer along the Property's frontage on Dam Neck Road PREPARED BY IgYi~. i~OUP~ON. AIII~N & LEVY. P C as depicted on the Site Plan. Berms and landscape screening shall be employed to screen any loading areas. Exterior storage will not be permitted. 5. The use of fencing on the Property, other than for required screening of trash or equipment, is not permitted. 6. Lighting shall adhere to the design criteria currently on file with the City Clerk, for commercial areas within the adjacent Corporate Landing Development. 7. Free-standing signage shall be of a monument style and externally illuminated with lighting positioned at ground level and designed to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. 8. Exterior building material shall primarfly be either glass, stone, stone faced block, pre-cast concrete, brick or stucco. The exterior surfaces shall be in an earth tone color with any trademark colors limited to accents and signage. 9. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the O-1 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing PREPARED BY BS'~xs. t~Ot~J~N. AltON & krVy. PC as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the Grantor and the Grantee. PREPARED BY ~s. ~OUm~N. Att~N & I.[VY. P.C WITNESS the following signatures and sees: GRANTOR: GLAMOUR CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation By: Ha_r~had K. B~_~)t, Vice President STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 21st day of February, 2003, by Harshad K. Barot, Vice President of Glamour Corporation, a Virginia corporation. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 PREPARED BY I~o~lq. WITNESS the following signatures and sees: GRANTOR: THE TAYLOR GROUP, L.P., a Virginia limited partnership Lir]da Taylor C~ppe$ General r~mer STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~/~ay of February, 2003, by Linda Taylor Chappell, General Partner of The Taylor Group, L.P., a Virgiuia limited partnership. My Commission Expires: ~ ~-~0~ ZO~ GRANTOR: LTC MANAGEMENT, INC., a General Partner Li~d-a T~yl~r C~a~pell, Pre~nt I STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~'~~ay of February, 2003, by Linda Taylor Chappell, President of LTC Management, Inc., a General Partner. Nota~ Public My Commission Expires: PREPARED BY & JEw'. PC. WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: THE TAYLOR GROUP, L.P., a Virginia limited partnership Barbara Taylor C~ech, General Partner STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~~ay of February, 2003, by Barbara Taylor Creech, General Partner of The Taylor Group, L.P., a Virginia limited partnership. N~ Public My Commission Expires: 7 PREPARED BY /SYi~$. tlOUPi)ON. , Atl I~N & LEVY. P C EXHIBIT ~A'* ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing 2.02 acres and being the southern portion of that parcel of land being known, numbered and designated as Parcel B, as shown on that certain plat entitled, 'SUBDIVISION PLAT OF A PORTION OF THE TAYLOR FARMS - Princess Anne Borough - Virginia Beach, Virginia~, made by Horton & Dodd, P.C., Surveyors, Engineers, Planners, which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 257, at Pages 4 and 5. GPIN: 2405-94-5638 (Part) CONDREZONE/GLAMOUR/PROFFER 1.2 a REV 2/21/03 M=p I,-7 Frederick E. Lee H [-1 03~ Gpin 2417-43-4300-0006 ZONING HISTORY 1. Change of Zomng (R-10 Residential to I-1 LIght Industrial District) Approved 2-27/89 2. Change of Zoning (R-10 Residential D~stnct to conditional I-1 Light Industrial D~strict)- Granted 2-10-98 3. Conditional Use Permit (auto repair & bulk storage expansion) Approved 2-25-03 Conditional Use Permit (auto repair garage & bulk storage) -Granted 9- 28-93 Conditional Use Permit (auto repair)- Granted 8-14-89 4. Change of Zoning (R-5 Residential Distnct to I-1 Light Industrial D~stnct ) - Withdrawn 5-5-86 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Frederick E. Lee, II- Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Applicabon of Frederick E. Lee, II for a Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage on property located at 1153 Jensen Drive (GPIN 24174343000006) Said parcel contains 9,680 square feet. DISTRICT 6- BEACH The applicant recently received a Notice of Violation for failure to have an approved condibonal use permit for bulk storage of portable toilets on the subject property. The applicant w~shes to continue this practice and is now requesting the conditional use permit. Considerations: The property ~s surrounded by office warehouse, manufacturing, auto repair, and bulk storage land uses All of the surrounding zoning ~s I-1 L~ght Industnal Distnct. The storage yard currently exists all around the building, but is not permitted within the 30-foot front yard setback. The storage yard is currently partially enclosed by a six-foot wood fence. The fence must be altered slightly to enclose the area completely and to move the bulk storage area out of the required front yard setback. A row of Category I landscaping is recommended in the conditions below only on the western s~de of the property adjacent to the fence There is an ex~st~ng four to five foot grassed area between the fence and the property hne ~n whIch the landscaping can be installed The remainder of the fence abuts other fenced properties, and landscaping ~s not necessary ~n these areas. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because ~t is compatible with the surrounding uses Staff recommended approval There was no opposition to the request Frederick Lee Page 2 of 2 · Recommendations: The Planning CommIssion passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve th~s request with the following condItions. I The bulk storage yard shall not be located w~th~n the required front yard setback. The entire bulk storage area shall be enclosed by a minimum six-foot sohd fence w~th a gate. Category I landscaping shall be ~nstalled and maintained outside of the fence on the western s~de 3 The ex~sbng semi-trailer container located on the s~te shall be removed from the property All outdoor lights shall be shielded to d~rect hght and glare onto the premises, shall be deflected, shaded, and focused away from all adjoining property, and shall not be any h~gher than 14 feet The apphcant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Permits and Inspections Division of the Planning Department Requirements of the Fire Marshall shall be ascertained through th~s permitting process. · Attachments: Staff Rewew D~sclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval ~~[~ Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City Manager: '~/Y~ 1~-' FREDERICK E. LEE, II/# 5 March 12, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION L07 - 212 - CUP - 2002 NUMBER: REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage. ADDRESS: 1153 Jensen Drive Map /.,-7 Mop No'; 't,o Sc,role Frederick E. Lee, II Gpin 2417-43-4300-0006 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: 24174343000006 6 - BEACH SITE SIZE: 9,680 square feet Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 FREDERICK E. LEE, II / # 5 Page I STAFF PLANNER: Ashby Moss PURPOSE: The applicant recently received a Nobce of Violation for failure to have an approved conditional use permit for bulk storage to store portable toilets on the subject property. The applicant wishes to continue this practice and ~s now requesting the conditional use permit. Major Issues: Degree to which the proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses and existing zoning. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existin,q Land Use and Zoning The property is already in use for bulk storage of portable toilets. The entire industrial park is zoned I-1 L~ght Industrial District. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning The property is surrounded by office warehouse, manufacturing, auto repair, and bulk storage land uses. All of the surrounding zoning is I-1 Light Industrial D~stnct. Zoning History The property immediately west of the subject site was recently the subject of a Conditional Use Permit request to expand the existing auto repair and storage business. This request was approved by C~ty Council February 25, 2003. The original Condihonal Use Permit was granted for the existing bus~ness in 1989 for auto repair. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone ,(AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of greater than 75dB Ldn and within Accident Potential Zone 1 surrounding NAS Oceana. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 FREDERICK E. LEE, II / # 5 Page 2 Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics This site is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Portions of the industnal park are within the Resource Protection Area, the more stringently regulated portion of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. There are no significant environmental features on the s~te. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer The existing business is already connected to City water and sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP): Jensen Drive is a private roadway within the industrial condominium. Birdneck Road ;s a suburban arterial roadway and there is a project in the current adopted CIP to widen this facility to a four (4) lane diwded roadway. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity No ~ncrease ~n tnp generat,on B~rdneck Road 14,170 ADT 1 15,000 ADT ~ anhc~pated w~th proposed use. Average Dady Tnps Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Fire and Rescue: · Fire lanes may be required after occupancy. · Security for ingress and egress must be approved by the Fire Marshal so that Fire Department access is not obstructed. · Storage of any hazardous, flammable or combustible materials on site must be within the scope of the Virginia Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 FREDERICK E. LEE, II / # 5 Page 3 Statewide Fire Prevention Code and NFPA. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained from the Building Official. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as planned for uses including business parks, offices, and appropriately located industnal and employment support uses. Summary of Proposal Proposal The applicant recently received a Notice of Violation for failure to have an approved Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage to store portable toilets on the subject property. The applicant wishes to continue this practice and has now applied for the Conditional Use Permit. Site Design · The submitted site plan depicts the existing two-story block and metal building, which was originally intended for a boat building shop. The storage yard currently exists all around the building, but is not permitted within the 30-foot front yard setback. The storage yard is currently parbally enclosed by a six-foot wood fence. The fence must be altered slightly to enclose the area completely and to move the bulk storage area out of the required front yard setback. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access There is one ingress/egress point at the front of the property on Jensen Drive. The bulk storage area will be enclosed w~th a fence and gate to allow vehicles to enter the area. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 FREDERICK E. LEE, II / # 5 Page 4 Landscape and Open Space Design A landscape bed already exists at the front of the property along the street frontage. A row of Category I landscaping ~s recommended in the conditions below only on the western s~de of the property adjacent to the fence. There is an ex~sbng four to five foot grassed area between the fence and the property line in which the landscaping can be installed. The remainder of the fence abuts other fenced properties, and landscaping is not necessary in these areas. Evaluation of Request This request is acceptable and is recommended for approval subject to the conditions listed below. The proposed bulk storage use is compatible w~th the existing industrial/commerce park. The required fence, which is almost completely in place, will provide adequate screening for the outside storage. Addihonal landscaping on the western s~de will soften the fence's appearance on its only visible side. Conditions 1. The bulk storage yard shall not be located within the required front yard setback. 2. The entire bulk storage area shall be enclosed by a minimum six-foot solid fence with a gate. Category I landscaping shall be installed and maintained outside of the fence on the westem side. 3. The existing cargo container located on the site shall be removed from the property. , All outdoor hghts shall be shielded to direct light and glare onto the premises, shall be deflected, shaded, and focused away from all adjoining property, and shall not be any higher than 14 feet. 5. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Permits and Inspections Division of the Planning Department. Requirements of the F~re Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 FREDERICK E. LEE, II ! # 5 Page 5 Marshall shall be ascertained through this permithng process. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 FREDERICK E. LEE, II ! # 5 Page 6 FOUR ¢L121,0 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 FREDERICK E. LEE, II ! # 5 Page 7 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 FREDERICK E. LEE, II / # 5 Page 8 Applicant's Name. List All Current Property Owners: APPUCANT DISCLOSURE If the apphcant is a CORPORATION, hst all officers of the Corporation below. (Attach list ~f necessary) if the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners ~n the organization below: (Attach l~st if necessary) r"l Check here rf the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other un incorporated organization If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Property Owner Disclosure section below: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a~ORPOR~TION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) '¥~,j~.~.,/ i ~ /~ " L~'~ ~ , 'h If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) I-I Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated orgamzatlon. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Signatu~ Print Name Conditional Use Permit Apphcation Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 FREDERICK E. LEE, II ! # 5 Page 9 Item #5 Frederick E. Lee, II Conditional Use Permit 1153 Jensen Drive District 6 Beach March 12, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: Item #5 ~s an application of Frederick Lee. It's an ordinance upon application of Frederick Lee for a Conditional Use Pemut for bulk storage on property located on Jensen Dnve. This is in the Beach District and there are five conditions. Mr Lee? Frederick Lee: Yes ma'am. Hello. My name is Fred Lee. Dorothy Wood: Have you read the conditions sir and agree with them? Frederick Lee: Yes I have. Dorothy Wood: Do you agree with them? Frederick Lee: Yes I do. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Lee. Is there anyone who objects to Item #5, Frederick Lee? Thank you. Mr. Strange would you please comment on this item Joseph Strange: Number 5 is a Conditional Use Permit for a bulk-storage. What happened here is the applicant received a Notice of V~olation for failure to have an approved Conditional Use Permit for a bulk storage. They dec~ded that they wanted to continue this practice and now have requested a Conditional Use Perrmt. So the major issue here is to agree in whxch the proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses and existing zoning. The Comprehensive Plan does recogmze this area for planned uses ~ncluding business park offices and appropriately located industrial and employment support uses. The proposed bulk storage is compatible with the existing industrial park and required fence, which is almost completed in place that will provide adequate cleaning to the outside storage. Additional landscape on the western side will soften the fence's appearance on its own visible side there. There are five conditions attached and there is no opposition. Dorothy Wood' Thank you Mr. Strange. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this consent item. Number 5 is Frederick Lee with five conditions. Ronald Pdpley: We have a motion to approve this consent agenda as read. Do we have a second? Item #5 Frederick E. Lee, II Page 2 Charlie Salle': Second. Ronald R~pley: Seconded by Charhe Salle' Motion made by Dot Wood. Any dlscuss~on? We're ready to vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY A YE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. Rehoboth Church ZONING HISTORY . 11. 12. 1. Change of Zoning (R-10 Residential District to I-1 L~ght Industrial D~str~ct) - Granted 2-10-98 2. Conditional Use Permit (auto repair & bulk storage yard)- Granted 9-28- 93 3. Condibonal Use PermIt (church addition)- Granted 12-10-91 4. Conditional Use Permit (auto repaIr)- Granted 8-14-89 5. Change of Zoning (R-10 Res~denhal Distnct to I-1 Light Industrial D~stnct) - Granted 2-27-89 6. Conditional Use Permit (golf range) -Granted 2-9-87 7. Change of Zoning (R-5 Residential D~stnct to A-1 Apartment Distr~ct) - Granted 1-27-86 8. Change of Zoning (R-6 Residential D,str~ct to R-8 Res~denbal Distr~ct) - Den~ed 1-9-84 Street Closure - Granted 10-10-83 Change of Zoning (R-5 Residential Distr~ct to A-1 Apartment D~strict) - Granted 7-6-81 Conditional Use Permit (church)- Granted 8-13-73 Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 9-9-68 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Rehoboth Baptist Church -Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Apphcation of Rehoboth Bapt,st Church for a Conditional Use Permit for church expansion at 176-182 South Birdneck Road (GPIN 2417520768). Parcel contains 2.4 acres. DISTRICT 6- BEACH The purpose of this request is to add a multipurpose room, k~tchen and covered drop-off to the ex~sting church, install stormwater management facilities and create 49 additional parking spaces. Considerations: There ~s an ex~sting one-story church on the s~te that ~s currently zoned R-7.5 P, es~dent~al District. The original Conditional Use Permit for the church on this site was granted by C~ty Council on September 9, 1968. The s~te plan depicts the existing 240-seat sanctuary w~th 47 parking spaces. The proposed multi-purpose room w~th k~tchen (totaling approximately 20,000 square feet) is shown attached to the rear of the existing building, to the east. The proposed 49 addItional parking spaces are beyond the proposed addition and provide a new point of access to Erie Street, a 50 foot City right-of-way. Staff recommended approval. There was opposition to the proposal. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a mot,on by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve th~s request, subject to the following conditions' 1. Category I landscapIng shall be ~nstalled and maintained along the northwest and southeast facades of the building 2. Evergreen foundation landscaping shall be installed and maintained as depicted on the Concept Plan entitled "Proposed Expansion of Rehoboth Baptist Church, V~rgin~a Beach, V~rg~nia," prepared by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Dated December 10, 2002. Rehoboth Baptist Church Page 2 of 2 . Dunng final s~te plan review, a L~ghting Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Center for rewew and approval prior to the ~ssuance of a budding permit 4 All proposed and ex~sting parking areas shall be paved as indicated on the submitted Concept Plan ~dentifled above. . All proposed and ex~sting parking areas shall have a m~nimum ten (10) foot w~de buffer between the pavement and the property line and shall be planted so that a conbnuous evergreen hedge wIll form w~th~n two (2) years Sa~d plant mater~al must be a m~n~mum of 24 ~nches ~n height at the t~me of plantings. Trees shall be included w~th~n th~s buffer along portions of the ex~sting rights-of-way as required by the City of V~rgm~a Beach Parking Lot and Foundation Landscape Ordinance Ex~st~ng trees to remain may be counted towards applicable requirements consistent w~th the C~ty of V~rg~nia Beach Parking Lot and Foundation Landscape Ordinance All plant material shall be maintained in good and healthy cond~bon. Attachments: Staff Review D~sclosure Statement Planning Commission M~nutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval . ! Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~~(~ City Manager;~ ~'--, ~0'¢~ REHOBOTH BAPTIST CHUCH / # 9 March 12, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: L07-212-CUP-2002 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a church expansion. ADDRESS: 176-182 South Birdneck Road M~ L-7 Rehoboth Ba Church Glnn 1488.-80-5t179 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: 24175207680000 6 - BEACH Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 REHOBOTH BAPTIST CHUCH ! # 9 Page I SITE SIZE: 2.4 acres STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Carolyn A.K. Smith To add a multipurpose room, kitchen and covered drop-off to the existing church, ~nstall stormwater management facilities and create 49 additional parking spaces. Major Issues: · Degree to which the proposal is compatible with the existing church design and with the surrounding residential land uses. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning There is an existing one-story church on the site that is currently zoned R- 7.5 Residential Distnct. Surroundinq Land Use and ZoninQ _ North: South' East: West: · S~ngle-family dwellings / R-7.5 Residenbal District · S~ngle-family dwellings / R-7.5 Residenhal District · Erie Avenue · Single-family dwellings / R-7.5 Residenbal Distnct · South Birdneck Road · church / R-10 Residential District Planning Commission Agenda ~.'~_L~-~'.'.~[~. March 12, 2003 REHOBOTH BAPTIST CHUCH / # 9 ...... Page 2 Zoning History The original Condibonal Use Permit for the church on this site was granted by C~ty Council on September 9, 1968. The one (1) condition attached to this approval required a dedication along South Birdneck Road. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The s~te is ~n an AICUZ of greater than 75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is an eight (8) inch, a twelve (12) inch and a thirty (30) inch water main ~n South Birdneck Road fronting the property. Them is a six (6) inch water main in Erie Avenue approximately 75 feet west of the property hne. This site has an ex~st~ng water meter that may continue to be utilized. There is an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer main in South Birdneck Road. This site is currently connected to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP): Birdneck Road in the vicinity of this application is a m~nor two lane suburban arterial roadway. There is a project in the current CIP to widen this road to a four (4) lane divided facdity. Construction is currently scheduled for July 2004. Any right-of-way frontage improvements on Birdneck Road must be coordinated with the Department of Public Works. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Ex~st~ng Land Use z- 76 ADT weekday 305 ADT Sunday B~rdneck Road 14,170 ADT ~ 15,000 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3_ 269 ADT weekday 1,070 ADT Sunday Average Da~ly Tnps as defined by ex~sbng 8,000 square foot church on Sunday Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 REHOBOTH BAPTIST CHUCH / # 9 Page 3 3 as defined by a 22,000 square foot church and mulb-purpose add~bon; however, as the number of seats m the sanctuary does not change, th~s degree of increase m traffic ~s not hkely Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for cnme prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to th~s site. Adequate - no further comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as planned for suburban residential development at medium to high densities at or above 3.5 units to the acre. Summary of Proposal Proposal To add a multi-purpose room, kitchen and covered drop-off to the existing 240-seat church, install stormwater management facilities and create 49 additional parking spaces. Site Desiqn The site plan depicts the existing 240-seat sanctuary with 47 parking spaces. The proposed multi-purpose room with kitchen (totahng approximately 20,000 square feet) is shown attached to the rear of the exIsting building, to the east. The proposed 49 addibonal parking spaces are beyond the proposed addibon and provide a new point of access to Erie Street, a 50 foot City right-of-way. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 REHOBOTH BAPTIST CHUCH I # 9 Page 4 · Two (2) stormwater management facilities are proposed: one (1) adjacent to Birdneck Road and one (1) within the proposed parking area. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · There is an existing sidewalk ~n front of the church. An additional sidewalk is proposed along the eastern fa(~ade of the addition. A new point of access is proposed through the proposed additional parking to Erie Street, a 50 foot City right-of-way. Existing access to the site is via two (2) ingress/egress points off of Birdneck Road, one (1) of which is recommended for closure by the Department of Public Works, as it is close to an existing intersection. The applicant has agreed, and this requirement is reflected on the site plan. Architectural Design The applicant's representative has indicated that the proposed addition will be a tan metal, prefabricated structure with a reflective white metal roof. The structure will be approximately 103 feet by 200 feet. A covered entry feature (covered passenger drop-off) is proposed on the northern side of the addition. This feature is depicted as 24 feet by 27 feet. A rendering of this feature was not submitted. Two (2) double-door entries and two (2) windows are depicted on the sketch facing Erie Street. The rendering showing the north side of the building depicts five (5) windows and one (1) door. The southern fa(;ade is depicted with two (2) double-door entnes and four (4) windows. Landscape and Open Space DesiQn Shrubs are depicted around the proposed stormwater management facilities, along the building's foundation, which is currently devoid of any plants. Some trees are shown within the parking areas. A more detailed review of landscape requirements will be performed dunng site plan review. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 REHOBOTH BAPTIST CHUCH ! # 9 Page 5 Additional landscaping (Category I) is recommended along the northwestern and southeastem facades of the building to aid in upgrading the aesthetics of the building. A condition is also recommended for the installation of evergreen shrubs along the edges of the parking lots in an effort to screen parked cars and the expansive asphalt from the adjoining residential neighborhood. Evaluation of Request The proposed church development is acceptable subject to the recommended conditions below that are designed to ensure compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhoods and improve aesthetics of the proposed metal building. Without the implementation of these conditions, the use of a prefabncated, large metal building would not be recommended for approval due to the general unattract~veness of such a structure and incompatibility aesthetically with the residential properties adjacent to this site. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that development proposals in thIs area strive to ~mprove the overall quality of life through enhanced site and building design, adequate landscaping and screemng, safe ingress/egress for vehicles and pedestrians, and adequate parking. The recommended conditions are a means to achieving this end. Staff, therefore, recommends approval with the conditions listed below. Conditions 1. Category I shall be installed and maintained along the northwest and southeast facades of the building. 2. Evergreen foundation landscaping shall be installed and maintained as depicted on the Concept Plan entitled "Proposed Expansion of Rehoboth Baptist Church, Virginia Beach, V~rgin~a," prepared by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Dated December 10, 2002. 3. Dunng final s~te plan review, a Lighbng Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Center for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. All proposed and existing parking areas shall be paved as indicated on the submitted Concept Plan identified above. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 REHOBOTH BAPTIST CHUCH ! # 9 Page 6 5. All proposed and ex~sting parking areas shall have a m~nimum ten (10) foot wide buffer between the pavement and the property line and shall be planted so that a continuous evergreen hedge will form within two (2) years. Said plant matenal must be a m~n~mum of 24 inches ~n height at the time of planhngs. Trees shall be included within this buffer along portions of the existing rights-of-way as required by the C,ty of Virginia Beach Parking Lot and Foundation Landscape Ordinance. Existing trees to remain may be counted towards applicable requirements consistent with the City of Virginia Beach Parking Lot and Foundation Landscape Ordinance. All plant material shall be maintained ~n good and healthy condition. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 REHOBOTH BAPTIST CHUCH / if 9 Page 7 Building Material Examples Planning Commission Agenda '~ March 12, 2003 ~ REHOBOTH BAPTIST CHUCH / # 9 'o ........ Page 8 Erie St Elevation Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 REHOBOTH BAPTIST CHUCH ! # 9 Page 9 South Elevation North Elevation Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 REHOBOTH BAPTIST CHUCH ! # 9 Page 10 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 REHOBOTH BAPTIST CHUCH / # 9 Page 11 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 REHOBOTH BAPTIST CHUCH / # 9 Page 12 APPLICATIO PAGE 4 OF 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Applicnnt's Name: List Ail Current Property Owners: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT R~hob~th Baptist Church , Rehobeth Baptlst Church PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner ts a CORPORATION, hst all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach lzst :f necessary) lf~e propedyowner~ aPARTNERSHIP, FIRM, orotherUNINCORPORATEDORGANIZATION, hst all membc~ orpartnersmlheorganizationbelow: (A~achl~t~necessary) Trustees' Hallowood Wright, Gloria Ridges, Paula Kelly, Frank Owens, Ray Huff, Thomas Holton, Carl Ho~e l~ Check here if the property owner ~s NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorpomled organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosttr~ section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicm~t is a CORPORATION, list all officers of thc Coq~rat~on below (Attach Ii. vt ~fnecex~ry) · If the applicant ss a PARTNERStlIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION. li~ all members or partners in thc organization below: (Attach list il'necessary) I~J Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unmcorpormed orgamzntion CERTIFICATION: I certify that the informat~n. ~ontained herein is trueland acc~rate. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 REHOBOTH BAPTIST CHUCH / # 9 Page 13 Item #9 Rehoboth Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit 176-182 South Blrdneck Road District 6 Beach March 12, 2003 REGULAR Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller, would you please call the next item. Robert Miller: The next item ~s Item g9, Rehoboth Baptist Church. Bruce Gallup: Good afternoon. My name is Bruce Gallup. I'm a local engineer. I represent Rehoboth Baptist Church on this Use Permit application. As you know from the write up, this is a 2.4-acre site on South Birdneck Road. The church has been in existence s~nce 1968. They plan to add on a 20,000 square foot addition to the rear of the brick church for a multi-purpose room, a kitchen. They also plan to add a covered drop off area for the church members to use. The church currently does not have a paved parking lot. With this Use Perrmt application for the building addition, we are proposing to add 94 paved spaces along with landscaping entrees. Based on the seating capacity of the church, only 48 spaces are required but we are going to use all the property we can for parking. Staff's write up recommended approval. I've read the conditions and we are in agreement with the conditions. I'll be glad to answer any questions or address any concerns that you may have. Ronald Ripley: Any questions of Mr. Gallup? Mr. Gallup, thank you very much. Robert Miller: Mr. Jesse A. Britt. Jesse Britt: Ladies and gentlemen, Councilmen. My name is Jesse A. Britt. My property is on 126 Butts Lane and ~t extends over to Erie Street. At the present time, we had lots of problem now w~th traffic from the church. The church to the left of us on Butts Lane. There's a church on the back on Erie and if they add an extension to the church, the traffic will come around through our property on Erie Street. Ronald Ripley: Could you Mr. Britt, would you mind taking the pointer and try to orient us. Just pick ~t up. Jesse Britt: Pick it up? Ronald R~pley: Yes sir. Can you try and identify where your area that you're speaking of please? Jesse Britt: That's the property right here. Item//9 Rehoboth Baptist Church Page 2 Ronald R~pley: Yes sir. Robert Miller: That's the church. Jesse Britt: That's my property right there. My house ~s right there. My property extends over from Butts Lane to Erie. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you. Jesse Britt: If they put an addition on to that building that means there's going to be traffic coming out through Erie and it will be more of a problem because it is already a problem now from traffic from two churches. That would be more of a problem. That's all that I have to say. Ronald Ripley: Have you seen the site? Can we put the site plan up there? Jesse Britt: Yes sir. I have Ronald Ripley: I want to point out something. I had the same concern you had when I saw this. I was concerned about the traffic being pulled around through the neighborhood. Jesse Britt: The traffic will come off of Birdneck Road around through Erie. Ronald Ripley: At first, that was my concern because I didn't see any way to get back there where that building went all the way across the property. But, it looks like they're removing part of the bmlding and now you'll be able to drive back there from Birdneck. Can you see that on the right on the top part of that site plan? They're actually gmng to take off part of the building so they'll have a drive aisle around to the back. I was very much concerned with exactly what your concern was or ~s until I saw that. Jesse Britt: Okay. If they're going to put all that parking in the back there, a lot of that traffic is still conung around through Erie. Ronald Ripley: It's possible that some will go that way but probably a good part of it will take the shortest distance to get back out and they're going to come right out the front. That would be my guess. But, you're right. You will probably experience some more traffic in your neighborhood. Jesse Britt: We had a lot of problem with that right now. Ronald Ripley: They're using it now as parking are they not? Jesse Britt No. They're shifting it in the back. That's New Jerusalem. But that's the Item #9 Rehoboth Baptist Church Page 3 Lord' s church and Sundays, Lord's functions. They have all kinds of problems there. R~ght now. Ronald R~pley: Are they parking on that field right now? Jesse Britt: Oh, yes sir. Ronald Ripley: So, they come around through the neighborhood now and park back them? Jesse Britt: Definitely sir. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Jesse Britt: All you have to do is send somebody out there and you'll see ~t. Any big day they have big functions down there. Ronald Rlpley: The point I think you're making is or the point I want to make is that it looks like to me is that the site plan may have been solved by allowing the access from Birdneck Road down to and I guess ~t's the south side of the property line to the proposed parking lot. Jesse Britt: Some of it s~r. Ronald Ripley: Yes s~r. Jesse Britt: Not a whole lot of ~t because some of it still comes around through Erie and you have a b~g problem there now. There is going to be more. Ronald R~pley: Any other questions? Yes, Jan. Jamce Anderson: Mr. Britt, you have the traffic now with problems with the two churches. The only way to get through those other two churches are through the neighborhood, ~s that correct? Jesse Britt: Yes ma'am. Janice Anderson: Okay. And, this proposal it will still have their main access would be off Bxrdneck. There wouldn't be a change. And, as Mr. Ripley stated, they could park ~n the back of that by entenng through Birdneck. They wouldn't have to go around to park m the back hke they have to now. You stated that they were parking in the grass behind the church? Jesse Britt: Oh, yes ma'am. Item g9 Rehoboth Baptist Church Page 4 Jamce Anderson: Well, the way the church ~s s~tuated now the only way they can get to the back of that area ~s to go through the neighborhood. But, w~th th~s new plan they can access from B~rdneck Road and get to the back lot without going through the neighborhood. I think it would reheve traffic even better because I don't believe those people that want to visit this church want to fight w~th the traffic of the other two churches by going through the neighborhood. Jesse Britt: Yes ma'am. You have to come out there one weekend to see. Janice Anderson: Okay. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Any other questions? Yes s~r, thank you very much. Robert Miller: Mr. Gallup. Brace Gallup: I'll be real brief. Thank you Mrs. Anderson for malctng my rebuttal for me. You will have a connection from South B~rdneck Road where the church can access the back of their property without coimng through the neighborhood. I am familiar with the other church New Jerusalem and they have a very hmited amount of paved parking. Parking ~s more of a problem for New Jerusalem then it is for Rehoboth but, I think this plan will more than compensate for the parking that Rehoboth needs and it may be in a few extra spaces for other folks to use out there. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Are there any other questions of Mr. Gallup? Thank you very much. Open it up for discussion? Robert Miller: Am I the only one speaking today? Ronald Ripley: It sounds hke it. Robert Miller: You all pretty well know that I'm almost always ~n favor of churches and I think th~s is a great addition to the church that will serve the community and serve the church population very well. It seems hke ~t's wonderful to see churches doing family life type centers and centers will they will be able to do activities in the church that will not put an additional burden on the community perhaps but w~ll actually be an asset. I think Mr. Bitt's point is to some extent relieve, like Jan said and I have spoken before also that it's reheved by the fact that there ~s a road through there. Ron mentioned it to from Blrdneck Road but certmnly when we were back on the van trip even, that's not a very wide street and I think New Jerusalem we passed that was under construction. There were some additional buildings going which would take up more parking space. So, I can see Mr. Britt's point. I th~nk he has very valid point. I'm glad that so many people want to go to church on Sunday but I do think we need to consider the entire neighborhood and make sure that we have enough parking for those folks that are coming to church so it doesn't interfere w~th the quality of life for the others that have those folks park ~n their areas. I'm in favor of this and I'm going to support it. I just feel like there ~s Item g9 Rehoboth Baptist Church Page 5 perhaps something that needs to be looked at with regard to parking in there. Maybe the other churches need to provide additional facilities. I almost hesitant to say it but it has nothing to do with this application but it does feel like it perhaps there is something in the area, that neighborhood. There are a lot of churches I think there was three that we saw on the van trip. There were two at the end of Erie Street and this one at this end. So, I'm going to be in favor of lt. I'm going to recommend approval of lt. But, I do think we need to be watching and seeing if we can help in that neighborhood with the parking with regard to the other churches. I sincerely hope Mr. Britt that this arrangement will help bnng people for this particular church, Rehoboth Church through from Blrdneck Road and in and out directly out of Birdneck Road. I sincerely believe that will happen. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Crabtree? Eugene Crabtree: Yes, I just got one question. Is it absolutely necessary to have an entrance center of that parking lot off of Erie Street or can that blocked off and that would leave all of the entrance to the church parktng lot off of Birdneck? If it's not necessary to have an entrance to that parlang lot off the cul-de-sac or turnaround back there. That would totally eliminate the traffic. Ronald Ripley: Well, it does front on the street. Eugene Crabtree: Just asked the question? Ronald Ripley: Well, I think from a safety point of view Gene, you rmght if you had a fire truck can't get around there, I think you would probably want to have that access. Are there any other comments? Donald Horsley: I was thinking the same thing about that but you than ehrmnate the access of the people in the community. It forces them to have to go out on busy Blrdneck Road to get into the property, so I would think that would not be very advised to do that. Ronald Rlpley: That's a good point. Yeah. Donald Horsley: I'm like Mr. Miller. I'm going to support the application. Ronald Ripley: Yes, Ms. Anderson. Janlce Anderson: I'm going to support this application also. I think it's going to be a race improvement to this site besides the addition of an all purpose facility that's going to be available to the neighborhood. As Mr. Gallup stated, they would actually pave the front parking lot, which is just now gravel now. And, actually in the back of it is all grass, which ~s no actual access. When we looked at it, they must be parking in the grass back there by jumping over the curb so I think by having a set parking space with the sharpening landscaping as the plan calls for, it will be great improvement to that site. Item g9 Rehoboth Baptist Church Page 6 And, I do believe, and as everybody said that the access will mmnly come from B~rdneck. I think the flow will be much better. Ronald Ripley' Is that a motion to approve? Janlce Anderson: Yes. Ronald R~pley. Okay. We got a motion to approve by Jan Anderson, seconded by Don Horsley. Is there any there any other d~scussion? Heanng none, call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, th~s motion passes. -38- Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye. Jokn A. Baun, F. Reid Ervin, Vice Mayor Harold Heischober, Barb~ra M. Henley, Clarence A. Holland, W. H. Fitch/n, III, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor J. Henzy McCoy, Jr., Donald W. Merrick, and Meyera E. Oberndorf Council Members Voting Nay: None Counc il Member s Ab sent Pa=ick L. Standimg -37- ORDIbI~CE IPON APPLICATION OF HiMERT L. DAIL fir A COND~ USE PERMIT FCR A PRIVATE CLUB R0281367 Ordinance tpon application of Hubert L. Dail for a C~mditional Use Permit for a private club om certain property located on tha East side of Littla Neck Road beginning at a point 50 feet North of Newcastle Road, firming a distance of 450 feet along the East side of Little Neck Road, rtmning a distance of 716.59 feet along Nort/m~ property line, running a distance of 560 feet along the Eastern property linm and running a distance of 430 feet along t/~ Southern property line. Said parcel contains 6 acres more or less. LYbBYHAVEN BOROIL~. Appro~l is subject to the follcm~ing provisions in conjunction with th~ intended use of the land: 1. Executinm of a new agreement. 2. Standard improvements as required by t/~ Site Plan Ord/nance. 3. City ~mter and se~r. 4. An adequate drainage our. fall system with tl~ rmcessary downstream impr~ts and easermmts is required. . . Right-of-~y impr~ts are necessary along Little Neck Road; this includes payment widening and overlay, curb and gutter, sidewmlk and drainage facilities. A dedication of right-of-wsy 45 feet fron ri%e centerlirm of the existing vsriable width right-or-%my along this site's frontage on Little Neck Road (a ~riable dedication). 7. Parking is to be provided at a ratio of 1 space per 100 square feet of floor area. This Ordinance shall be effective from date of adoption. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Ninth day of February, 1981. -36- ORDINAN~ LIK)N APPLICATION OF HIME~r L. DA~ FOR A CHAbI~ OF ZCNING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FRf~ R-2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ID O-10FFI~ DIStrICT ~281.~7 Ordinance upon application of Hubert L. Dail for a Change of ZonJnK District Classification f-rcm R-2 to 0-1 Office District om certain property located 22D feet East of Little Neck Road beginning at a point 50 feet North of Newcastle Road, running a distance of 220 feet along the ~ property lirm, r~ a distance of 560 feet along thru Eastern property line, rzmn~ a distance of 520 feet along thru NortPmrn property line and rm~ning a distance of 440 feet more or less along the Western property lime. Said parcel contains 4.247 acres m~re or less. Appro~l is subject to the following provisions in conj%mction with the intendad use of the land: 1. Exacution of a new 2. Standard impr~ts as required by tl~ Site Plan Ordinance. 3. City ~ter and sewer. . , , An adequate drainage o,_ ~,rF='~'~ mfstem with the rmcessary downstream impr~ts and ea.~-~nts is required. Right-of-~my im~r~ts are necessary along Little Neck Road; this in~ludms pax~m~nt widening and overlay, curb and gutter, side, talk, and drainage facilities. Appl~c~nt has ~l~tarily agreed to put to record a legal docummt stating this site is to be used for a private club only, if not the land will revert back to its original mm%ing. 7. A ~riable dedication along Little Neck Road. This Ordinance shall be effective from date of adoption. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Ninth day of February, 1981. -35 PLANNING AGENDA ITEM II-H.1/2 ITEM #16239 Mr. Hubert Dail appeared in behalf of his applmcations Mr. Homer McCoy appeared in favor Mr. Pete Davis voiced his opposition by telephone (Leslie William Davis, Jr.) Upon motion by Councilman Merrick, seconded by Councilman Ervin, City Council voted to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and APPROVE the applications of HUBERT L. AND MONA H. DAIL for Changes of Zoning AND Conditional Use Permit, as per the following, subject to t~he condztions outlined: ORDINANCE L~JN APPLICATION OF HEHbERT L. AND M~qA H. IAIL FCR A CHANGE OF 29N/NG DISIRICT CLASSY- CATION FROM R-3 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT %13 0-1 OFFICE DISIRICT ZO2gi546 Ordinance upon application of Hubert L. and Fxxm H. Dail for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-3 Residentia~ Dis~rlct to 0-1 Office Di'strlc't on certain property located on the East sid~ of Little Neck Road begirn%ing at a point 50 feet North of Newcastle Road, rumn~ a distance of 450 feet along the East side of Little Neck Road, rt~ning a distance of 196.59 feet along tbs Northern property line, running a distance of 440 feet along the Eastern property lina and rtmning a distance of 210 feet along the Southmra property linm. Said parcel contains 2. 076 acres. Approval is subject to the following provisions in conjunction with the intended use of the land: l, 2. 3. 4. . Execution of a new agree-~nt Standard improvmments as required by tim Site Plan O~dimance. City w~ter and mr. An adequate drainage outfall system with the r~cessary downstream impr~ts and easements is required. Right-of-%my impro%mmmts are necessary alc~g Little Neck Road; this incl,~e_s palm,mt widening and ca~rlay, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage facilities. Applicant has ~l%mtarily agreed to put to record a legal do~m=nt stating this site is to be used for a private club only, if not tim land will revert back to its original 7. A %ariable dedication along Little Neck Road. This Ordinance shall be effective from date of adoption. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Ninth day of February, 1981. VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE)/# 17 & 18 March 12, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION H05-210-MOD-2002 NUMBER: H05-210-CUP-2002 REQUEST: 17. Modification of Proffers placed on a rezoning from R-3 Residential to O-1 Office District on February 9, 1981 18. Conditional Use Permit for two (2) wireless communication towers ADDRESS: 864 Little Neck Road Map G, H 5 Voice Stream GSM - Little Neck Rd. R-30 Gpm 1488-92-4743 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: 14889247430000 5 - LYNNHAVEN Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) / # 17 & 18 Page 1 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. for a Modification of Proffers and Voicestream Wireless for a Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 [] Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Vo~ceStream GSM II, L.L.C. for modification of proffers attached to a rezoning for Hubert L Dail and Mona H Dail approved by City Council on February 9, 1981. Property ~s located on the east side of Little Neck Road, 130 feet more or less north of Poplar Bend (GPIN # 1488-92-4743). Said parcel is located at 864 Little Neck Road and contains 5.319 acres. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN An Ordinance upon Application of Voice Stream WIreless for a Conditional Use Permit for a w~reless commun~cabon fac~l~ty/commumcat~on tower on property located on the east side of Little Neck Road, 130 feet more or less north of Poplar Bend (GPIN # 1488-92-4743) Said parcel is located at 864 Little Neck Road and contains 5.319 acres. DISTRICT 5- LYNNHAVEN The purpose of the requests ~s to modify the proffer attached to the 1981 rezomng of this property regarding use of the s~te and to request a condihonal use permit to allow the construction of two (2) w~reless commun~cahon towers on the s~te ~n add~bon to the ex~st~ng recreational facility Considerations: A private recreabonal club ~s located on the s~te and the s~te is zoned O-2 Office District. The applicant ~s proposing to modify the ex~sting zoning agreement by eliminating Proffers 1, 2, and 4 which are no longer necessary because the property has been established as a private club and to rewse Proffer 3 to list commumcation towers as an allowed use in add~bon to the use of the property as a private club Recommendations: The applicant submitted a letter to the staff, dated March 27, 2003, requesting a deferral of these requests to the May 13, 2003 City Council meeting. The applicant notes that the deferral ~s requested "in order for T-Mobile to have VolceStream Page 2 of 2 sufficient bme to finahze various detads of the s~te plan w~th [L~ttle Neck Sw~m and Racquet Club], and because certain key presenters w~ll not be available on April 22nd to attend the heanng." Staff ~s agreeable to the request for a deferral to May 13 Not~ce on the Planning Commission's Intemet pages has been provided regarding the applicant's request for a deferral to May 13. · Attachments: Letter from Apphcant Locabon Map Recommended Action: Deferral of this request to the May 13 C~ty Councd meebng is recommended. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning City Manager:~ ~- .~-~ ~ Department~,~l~. ALEXANDRIA OFFICE TELEPHONE (703) 684-8007 BLACKSBURG OFFICE TELEPHONE (540) 961-2762 CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE TELEPHONE (804) 971-7771 DC OFFICE TELEPHONE (202) 659-4140 INNSBIO01C OFFICE TELEPHONE (804) 270-0070 RICHMOND OFFICE TELEPHONE (804) 783-2003 ROANOKE OFFICE TELEPHONE (5401 777-6900 LECLAIR RYAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AI'-rORNEYS AT LAW 999 WATERSIDE DRIVE, SUITE 515 NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23510 TELEPHONE (757) 624-1454 FACSXMILE (757) 624-3773 March 27, 2003 STEPHEN R. ROIVIIN-E, ESQ DirECt DIAL (757) 441-8921 EMAIL SROMINE(~LECLAIRRYAN COM VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL Barbara J Duke, AICP City of Vtrglnia Beach, Department of Planning Mummpal Center Building 2, Room 115 205 Courthouse Drive Street Virginia Beach, Vlrglma 234~6-9040 Application of VmceStream GSM II, L L C for Amendment of Conditions and a Conchtional Use Perrmt Little Neck Swim & Racquet Club, Inc ("LNSRC") 864 Lmle Neck Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452 Our File No 10788.006 Dear Barbara Pursuant to our telephone conversation Friday, I am writing to you on behalf of our client, T-Mobile, formerly VolceStream Wireless, to request that you defer the above referenced apphcatlons from the April 22, 2003/ City Council Public Hearing Agenda to the May 13, 2003, City Council Pubhc Hearing Agenda in order for T-Mobile to have sufficient ume to finalize various details of its site plan with LNSRC, and because certain key presenters will not be available on April 22nd to attend the hearing Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any comments or questions regarding this request Sincerely, Stephen R Romine CC Mr Stephen White (via facsirmle) Mr Tim Fincham (via facsumle) Ms Ambre Blatter (vxa facsimile) Mr. Bill Gambrell (via facsirmle) Mr. Bill Stewart (via facsimile) VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) / # 17 & 18 March 12, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION H05-210-MOD-2002 NUMBER: H05-210-C U P-2002 REQUEST: 17. Modification of Proffers placed on a rezoning from R-3 Residential to O-1 Office District on February 9, 1981 18. Conditional Use Permit for two (2) wireless communication towers ADDRESS: 864 Little Neck Road - qrnle Voice Stream GSM Little Neck Rd. R-30 C_rpm 148g-92..4745 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: 14889247430000 5- LYNNHAVEN Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) / # 17 & 18 Page 1 SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 5.319 acres Barbara Duke To modify the proffer attached to the 1981 rezoning of this property regarding use of the site and to request a conditional use permit to allow the construction of two (2) w~reless communication towers on the site in addition to the existing recreational facility. This application was deferred in January 2003 by the Planning Commission due to a sign posting error. Major Issues: There must be an identified need for service in the area and satisfactory evidence that there is a lack of space on suitable existing towers, buildings or other structures to locate proposed antenna. The proposed location of the towers must be unobtrusive and must not substantially detract from aesthetics or neighborhood character. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: ExistinQ Land Use and Zoning A private recreational club is located on the site and the s~te is zoned 0-2 Office District. Surroundin,q Land Use and Zonin~ North: South: · Single-family homes/R-20 (Open Space) Residential District · Single-family homes / R-20 Residential District Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) /# 17 & 18 Page 2 East: West: · Single-family homes / R-20 (Open Space) Residential District. · Church / R-15 Residential District Zoning History The subject site was rezoned from residential to office use in 1981. A conditional use permit for a pdvate club (recreational facility) was also granted in 1981. An agreement addressing conditions voluntarily proffered dudng the rezoning is recorded in Deed Book 2090, Page 728. The neighborhood of Bishopsgate immediately adjacent to the site on the north and east was rezoned in 1986. The residential properties immediately south of the site were rezoned and developed in the eady 1990s. On March 25, 1997, the City Council denied a similar request for two wireless communication towers 135 feet in height on a site northwest of the subject site, at 1033 Little Neck Road (Lynnhaven United Methodist Church). The odginal recommendation from the Planning Department staff was to grant the use permit; however, there was very strong neighborhood opposition to the proposal on the basis that that the towers would have negative visual impact and would change the neighborhood's character. The applicant subsequently appealed City Council's denial to the Distdct Court. The Distdct Court's decision was in favor of the applicant; however, upon further appeal by the City to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, the lower court's decision was overtumed and the denial of the application was reinstated. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an ^ICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The site is developed with a clubhouse, outdoor pool, tennis courts and parking areas. There are some mature trees in an open area on the southem side of the site, adjacent to a residential neighborhood. There is an established row of large shrubs around the perimeter of the site on the east and north sides adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Along the frontage of the site there are some scattered mature pine trees. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer No water or sewer connections are necessary for the proposed use Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 3 Transportation There will be no measurable impact on traffic due to the proposed communication towers. Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Fire and Rescue: Adequate. No comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan policies for the Little Neck Plannino area recognize that a mixture of non-residential uses can coexist with residential uses, with more intensive commercial uses along the Little Neck Road corridor at the southernmost end at Virginia Beach Boulevard. To ensure that this relationship continues in a harmonious manner and does not impose any pronounced impacts on the residential area, all nonresidential development must be done in harmony with the concept of providing an attractive, safe and well-maintained physical environment. The existing neighborhood character must be protected at all times from inappropriate land use intrusion that does not provide a legitimate purpose to the surrounding community. Summary of Proposal The agreement that was recorded with the rezoning of this parcel to O-1 Office in 1981 is recorded in Deed Book 2090, Page 798. The recorded proffers are as follows: Original Proffers 1. All of the principal uses and structures permitted in the R-3 Residential District shall be permitted on that portion of the Office Property previously zoned R-3 as shown by said application number 3877 to the same degree and with all requirements as if that portion of the Property were zoned R-3 Residential District. Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) / # 17 & 18 Page 4 2. All of the principal uses and structures permitted in the R-2 Residential Distdct shall be permitted on that portion of the Office Property previously zoned R-2 as shown by said application number 3878 to the same degree and with all requirements as if that portion of the Property were zoned R-2 Residential Distnct. . The Property shall not be used for any use or structure allowed ~n the O-1 Office Distdct except that the Property may be used and developed for use as a Private Club for civic, social, cultural, recreational and like activities operated for the benefit of its members and not open to the general public pursuant to that certain Conditional Use Permit granted pursuant to said application number 3833, but expressly subject to the conditions and restrictions stated therein and herein. Said Private Club may include a gymnasium, structures and related facilities for tennis, racket ball, swimming and similar recreational activities. . Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Property shall not be developed or used as provided in paragraphs numbered 1 and 2 above unless and until the Property shall not have been developed or shall cease to be used, as determined by the zoning administrator, as a pdvate club in which event the Property shall be deemed to have reverted to its former R-2 and R-3 classifications or to such future zoning classifications which may replace the R-2 and R-3 classifications. The applicant is proposing to modify the existing agreement to eliminate proffers # 1, #2, and ~ which are no longer necessary because the property has been established as a private club and to revise proffer #3 to list communication towers as an allowed use in addition to the use of the property as a private club. The revised proffers are as follows. Proposed Amendment to Proffers PROFFER # 1 "PROFFER 1" is deleted. PROFFER # 2 "PROFFER 2" is deleted Staff Evaluation: These proffers are being deleted because they are no longer necessary since the property has been established as a private club in lieu of residential development. PROFFER # 3 The Property shall not be used for any use allowed in the 0-2 Office District except that the Property may be used Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 5 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 4 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 5 Staff Evaluation: and developed for (i) use as a pdvate club for civic, social, cultural, recreational and like activities operated for the benefit of its members and not open to the general public pursuant to that certain Conditional Use Permit granted pursuant to application number 3833, but expressly subject to the conditions and restrictions stated therein and herein, and (ii) the installation and utilization of poles with telecommunications antennas, related equipment and devices and support structures and facilities. The Pdvate Club may include a gymnasium, structures and related facilities for tennis, racket ball, swimming, and similar recreational activities. This proffer adds communication towers as an allowed use on the site. '.PROFFER 4" is deleted This proffer is being deleted because it is no longer necessary since the property has been established as a private club in lieu of residential development. All of the terms, covenants and conditions set forth in "Covenants and Conditions" dated February 9, 1981, and recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book 2090, at Page 728, save and except, Proffer 1, Proffer 2, Proffer 3, and Proffer 4, as specifically amended and modified herein, shall remain in force and effect, running with the Property and binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under, by or through GRANTOR, his heirs, personal representatives, assigns, tenants, and other successors in interest or title. This proffer restates the terms of the agreement. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 6 Site Plan ! Conformance with Section 232 The site plan submitted with this application shows two "stealth" communication towers located on the south side of the pool. Both towers are shown at a height of 112 feet w~th a 22-inch diameter. Both towers have been designed to hold two sets of antennae, for a total of four spaces available to wireless communications providers. The equipment shelters at the base of each tower have been designed to also serve as shelters for the pool area. All equipment, including the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, has been internalized within the shelter. There will be no exposed cables or other equipment connecting the tower to the shelter. The shelters are located at the edge of the pool area and the towers are located behind the shelters, outside of the fenced pool area. The equipment shelters will have access doors that open to the parking lot, so that telecommunications workers can access the equipment from outside the fence, and will not have to enter the pool area to maintain the equipment. Typically, the equipment is maintained on a monthly basis. The towers have been designed to resemble a flagpole so that there will be no exposed antenna equipment on the pole. Cabling and antenna will be internal to the pole. Lights will be added to the pole at a height of 45 feet at the request of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club to provide lighting in the pool area. POLE SC,~[MAT~C The tower locatIons on the site plan appear to meet the required setback from Little Neck Road of 50 feet and the required setback from existing residential structures of 200 feet. In lieu of the landscaping required around the base of the tower, the applicant has proposed additional plantings along the perimeter of the site to supplement the existing shrubs serving as a buffer, the addition of a planted berm along the frontage of Little Neck Road and the preservation of the existing stand of trees on the southern side of the site. Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 7 The preservation of the existing trees on the site is ~mportant to maintain the visual integrity of the club property with the addition of the towers as it relates to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The existing tree stand serves as a visual screen for the towers from the single-family homes immediately adjacent to the south as well as from Little Neck Road. In addition, this existing tree stand will serve as a backdrop for the towers when viewing the site from the north. The applicant's lease agreement with the club also provides that Voicestream (T- Mobile) will upgrade all of the existing tennis court lighting fixtures to reduce spillover/glare onto adjacent residential properties and to increase energy efficiency. The existing light poles on the site are 35 feet in height. The mounting height of the new light fixtures is shown at 40 feet. The plan also shows that the existing parking lot to the east of the clubhouse will be removed and the area returned to green space. However, some of the parking in this area may need to be retained based on the zoning ordinance requirements for the club. Evaluation of Request The request to modify the existing proffer agreement and to allow a conditional use permit for wireless communication towers on the subject property is acceptable. The applicant has worked out an agreement with the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club that was voted on affirmatively by the majority of the membership of the club. The application is a good example of how mutual cooperation can produce a plan that will provide towers that are not overly intrusive to the visual aesthetics of the community as well as benefit the club financially and provide a needed service to the community as a whole. The stealth design of the towers is also consistent with the direction provided to staff in 2001 after a study of communication towers in the city. Council directed that towers in residential areas be 'stealth' in design rather than the traditional tower with antenna arrays. This proposal is consistent with that direction. The applicant has provided information from two additional carders, Vedzon and SunCom, that service is needed in this area and that the proposed towers will be in an appropriate location for their use. However, the staff is recommending conditions regarding the multiple use of the towers to ensure that all spaces on the tower are utilized efficiently. The applicant has also provided the required information on Non- Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER) levels and the towers will not exceed the FCC level established. Based on the conformance of this request, as conditioned below, with the provisions of Section 232 of the City Zoning Ordinance, staff recommends that the modification of Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 8 proffers be approved. Staff also recommends that the conditional use permit for the two communication towers be approved subject to the following conditions. CONDITIONS . The project shall be developed as indicated on the submitted site plan entitled "Voicestream Wireless @ Little Neck Racquet Club VA10363-A," prepared by Lewis White and Associates and dated 12/04/02, and the associated plans and drawings submitted with the conditional use permit application. These plans have been exhibited to City Council and are on file in the Planning Department. 2. The overall height of the proposed towers and antennae shall not exceed 112 feet. 3. The second tower shall not be constructed unless and until there are two carders established on the first tower. 4. The detailed site plan submitted to the Development Services Center for review and approval for the communication tower(s) shall be approved initially for only one tower and shall provide parking at a ratio of 1:100 for the pool and clubhouse plus two (2) spaces per tennis court. An amended site plan for the second tower shall be submitted only if both antenna spaces on the initial tower are being used. 5. The detailed site plan submitted to the Development Services Center for review and approval for the communication tower(s) shall contain a certification by a licensed professional land surveyor that a field survey has been performed to verify that the setback of the tower of 200 feet from all existing residential structures has been met. . The existing stand of trees located in the southern portion of the site and noted on the site plan as "existing trees to remain" shall not be disturbed and shall be preserved as long as one or both of the towers remain standing. 7. The proposed communication antennae must be mounted "inside light pole" as depicted on the submitted plans. o Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emissions study (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 9 not interfere with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities, shall be provided prior to site plan approval for the tower and all subsequent users. . In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference. 10. Should the antennae cease to be used for a period of more than one (1) year, the applicant shall remove the antennae and their supporting towers and related equipment. Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 10 oVO~I ~lO3N 3q~11 Existing Site Planning Commission Agenda ! = January 8, 2003 ~:~_~;~.~ VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) ! # 17 & 18~ .... Page 11 A'iNO 111~l~13d 3SR "rvl~O~(}NO0 ~lO.-! c IProposed Site Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) / # 17 & 18 Page 12 Landscape Plan Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) / # 17 & 18 Page 13 IProz~osed Picnic Pavilion Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) / # 17 & 18 Page 14 .o I Pro~)osed Pool Shelter Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 15 r . -(~ PROPOSED RETROFIT OF EX. 35' UGHT POLES Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 16 0 -r /i Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 17 / / / / / / / / / I / t / / ~ f / ~/ 1 I / / / / / I / / / / t 1 / t 1 / Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 18 Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) / # 17 & 18 Page 19 Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) ! # 17 & 18 Page 20 Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 21 Apphcant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: APPLICATIC PAGE 4 OF 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITY OF VIRG~ BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If thc property owner is a CORPORATION. list all officer~ of the Corporanon below (Attach itst tfnecezsary) See Attached ff the property owner Is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners m the orgamzauon below (Attach hst tfnece$$ary) [~ Check here If thc property owner ts NOT a corporauon, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated orgamzatton If the apphcant ts not the current owner of the property, complete the Apphcant Dtsclosttre section below. APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the apphcant ts a CORPORATION, hst all officers of thc Corporauon below (Attach hst tfnecessary) If ~he applicant ~s a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION llst ail members or partners ~n the orgamzatlon below (Attach hst tfnec~sary) '~J Check here if the apphcant ts NOT a corporation, parmersh~p, firm, or other un,r'corpornted orgamzatlon CERTIFICATION I cerfify that the information contmned herein is true and accurate~. Prim N~ne Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 22 To: From: Subject: Date: ~m~.IGHT COAST CONSULTIN(~ 205 2~rd Street Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 757 718-9131 / bgambrel~exix.net Barbara Duke Bill Gambrell Little Neck Swim and Racket Club September 15, 2002 The board members for the Little Neck Swim and Racket Club are as follows: Brian Miller, Presidem William Stewart, Treasurer Gerrilyn Gleason Carla Hesseltine Diane Yates Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 23 Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owner~: APPLICATIC PAGE 4 OF 4 MODlleICATION OF CONDITIONS CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT VoiceStream GS? II. LLC Little Neck Swxm and Racquet Club, Inc. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Iftbe propm'ty owner ts a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Attach l~st tftlece .... ,- $cc attached. If the property owner ts a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION It,t alt members or pay. nets m th-- orgamzatlon below (Attach ltst tfnecessary) N/A Check hem if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other un,ncorporatcd organ,zaaon. If the applicant ts not the current owner of the property, complete the Apphcant Disclosure section belows APPLICANT DISCLOSURE th~ applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporatxon below (Attach hst ~fnece$$ary) See attachea. ff thc applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION list all members or partners in thc orgamzauon below (Attach hst tfnecessary) Check here ff the applicant ~s NOT a corpora~on, paxtneralup, firm, or other unincorporated orgamzauon CERTIFICATION I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. VoxceStream GSM II. LLC Stephen ~, gomine Pnnt Name Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 24 ~'.IGHT COAST CONSULTIN(m~ 205 23rd Street Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 757 718-9131 / bgambrel~exix, ne! To: Barbara Duke From: Bill Gambreil Subject' Ltttle Neck Swim and Racket Club Date. September 15. 2002 The board members for the Little Neck Swim and Racket Club are as follov~s. Bnan Miller. Presldem Willmm Stewart. Treasurer Gerrilyn Gleason Carla Hesseltine Diane Yates Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) I # 17 & 18 Page 25 VoiceStxeam® Wireless Fact Sheer H~dqnarterg. F. mployees~ Mtrkein: Covered, POPe:. T~.i'moio~7 1994 ser~i:e at the beet 2.1.00 nationwide v~,--C, tr_ mm curr~tt7 offers PCS service in $esttle and Spokane, Watch.; Podtand. Ore: 6oi.w, Idaho;, .Salt lake ~iiy. UtaI'.; Phoenix, Ariz.; Denver. Colo.; HonoI~u, Hawaii; Albuquerque, N.M.,; E1 Peso, Text; D~ Moire, Iowa; O~ma ~ ~ Tulsa, Okla.; Wtchi~ Kan., ~d Cheyertrte, Wyo. Planning Commission Agenda January 8, 2003 VOICESTREAM (T-MOBILE) / # 17 & 18 Page 26 FORM NO P $ 1 B OUR City o£ Virginia Beach In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5646 DATE: April 10, 2003 TO: FROM: Leslie L. Lilley B. Kay Wilsofi~x~ DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club, Inc. The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on April 22, 2003. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated December 12, 2002, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure Prepared by Stephen R. Rom~ne, Esquire LeClmr Ryan 999 Waterside Drive, State 515 Norfolk, VA 23510 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS THIS AGREEMENT, made this 12th day of December, 2002, by and between LITTLE NECK SWIM AND RACQUET CLUB, INC., a nondiscriminatory community membership organization, Property Owner, GRANTOR; and CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, GRANTEE, party of the second part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Property Owner is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the Lynnhaven Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 5.319 acres and described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, such property hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, GRANTOR has initiated modifications to a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, by petition addressed to GRANTEE so as to modify conditions to the Zoning Classification of the Property; and WHEREAS, GRANTOR has requested GRANTEE to permit this modification of the previously proffered Covenants and Conditions dated February 9, 1981, recorded in Deed Book 2090, at Page 728, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, (the "Clerk's Office"), to reflect the amendments applicable to the land use plan on the Property; and WHEREAS, GRANTEE's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and GPIN 1488-92-4743 WHEREAS, GRANTOR acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to permit differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the proposed modification of conditions to the zoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to which the application gives rise; and WHEREAS, GRANTOR has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before GRANTEE, as part of the proposed modifications to the existing zoning conditions with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted, which conditions have a reasonable relation to the proposed modifications and the need for which is generated by the proposed modifications. NOW, THEREFORE, GRANTOR, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from GRANTEE or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants nmning with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through GRANTOR, its successor, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors ~n interest or title; 1. "PROFFER 1" is deleted. 2. "PROFFER 2" is deleted. 3. "PROFFER 3" is amended to read: The Property shall not be used for any use allowed in the 0-2 Office District (formerly designated as 0-1 Office District prior to ordinance change by Grantee) except that the Property may be used and developed for (i) use as a private club for civic, social, cultural, recreational and like activities operated for the benefit of its members and not open to the general public pursuant to that certain Conditional Use Permit granted pursuant to application number 3833, but expressly subject to the conditions and restrictions stated therein and herein, and (ii) the installation and utilization of poles with telecommunications antennas, related equipment and devices and support structures and facilities. The Private Club may include a gymnasium, structures and related facdities for tennis, racquet ball, swimming, and similar recreational activities. 4. "PROFFER 4" is deleted. 5. Ail of the terms, covenants and conditions set forth in "Covenants and Conditions" dated February 9, 1981, and recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book 2090, at Page 728, save and except, Proffer 1, Proffer 2, Proffer 3, and Proffer 4, as specifically amended and modified herein, shall remain in force and effect, running with the Property and binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under, by or through GRANTOR, his heirs, personal representatives, assigns, tenants, and other successors in interest or title. GRANTOR further covenants and agrees that: Any references hereinabove to the 0-2 Office District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by GRANTOR and allowed and accepted by GRANTEE as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that such instrument is consented to by GRANTEE in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of GRANTEE, after a public hearing before GRANTEE which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Such ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with such instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, such instrument shall be void. (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied, and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, GRANTOR shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office, and indexed in the names of GRANTOR and GRANTEE. WITNESS the following signatures and seals. GRANTOR: LITTLE NECK SWIM AND RACQUET CLUB, INC. STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 31 st day of December, 2002, by William R. Stewart, as President of Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club, Inc., on behalf of the Notary Public My Commission Expires: March 31, 2006 EXHIBIT A ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and being known, numbered and designated as Lot A, as shown on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF HUBERT L. DAIL AND MONA H. DAli,", which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 149 at page 6. Together with a perpetual 15' drainage easement and a perpetual 10' utility easement across Lot B on said plat. Mr. & Ms. William F. Barns 849 Bishopsgate Lane Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452 Mr. J. Golden Manager, Project Implementation MD/DC/VA Network Verizon Wireless 7600 Montpelier Road Laurel, MD 20723-9966 February 23, 2003 Dear Mr. Golden, We recently received your letter (undated), which included a pre-addressed postcard, concerning improved cellular coverage in the Little Neck area. We are not returning the card in order to show support of this initiative as you have requested. While improved cell phone reception and coverage are important to us and all cell phone users, there are numerous issues associated with this particular initiative that are of immediate concern to this community. For example: According to our City Planning Commission Reviewing Official, locating a cell tower in close proximity to residences (... and swimming pools), is unique and there are no studies available in Virginia Beach to gauge the long-term impact of a similar installation. Despite T-Mobile's assertion that the proposed locations of the cell towers at Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club is in compliance with federal regulations and exposure limits, the evidence of actually living in proximity to a source of non-ionizing radiation and being subjected to continual noise from the peripheral equipment is a matter of concern. · The 112-foot height of the towers will be unsightly from the surrounding and approaching areas; well above existing tree lines. Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club, adjacent to two prestigious neighborhoods in this community and across the street from a third, will realize substantial financial gain by allowing the cell towers to be built on its property. However, property values of the surrounding homes will be adversely affected as a result of this project. This project is controversial and there is an active movement within the adjoining community to voice these concerns to the Virginia Beach City Council, prior to that body making a decision to approve construction_ As Verizon customers, our preference is for your company to use its considerable talent to champion new technology in partnership with T- Mobile, SunCom and Alltel that will simultaneously improve cell phone coverage while answering the concerns and perceptions of numerous citizens. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to your response. Sincerely, Ms. Ruth Kral President, Bishopsgate Civic League 3104 Bishopsgate Ct. Vir~nia Beach, VA 23452 Ms. Barbara Duke Planning Commission, City of Virginia Beach Municipal Center 2401 Cotmhouse Dr. Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Members of City Council Vir~nia Beach, VA: Ms. Margaret L. Eure 5400 Compton Cr. Virginia Beach, VA 23464 Mr. Louis R. Jones 1008 Witch Point Tr. Virginia Beach, VA 23455 Mr. Richard A. Maddox 1609 Atlantic Ave. Virginia Beach, VA 23451 Ms. Reba S. McClanan 3224 Burnt Mill Rd. Virginia Beach, VA 23452 Mr. Jim Reeve 1476 Lotus Dr. Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Mr. Peter W. Schmidt 1029 Bobolink Dr. Virginia beach, VA 23451 Mr. Ronald A. Villanueva 5691 Pin Oak Ct. Virginia Beach, VA 23464 Ms. Rosemary Wilson 1304 Wren Pl. Virginia Beach, VA 23451 Mr. James L. Wood 3778 Prince Andrew Ln. Vkginia Beach, VA 23452 verst!wireless 7600 Montpeher Road Laurel, MD 20723-9966 Dear Verizon Wireless Customer, We are sending you this letter because you are a resident of the Little Neck peninsula. Most of the licensed wireless carriers have not been able to provide adequate coverage to their customers in your area. We are trying to improve the coverage, not only for Verizon Wireless customers, but for the other carriers which include T-Mobile, SunCom and AIItel. There is a proposal at the City of Virginia Beach for a wireless facility located at the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club at 864 Little Neck Road. As a wireless customer, we need your evidence of support for the proposed improved coverage. If you would like to see improved wireless coverage in the Little Neck area, please help us by completing and mailing the enclosed pre-addressed and stamped postcard no later than February 28, 2003. We value you as a customer and would like to continue to serve you and the community with an enhanced coverage footprint. Thank you for your support, J. Golden Manager, Project Implementation MD/DC/VA Network RFpeople Engineering Statement Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Analysis VA10363 L~ttle Neck P,acquet Club 864 Little Neck Road Virg~ma Beach, VA 23452 The purpose of this engineering statement is to document the results of a non- ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIEP,) analys~s performed for the proposed installation of w~reless communications equipment at: 864 Little Neck Road in: Virginia Beach by: T-Mobile Background A NIER analysis is typically performed for new radio communications sites, or for modifications to emsting radio communication sites to verify that levels of P,F energy do not exceed the levels that have been deemed safe by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for both the general public and occupational categones. The FCC has determined (see FCC OET Bulletin 65) safety limits for occupational exposure (those that are trained and familiar with the risks and limitations of working in the wcinity of RF transmitters) and general public exposure (those untrained and unfamiliar w~th the risks and limitations of working ~n the v~cinity of RF transmitters). Appendix A contains some tables and charts from FCC OET-65 Analysis This analysis was performed using industry-accepted techniques that are consistent w~th those descnbed ~n FCC Bulletin OET-65. Th~s analys~s used the worst-case, point source scenano to calculate the mammum RF expsosure at a human head height of 6 feet above the base elevation. This analys,s included all emitters aggregated by carrier and height, that were ~ndicated to be present, and their operating parameters, as prowded by T-Mobile The results of th~s analys~s are tabulated ~n Appendix B. Engmeenng Statement - Non-lonaz~ng Electromagnetac Radiation (NIER.) RFpeople Results This analysis has determined that there is no area accessible to the general public that exceeds the limits specified by the FCC in Bulletin OET-65. The actual results are listed in Appendix B. For information or questions regarding this report, please contact Davidson Scott, P.E. davidson@rfpeople.com, (866) 590-0975 RFpeople Appendix A (A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure Frequency Electric Field Magnetic Field Power Density Averaging T~me Range Strength (E) Strength (I-D (S) lEI2, IH[2 or S (MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2) (minutes) 0 3-3.0 614 1 63 (100)* 6 3 0-30 1842/f 4 89/f (900/f~)* 6 30-300 61 4 0 163 1.0 6 300-1500 .... 17300 6 1500-100,000 .... 5 6 (B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure Frequency Electric Field Magnetic Field Power Density Averaging Tune Range Strength (E) Strength (H) (S) {El:, IHI2 or S (MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2) (minutes) 0 3-1.34 614 1 63 (100)* 30 I 34-30 824/£ 2 19/f (180/f~)* 30 30-300 27.5 0 073 0 2 30 300-1500 .... 171500 30 1500-100,000 .... 1 0 30 f = frequency in MI4_z *Plane-wave eqmvalent power density NOTE 1 Occupational/controlled limits apply m s~tuatlons m which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment provided those persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure Limits for occupational/controlled exposure also apply m situations when an mdiwdual Is transient through a location where occupational/controlled limits apply provided he or she Is made aware of the potential for exposure. NOTE 2 Generalpopulation/uncontrolled exposures apply in situations in which the general public may be exposed, or in which persons that are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or can not exercise control over their exposure RFpeople Fiqure 1. FCC Limits for Maximum 13errnissible Exposure (MPE) Plane-wave Equivalent Power Density ;LO00 ~ J I i i i i i i ' 5 O.2 I I I 03 13 1.34 I I ! I t I 3O 300 13,000 30.00~71300,0~70' Frequency (MHz) Transmitters Name Frequency EiRP Orientation Height Gain Antenna (MHz/ (dBm/ (Degrees) (ft) (dBi) VolceStream('rxl ) 1965 60 0 112 17 Panel Genenc VolceStream(Tx2) 1965 60 120 Vo~ceStream(Tx3) 1965 60 240 112 17 Panel Genenc 112 17 Panel Genenc Ntelos(Tx4) 1955 60 0 102 17 Panel Genenc Ntelos(Tx5) 1955 60 120 102 17 Panel Genenc Ntelos(Tx6) 1955 60 240 Camer 3(Tx7) 865 60 0 102 17 Panel Genenc 112 14 Panel Genenc Carrier 3(Tx8) 865 60 120 112 14 Panel Genenc Camer 3(Tx9) 865 60 240 112 14 Panel Genenc Camer 4(Tx10) 1930 60 0 Career 4(Txll ) 1930 60 120 Career 4(Tx12) 1930 60 240 102 17 Panel Genenc 102 17 Panel Genenc 102 17 Panel Genenc Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel RP eople Appendix B VA10363 Distance (ft) 10 15 864 Little Neck Road Virginia Beach Carrier Carrier 3 Carner 4 Ntelos VomeStream Total: Carner 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Carrier 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Camer 3 Carner 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Totalc VA Latitude: unknown ! Maximum Limit (mW~cra^2) 0.58 1 00 1 00 I 00 0.58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 I 00 1 00 1 00 Longitude: unknown General Public (%) 1 56 111 111 0.9 4.68 1.56 111 111 09 4.68 1 56 1 08 1 08 09 4.62 1 53 1 08 1 O8 0 87 4.56 Maximum Public Exposure 4.68 (%) Occupational (%) O3 0.21 0 21 018 0.9 03 021 0 21 018 0.9 03 021 0.21 018 0.9 O3 021 021 015 0.87 RFpeople 2O 25 3O 35 4O 45 50 Carner 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Carrier 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Carrier 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos VolceStream Total: 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0.58 I 00 I 00 1 00 0 58 1 00 I 00 1 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 I 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0.58 1 00 I 00 1 00 1 53 1 05 1 05 0 87 4.5 15 1 02 I 02 0 84 4 38 1 44 0 99 0 99 0 84 4.26 1 41 0 96 0 96 081 414 1 38 0.93 0 93 0 78 4.02 1 32 09 09 0 75 3.87 1 29 0 87 087 0 72 3 75 O3 021 021 015 0.87 03 018 018 015 0.81 0.27 018 018 015 0.78 0 27 018 018 015 0.78 0.27 018 018 015 0.78 0 24 018 018 015 0 75 0 24 015 015 012 0.66 R- : eopl 55 6O 65 7O 75 8O 85 Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos · ' VolceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Carner 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Carrier 4 Ntelos Vo,ceStream Total: Camer 3 Camer 4 Ntelos Vo, ceStream Total: 0 58 I 00 1 00 I 00 0.58 1.00 I 00 1.00 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 I 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 1.00 1 00 1 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 I 23 081 081 0 72 3.57 12 0 78 0 78 0 69 3 45 I 14 0 75 0 75 0 66 3.3 1 O8 0 72 0 72 0 63 3.15 1 O5 0 69 0 69 O6 3.03 0 99 0 63 0 63 0 57 2.82 0 96 06 06 0 54 27 0 24 015 015 012 0.66 0 24 015 015 012 0.66 021 015 015 012 0.63 021 012 012 012 0.57 0 21 012 012 012 0.57 018 012 012 0 09 0.51 018 012 012 0 O9 0 51 RFpeople 9O 95 100 125 150 175 200 Carner 3 Carner 4 Ntelos "VosceStream Total: Camer 3 Camer 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStmam Total: Carrier 3 Carrier 4 Ntelos VoiceStream Total: Camer 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos VolceStream Total: Carrier 3 Carrier 4 Ntelos VolceStream Total: Carner 3 Career 4 Ntelos VolceStream Total: 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0.58 1 00 I 00 I 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 I 00 0 58 1 00 1.00 I 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 1 00 1.00 1.00 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0.9 0 57 0 57 051 2.55 0 87 0 54 0 54 0 48 2 43 081 051 051 048 2.31 0 66 0 39 0 39 0 36 1.8 051 03 03 03 1.41 0 42 0 24 0.24 0 24 I 14 0 33 018 018 018 0.87 018 0 09 0 O9 0 09 0.45 015 0 O9 0 O9 0 09 0 42 015 0 O9 0 O9 0 O9 0.42 012 0 06 0 O6 0 06 0.3 0 O9 0 O6 0 O6 0 O6 0.27 0 O6 0 O3 0 O3 0 O3 0.15 0 06 0.03 0 03 0 03 0.15 R- eople 225 25O 275 300 4OO 50O 6OO Career 3 Camer 4 Ntelos · · VolceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo,ceStream Total: Career 3 Career 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Camer 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Carner 3 Camer 4 Ntelos VolceStream Total: Career 3 Camer 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Camer 3 Camer 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: 0 58 I 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 I 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 1.00 0.58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 1 00 I 00 1 00 0 58 1 00 1 00 1 00 0 58 I 00 1 00 1 00 0 27 015 015 015 0.72 0 24 012 012 012 0.6 018 012 012 0 09 0.51 015 0.09 0 O9 0 09 0.42 0 O9 0 O6 0 O6 0 O6 0.27 0 06 0 03 0 O3 0 03 015 0 03 0 0 0 0.03 0 03 0 03 0 03 0 03 0.12 0 03 0 0 0 0.03 0 03 0 0 0 0.03 0 03 0 0 0 0 03 RF eopl 700 800 900 1000 Camer 3 Carrier 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Camer 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Totab Camer 3 Camer 4 Ntelos Vo~ceStream Total: Career 3 Camer 4 Ntelos VomeStream Total: 0 58 1.00 I O0 1 O0 0 58 1.00 1.00 1 00 0 58 1.00 1.00 1 00 0 58 1 O0 1 O0 1.00 0 03 0 0 0 0.03 Table of Contents · Wxreless m the Commumty · Rachofrequency Ermss~ons from Wtreless Antennas · Wn:eless Rachofi:equency Ermsslons · Rachofrequency Energy' General Health Issues & Safety Standards · Federal Regulattons on Rachofrequency Ermssxons from W~reless Antennas · How to Fred More Informauon on Rachofrequency Energy · Background Smches and Reports on Rachofrequency and Telecommumcauons TALKING POINTS- WIRELESS IN THE COMMUNITY W/re/ess Users Today The number of Americans using wireless services has increased more than 1000 percent in the past decade, from only about 11 n'nihon Americans usmg w~reless tn 1992 to nearly half of all Americans today. Today, more than 135 n'nihon Americans use their wireless phones and other devices to stay connected to farmly, conduct business, talk to friends, and even call for asststance when needed Wireless and Em ergency Service Approxtmately 40 percent of the 911 calls recetved today by emergency service personnel are made from wireless phones This equals more than 115,000 wn:eless phone calls made every day to 911. As part of the Federal Commumcauons Comn'nsslon's mandate for E-911, wireless carriers also are reqmred to be able to locate a call from a w~reless phone to an increasingly accurate geo-locatton In order to meet these emergency locauon requLrements some carriers, lncluchng T-Mobile, need to add rmmmal addauonal equipment to thetr sites. Wireless Ia£rastructure Creaung a network of cell sltes, with a wireless tower or antenna at tts core, helps ehrmnate consumer sermce problems hke dropped calls, no s~gnal, or poor quahty because a cell stte ts too far away or not geographically sttuated to be able to promde service Creaung this tnfrastructure of cell sttes requires wareless carners to lease and pay for s~tes, construct towers and antennas, and pay bRhons of dollars tnto the U S Treasury for use of the wn:eless spectrum Only -,ruth thts anfrastructure in place can consumers recetve the quahty and geographac coverage they expect from then: wrreless sermces. Radiofrequency Emissions From Wireless Antennas · What Is a v~areless antenna;~ · Where arew~reless antennas located> · H. OW does a xmrele~s antenna work.and what Is its f.unctton~ · Do xmreless antennas emit radlofrequency (..RI"") enerffy'. ~ · What is the power level of rachofrequency enerffy from a w~reless antenna~ What is a wireless antenna? A xmreless antenna, also called a base statton, is a commumcauons devace that receives and transrmts rachofrequency (P~F) energy. There are two ma. tn types of xmxeless antennas. The first xs called the "low-gain" or "omm-chrectional" antenna. It sends and recelves signals tn all chrecuons An omm-dLrecUonal antenna looks hke a pole or a wimp, and may be from 2 to 10 feet m length and a few roches m w~dth The second is called a "imgh-gam" or "sector" antenna. It focuses szgnals m one &recuon and typically xs a rectangular panel about 4 feet long and one foot w~de Where are wireless antennas located? Wn:eless antennas are located above the ground - usually between 100 and 200 feet h~gh, but someumes much lower- to promde mayamum reach and to ensure mmanum interference. You will find most antennas on towers or specially bmlt poles, but they are also on the s~des and tops of bmlchngs, on water towers, and someumes even in the tops of aruficial trees installed to blend w~th natural surrounchngs Experts deterrmne precisely where to locate each antenna to ensure It operates safely and dehvers clear and rehable sermce. In selecung the best site, these experts consider many thtngs, including the number of people requtrtng servme and how they will use thezr wxreless phones, local topography and potenual obstmcuons that may tnterfere w~th clear racho signals, and the concerns of people who bye and work nearby They work v~th zomng boards, cmzen groups, and pubhc sermce comrmssmns among others to make sure that each new antenna comphes w~th all laws, ordinances, and regulauons How does a wireless antenna work and what is its function? When you place a ,nreless call, your phone uses low-power racho signals to send your voice to an antenna at a base statton The base stauon sends your call to a sv0atcb..mg center where it is connected to the landhne phone network and dehvered to the phone you called If you are calhng another wzreless phone nearby, the swxtch rmght lust connect you chrecfly to the base station serving the cell where the other phone is located When you approach the boundary of one cell wkale using your wLreless phone, the wzreless network senses that the signal is becoming weak and automa ucally hands off the call to a base stauon m the next cell and your call continues uranterrupted An antenna chsmbutes racho waves throughout its cell much hke a lamp chsmbutes hght throughout a room A hght bulb can provide hght evenly throughout a room if it's located in the right place. In the same way, a properly located antenna can provide htgh-quahty calling throughout its cell That is why they are usually found above the ground on towers, poles, and bufldmgs. Do wireless antennas emit radiofrequency energy? Wzreless antennas send and receive racho signals - RF energy The RF carnes the phone call to or from a w~reless base stauon antenna, which then connects your phone w~th the phone you are calhng or uath the phone calhng you Engineers carefully design each antenna to make sure it sends signals m precisely the right dzrectmn and at the right power level to provide the best calhng quahty to its coverage zone or "ceil." It is n'nportant to note the dtfference between, antennas, towers and base stattons. Antennas transrmt the RF and are attached to structures such as buflchngs or towers, and the antennas, towers and all of the related equipment make up a base stat_ton Cells, or coverage areas, come in all sizes - they may be as small as a single bmlchng (hke an airport or an arena), as large as a rural area of 20 miles across, or any size in between - and each cell has its own base stauon. What is the power level of radiofrequency energy from a wireless antenna? A typical cellular antenna ermts about 100 watts or less of power per channel, lust one-fifth the level perrmtted by the Federal Communlcauons Comrmssion (FCC) In urban areas, power levels are often as low as 10 watts per channel. PCS rmcrocell antennas ermt between 0.25 and 10 watts per channel. In comparison, a TV tower ermts up to 5 rmlhon watts, and an FM racho statton ermts as much as 100,000 watts of power. Wrreless antennas located above the ground direct very little RE energy downward In adchtlon, levels of radlofrequency energy decrease very quickly w~th chstance Most of the energy released downward from a 50 to 200-foot }ugh antenna has chsslpated before It reaches the ground Information sourced Erom the Cellular Telecommunications and Interact A~sociation Electromagnetic Frequency Spectrum o 10 10' NON-IONIZING ENERGY 10~ Radiofrequency ermtted from telecommumcauons antennas and towers is "non- lorazmg" energy, which means it Is too weak to break chermcal bonds. Other forms of nonqorazlng energy are the warmth you may feel from a hght bulb or from a £~replace Wireless telecommumcauons radiofrequency is located on the natural electromagnetic spectrum above sound and below visible hght It is the same type of energy used to broadcast radio and televis:on signals The Federal Communicauons Commission (FCC) regulates radiofrequency ermsslons to ensure pubhc safety. Telecommumcauons towers operate well below these limits, often at/ust one-quarter, or less, of the power level perrmtted, creating ground level power denslttes thousands of times less than the FCC's limits for safe exposure Rachofrequency ermsslons from a telecommumcattons antenna/tower are directed toward the horizon and not downward Because of this, the RF at the ground level directly below the antenna Is low, increases shghtly as one moves away from the base station and then decreases significantly as the distance from the antenna increases Radiofrequency Energy: General Health Issues & Safety Standards Sctenusts have sm&ed ra&ofrequency energy (P~F) for decades and hundreds of sm&es have been pubhshed m peer revaewed scaenufic journals The consensus view among these experts - both m the Umted States and anternattonally - as that exposure to levels ermtted by w~reless antennas is not hazardous to pubhc health · Does RF from w~reless antenna~ pose a n,~k tO the pubhc> · ~vVhv do exoerts beheve that there as no risk from w~reless antennas> · Is there a health risk for people who bye, play, wor.k or go to school near a w~reless antenna ,lte> · What about t.9.wers and. rooftop ,ares where there are muluple antennas> Doesn't the combaned RF enerD~ pose .a health rlsk> · What about wxreless an.tennas mounted on the sade of a bml&ng> Does RF from wireless antennas pose a risk to the public? No. Experts - including doctors, blolognsts, engineers, and other sctenusts in the U.S. and other countries - have conducted or pamclpated In rachofrequency (RF) sm&es over the last several decades and pubhshed their results in peer-reviewed scientific journals The consensus of the scaent~fic commumty as that pubhc-level exposure to levels of R_F from w,,reless antennas is not hazardous to human health. These sm&es have been used to estabhsh the safety standards and gmdehnes, such as those used by the FCC, whach were designed to 1.trmt the pubhc's exposure only to safe levels of RF In recent years, many experts from around the world have remewed these sc~enufic fin&ngs Agatn, they conclude that there are no adverse human health effects associated xxnth pubhc-level exposure to RF from w~reless antennas Why do experts believe that there is no risk from wireless antennas? The type of RF used by wzreless phones and antennas as classified as "non- mmzmg" energy, winch means it is too weak to break chermcal bonds Other famahar forms of non-lorazang energy include the warmth you feel coming from a fireplace, and v~s~ble hght The World Health Orgamzauon says "Current sciennfic emdence lnchcates that exposure to RF fields, such as those ermtted by mobile phones and their base stauons, zs unhkely to reduce or promote cancers Experts at the FCC, which regulates wLreless antenna ermsslons, smd the followang in a recent report' "Measurements that have been made around typical [wrreless antennas] have shown that ground-level power densmes are well below lm~ts recommended by currently accepted RE energy and microwave safety standards" Scienusts at the World Health Organizauon (WHO) draw a slrmlar conclusion. They say. "Because of the narrow verucal spread of the beam, the RF field intensity on the ground &rectly below the antenna is low and decreases rapidly as one moves away from the antenna. At all &stances, the RF field levels on the ground from [antennas] are well w~thm lntemauonal RE gmdehnes for exposure of the general pubhc." Finally, the power levels that wLreless antennas actually use to transrmt s:gnals are very low - much lower than those perrmtted by government regulauons and much lower than the levels emitted by other antennas hke those to transrmt FM racho and television signals Is there a health risk for people who live, play, work or go to school near a wireless antenna site? No. The height of the antennas, the fenced-off areas around them, and thear relauvely low power levels all assure that only minuscule levels of tLF energy reach neighbors and passersby The overwhelrmng thrust of expert opauon m ti'ns field xs that there ~s no emdence of any harmful health effects from w~reless antenna racho sxgnals What about towers and rooftop sites where there are multiple antennas? Doesn't the combined RF energy pose a health risk? According to the FCC's _Questions and~4nsvers about l~tol~tcal E~cts and Potenttal Hazards of Radw-Frequen~ ~lectrora~net~c Ftelds "Even if RF levels were higher than deszrable on a rooftop, appropriate restncuons could be placed on access The fact that rooftop cellular and PCS antennas usually operate at lower power levels than antennas on freestanchng towers makes excessive exposure con&nons on rooftops unhkely. In adchuon, the slgmficant signal attenuauon [weakening] of a bmldmg's roof rmnnmzes any chance for persons hying or worMng w~tban the buflchng ~tself to be exposed to RF levels that could approach or exceed apphcable safety hmlts" What about wireless antennas mounted on the side of a building? All wzreless antennas must comply w~th the FCC's RF ermss~ons gtudehnes, mcluchng roof-mounted antennas. The buflchng and roof prevent much of the RF from entering In fact, the roof alone can decrease RF s~gnal strength szgmficantly -- ze. by as much as a factor of 10. In adchnon, most of the RF from a w~reless antenna ~s chrected towards the horizon and not dxrecfly downward The FCC also reqmres antennas mounted on rooftops to have signs or fences to keep people away from places where the KF fields exceed its lirmts Information sourced from the Cellular Telecommunications and Inteme£ Association Federal Regulations on Radiofrequency Emissions From Wireless Antennas · What federal re~lauon$ do wireless prom&rs have to meet when stung an antenna> · Hgw can the pubhc be sure that wrreless antennas are safe> · Do wLrele~s antennas comply with these safer}, hmlts for pubhc exposure? · If RF enerffy from wireless antennas is safe, why is there a need for setting exposure What federal regulations do wireless providers have to meet when siting an antenna? All w~reless base stauons must meet the science-based RF ermsslon gmdelmes of the Federal Commumcauons Comrmssmn (FCC), whmh estabhsh conservauve exposure hrmts to ensure that the health of all cmzens ts protected. The gmdehnes are destgned with a substanual margin of safety. These mternauonally recogmzed gmdehnes were estabhshed by leachng independent sc~enufic orgamzauons mcluchng the American Nauonal Standards Insutute (ANSI), the Insutute of Electrical and Electromc Engineers (IEEE), and the Nauonal Council on Rachauon Protecuon and Measurement (NCRP), an independent orgamzauon chartered by Congress The U.S. arm of the IEEE has ~ssued a formal statement endorsing the consensus gmdehnes, wtuch says m part: "Based on present knowledge, prolonged exposure at or below the levels recommended m these gmdehnes xs considered safe for human health Measurements near t-y'pxcal cellular base stauons have shown that exposure levels normally encountered by the pubhc are well below hrmts recommended by all nauonal and mtemauonal safeW standards Therefore, one can conclude that exposure from properly operating base stauons :s safe for the general populauon." How can the public be sure that wireless antennas are safe? Both the NCRP and ANSI/IEEE exposure gmdehnes were developed by sc~enusts and enganeers with a great deal of experience and knowledge m the area of RF bmlogacal effects and related ~ssues. These mchmduals spent a considerable amount of nme evaluaung pubhshed sc~enufic stuches relevant to estabhsh~ng safe levels for human exposure to RF energy These gmdehnes are designed to make sure that wireless antennas are designed and operate ~n a safe manner. Other federal agencies have reviewed and endorsed the FCC's gmdehnes These include the Envn:onmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Adn'nmstrauon (FDA), the Occupauonal Safety and Health Adrmmstrauon (OSHA), and the Nauonal Insutute for Occupauonal Safety and Health (NIOSH) EPA concluded "It [is] EPA's v~ew that the FCC exposure gmdehnes adequately protect the pubhc from all scienufically estabhshed harms that may result from [Racho-Frequency] energy fields generated by FCC hcensees" Do wireless antennas comply with these safety limits for public exposure? In Bulleun 56, the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology smd, "Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS mstallauons, espemally those xv~th tower-mounted antennas, have shown that ground-level power densmes axe well below hrmts recommended by RF/rmcrowave safety standards." If RF energy from wireless antennas is safe, why is there a need for setting exposure limits? These gmdehnes are designed to ensure that FCC-regulated transrmtters do not expose the pubhc or workers to levels of RF energy that are considered by expert orgamzauons to be potenuaily harmful Therefore, ~f the FCC regulates a transrmtter and its assomated antenna, they must comply w~th provxs~ons of the FCC's vales regarchng human exposure to RF energy In a 1997 Order, the FCC adopted a provision that all ttansrmtters regulated by the FCC, regardless of whether they are excluded from rouune evaluauon, had to be ~n comphance w~th RF exposure gLudelmes by September 1, 2000. Information sourced from the Cellular Telecommunications and Interact Association How to Find More Information on Radiofrequency Energy There are numerous government, independent health, umvers~ty, orgamzation, and associatton web sxtes that promde reports, studies, question & answers, and other reformation on rachofrequency (RF) energy The s~tes and hnks hsted below are some of those that have mformauon on the topic U S Federal Commumcations Commissmn http//www fcc gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs html National Institute of Envtronmental Health Sciences, National Insttmte of Health http'//www niehs mh gov/oc/factsheets/emf/emf htm Medical College of W~sconsm http'//www, mcw edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phon¢-health-FAQ/toc html The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) http//www seas upe~n edu/-'kfo,~tcr/base him U.S Food and Drag Adrmmstration www. fda gov/cdrh/ocd/mobllphone html U S General Accounting Office htt-p //,aavw gao gov/newatems/d01545 pdf Cellular Telecommunicauons and Intemet Association http //www wow-corn com/consm'ner/lssucs/health/ European Science and Engineering OrgamzatIon, COST281 http//www cost281 org/activlue~/Short term rm~sion pdf World Health Orgamzation http //www.whoant/peh-emf/ http. //www.wh9 lnt Anf-fs/en/£act193 html http //www-nt who ~nt/peh-emf/emfstudles/database cfm The Health Council of the Netherlands http //www gr nl/engels/welcome/frameset btm Intemauonal Commtssmn on Non-Ionizing Radiauon Protecuon htm://www.~cnm2 de/Explorer/pubEMF him 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) lO) Background Studies and Reports On Radiofrequency and Telecommunications (By Date) European Science and Engmeenng Orgamzauon, COST 281 - Mobile Telecommumcauon Base Stauons - Exposure to Electromagneuc Fields, March 2002 Me&cai College of Wtsconsm, Electromagneuc Ftelds and Human Health - Cellular Phone Antennas (Mobile Phone Base Stations) and Human Health, last updated January 2, 2002 Federal Commumcauons Comrmsslon, Office of Engmeenng & Technology - Frequently Asked Quesuons About the Safety of Ra&ofrequency (ILF) and Mmrowave Enussions from Transrmtters and Faczhnes Regulated by the FCC, last updated October 2001 U.S. Food and Drag Admsmstrauon - Center for Devices and Ra&olog~cal Health - Consumer Update on W~reless Phones, July 2001 U S General Accounung Office - Telecommumcauons, Research and Regulatory Efforts on Mobile Phone Health Issues, May 2001 The Insutute of Electrical and Electromcs Enganeers (IEEE) Comrmttee on Man and Rachanon (COMA. R) - Safety Issues Assocaated xxnth Base Stat. tons Used for Personal Wureless Communicataons, September 2000 Federal Commumcattons Commass~on, Local and State Government Admsory Comrmttee - A Local Government Officml's Guide to Transrmtung antenna RF Ermss~on Safety Rules, Procedures, and Pracucal Guidance, June 2000 The World Health Orgamzauon - Fact Sheet' Electromagneuc Fields and Pubhc Health, Mobile Telephones and Them Base Stauons, revised June 2000 Federal Commumcauons Comrmsston, Office of Englneenng & Technology, Quesuons and Answers about Bmlogacal Effects and Potenual Hazards of Rachofrequency Electromagneuc Fields - OET Bulletin 56, Fourth Edmon, August 1999 Federal Commumcauons Commxssion, Office of Engineering & Technology - Informauon on Human Exposure to Ra&ofrequency Fields from Cellular and PCS Racho Transrmtters, January 1998 Note Many of these sm&es are accessxble on the Intemet T MOBILE LITTLE NECK RACQUET CLUB VA 10363 A Green I~n~ Ln K~ngs La~e ~ SITE Li~le NUMBERS INDICATE PHOTOGRAPH LOCATgONS T MOBILE LITTLE NECK RACQUET CLUB VA 10363 A VIEW OF PROPOSED 112' GALVANIZED MONOPOLES ANTENNAS CONCEALED WITH IN ATHLETIC LIGHTING MOUNTED AT 45' PHOTO TAKEN 12/12/02 PERSPECTIVE IS FROM POPLAR BEND ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA T MOBILE LITTLE NECK RACQUET CLUB VA 10363 A VIEW OF PROPOSED 112' GALVANIZED MONOPOLES ANTENNAS CONCEALED WITH IN ATHLETIC LIGHTING MOUNTED AT 45' PHOTO TAKEN 12/12/02 PERSPECTIVE IS FROM 3109 BELDOVER LANE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 2 T MOBILE LITTLE NECK RACQUET CLUB VA 10363 A VIEW OF PROPOSED 112' GALVANIZED MONOPOLES (ONE TOWER IS NOT VISIBLE) ANTENNAS CONCEALED WITH IN ATHLETIC LIGHTING MOUNTED AT 45' PHOTO TAKEN 12/12/02 PERSPECTIVE IS BELDOVER LANE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA T MOBILE LITTLE NECK RACQUET CLUB VA 10363 A VIEW OF PROPOSED 112' GALVANIZED MONOPOLES ANTENNAS CONCEALED WITH IN ATHLETIC LIGHTING MOUNTED AT 45' PERSPECTIVE IS FROM THE INTERSECTION OF BISHOPS GATE LANE AND BISHOPS GATE COURT VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Little Neck Swirn and Presentatio,n T-Mobile Extensive Corn rn u n ity Pa rtici pation ~Numerous Meetings · Middle Plantation · King's Grant - Sea Breeze Farms · Redwood Farms · Little Neck Cove · Bishopsgate ~Multiple Meetings with LNSRC · Club membership approved by 2:1 margin LIST OF LI1-FLE NECK COMMUNITY MEETINGS March 13, 2002 Neighbors <~ March 27, 2002 Meeting April 16, 2002- April 17, 2002- April 24, 2002- April 30, 2002- -Community Meeting with Adjacent -Middle Plantation Executive Board King's Grant Executive Board Meeting Middle Plantation Community meeting Sea Breeze Farm Community Meeting Redwood Farms Community IVleeting ~ May 13, 2002- Little Neck Cove Community Meeting ~ May 14, 2002- Bishopsgate Community Meeting <..> May 16, 2002- King's Grant Community Meeting ~ June 8, 2002- Balloon Test ,~,~ .lune 22, 2002- Balloon Test LIST OF LI'FTLE NECK COMMUNITY MEETINGS July 1, 2002 - Little Neck Swim & Racquet Club Board Meeting July 15, 2002- Middle Plantation Civic League Meeting September 5, 2002 - Little Neck Swim & Racquet Club Vote (2:1 voting in favor) November 5, 2002- November 12, 2002 Meeting November 18, 2002 December 12, 2002 ]anuary 15, 2003- Directors Meeting King's Grant Civic League Meeting - Bishopsgate Civic League - King's Grant Board Meeting - Balloon Test by Draper Aden Little Neck Swim & Racquet Club February 13, 2003 - Meeting with Al Wallace, Council of Civic Organizations & King's Grant Civic League ~ LNSRC is The Best ReasOnable Solution Large 5.5 acre site Commercially zoned 0-2 with institutional use established Immediate surrounding institutional uses include church and fire station ~ Numerous tall structures with over 15 light poles, club house and sufficient tree bu~'l:ering from 65' to 90' ~ Meets ali City requirements · ~ LNSRC desires to assist community need for coverage. Revenue will benefit community at large. ~ Least Obtrusive Custom Design ~.>Two Stealth slim line light poles ~Limited..~ to 112' in height ~~AII antennas and cables internal <i>Narrow design of 22" ~Retrofitted state of art glare reducing lighting fixtures Capital :Improvements to LNSRC are Substantial · ~New lighting system- reduces spillover glare and improves evening tennis play /~Two multi-purpose architecturally compatible pool cabanas ~Extensive enhanced landscaping around perimeter of Club property · ~l~ncreased open space 7 EMERSON. March 12, 2003 James N McDonald, PE Director of Englneenng Northern Technologies, Inc. 23123 E Mission Liberty Lake, WA 99019 T (509) 927 0401 F (509) 927 0435 i~mrn(~.no rthern-tec h corn Virginia Beach Department of Planning Municipal Center Building 2405 Court Dnve V~rginia Beach, VA 23456 Attention. Barbara Duke RE. T-Mobile's Proposed VA 10363- Little Neck Facility Ms. Duke, I have been asked to offer my assistance on the above-referenced facility with regard to the design considerations and the hghtning safety of the site after ~t is built. I have consulted on site design, grounding and related lightning issues for T-Mobde and other world-class communications companies for several years. I have reviewed T-Mobde's proposed facility design and the sod testing previously performed for the VA 10363 - Little Neck Sw~m and Racquet Club telecommunications pole and equipment. Specifically, my review of the plan was focused on the potential changes to lightning damage susceptibility in the immediate vicinity My understanding of the s~tuation seems to indicate some resistance to the idea of a communications tower being installed somewhat near a pool and the safety issues that go along w~th ~t A rewew of the site grounding (3-pmnt test) and soil (4-point test) conditions at this facility seem to ~nd~cate excellent resistance values, which are well suited for sensitive communicabons systems and hghtn~ng suppression systems ahke. Based on the test data, I believe T-Mobile's standard s~te and grounding design will actually improve protecbon from I~ghtnmg in the immediate v~cimty Regarding the facility (pool) protection, I am encouraged that there are other structures (light posts and buildings) ~n the area that will attract lightning and d~ssipate that energy as well Most people in the hghtn~ng-related industries 0nclud~ng NFPA 780- L~ghtning Protection) agree that a structure (typically refemng to lighting air terminals and other metalhc structures) will provide a 45 degree angle "cone" of protection downward from the bp. This ~nd~cates that the tower and a~r terminal on top ~s expected to protect NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. E V E ON. anything within a radius from the tower equal to the height If they are 120' tall, then anything w~th~n 120 ' of the tower has some level of protection from I~ghtn~ng The facts for th~s site are.. 1) lnstalhng a tower will slightly increase the probability of a l~ghtning strike in this imfnediate vicinity (realistically w~th~n the 120' radius of the tower only) and 2) The addition of the tower and ground plane will improve the protection of the pool and other structures In the area, should lightning strike there. If lightning occurs ~n this area, we would prefer that ~t hit the tower, rather than a poorly grounded fence of lamp post due to the improved grounding system The installation of the tower and site grounding system will improve the protection of the local area, since the tower w~il sink most of the lightning current below it into the earth. Without the tower present, the lamps, buildings and fences will be likely to take a lightning hit and without sufficient ground systems in place (as is very common for these structures) could cause more damage or ~njury. t hope this information helps If I can be of further ass[stance, please do not hesitate to call on me here at NTi, 800-727-9119 Best Regards, Jim McDonald, PE Director of Engineenng FILE No.375 03/12 '03 09:59 ID:NTELOS FAX:80432?5491 PAGE 2 9011 Arboretum Parkway Sufle 295 Rtchmond, VA 23236 March 12, 2003 City of Virginia Beach Planning Commission C~ty Hall Building Princess Anne Cou~ouse Virginia Beach, Virginia H05-210-MODo2002 and H05-210-CUP-2002, Application by VoiceStream GS.M II, L.L.C. for a new Communieatmns Fa¢ihty/Tower located at 864 Little Neck Road Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission: Rackmond 20MHz, LLC is an FCC Personal Communications Service licensee for the Norfolkgqirgima Beach Basic Trading Area and provides PCS service regionally under the trade name "NTELOS". NTELOS fully supports the application by T-Mobile USA before the Commission and respectfully requests your approval of this apphcation as submitted. In November of 1996 NTELOS launched the first d~g~tal wireless communications service in Hampton Roads operating then under the name PrimeCo. Since that time, customers of PrimeCo and now NTELOS continue to be unable to use their service within the Little Neck peninsula In fact, the Little Neck peninsula remains the only major populated area within the entire NTELOS network in Virginia which does not have adequate signal levels for NTELOS customers to receive phone service. On behalf of the Virginia Beach customers of NTELOS, we support the T- Mobile apphcatmn and agmn, respectfully request your approval SincereS~Y,~ Director of S~te Development PETITION CO.MMUNICANTION TOWERS TO BE INSTALLED AT THE LITTLE NECK SWIM AND RA.CQUET CLUB~ 864 Little Neck Road~ Virginia Beach~ Virginia 23452 To: The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia ' BE IT HEREBY KNOWN and stated that the PHYSICIAN/residents of the areas surrounding the Little Neck Peninsula who have affix~ their signatures below are against building, or allowing to be built or erected on the site of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club property, any communications towers. We strongly believe that any towers, whether disguised as light poles, flag poles, or other stealth object, or any other conceivable design, will ruin the aesthetics of our Peninsula and neighborhood where our children swim and play. We do NOT believe that such towers would improve the safety of the surrounding residents or of the patients for whom we provide care. SIGNATURE PRINT ADDRESS PHONE DATE !~ght2 ~720x480x24b ~peg) Little Neck Community Enhancement Fund Purpose: To establish a fund, the Little Neck Community Enhancement Fund (LNCEF), to financially support projects focused on beautification, safety, security, recreation, or other purposes which enhance the quality of life for residents of the Upper Little Neck Peninsula This fund has been established so that all residents of the Upper Little Neck peninsula may benefit from the sacrifice of esthetics in lieu of financial lease proceeds resulting from erection of cellular towers at the LNSRC. Source of Funds: The LNCEF will be established as an addendum to the lease agreement between Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club (LNSRC) and VoiceStream Wireless for the siting of cellular towers on LNSRC property. LNSRC will endow the LNCEF with a sum equal to 5% of the gross annual lease proceeds from the lease agreement with VoiceStream Wireless The LNCEF may, in addition, be contributed to from other sources such as civic leagues, commercial concerns, etc Utilization of LNCEF: LNCEF resources will be utilized on beautification projects along primary feeder roads in the Upper Little Neck peninsula including Little Neck Road (north of the intersection with Lynnhaven Road), Lynnhaven Road, Kings Grant Road, Little Haven Road and Harris Road The fund may also be used for safety, security, recreation or other purpose which pnmardy benefits those residents of the northern Little Neck Pemnsula Administration of LNCEF: The LNCEF will be administered by a committee consisting of the presidents of northern// Little Neck civic leagues, a designated representative of the Little Neck Fire Station No 20, a designated representative of the Plaza Volunteer Rescue Squad, the Lynnhaven District City Councilman, and a designated representative of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club The committee will meet at least once yearly to review funding requests and to select requests for funding. The committee will periodically distribute information describing the LNCEF, its purpose and application, and soliciting requests for funds to civic leagues, Little Neck Schools, the Little Neck Fire Station, the Plaza Volunteer Rescue Squad, Little Neck Church pastors At the discretion of the LNCEF committee, funds may be carried over from one year to the next to support costlier projects The LNCEF committee will designate a chairperson, a secretary and a treasurer. Minutes of meetings will be maintained and a treasurers report will be prepared with a copy submitted annually to the LNSRC Board of Directors Reasonable operating expenses of the board (e.g copy expenses, supplies) may be withdrawn from the fund. .PETITION COMMUNICANT!ON TOWERS TO BE INSTALLED AT THE LITTLE NECK SWIM AND .RACQUET CLUI}.~ 864 Little Neck Road~ Virginia Beach~ Virginia 23452 _~_ To: The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia - BE IT HEREBY KNOWN and stated that the PHYSICIAN/residents of the Little Neck Peninsula and surrounding subdivisions who have affixed their signatures below are against building, or allowing to be built or erected on the site of the Little Neck Swim ~nd Racquet Club property, any communications towers. We strongly believe that any towers, whether disguised as light poles, flag poles, or other stealth object, or any other conceivable design, will ruin the aesthetics of our Peninsula and neighborhood where our children swim and play. We do NOT believe that such towers would improve the safety of the surrounding residents or of the patients for whom we provide care. SIGNATURE PRINT ADDRESS PHONE DATE COMMUNICANTION TOWERS .TO BE INSTALLED AT THE LITTLE NECK SWIM AND RACOUET CLUB~ 864 Little Neck Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452 · To: The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia BE IT HEREBY KNOWN and stated that the HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAIJresidents of the Little Neck Peninsula and surrounding subdivisions who have affixed their signatures below are against building, or allowing to be built or erected on the site of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club property, any communications towers. We strongly believe that any towers, whether disguised as light poles, flag poles, or other stealth object, or any other conceivable design, will ruin the aesthetics of our Peninsula and neighborhood where our children swim and play. We do NOT believe that such towers would improve the safety of the surrounding residents or of the patients for whom we provide care. SIGNATURE PRINT ADDRESS PHONE DATE PETmON COMMUNICAN, TION TOWERS TO BE INSTALLED AT ,THE LITT,LE NECK SWIM AND RACQUET CLUB~ 864 Little, Neck Road~ Virginia B~eh~ Virginia 234.52 To: The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia BE IT HEREBY KNOWN and stated that the residents of the Little Neck Peninsula and surrounding subdivisions who have affixed their signatures below are against building, or allowing to be built or erected on the site of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club property, any communications towers. We strongly believe that any towers, whether disguised as light poles, flag poles, or other stealth object, or any other conceivable design, will ruin the aesthetics of our Peninsula and neighborhood where our children swim and play. We do not want to deny our children the right to have a beautiful, uncluttered-eyesore towers, place to enjoy their sports. SIGNATURE PRINT ADDRESS PHONE DATE i i ii I i I Regarding COlllitlCATIO~ ll)I~P.~ PKOPOSgD TO Bg INSTALLED AT THg LIl'fI2 Ng~ SICIHANDRACQUET CLUB, 864 LITTI~SECK ROAD, VIRGINIA BgACIt, VIRGINIA 23452 To: The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia BE IT HEREBY KNO~ and stated that the residents of the Little Neck Peninsula and surrounding sub-divisions, who have affixed their signatures below, are against building or alloying to be built or erected un the site of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club property, any comunication to-ers. ~e strongly believe that any towers, whether disguised as light poles, flag poles or other stealth object, or any other conceivable design, will ruin the aesthetics of our Peninsula and neighborhood where our children s~lm and play. ~e do not want to deny our children the right to have a beautiful, uncluttered-by- co~ercial-eyesore towers, place to enjoy their sports. PaONE so. _[2 -f7 Regarding COHHONICATION TONERS PROPOSED TO BE ~I~STALLED AT THB LITTLE NECK Sb/IH AND RACQUET CLUB, 864 LITTLE NECK ROAD, VIRGINIA BBACH, VIRGINIA 23452 To: The City Council of the City of Vir~tnia Beach, Virginia BE IT I~RF~YI(NOI~I and stated that the re~idents of the Little Neck Peninsula and surrounding sub-divisians, who have affixed their si~natures below, are against building or allovin$ to be built or erected un the site of the Little Neck Swim and ~cquet Club property, any co~lca~lon t~ers. ~e s~ronsly believe that any towers, whether dis~ised as light poles, flag poles or other stealth object, or any other conceivable desi~, will ruin the aesthetics of our Peninsula and neighborhood where our c~ldren s~m and play. ~e do not want to deny our children ~he right to have a beau~iful, uncluttered-by- c~ercial~yesore towers, place to enjoy their sports. - 2- r3.9/ . PETITION COMMUNICANTION TOWE,RS TO, BE INSTALLED AT THE LITTLE NECK SWIM AND RACQUET CLUB~ 864 Little Neck Rgad~ Virginia Beach~ Virginia 23452 To: The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia BE IT HEREBY KNOWN and stated that the residents of the Little Neck Peninsula and surrounding subdivisions who have affixed their signatures below are against building, or allowing to be built or erected on the site of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club property, any communications towers. We strongly believe that any towers, whether disguised as light poles, flag poles, or other stealth object, or any other conceivable design, will ruin the aesthetics of our Peninsula and neighborhood where our children swim and play. We do not want to deny our children the right to have a beautiful, uncluttered-eyesore towers, place to enjoy their sports. SIGNATURE PRINT ADDRESS PHONE DATE PKTITION Regarding CONNUNICATION TOilERS PROPOSED TO BE INSTALleD AT THE LITTLE NECK SWlH AND RACQUET CLUB. 864 LITTLE NECK ROAD, VIRGINIA BEACH, ¥IROINIA 23&52 To: The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia BE IT HEREBY KNOI~ and stated that the residents of the Little Neck Peninsula and surrounding sub-divisiuns, who have affixed ~hetr signatures below, are against building or allowing to be built or erected on the site of the Little Neck S=lm and Racquet Club property, any comunication towers. We strongly believe that any towers, whether disguised as light poles, flag poles or other stealth object, or any other congeivabls design, will ruin the aesthetics of our Peninsula and neighborhood where our children swim and play. We do not want to deny our children the right to have a beautiful, uncluttered-by- commercial-eyesore towers, place to enjoy their sports. SI~A'].'URE PP, INTED NA}IE Al)DP, ESS PHONE NO. DATE. Item #17 & 18 Volcestream GSM II, L.L.C. Modification of Proffers and Conditional Use Permit 864 Little Neck Road D~strict 5 Lynnhaven March 12, 2003 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next items are Item #17 & 18, Vomestream GSM II, L.L.C. Ronald Ripley: Before this application starts, and there are a lot of people signed up speak for and against this item. There's 36 people signed up. If you hear what you have to say already said and you want to acknowledge that is has already been smd, that's fine w~th us. If the speakers get redundant, I will probably ask you to either get to a matter that's not redundant that we haven't heard because there's a lot of speakers. And, we'll be here a long t~me. Okay. Do you mind if we take a five-minute break? Steve Rom~ne. I don't mind at all. Ronald Ripley: We're being requested up here to do that. So, we're going to take a five- minute break. And, we'll proceed in a minute. CONTINUED Ronald Ripley: If I can have you get your seats. Please quiet up so we can get started. Mr. Romine, did you want to get started? Steve Romine: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Steve Romine: Good afternoon Chairman Ripley and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Steve Rom~ne. I'm the local attorney representing T-Mobile in these applications. I have with me today Tim Fincham, the Director of Engineenng and Operations. Scott Debuke, our engineer and B~ll Gambrell, the Planning Consultant. We also have representatives from two other hcensed camers that will be used in th~s s~te, Verizon and Triton. You'll be heating from a cross section of the residents as well who hve on Little Neck and strongly support this apphcatlon. The Planning staff has over 1000 names of residents who support this apphcat~on ~n their file. Because I have hm~ted t~me, I'm just going to hit the highlights of my presentation. My road map will ~nclude the need for wireless services on Little Neck, the proposed plan for the club property, the community process we used to receive input and refine the plan And, we wall address various ~ssues raised dunng this process. Bill Gambrell will then talk about the plan specifically and review certmnly alternative locations we looked at. I'd like to Item #17 & 18 Vo~cestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 2 keep ~n nund that like all good land use dems~ons there must be a balance between achieving the greater public good while mimm~zing impact on the affected few. There are several hcensed careers ~n Virg~ma Beach. This apphcat~on will provide service for four careers on Little Neck. As you are well aware, demand for services has ~ncreased tremendously over the last five years. There's no dispute that there's a gap for sermce and coverage on Little Neck. This solution here will be sometlung that will address for the four carriers that gap in demand. As most of you know, wireless technology provides a critical link for emergency services. Over 120 million Americans use w~reless phones and more users join the ranks everyday. The proposed two 112 foot cell poles, and I mention cell poles because they are not towers. They're replacement light poles on the 5.5 acre parcel of land zoned 0-2, will assist T-Mobile in providing ~nfrastrucmre necessary to provide the wireless service to th~s area of the City. I refer you to the site plan in your package for photo detail. These poles will provide adequate coverage for the current demand of four carriers and the poles have been specifically designed for the site. They're designed to be short and narrow as possible to mimm~ze ~mpact on surrounding properties. As I mentioned earher, we went through an extensive community process. I've gnven you a handout that lists all the meetings we had over the past year. This culminated a vote by the club to approve the lease and proceed w~th the application. An overwhelming majority of the club members support the apphcation. I wanted to do a quick digression and explain the apphcations today. As you know, commumcation facilities are permitted in every zoning d~strict of the C~ty. However, a Conditional Use Permit ~s reqmred by the City for the installation and that's why we are applyung for a CUP. Secondly, that apphcation ~s for the amendment to conditions that were recorded on the property in 1981 when ~t was rezoned for recreational purposes. The conditions recorded in 1981 allowed the properties to be used as a recreational facihty and neither expressly permitted nor prohibited accessory uses like telecommunication facilities. The amendment to conditions is not a rezoning. The property was rezoned ~n 1981. The application today will not change the character or use of the property. The club will retain ~ts use of the recreational facility. The placement of antennas witlun the two cell poles at best ~s an accessory use. A few citizens have rinsed concern about whether the placement of the poles at the site w~ll commercialize the s~te The use of poles and the nature of a pubhc utihty placement of telecommunication faciht~es in the slim line poles the club will not open the door for other types of commermal development any more than mstalhng a new telephone line or electric service to a new house or the w~dening of Hams Road, which is now undergoing a w~dening m th~s point in t~me. We believe th~s ~s the best reasonable solution. We believe the plan, whmh B~ll Gambrell w~ll talk to you ~n more detail m a moment will provide w~reless sermce to the nearly 3000 residents of L~ttle Neck. It's on 5.5-acre parcel with substantial screening. I will leave ~t to Bill to go into greater detml on that plan. As a result of the numerous meetings, we were also able to address various issues that were raised by the commumty And, I will go over those very quickly. Health concerns. The Federal government has established stringent guidehnes for the regulation and momtonng of telecommumcatmn faciht~es. They have established an exposure standard for radiation called Maximal Permissible Exposure (MPE). In this proposal, the Maximum Permissible Exposure of all the antennas that will be installed in these two cell poles will not exceed five percent of the standard The Item #17 & 18 Vomestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 3 cumulative ~mpact is 95 percent less than what is considered a concem for human exposure by the Federal government. Some residents wanted to know ~f this would have an impact on their property values. There are numerous examples of facffities hke th~s next to residential areas in V~rginia Beach. And, I'll leave th~s to Bill Gambrell as well to d~scuss that one. A significant number of 911 calls originate from w~reless phones. And, those are ~ncreasing dmly. Further, the Federal government has mandated all providers to ~mplement E-911 service, which enables emergency responders and police to be able to locate callers by GPS or other means. A third ~ssue of lightemng was raised. There's an article in your package or a report and study that addresses that as well and I'll point that out to you. These poles, when constructed, are engnneered with a very sophisticated grounding system to protect the various expensive equipment housed in the ground structure at the base of the pole. There's no sc~entffic evidence or historical record that suggests that these poles will be a lightening hazard. Qmte the contrary, the trees around the site are much more dangerous to the users of the club and as I indicated there's a handout. I already discussed why this ~s not commercialization. The last issue that was rinsed by the commumty was the visual effect. T-Mobile conducted multiple balloon tests of the site. The balloon test demonstrated the poles aesthetmally blend with existing environment and conforms to existing uses. And, I will point in your package as well. There are four or five photo samples. They're taken from the surrounding neighborhoods, Bishops Gate and Little Neck Estates. The proposed cell poles are the least v~sually obtrusive type of facility. They will not be ht. There's also a profile in your package that gives you a site view that will be from the neighborhood surrounding the property as well. Staff recommends approval of this Conditional Use Permit. For these reasons I request that you approve these apphcat~ons. I wall now ask Bill to talk about the site plan and the possible alternatives. And, I'll stand by to answer questions in a moment. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Bill Gambrell: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission, I'm going to take the site plan, if you don't m~nd and set if over here on the easel. Ronald Pdpley: For the record, you need to state your name. Ball Gambrell: Again, my name ~s Bill Gambrell. I'm working as land consultant for T- Mobile on this project. And, I think Steven alluded to the fact that there have been over 20 commumty meetings on this project. When I assumed responsibihty for working on the project, the first thing I suggested to the apphcant was they needed to work with the community. It's a very sensitive area. I think what the apphcant has done is created a very sensible solution to a very sensitive ~ssue. The solution that they arrived at was a result of all of the community meetings, redeveloping and redeveloping the site plan and re-looking and re-lookang at all of the alternatives that potentially could be out there. And, what you have today is a site plan. I have a small version. It is eas~er for you. Can you hear me? Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 4 Ronald Rapley: Can you kind of stay near the mic? Bill Gambrell: Okay. I think I can work from here. After meeting with the club and meeting with a number of the communities, an initial site plan was drawn that showed three communication poles on this site and each of these wireless facilities were planned as light pole extensions. Very szrnilar to what you have at the high schools except for a lot stealthier. They're 22 inches in diameter. So, if you were to take this piece of paper and double it in size that's the width of these communication facilities. These poles are 22 inches in diameter. They're 112 feet in height. We don't have in this City, I wouldn't think more than one or two that are of this limited in height. Actually, you don't have any that provides a combination for four providers because these two poles will provide services for four wireless providers. Those four providers are T-Mobile, SunCom, Intelos and Venzon. Each of them will have three antennas internally into the pole and you don't see any vertical dimension of them at all. Over a series of meetings they asked that we remove one of the poles. We didn't have support for all the providers to have three poles and there was concern from different people for different reasons that they should be relocated. One of the goals and I said this application was developed as a sensitive application. It was absolutely sensitive to the setbacks established to the guidelines that were established by the City of Virginia Beach and tried to be sensitive to all the people in the community. The result ended with two poles being relocated entirely outside of the activity area of the pool and racquet club. The poles orignnally, I think were planned over here. There was a challenge for setbacks with some decks in the back property line. And, it made more sense to move them. At the base of the poles there are two shelters that are planned. These shelters would double as a pool shelter and as an equipment building. You have a drawing of them in your package and T-Mobile is 100 percent agreeable to ensure that they're developed just exactly as they're shown. The perimeter of the site is surrounded by residential homes. So, what we tried to do was look at the perimeter. Try to say what can we do to make sure that we soften what's going on at this site. It's already an intensely developed site. If you go out there in the evemng it is very, very bright. It is an activity center that is very heavily used. There's spill over lights that go on all of the adjoining properties. The cars that would come into these back parking lots, they're headlights will go directly into the adjoimng properties. So what we tried to do is to develop a site plan that started to mitigate some of these existing problems. Over here, there's a large stand of trees. We agreed that we would preserve the entirety of the stand of trees and they would probably want to go in and do some under story vegetation as well. Along the rear property line, were showing a 20 foot landscape buffer. Pdght now, there is about a three-foot buffer with Photinias there Tlus landscape buffer will be incorporating the existing Photimas and then coming back with some Deciduous trees strategically placed along the back of these properties and then Leyland cypress that will grow to about 30 feet in height. On the plans, we show this going in at a 6-8 foot height at planting so they're more mature than your regular trees that would normally be planted as required under the City's code. On the side property line we did the same th~ng. We tried to evaluate what was there and try to say okay, we can maintain this buffer. The existing site plan that governs th~s s~te doesn't have any conditions as to how it should be developed. It doesn't show any landscaping at Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 5 all. So, by adopting th~s plan, you in fact provide the residents with some additional protection that they don't have. Because at th~s point the site plan really is entare imperious that was approved for the project. So, throughout the perimeter of the site you have a landscape buffer that really does start to give you a lot of separation between the club that you didn't have before. On the front pomon of the site we propose to do a landscape berm and have trees on the front. We actually have got a plan that would show a walkway across here for pedestrians and the idea here is just to obscure your visual of the site as you go by. And, I challenge people to drive by and count to five and see how much you really are going to see because honestly you're not going to see very much at all. I got another visual that we have drawn and this is a visual that is drawn to scale and it shows you what potential perspective would be from the adjoining properties. Now, this perspective shows both existing and proposed vegetation so I don't want to mislead anyone. The intention here is to show you what the visual would be when this project is fully developed. And, you can see that along the northern side of the property you have these existing trees and these existing homes. You have the hght extensions that are proposed over here and you really start to lose your line of sight. The best example I can give you is that if your coming to the municipal complex, you know there are very two large towers belund the Kellum & Eaton hardware store that is right behind us. You only get a visual at ~ts particular point. After you get to close, you don't see them. And, that was really the intention of trying to create a landscaping buffer that they had around the site. The other thing that we tried to incorporate into the plan was the recommendation of a number who did hve in the community and that was to try to reduce the spill over elnmnation that was already occurring to try to really tone down the site. I'd like just to read quickly a letter that we have that we lured a private consulting engineer that specializes in hghtlng and his letter goes, "as an overview, the new lighting design reuses the ex~sting poles and locations. The arms will be changed. The new sports lighting fixtures will be provided. By changing the fixtures we will have the advantage of today's technology not only in the lens reflector design but also an glare control as well. Fixtures are promded with external visors required greatly to reduce the possible to alleviate glare problem that currently exist. Essentially, these components reduce the ability to see the fixtures from any where except the court's perspective. Better performance, reflector lamp and design help eliminate trespass on the adjoining property. And, the amount of light off court to the adjoining properties would expect to be reduced by 75-95 percent of the existing s~tuation. So, as a component to this apphcation, what we tried to do was look at a fmrly unprovement to some extent. We tried to minimize that and actually improve it. As a caveat or a carrot, if you will, to adding beyond the w~reless poles ~n site, again, the existing poles that are there about 45 feet in height. These would take them to 112 feet in height. The overall w~dth is 22 feet that's proposed. I know that I'm a quick time hne because of time. Ronald Rlpley: I think Mr. Gambrell that you have about a minute. Ball Gambrell: I can do this really quickly and then I can answer questions because I think they will come up in the future. And, if you have questions at all, I'll be happy to come back. The map that you have here and you can't see it very well illustrates the Item #17 & 18 Vo~cestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 6 Little Neck pemnsula. On the Lxttle Neck peninsula and xn the package I think that you received from the folks that aren't supportive of the application, they suggest there are many alternative s~tes. None of the alternative sites have a silver bullet effect. All the add~tmnal s~tes have constraints of thexr own. We looked at every sxngle parcel m the community that could meet setbacks. We looked at every parcel that d~dn't have any environmental ~mpacts. We looked at every parcel that wasn't a none-useable actuv~ty center and we came up with a result that thxs was a very, very good locatxon for the project. And, I'll leave it at that and answer any questions you might have. Ronald R~pley: Thank you Mr. Gambrell. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Wilham Din: I've got questions. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Go ahead. Wilham Din: I brought it up at the informal meeting there, Bill about the height. Is the height sufficient? I notice that 112 feet is quite a blt lower, shorter than most normal cell towers. Now, ~s this height going to be sufficient enough to provide coverage within this peninsula so that there is not another need that will crop up along the fringes? Bill Gambrell: I believe so. The application was absolutely designed to try to serve all the residents ~n Little Neck. Tins apphcat~on ~s not going to be perfect. The map I have is a pretty good ~llustration of what type of coverage you can anticipate. They're not an exact science. They are not perfect. But, what thxs map shows here, rather what this map shows here on the top ~s this means on street coverage and winte means there ~s no coverage. These are the modelings that T-Mobile did and they did them most recently. If we replace and add the antennas that are proposed at the L~ttle Neck Racquet Club, tins xs the s~tuation that we have. And, what tins means really xs that you have a blue spot over here and you got a blue spot over here. You don't see any white in here but there could potentmlly be a httle bit of white xn here but effectively, it serves all of the community. It just doesn't give everybody full five bar service. But, ~n order to do that we would have to be more ~ntmsive than when we were before. We would have to raise the height of the towers to the extent to where we felt hke maybe xt was an mtmsmn. We were really trying to estabhsh compatibility. So, these maps pretty well illustrate that the project is going to serve the preponderance of the community. Just to finish your answer to your question, all of these sites, all cell sxtes talk to one another. So, that means all the surrounding cell s~tes in the area and I did a httle artistic on the board over there, but there are s~tes here, here, here and here that shoot ~nto the peninsula now. As, these additional s~tes over here mature, and there most densely populated areas, you may well see that these providers are going to go out and probably re-distribute the load that's over here. And, you may well get ~mproved coverage to these areas as a result of these roadways demanding greater service themselves Ultimately, there are going to be more communication towers throughout the City. Will these commumcat~on towers necessarily have to be ~n Lxttle Neck? I don't think so. I think that th~s plan does a real Item #17 & 18 Volcestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 7 good job at addressang the preponderance of the concerns and I think much of what needs to be done m the furore as you're havang increased traffic, probably can be accomplished maybe outside of the area. William Dan: Well, you got four providers there. Are you speaking that these poles will be sufficient coverage for all four providers or just for T-Mobale? Bill Gambrell: I specifically used the T-Mobile desagn because T-Mobde as the most ammamre player in this market. And, that means they have the least number of towers or wireless facilities anywhere in Virginia Beach. Venzon and SunCom have been around for slx or seven years and are six or seven generation provaders. The coverage as probably less than the ones that T-Mobale have at this point. William Dan: A couple of more questions af I may? Ronald Ripley: Sure. Wdliam Din: You identified four providers on these poles. Is there any room for any expansion on those poles? Bill Gambrell: The poles weren't desagned for expansion and I don't know that they couldn't potentaally in the future accommodate some kind of a sleeve that would give them some sort of expansion but they deliberately were not desagned to anything except for what they are because there are folks that aren't supportive of the project. And, we didn't want to say that at was the brat and switch thing, we're going to design poles so they can go taller in the future. That wasn't the intent. But, you will see through your City and throughout other cities where there have been modifications to facditaes when there is add~taonal need. And, I don't know the answer and I deliberately dadn't ask them to design tlus so that it would be expandable. Wilham Dan: So four is the maxamum number of users on these two poles. Bill Gambrell: At this location. But, as you also know that each of these provaders probably have roaming agreements with the other providers so if you're not one of the four providers here and you chose and they absolutely had an oppommity to participate ~n ttus apphcation, af they chose not to participate then they may have chosen not to participate because they don't feel like this is the best place to spend their money or they have chosen not to participate because they were goang to have a roaming agreement at some poant in the furore with some other provider that is already there. So, there are oppommltaes for other providers to provide service to this community as a result of this apphcataon. William D~n: One of my other questions in the informal meetung was each of these service provaders will reqmre a mmntenance call on their eqmpment. Correct? That's a separate mmntenance call? Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 8 Ball Gambrell: Generally, there is a monthly maintenance that goes on at these sites. It could be more than once a month. It could be twine or three times a month. And, in fact one of the reasons for relocating the poles to the parking lot area was so that these provaders didn't have to send their technicians actually into the activity area of the club. They actually pull up to the pole shelters on the backsade where their entrances are, they can do their work and then they could come and go. But, they all do annual preventative mmntenance on a monthly basas. William Dm: Monthly basas. So, there are four providers coming an to ti'ns area on a monthly basas. Pdght? What kind of vehicles do they use? Bill Gambrell: They generally use pick up trucks, four wheel dnve vehicles. They don't use heavy vehicles. They don't go up on the poles at all. They simply go to the radios that are located m the room at the base of the tower and do the work they are required to do. William Din: And, how as that coordinated with the racquet club? Bill Gambrell: Well, I don't know the detmls of that have actually been worked out. But, I can tell you that an instances that the C~ty of Virginia Beach where there are sensitive sites, they are required to notify and give advance approval. And, I suspect that the club may want to do that. But again, the reason why the shelters were located outside the pool area was that these techmmans d~d not have to come on to that activity area. Did not have to antermix wath the folks that are there, enjoying the pools and the tenms courts. William Dan: Well, I looked more at the intrusive nature of the maintenance visits. What days of the week? Bill Gambrell: They check all of the facilities throughout. Generally, they have one techmcian that ~s assigned to several towers, maybe five or s~x towers in the area. They're not going to be any more intrusive than the Federal Express guy that's going to come to the sate. You'll probably see a Federal Express, UPS guy going anto the commumty a lot more often than you're going to see these velucles. And, they are not large vehicles. They are generally, like I said pick up trucks or SUVs that can carry the radao testing eqmpment that they used. Walliam Dan: Okay. Thank you. Ronald Pdpley: Kathy Katsms has a question. Kathy Katslas: You said earlier that you had explored other sites and no other site was compatible. I received an alternative study by some of the residents and they mentioned Lynnhaven Methodist Church. Would you please explmn? Item #17 & 18 Voacestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 9 Bill Gambrell: Yes ma'am. The Umted Methodist Church was approved for w~reless facilaties, about seven years ago by this Board. The Caty Councal voted unanimously ageunst at and the community was overwhelmingly opposed to at. We discounted that sate m partacular because of the previous actlvitaes that occurred on that site and we also discounted that sate because now, as opposed to then, we have a stricter policy as at relates to intrusion anto the Resource Protection Area. And, I brought a pacture for you ~n partacular when at relates to the United Methodist Church because every portaon of that s~te that's not developed w~th parking area is in the Resource Protectaon Area. And, in fact, tins is the picture where the previous pole would go and you can see that it sits a top of bank. It's m the seaward component Resource Protection Area. And, it as adjacent to that marsh. And, one of the reasons why I advised my client not to suggest going an there besades the fact that ~t was already overwhelmingly dasapproved by the community was because of the environmental complaints too. I would expect that I would have env~ronmentahst down here saying, I can't believe you're going to put a tower ~n high erodible soils because that ~s the defimtion of your Chesapeake Bay Ordinance. So, that was the reason for discounting that sate. The other sites have similar d~scounts to them. The other sites that did have impacts or were impacted by the Resource Protection Area or Chesapeake Bay Program and there are other s~tes that are just vasually challenged. That report also suggests that at K~ngston Elementary School that it might be appropriate to put a site there and I took the liberty of taking picture of that elementary school and I can show you on a map but I can just graphically tell you that there is no where on th~s sate where that tower won't be right in the middle of this activity field. In other words, if you come 200 feet of this property lines where these houses are over here, that puts you in the middle of the field, and if you meet your 50 foot setback from the roadways that puts you in the middle of the field. There's nowhere here. There's no place to hide it. It's just a visual intrusion. And, that was discounted for that very purpose as well. Kathy Katsias: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Gambell, was the onginal height higher? Did you propose a higher tower? Bill Gambrell: This application started out a httle blt higher height. I think 115-120 feet There were people in the community that said, "can you make it lower?" We took a look at at and what we did was we squeezed the proximately of the antennas inside the pole so that the two providers actually have to kind of give up some of the space between. They lake to have a httle more separation. So, we did reduce it down to 112 for that reason. They are substantaally lower than the ones that were approved at the Lynnhaven Church and at another church because they were 135 feet in overall height. Ronald Ripley: Is there any noise assocmted wath this? Bill Gambrell: The only noise that is associated with this is going to be the mr condltiomng units that are mounted on the facility at the very base. We d~d some decibel readings and the units that they use are very similar to what you might find in a town Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 10 home. They're very non-intrusive. They shouldn't be problematic at all. They won't be problematic for anybody on any of the adjoining properties. You absolutely won't be able to hear them from a d~stance. Sometimes with communication facihties you have a backup generator, so if power goes down they have a diesel or backup generator. Those from tame to time can be fairly noisy. They are not proposed at this location. Ronald Rapley: Would you pass the coverage exhibits that you had? There were two exhibits that you had there that showed the current situation and what the new tower would possibly do an coverage around so that we can see that. Because trying to determine the need as very ~mportant to the Commission. Bill Gambrell: The first coverage map shows the tremendous amount of blue and shows white. White means no service. Blue means less than good serrate. We call ~t "On street service" on this map. Ronald R~pley: Thank you. Are there any other questions at this time? I'm sure there will be other questions as we go through all these speakers. Okay. Mr. Miller would you mind calling? Robert Miller: Okay here we go. We have approximately 41 speakers. Each one of you, according to our rules is allowed three minutes but if you're going to be redundant or repeat yourself, Mr. R~pley says he's going to remind you. Peggy WiRe. I'll read the second one and you can come forward and get ready to go. Vikki Camp, if you can come up. Are you people here? This is in no partmular order. I don't know what order you may be assuming there. Peggy Witte: I think I was the first one here. Robert Miller: Well, good Peggy. Peggy Witte: Good aftemoon Chairman Ripley and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Peggy W~tte. I am a resident of Little Neck and hve at 1264 Hebden Cove in the Redwood Farm section. My family and I have lived ~n Redwood since 1980. Although, I currently serve as President of the Redwood Farms Civic League, what I say today does not serve as an official statement of the civic league but rather ~s my own personal viewpoint based on 23 years residency in Little Neck. I support T- Mobile's application 17 & 18. The first house in Redwood were butt and occupied in 1974, thus making Redwood one of the oldest communities in L~ttle Neck. In 1980, when I first moved into Redwood, Middle Plantation was an its ~nfancy. The swim and racquet club was an it's planmng stages and it would be many years before Bishopsgate was developed and close to 20 years before the first homes were built ~n Little Neck Estates. Many of the original residents still lave m Redwood and are now in their late 60s and 70s with no retention of going any place any time soon. With them and their safety issue rehable phone servme ~s a necessity And, unfortunately an today's world we are unable to have complete froth an the rehabfl~ty of any land-based utahty. We are being Item #17 & 18 Voacestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 11 told to expect power outages, contamination of water and cut off of other utilities an the event of hurricane or worse. The public has no control over most of these satuat~ons but reliable phone service is available to us in the form of cellular service. In my home in Redwood as in many others, it as ampossible to maintmn a cell phone call. We would be very happy an most of homes if we had one bar. We have none. And, this ~s regardless of brand of telephone used or the name of the carrier providing service. I ask therefore, that you grant this petition before you today. In the past months, many arguments agmnst the towers have been offered. I beheve though that the basac objection is not the necessaty of the towers themselves but simply no one wants them in their backyard. A backyard, which happens to be the swim and racquet club, butt many years before the houses surrounding ~t were constructed. To s~te precedent, a s~tuat~on remarkably similar to tins one presented itself over 20 years ago an the same httle Neck corridor, namely, the constmctaon of a bike path along Little Neck Road. No one demed that it was desirable to have this bike path or that ~t would bring mobility to a community wath one road, one two lane road an and out of at. The problem then was agmn a sample one. No one wanted a bake path in, thear front yard. Arguments then were specious, as some of those you wall hear today. To date I have not heard of any joggers or mothers with baby carnages pressing their noses against the w~ndows of the homes there ~n order to watch those famihes eating dinner. Nor have there been any situations where burglars on bicycles have been able to make a speedy get away down Little Neck Road. And believe me, those were two arguments sincerely offered. Unfortunately, at took a tragic accident where a young gift on a bicycle was hit by an automobile and lost her leg to force Little Neck resadents to realize the proposed bike path. Ed Weeden: Ma'am, your time is up. Peggy Wltte: May I fimsh completing my sentence? Ronald Pdpley: Sure. Peggy Wltte: I am thankful that the Caty had the foresaght at that time to look beyond the objectaons of a very vocal minority. The bike paths were subsequently constructed and became a prototype for b~ke paths throughout Varginia Beach and has been the focal poant of Little Neck becoming a commumty in a truly sense of the word. I respectfully ask you today that you grant these permats and I ask you once again look beyond a mlnorlty's objections and have the wasdom and foremght to grant what as in today's world a necessity and not a luxury. Thank you. Ronald Rlpley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: V~kki Camp. Dr. Rachard Klobuchar. Vikki Camp: Hello. My name is Vikka Camp and I live at 708 Dowmng Lane. I've been there for nine years. I grew up as a child in IQngs Grant so I'm pretty aware of the area. My concern today I'm here as a working mom of small children and safety is my Item//17 & 18 Vomestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 12 concern. Because of where I live three fourths of a mile from Kingston Elementary, we are ~n a walking zone. We do not have buses. Therefore, as a working mother I commumcate often with my babysitter by cell phone. However, the cell and regardless of the company doesn't work at Kingston Elementary. My frustration comes in one day I was called on the phone because my children were at school and there was no one to pick them up. Well, when I called my babysitter, I couldn't communicate with her. I heard bits and p~eces, you know how it breaks up. So, my frustration is I, as a working mother don't have a way to commumcate with my babysitter. And, that concerns me as a safety issue for my children. The other flung that I just want bnng up ~s since I've hved here ior so long we saw what happened years ago at the Methodist Church. And, I'm just asking for your support. Don't leave our community behind agmn. For people like myself and my husband and other people of my age will end up moving to other areas that have better coverage. So, I think it's an issue for property value as well. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Dr. Richard Klobuchar and A1 Wallace. Richard Klobuchar: My name is Klobuchar. I'm the group Chief Scientist and Corporate Vine President for a major system engineering firm in the area. My background is Ph.D. ~n Nuclear Chemistry with specmhzation in Electronics and Physms. Other aspect that I would like to bnng to background is I'm the primary author of Emuls Information Technology Architecture that addresses the ~ssues associated with safety and digital cell phone coverage. Comments that I'm making here are my own comments. I live in the L~ttle Neck area. I have three cell phones. I'm on 24-7 emergency call for projects in support of the National Archives. I can get bars. I can get cell phone full coverage. I live out towards the Royal Grant area. It's actually one of the little bluish areas out there. The problem that I have and it's systematic through the region when you can get coverage is that you lose the connection. So, it's not only a matter of getting the mgnal strength coming out but it's a matter ofmalong sure you have connections and you can keep those connections in the area. We live on the pemnsula. If the City had not gone to the circumstance of takxng the lawsuit to remove the tower at Lynnhaven, none of us would be here today. So, what ~t means to me as a technical individual and I worked with Vlrgania Tech on a project for a high bandwidth wireless communications in support of the National Science Foundation as well as the National Response Center. If the City had not taken those actions, we would have coverage but it's been eliminated. And, the choices are very, very narrow. The only alternative to going down in terms ~n height on these towers ~s to have more geographically d~spersed areas associated with them. And, you would be at lower power. I would like you all to think about the circumstances if one of these s~tes ~s not visually aesthetic. What does it mean to go into an area and put them in, ~n that regard9 I would also close because many of things that I would say have already been mentioned. I certmnly support them in that area. Many of my neighbors know that my wife is the President of the Council of Garden Clubs of V~rgima Beach. She is also a member of the Beautfficat~on Commission So, I can tell you with my pillow talk that the issues associated with beautification but I'm also sensitive and reahze Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L C. Page 13 that you have to make for what amounts to a very difficult decision. And, this is good application. It will serve our area. I urge you to support Ronald Rlpley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: A1 Wallace. Mark Norris. A1 Wallace: How much time do I have for CCEO President? Ronald Rapley: Can you get it done in three minutes? A1 Wallace: Maybe 30 second after the three minutes. Robert Miller: Is Mark Norris here? Excuse me a minute Mr. Wallace. Mark Noms? George Fischer here? I'm just trying to get people line up to come here. A1 Wallace: Let me know when you're done. Robert Miller: Thank you. Go ahead sir. A1 Wallace: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. I am A1 Wallace. I'm the President of the Council of Civic Organizations of Virgima Beach. I'm also a retired naval officer having served as the electronics officer in the Navy with a Masters Degree in Engineering Management and a lot of experience with antenna radiation patterns. I have facilitated three meetings with Little Neck residents on this sighting of cell poles. I guess we'll get away from the cell towers and use cell pole issue. The last meeting included a descriptive presentation by the Planning staff member, Barbara Duke, followed by T-Mobile proposal. The meetings were required in order to get information out to the community and provide an opportunity for concerned residents to get their questions answered and voice their concerns and enable an open dialogue so we can discuss options. I beheve the planning process did not really include a proactive effort to integrate commumty or technical inputs. And, I do understand that the Planning Commission holds these pubhc heanngs in order, to do that but, however, this is a technical issue and warrants time. But, let me first start with the Vlrgama Beach building blocks for healthy neighborhoods. From Barbara Duke, she passed these out and basically the first bullet reads many of our neighborhoods have particular, physical characteristics that are very reasonable that why the residents move there. The character of Little Neck is a primary concern." Now, I'm askang tins Planning Commission to consider supporting the building blocks for "Community of a Lifetime" when you make your decisions on this ~ssue. Secondly, I understand there is a report turned over was discussed previously over the Barbara Duke that provides alternatives, designs and cons~deratlons for sighting cell towers in this area. I don't believe the community was given the true t~me and opportunity to discuss those atems. The community is not sayang no. In all of the meetings I've facilitated the community made very clear that they want and desire cell coverage so they are not saying no. What is Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 14 being asked is all options need to be researched and use the best method practices for sighting of towers. Will the location of the proposed towers provide the quahty of service for Little Neck residents? The technical aspects of this proposal together with the recent study have not really been researched. I requested copies of the antenna radiation patters so I can see what the coverage is going to be. In other technical information and I've never received that information. Ed Weeden: Mr. Wallace, your time is up. A1 Wallace: In summary, I just feel that further staff research and collaboration with the technical folks or a consultant is needed m this case. My concern is the coverage for all of the residential areas and to provide quality servme. By lowering the antenna as you brought out, there as trade-offs. And, I think at behooves us to Identifying those residents that will not get cell coverage and recommend that further research be made to include a thard party consultant to evaluate the numbers that are in the proposal. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Wallace, thank you very much. Yes. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Wallace, you said you met with three groups. Were these three civic leagues in the area? A1 Wallace: The amc leagues in the Little Neck area. Dorothy Wood: Which ones were they? A1 Wallace: All of them except for one. And, I can give you the meeting minutes. Dorothy Wood: I just wondered who they were. A1 Wallace: They're all except for one and we met with the presidents first and then we met with Barbara Duke and T-Mobile. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much. Robert Miller: In case I wasn't clear, I'm going through the list of the people that have marked support first because that's how we traditionally do this and then we will go through the people that have marked opposition. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Romlne? Steven Romine: Mark Norris had to leave. Instead ofreadang this in, I'll just pass it around. Enjoy your next speaker. Robert Miller: George F~scher. And, then Bill Stewart will come forward please. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 15 George Fischer: Good aftemoon Chairman Ripley and members of the Planning Commission. My name is George Fischer. I've been a resident of L~ttle Neck for over 25 years. I live at 1261 Hebden Cove. I have not now nor have I ever been a member of the swim and racquet club and today I'm here to talk for Redwood Farm Civic League. At a meeting of the civic league on October 27 of last year, a motion was made to endorse the cell phone application ofT-Mobile. After discussion the motion passed with over 90 percent of the member household were in attendance voting in favor of the motion. Th~s past weekend, March 8-9 we canvassed the neighborhood to ask residents how they felt about the cell phone application. Of those households where someone was home, 92 percent expressed their support for the improved cell phone service and were in favor of the T-Mobile apphcation. The residents of Redwood Farm strongly support the T-Mobile application 17 & 18. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Bill Stewart and if Tim Flncham would come forward please. Bill Stewart: Th~s gentleman has to leave. Can he go ahead of me? Robert Miller: Who is that? Tom Dillon: Tom Dillon. Bill Stewart: Tom Dillon. Robert Miller: Certainly. Bill Stewart: Thank you. Tom Dillon: Good afternoon. I apologize for butting in but I do have to go. I'll keep this short because I haven't had lunch yet. My name is Tom Dillon. I hve in Middle Plantataon. I'm a ten-year resident and a nme-year member of the Little Neck Swimming Racquet Club. Before my wife and I signed the petition in support of these towers, we did a lot of research. We listened to our neighbors, both pro and con. We checked particularly the safety issue of radiation being admitted from the towers because that was primary concern. Our children swim at the racquet club and we play tenms there. What we found frankly and what convinced us that this was not an issue was that cell on your hip is more dangerous than the tower at the swim and racquet club in terms of the radiation. The other point that I would like to make is in terms of demand for cell phone service. Five years ago, my household we had one cell phone, now we have four. I got another teenager about ready to get one. The demand is only going to increase. And, like my neighbors I will say that Middle Plantation the service is very spotty at best and we need this technology. Thank you. Robert Miller' Thank you. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 16 Ronald Rapley: Thank you Tom. Robert Miller: Bill Stewart and Tim F~ncham. Bill Stewart: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, my name ~s Bill Stewart. I'm President of the Little Neck Sw~m and Racquet Club, the site under debate here today. I'm also a resident of Bishopsgate, winch is the neighborhood adjoining the swim club ~n back. I was the first resident of Bxshopsgate, so I've been around a little while. The swim club voted unammously to support the cell towers. Our membership, which represents a good cross section of Little Neck voted 2-1 to support the cell phones. I'm very proud of the fact that our Board has presented fairly and accurately the facts about these cell phones. I have heard everything about why we should not have them. Probably the most absurd was that b~rds would be flyang into them. I only heard one person who lives next to the sw~m club, who stated the real reason they don't want them. And, you heard this before, not in by backyard. Everyone recogmzes and you heard the need for cell calls in the L~ttle Neck area. But, everyone says not in my backyard. Unfortunately, that's not possible in Little Neck. The area is just too populated. T- Mobile has done an outstanding job ofhstemng to everyone's concern m Little Neck regarding these poles. They have attended over 20 meetings with various civic leagues and groups to listen to their concerns. And, I have attended many of those with them. They tried to accommodate everyone. They've agreed to plant a number of new trees to shield the poles from public view so that the backyard will not be quite as vasible in their backyards. The L~ttle Neck Sw~m Club is a private, not for profit recreational club We have operated in there for a number of years, unfortunately and not by choice, but the sw~m club is a jewel in the Little Neck community. We have recently completed as you saw on your tour a beautiful new building and a second swimming pool, winch will be completed this month. I, along wxth many others have worked very hard to make this happen. I would not do anything to tarmsh the nature of Little Neck. I do not feel these cell phones will do that. With the funds from the poles though, we can improve our facilities much. We can offer programs for the elderly, provide a physical fitness studio, which there is no recreation center, no City recreation center in the Ltttle Neck area, have year round youth activities and perhaps attract more members. The club can become the recreation facility of our entire neighborhood. We have also pledged from these funds, a portion of our money to the L~ttle Neck Community Enhancement Fund, winch we use to financially support projects on beautfficat~on, safety and recreation ~n Little Neck. This should enhance the quality of hfe for everyone. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the fire station. I did not want it adjacent to my neighborhood. I did not want it m essence in my backyard. But, I'm here to tell you I was very wrong. Fortunately, the C~ty disagreed with me and it was built and it is a tremendous asset for our neighborhood. Ed Weeden: Mr. Stewart, your time is up. Bill Stewart: Thank you very much Robert Miller: Thank you. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 17 Ronald Rlpley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Tim Fincham and Wflham Bailey please. Tim Fancham: Hello. My name is Tim Fincham. I'm actually the Director ofT-Mobile in the State of V~rglma. And, I just want to thank you for hearing this apphcation and that I want to stress that we try to do everything we could to work wath the neighborhoods to make thas as good as an apphcat~on as possible and I'll be available if you have any additaonal questions. Ronald Pdpley: Thank you. Robert Miller: William Bailey. Jamce Alexander please. William Bmley: Good afternoon. My name as William Bailey. I'm a resadent of Kemspvflle and I'm the Presadent of the Virginia Beach Professional Fzrefighters. I think you're goang to hear a lot of emotion from the pros and the cons on thas partacular ~ssue. And, what I want to do as strictly give you some facts. Catywide, the cell phone calls to the dispatcher center for the 911 daspatch, in 2000 there were a 101,876 phone calls on cell phones. In 2002, that went up 10 percent to 111,865 requested 911 service by a cell phone, more than 10 percent of the entire 911 calls in the Caty of Virgama Beach Dispatch Center. I've heard from some of the residents of the pros and cons so I went up to the fire station and talked to the guys who worked up there. The fire mack has a cell phone it. Sometimes it works, sometames it doesn't. Individuals there have cell phones. Sometimes at works and sometimes it doesn't. It's important to take into mind that fire station had 820 calls an 2002 out of there for residents of Maddle Plantation, Lattle Neck Road an the vicinity. 458 of those calls were for rescue calls, heart attacks, strokes and things along that lane. It's important to keep in mand that ff there's an acodent on L~ttle Neck or Harris Road, we lobbied to get Hams Road widened because of the school bus accidents out there. It's important that the fire station plays a critical role in the Little Neck community. The members of the firehouse there have asked us to come forward and support this because they feel that the residents of Little Neck should have the same coverage as the rest of the citizens catywide. It's important that an the event of an accident that time is of the essence. Wath the number of cell phone calls we have catywlde, we don't have a record of the number calls that come out of Lattle Neck on cell phones for emergencies. I would assume there's going to be a certain percentage but since they don't have the coverage, obviously we don't have those records. Every manute that someone can't get to a phone because there are no pay phones on Little Neck Road and I don't flunk there are many pay phones up an the L~ttle Neck pemnsula. I thank it's important that we keep an mind our job ~s to provide coverage to the citizens, assist their needs and get there in an emergency situation rapidly as possible. The cell phone communicataon allows us to do that. And, w~th that I'd ask you to move forward w~th this applicatmn. And, thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 18 Robert Miller: Jamce Alexander. James Alexander. Janice Alexander: Good afternoon Chmrman Ripley and members of the Planmng Commission. My name ~s Jamce Alexander and I hve at 1269 Southfield Place ~n the Redwood section in L~ttle Neck. We've lived there about three years now and have been frustrated at the lack of cell phone signal. And, I tried to understand truly why the opponents to cell tower are so angry. And, given my background, I had to wonder if they wree concerned about resale values for their properties. I reahze that real estate ~s not an exact science but drawing on my 18 years of experience as a realtor, I'm convinced that if a effective buyer were not mined off at the prospect of buying one of those propertaes adjacent to the swim and racquet club, that the presence of the cell pole on that site wouldn't really deter him from buyang an adjoining property. It would be more hkely that lack of cell phone service would be a draw back, which might indeed have a negative impact on value for many Lattle Neck homeowners. Recently, I asked the owner of one of the adjoining propemes ff they were concerned about their property values ~f this pole were ~nstalled. And, the response and I quote was, "no, we just don't want to look at it." Well, frankly there will always be somebody who doesn't want to look at it regardless of the locatxon. We desperately need access to cell phone servme and I don't feel that not in my backyard is justification for denying access for the quiet majority of Little Neck residents. You can't please all the people all the time. And, I truly think that th~s pole in this place at th~s t~me really xs for the greater good. And, I urge you to vote in favor of a positive recommendation. And, my voice as quavering. It's been a long time since pubhc speaking 101. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: You did a good job. Thank you. Robert Miller: James Alexander and David Cooper would come forward please James Alexander: My name is James Alexander. I live at 1269 Southfield Place in the Redwood Farms subdavas~on, whmh is ~n the cell phone black hole that we are discussxng today. I had wanted to make several comments as a physician regardang health and safety ~ssues of not having good cell phone service, but most of them have been put forward to you. I would just like to add and ~t was mentaoned that we have this wonderful bake path and walkway that runs along Little Neck Road. Many people use that. We have an aging population. We have several elderly people an the Little Neck area who are encouraged by their health care providers to get out and exercase. Many of them take advantage of th~s path way and you go by there almost anytame and see people walking along there. One of many concerns is af they had a medacal emergency, what do they do? They can't reach for thear phone and get a cell phone and expect to connect a call. It's a long way to neighbonng houses. There are no pay phones out there. The other day we were goang down L~ttle Neck Road and we came across an accident on the comer of Hams Road and L~ttle Neck Road We were about the thard car on the scene. There was a two-car colhslon I got out to lend assistance to one of the victims. She was still sitting behind the steering wheel of her car. The engine was still runmng. There was steam coming out from underneath the front wheels. There was a young lady standing next to her with her Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 19 cell phone, talking to the 911 operator and she was getting instructions as to what to do w~th this lady behind the wheel. If that accident had occurred further up L~ttle Neck Road, she would not have had that opportumty. If ~t had been ~n our neighborhood entrance, it would not have been an option. Most people would not know exactly what to do when they come across an accident like that. Those are reasons why I feel ~t's very ~mportant to support the ~nstallat~on of the poles. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: David Cooper and Catherine Faulkner. David Cooper: Good afternoon. My name is Dave Cooper. I'm a resident of the L~ttle Neck area. I've lived there now for 17 years. I'm also a member for the last 17 years of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club. I have three points that I'd like to make and I think I can narrow that down to two to save t~me for all of us. Today, we talked about safety but the first one is what I handed out. You heard earher from Bill Stewart, the President of the Little Neck Sw~m and Racquet Club about the Little Neck Community Enhancement Fund. TI'ns ~s an organization that will be created to share the revenue and the five percent of the gross revenues that come from the communication arrangement. We've estimated that to be approximately $80,000 t~mes five percent. That gives this Little Neck Community Enhancement Fund over $4,000 a year to work with and you can see by tlus design that the purpose of this is for safety, secunty, recreation and other purposes such as beautification that can ~mprove the quality of hfe for the residents in the Little Neck area. So, this will become an addendum to the lease. It will be created and the people who will serve in this organization are the presidents or a person appointed by the president or the Board of the Northern Little Neck Civic Leagues, also, the L~ttle Neck Fire Station, the Plaza Rescue Squad, the Lynnhaven D~strict City Council, and obwously a designated representative from the Little Neck Sw~m and Racquet Club. So, we feel that this is a good step to get some of that revenue in to the community to help. It might be the fire station that needs a $1000 for something very special that they haven't been able to get funded. It seems like money is a problem these days and it could be the pohce, so we want to do what we can do to give back some of that revenue. The second point that I wanted to make is to ask the Planmng Commissaon, pnor to your final approval of the site plan that we would like to add some additional detail. A few of us have worked probably for over 12 hours in the last two weeks going over and scrutinizing the property from every possible angle. Bill Gambrell has met with two of the contiguous property owners and got some excellent feedback and we simply hke to ask you ~f we could make some addlt~onal Improvements to the site plan. I can go through about seven things quickly but to save t~me, we want to add some additional plantings. We want to add one entire line on the backside of the property. We feel that it's important. There are a lot of bare areas in the current vegetatmn that need to be filled. And, we feel like we could do a better job. And, I'd like to state that we hke your approval condmoned upon the fact that we hke to make some add~tlonal ~mprovements on the site plan. Also, in Barbara's recommendation on Page 7, in the last paragraph it says, 'hn lieu of the landscaping around the exact facilities", we like to change that to Item #17 & 18 Vomestream GSM II, L.L C. Page 20 read "in addition to", because they agreed to do the landscaping around the facility as well. So, we need this. I thank you for your time. Thank you. Robert Miller: Cathenne Faulkner and ~fDale Flnocch~ would come forward please. Cathenne Faulkner: Good afternoon. Thank you for heanng this application today. I am Catherine Faulkner, a real estate manager in Vlrg~ma for Venzon Wireless, and much of what I would say, and could say has been said by Mr. Flncham and Mr. Gambrell. We are here in support of this tower. We have poor coverage in the Little Neck area. We have a large customer base and we do hear from them often with complaints on the coverage The only thing really that I would like to add that's new is that Venzon sent out a mailing to our customers in the Little Neck area and it was a letter with a post card included. I believe the post cards have been forwarded to you. But, we received over 700 post cards in response to our letter. All of the post cards were in support of this tower except four. And, two of them just said no. One of them asked if the dues to the racquet club be lowered and then she would be ~n support of the towers. So, I was glad to hear that said. And, actually I feel like this is a good site. T-Mobile and Mr. Gambrell have worked very hard to include the residents in this design. It will be a very expensive site and one of the reasons we can build it is because there will be four carriers sharing the expense or otherwise it would just be cost prohibitive. But, I am here for any questions and also our engnneer is here if you have specific questions. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Dale Finocclu and Bnan Miller come up please. Dale Finocchi: Good afternoon. I'm Dale F~nocchi. And, I'm w~th SunCom. I'm the Zoning Manager. And, we're here in support of this application. We've been involved with it as many of the other careers that are supporting it. And, one of those efforts as Mrs. Faulkner mentioned was to find out what our customers in tlus area really think. And, we did receive back and you have copies of those, 152 signatures on a petition as well as 165-faxed back, and actually that kind of response really shocked me because that is what most people talk about is the silent majority. We always know that there's a large mount of people that are supporting many of our applications but they don't take the time and effort to come out and express to you and I know that is part of your frustration. Many applications where you hear the folks that are agaanst it or upset about it but you don't have a fair enough pulse on how many people really support it because they don't let you know. So, I was rather impressed that actually 165 people took the time to read the letter, fill out the information and then fax it back to us. And, that was from my perspective quite an effort. So, we do support this application. We have been m this area for a good while longer then some of the other carriers ~ncludlng T-Mobile. We have as some of the other folks have mentioned both a capacity and a coverage issue here. We need to get coverage in the L~ttle Neck area but we also have a strmn on our sites that are outside the Little Neck area and we do have customers on the fringes that do compete for those channels. So, this ~s a very, very important s~te for us. We have looked in this area. There are not a lot of options ~n ~t and we were happy to see something come forward and we're happy to be part of this application. As Mrs. Faulkner mentioned, it's going to be a Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 21 very expensive endeavor and it is something that as only going to be feasible because there are four of us shanng in ats cost. Frankly, I'm a professional planner and I've been working an telecom since 1995 and this ~s really, probably one of the most sensitive apphcataons I've ever seen as far as being sens~tave to a neighborhood and its concerns and how it addresses that. We can't make them go away completely but I thank T-Mobile has done a job here that ~s about as best as anyone can expect anywhere. So, w~th that, SunCom hopes that this Commassaon will recommend approval of this apphcation so we can provide the coverage to the over 300 customers that have expressed thear need in here. And, I'm sure there are many more others. And, all of those responses d~d come from folks in the zip code 23452, which as that Little Neck zip code. And, this will help us to allevaate our need to have to go back in the Little Neck area once again and begin looking for another site. We've been focusang in other areas because we understand the difficulties in Little Neck so we are happy to be a part of this, and if it gets approved to be involved w~th at. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Brian Miller and if Brenda Durden will come forward please. Brian Miller: Good afternoon Chairman Ripley and members of the Commissaon. My name is Brian Miller. I'm the former President of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club and a resadent of 816 Prince Charles Court, Virgima Beach. I'd lake to gnve you a little history behind the events that brought us here today from the perspectave of the club. And, knowing that, I'll follow your rules. I've scratched about half of my thing that I was going to read, so hopefully it wall go through quicker. About 14 months ago, representatives from T-Mobile approached the club with an idea of placing the wireless towers on our club property. Club d~rectors thought it would be a good idea and thought we had an obligation to present at to our membership. The process that followed by mutual agreement between T-Mobile and the club had been notlung but methodical and deliberant. There were numerous community c~vic meetings and communications and as club president, I can attest that I attended most of those meetings. The proposed plans that you have before were developed and changed facing the input we received at these community meetings. And, the input was hopeful at times and very good. Throughout th~s process, it was never kept a secret that the club supporting this proposal as contingent of its member's approval. So, on September 5, the club called had called a meetang to have this proposal voted on. Our members approved that proposal as Mr. Stewart said before by a 2-1 vote. I also wanted you to be aware that 70 percent of our active members voted on that and if you just look at how that rates wath our votes here in V~rg~nia Beach and if memory serves our last vote here on our Council elections was about 13-14 percent of our population who could vote. So, that is a substantial amount of people that came out to vote. The voting rules were clearly estabhshed on the ballots. We were very conscience about presentang ourselves in a very above reproach way. Our Committee Chair who is our membership chairman was Mary Vanson. We selected one upon it and one agmnst. And, those votes were held in secrecy Further more of the votes were g~ven to a lawyer who was versed ~n constitutional law to look at the proxy's Item #17 & 18 Volcestream GSM II, L.L.C Page 22 and they are still held in a secured locked place where I don't know. But, lots of lobbying by opponents selling the worse case scenarios partial facts in dealing with our community led to some of these comments and I know you heard some of them. And, some of them were the ugly towers would ruin the appearance of our community. The building supporting the towers would stick out like sore thumbs. That's my own words. They were the choice of words submitted, proposed dangers to children. You already heard the property values. The Little Neck Sw~m and Board Members were talang money or would benefit economically from flus. Phone and personal door-to-door attempts were made by a well, orgamzed group to sell their point, and using half-truths and innuendos. The factor in my opinion would probably be their best case. And, in my personal judgment I could understand their point. It's a valid point. But, no one likes changes. And, I'm going to be cut short. What I would like you to do is consider three things. Number one, the impact in the commumty; number two, the changes inevitable In technology necessitate change for our community; and number three, this has been a well thought out process and you might not hear it today but everybody has been well involved. And, the information has been at the fingertips of those making the decisions. I appreciate all your efforts on behalf of the commumty. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Brenda Durden and if Kann Fleischman would come forward please. Brenda Durden: My name is Brenda Durden. I live at the very end of the Little Neck peninsula on West Little Neck Road. My family has cell phone accounts with both SunCom and wireless. I have no coverage with either one. And, any time there is a storm in the heavily wooded area where I live, we lose power, we lose phone sermce on a regular basis. I have no cell phone service. I have to go out Little Neck Road between the swim club and St. Nicholas Church before I can get to bars to be able to make a call. I have two teenage drivers. I carry a cell phone with me at all times. And, it's really a problem not having any coverage unless you happen to stay home and your home phone ~s working. I would appreciate tt if you would support this. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Kann Fleischman. Karm Fleischman: Good afternoon. My name is Karm Flelschman and I live in the Kings Grant area. And, from what I can tell you, I've heard everything that I was going to say so I'll pass on to the next person. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Steve Fuschetti and and Dwight Handforth would come forward please. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 23 Steve Fuschetti: We actually have someone who has a commatment and needs to leave. Would you mind if went ahead of me, Blmr Dunlap. Ronald Ripley: In support of?. Robert Miller: These are oppositions. Ronald Ripley: Oh, oppositions? Okay. Robert Miller: Who as at that's coming forward? Blmr Dunlap: My name is Blmr Dunlap. Robert Miller: Come on down. Ronald Ripley: Sure, come on. Okay, we heard all the folks that are going to speak. Now, we're starting to hear opposxtion. Blair Dunlap: Right. Ronald R~pley: Yes. Blmr Dunlap: I'm definitely an opposition. Ronald Rapley: Fine. Blair Dunlap: Good aftemoon. My name is Blaxr Dunlap. I'm a 16 year resident of B~shopsgate and I apprmse real estate for a living. I've been an apprmser for 26 years. I've apprmsed an excess of 6,000 propertaes in Virginia Beach. My job requires me to make judgments about factors that will affect market values of properties. It's not an exact scxence because the same factors will sometime affected different people differently. For instance, laving on a golf course is generally considered a desirable location however, some people are afraid of being hit by a golf shot would not buy property on a golf course. Some factors, however, are practically universal an nature having a negative effect on property marketability, and by extensaon, property value. Residential property ~s generally always negatively influenced by the existence of commercaal property an close proximity. The commercaal use such as the proposed cell towers would represent what is known m the apprmsal andustry as "incurable external depreciataon." That's three minutes? Stephen White: You're fine. Blmr Dunlap: Okay. Incurable depreciation is a type of property devaluation caused by factors outside the property boundary. Because it ~s outside the property boundary, the property is powerless to correct or address the problem. As you know, zomng regulataons Item #17 & 18 Vomestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 24 are in place in part for harmonious use, which enhances property values. The enforcement of zoning regulations serve in part, to protect homeowners and invest an their property, whereas the properties an close proximately to the cell towers will be affected All of the properties m close proximately. The properties most affected by the erection of the cell towers will be those that border directly on the swim and racquet club, 100 percent. That as none of the property owners that share a common border with the club favor the proposed cell towers. Their property will be impacted negatively not only to diminish aesthetics caused by the view of the towers but also by the perception that there may be health risks involved with hvmg close to cell towers. I'm not trying to make a case about such health risks here. I'm only saying that the perceptaon of such health nsks particularly famdles with children as enough to significantly affect the decision to buy or not to buy property close to cell towers. The reluctance of perspective purchasers will typically lead to more difficulty of the marketing of these properties ultimately the existence of the cell towers will often have a negative impact on any offer to purchase these properties. It as not a coincidence that the people m favor of this proposal will not suffer any of the consequences of having cell towers close to their property. I'm in favor of better cell coverage in Little Neck as I'm sure most people in this room are. The question at hand should be, should better cell coverage for Little Neck be obtmned at the expense of the property owners that live close to the swma and racquet club? When these property owners bought their property they purchased with the assumption that the swim and racquet club would always remain solely recreational. It's my professional opinion that these property owners will be unfairly penalized both m the enjoyment of their property and financially, and I respectfully request for the Conditional Use Permit for the cell towers be denied. Thank you. Ronald Pupley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Steve Fuschettl and then Dwight Handforth. Steve Fuschetti: Good afternoon. My name as Steve Fuschettl. I am a member of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club. I am a homeowner in Bishopsgate. Since it seems important sometimes to establish our technology background, I'm also a President of a company called Infinet, which as a technology company in Norfolk. Not anti technology by any sense of the imagination. I also, I guess according to Steve Romane, I'm one of the affected few, which was a new term category that I hadn't put myself an prior to this. I've attended many sessions where this issue has been discussed. And, I can certainly agree with one thing that has been smd over and over today, this is an incredibly sensitive ~ssue. And, it raises passion among neighbors unlike anything like I've ever seen. And, at rinses questions among neighbors unlike anyttung like I've ever seen. I think it really comes down to two things. One, this is, in my opinion and also what I've heard an meetings where Barbara Duke was present, rather precendentlal in the sense that what we're talking about here are towers It often starts these meetings by acknowledging how good the Volcestream people are because we now have people calling these poles as opposed to towers. They are 112 feet poles and they're replacing 20-foot wooden posts with lights on them, so, an our mind, the neaghbors mind, these are towers. And, we are Item//17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 25 placing them ~n the center of a residential neighborhood and to our knowledge that hasn't happened anywhere else. They have been on the peripheral neighborhoods. They've been in commercial areas but we have not seen anything quite like this proposal before. So, agmn it comes down to two things. One, the precendentlal nature of this so the guldehnes that the Planning staff are using to even advise you are probably not quite adequate for a proposal such as this. And, the second thing is really from the neighbors and certainly the adjoining property owners, kind of a breach of trust and a breach of faith. We bought our homes in Little Neck because of the character of Little Neck. We bought our homes in Bishopsgate knowing that we were near a swim and racquet club and in fact endorsed being near a swim and racquet club but also knowing that there was a Conditional Use Permit that smd that property would never be anything other than recreational. And, now if I want to be extreme, I could say that we have the beglnmngs of a cell tower farm. I'll leave that to you to decide how extreme that is. I also want to be sure that everyone understands that there is no disagreement that we would all like better cell coverage on Little Neck. And, what I respectfully ask of you folks and g~ven the precedentlal nature of what is in front of you and given the fact that there is passionate opposition and you'll have folks here telling you how many names they have on proxy's and how many names they have on petitions, guarantee you that it's passionate and divisive. Given all that, I think there is a need for an independent.., may I finish? Ronald Ripley: Wrap it up. Steve Fuschettl: For an independent look at what it really will take to provide cell adequate cell coverage in a residential neighborhood such as Little Neck and that be done bhnd to the economic interests of those people who are providing the data for you because at the end of the day this is kind of a happy merging of a club that had poor financaal planning tr3nng to find a financial Sliver bullet and an immature cell carrier to thas market coming in and trying to estabhsh a footprint. And, doing their job and doing their job very well. Tr3nng to get to the bottom line. But, I do ask that you at least defer your decision here until independent research can be provided to the municipality about alternative technology and slghtangs. Thank you. Ronald Rlpley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Dwight Handforth and Charles Pruitt come forward please. Dwight Handforth: Good afternoon Mr Chmrman and distinguished members of the Commission. My name IS Dwight Handforth. I'm a resident of B~shopsgate as well as a member of the swim and racquet club. And, before I get into my prepared remarks, I feel obligated to respond to a couple of things that have been mentioned earlier. Mr. Din, who asked is cell coverage going to be adequate in Little Neck and completely cover the peninsula with this, and I'll try to be brief. The answer is no. Ms. Durden who just came up and talked about being at the far end of Little Neck, this tower according to the propagation maps that you have before you will not change that coverage at the far end of Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 26 Lattle Neck. It as a possibihty that further towers will be put ~n or further carriers will come and add more towers at the swam and racquet club or other locations. Also, they talked a little bit about hght replacements for these poles. Understand th~s bag right. It's going to be this bag and go 112 feet if this is approved. Now, I'm here before you to request that you deny tlus petition. There are three reasons. One, I thank ~t goes against the deed and the intent of the deed. Second, it goes against the Planning staff's July 21, 2001 study. I think there are some questaons on whether at follows the ordinances specifically Section 232 of those ordanances. And, I think there are several alternatives that are available that need to be explored more thoroughly or at least information on why those would be worthwhile and known to all of us. I think that the deed the proffer three specifically states that it is to be for recreation. It goes so far as to specffically say the types of gymnasium and the light. To Mr. Romine, it's right. It did not specifically exclude cell towers. I'm not sure that it was a cell tower when ~t first came up but ~t also doesn't exclude a used car lot and it also doesn't exclude a lot of other things. But, it does specifically say for recreataon, gymnasium, racquets and specific items. Also, the staff recommendation has proffer four being deleted. It's an your packet. And, the reason for that is they say it is because the swim and racquet club has now been estabhshed as a recreation center. Proffer four specffically goes beyond that and states that if it ceases to exast as this it should also revert back to residential. By deleting the proffer from th~s it takes away that portion of proffer four, whach we don't feel, should have not been taken out. I go into the codes and the planmng study and specifically 232, I thank it's Section 1 (4), it states that "we should at least attempt to put towers or cellular technology on top of existing bmldangs." I think that has not been fully explored. We've heard that the Lynnhaven Umted Methodist Church is not avmlable or as not a possibility because of various factors. I'm not sure ~ts ever been explored whether they can mcorporate an aesthetm pleasing tower in to the steeple apparatus of that church. And, I think that is a possability that would fit with that sectaon of Sectxon 232. Furthermore, the planning board has put forth a study that the Caty in 2001 that talks on the northern part of L~ttle Neck that they did not think that towers greater than 95 feet, I thank ~t says 70-75 feet would be the norm. This clearly exceeds that by a substantial amount, at least ~n my opmaon, a substantial amount. It also goes on Page 16 of that same study to state that as technology develops at would be possible to use light poles or telephones for this technology. I'm here to tell you that from everything that I've heard that technology is avmlable today. There are several alternatives that are available. I thank those need to be stud~ed. I at least ask you to defer th~s. I recommend that you deny this petition. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert M~ller: Charles Prmtt. And, I think that's Dr. Pruitt. Is that correct? I apologize. I d~dn't read the rest of it, and Kerry Caramanls. Charles Prmtt: My name is Dr. Charles Pruitt. Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for hstenmg to me. I'm an Emergency Medmal Physician and an Injury Prevention Specialist at Chaldren's Hospital of the King's Daughters. I'm also a property owner adjacent to the swam and racquet club. Th~s is my home right here. My Item #17 & 18 Vo~cestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 27 wife and I have lived on the beaches of Cahforma and ~n the mountains of Colorado. When we decided to have a family, we chose to come here to V~rginia Beach. We chose to buy this home adjacent to the swim and racquet club. I found it frankly comfortable to hve so near to a recreation center. I found ~t not a problem at all that the hghts were on until 10:00 P.M. It was actually somewhat in a sense of safety. I found it akin liwng next to a country club. I never ~n my worse nightmares imagined that two 112 foot and lets be clear, these are smokestack s~ze towers were going to go up less than 300 feet from my back door. I would not have bought my home if I even considered this a possibility. I would like to speak secondly about the safety ~ssues. So, as an ~njury prevention specmlist, I do want to touch on one issue. That is the Consumer Products Safety Commission consxders two ~ssues concermng falls with children. Those are the height of the fall and anything above two stones or 22 feet increases the fatality greatly. The other issues are what children fall on. Concrete and strucrtures are also considered very important issue when it comes fatahty of falls. These towers, I suggest are an attractive nuisance in our neighborhood. To our children and adolescents ~n our neighborhood. You have 112-foot towers inviting adolescents to chmb them. They are surrounded by concrete and structures. Cluldren climbing these towers will fall and die. I would last like to address the issues of physicians ~n the area, ~n particular, the ~ssues of 911 calls. We had one previous speaker mention that at most 10 percent of 911 calls ~n the area are getting fi.om cellular phones. I would suggest that the numbers in residential areas are even lower. This is due to the prevalence of landhnes and it is due to lugh speed mulu-lane freeways m res~denUal areas. 911 calls rarely come fi-om residential areas. When they do come, they come from landlines. This ~s why we have a designated 800mh. I'll finish up. We have a designated 800mh frequency for paramedics and emergency service prowders. I would hke to submit a petmon s~gned by 20 physicians and nine emergency me&cine service providers ~ncluding critical care nurses and parame&cs, all in oppos~uon to these cell phone towers. The last sentence in each of these pefitmns, and these are specific petmons. These describe exactly what these towers are. They are not general petiUons that say are you in favor of better cell phone coverage. Well, everyone's m favor of better cell phone coverage. 1100 s~gnamres that are talked about and that ~s what people agreed to and I would have signed that petition. These say specifically after describing the issue ~t says we don't beheve that such towers would improve the safety of the surrounding residents or of the patients for whom we provide care. Thank you very much. Ronald R~pley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Kerry Caramanis and if David Bunnell would come forward please. Kerry Caramanis: Good afternoon. I'm Kerry Caramanis and I hve on Beldover Lane in B~shopsgate. And, my property backs up to the racquet club. When I purchased my property I obviously purchased ~t w~th the understanding that the racquet would be there and ~t would be maintained as a racquet club. I'm obvmusly opposed to this. I don't want to s~t on my deck and look at 112-foot towers everyday. I know that no one wants it ~n their backyard but I would say to you that the Commission ~s charged w~th mmntmnmg Item #17 & 18 Vo~cestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 28 the integrity of neighborhoods and I feel very passionately about this that you need to keep that m rmnd and do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Dave Bunnell and if Michael Fack would come forward please. Dave Burmell: Good afternoon. Thank you for lettang me address my opinion today on tins matter. I represent nine homeowners on Poplar Bend. I'm a resident of that street as well. My name is Dave Burmell. Agmn, a lot of what I was going to cover has already been covered. We bought our homes there next to a racquet club because agmn, it was pretty. It was a nice place for our kids to get themselves involved in activities. We never thought we would be faced wath having to look out of our front yards and our backyards w~th two 113-foot cell towers. And, that's how it really affects us. We are part of the affected few. We have no problem wath amproved cell phone coverage. My neighbors are all in favor of that. At some of the meetangs we had prevaously to this, we have expressed to the T-Mobile people that alternative site locations need to be explored. If it comes down to the swam club being the only adequate site to maprove cell phone service m our area then we can probably accept that but we don't think that's been done. There are schools. There are caty parks. There are propertaes that have all been suggested to the T-Mobile people at these various meetings. And, they never wanted to address the issue of alternative sites. This as the only sate that will promde adequate cell coverage for the pemnsula. That's not mae. If the racquet club was not there, where would they stick these things? Ask yourself that question. Where would they put these towers? That is the issue. Alternatives, and they don't want to talk about at because they've spent a lot of money on legal advice to get th~s thing pushed through. They lobbied people all over Maddle Plantation. Well, they're not stlckang these towers in Middle Plantation. And, I guarantee you afthey were proposing to put them there, they wouldn't of had all those people saying they are in favor of this th~ng because it's not in their backyard. It's not in thear front yard They want better coverage. Of course, we all do. But when you start stacking it m a residential neighborhood you're going to have some people who are going to be affected by lt. There are nine families on my street that are affected by this. So, I'm here today to let you know how these nine folks and families feel about it. And, I think the Commission ought to postpone granting this waiver, or whatever we're granting here today, until they come up with alternate site locations. Thank you very much. Ronald R~pley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Michael Fick and if Steven Mantas would come forward please. M~chael Fick: Good afternoon. I also live in Little Neck Estates. And, Dave Bunnell was speaking for us as a group. I have notinng to add to that other than we are opposed to lt. I moved here three years ago and had no ~dea that we would be lookang at these towers. I apprectate it if you would not approve tins. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Item #17 & 18 Voacestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 29 Donald Horsley: Mr. Fick, could you show us there where you live please, where the nine people who you are talking about hve? Michael Fick: Right here sar. Donald Horsley: Okay. Michael Fick: That would be my house right there. Robert Miller: Steven Mmnis and Lome Gayton. Steve Mmnis: Hello. My name is Steve Minms and I reside at 861 B~shopsgate Lane. How do you work this? It's that house right there. Thank you for the oppommaty to vmce our concerns about the proposed anstallataon of the cellular communication antennas at L~ttle Neck Swim and Racquet Club. In short, tbas is about money. It is obvious that Voicestream Commumcataons stands to financially benefit due to the amproved cellular coverage that wall be provided to their canners by the installation of these antennas. The careers wall in turn benefit from the Increased cellular traffic due to the improved coverage. Little Neck Swam and Racquet Club will also benefit from this commercaal venture resulting from a lease agreement that will provide them with non- member funds that could be used to make many improvements to their property. The members would, I'm sure enjoy the benefits of these improvements for years to come. Everything comes at a cost. While the people I mentmned above stand to profit, the property owners that are adjacent to the club will realize the devaluataon of their homes due to the aesthetac attraction that will result from these antennas that will tower over the surrounding tree line. I'm opposed to the anstallation of these antennas because I have a vested interest m the effect that at will have on the value of my home. It ~s a simple matter in my mind. The beneficiaries of the anstallat~on wall not have to look at the fimshed product day in and day out like the property owners surrounding the Lattle Neck Sw~m and Racquet Club. Even if the members of the club will see it as they visat the club at will be much easier for them to tolerate because after all, without the antennas they would not have come by the numerous amprovements so easily. Are there alternatives? As an electrical engineer in the commumcataons and sonar enganeenng davlsaon at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, I'm aware that there are other methods that can be employed to achieve the coverage the Volcestream Commumcataons hopes to provide ats cannes that serve the Little Neck area of Virginia Beach. I assume that these alternatives would reqmre more planmng tame, more real estate, more permats, relaxataon of zoning reqmrements, etc., and would overall be more costly while delaying the earnings that could be realized af the antennas are erected at the proposed location. Understand that I am not opposed to progress but at as clear that this is progress for convenience sake, not progress for necessity sake. Cell phones are generally a convemence that we have come to rely on and whale I use one too, I'm not so dependent on them that I don't remember life before cell phones. I personally have no need for ~mproved coverage when I'm at home because I use the landhne an my home. And, even though that's the case, the existing coverage is adequate enough that I'm always able to connect. My point ~s that Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 30 the coverage is currently adequate. If the coverage is currently adequate, these antennas only serve to upgrade the ablhty for Voicestream Communications to make more money. I'm almost done. Put yourself in our shoes and imagine what it would be like for you to have to step out into your backyard and enjoy the wew provided by the numerous trees on a sky blue backdrop or have the family cookout only to have ~t spo~led by the ~ntms~ve antennas I appeal to your conscience. There ~s something wrong when those that stand to profit from ttus venture do so at the expense of the adjacent homeowners. It seems reasonable to expect the financial burden to fall fully on Voicestream Communications who over t~me stands to profit the most, not on the homeowners who stand to lose. Every effort should be made to find an approach that would be agreeable to the Little Neck commumty at large and not just a handful of people who because of their good fortune stand to profit at the expense of others. For example, th~s matter has already cost me four and hours of vacation time. Thank you. Robert Miller: Louie Gayton and Stephen Young. Lores Gayton: Good afternoon Chmrman Ripley, I'm Lome Gayton, a 28 year resident and homeowner on the Little Neck peninsula and hve ~n Middle Plantation on Glen Eden Quay. I'm opposed to the cell phone towers being constructed on property owned by the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club. I am not opposed to ~mproved cell phone coverage. The L~ttle Neck Swim and Racquet Club ~s a private organxzation composed of approxxmately 500 due pa3nng members. If cell towers are required m Little Neck I would recommend they be constructed on pubhc land, parks, schoolyards or fire stations, all ofwluch are located on L~ttle Neck. I heard T-Mobile say that looked at alternative sites. Let's look at explonng new technology to promulgate w~reless commumcation signals In this way, the lease funds could possibly be used for the common good of all Virginia Beach citizens not just a few good paying members of a private club. I have two main reasons for opposing the poles being constructed, commercialism and the enforcement of present conditional zomng restrictions. If towers are erected on the Little Neck Sw~m and Racquet Club, thxs ~s commercialism w~th T-Mobile paying rent for the land and subletting excess capacity to other earners. Per Mr. Steve Rom~ne, this is not commercialism. If this xs not commermalism, I'm not sure what commerc~ahsm is. The L~ttle Neck pemnsula is a lovely upscale, aesthetxcally pleasing residential neighborhood as reported in the Vxrgima Pilot/Ledger Star on September 2002. One major reason for th~s lovely neighborhood ~s the lack of commermahsm on the Little Neck pemnsula. We do not want a commercially owned camel w~th its nose ~ns~de our residential neighborhood. Number two, the L~ttle Neck Swim and Racquet Club land ~s conditionally zoned for recreational use. Th~s zoning was done at the request of C~ty Council that was previously mentioned. Leasing land for the erection of towers ~s not recreatmnal use of land. At present, the Vlrgxnia Beach Parks and Recreation Department does not permit new free-stan&ng towers to be erected on their property that they control. I see no justification for the Planning Commissmn to approve this Conditmnal Use Permit of a Conditional Zomng Change to permit towers to be erected on the privately held property. I urge you to d~sapprove thxs Conditional Use Permit and the Cond~txonal Zomng Change submitted by T-Mobile, and to recommend disapproval Item//17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 31 to City Council. We do need improved cell phone coverage but lets look at new technology and just not on the dollars today. Thank you for your tame. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Stephen Young and Angela Hall. Stephen Young: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Stephen Young and I live in the Bishopsgate development. This issue was raised in the Little Neck area a number of years ago and was rejected then. Nothing has changed since then as to the appropriateness of the commercial venture in a residential area. It is unfortunate that economics, that is money, has again swayed a non-profit organization to attempt to impose a commercial venture on a residential area. Homeowners have a right to expect the non-commercial aspect of their neighborhood being respected and maintmned. I employ you to support the Bishopsgate homeowners who voted overwhelming against these towers and reject this application. In addition, T-Mobile speaks of the process that they used with regard to getting the message to the community. My experience was quite the contrary. I was given telephone numbers to call, and not one of my calls when someone did answer the phone ever return my calls. I do not believe that all less intrusive technological alternatuves have been explored. Again, I request that you do not approve this variance. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Angela Hall and Jim Naylor. Angela Hall: Hi. My name is Angela Hall. I am an adjoining property owner. And, thank you for the letter to invite me to speak today. I do have a great concern as a property owner. And, it's not just a not in my backyard situation. I love my home. My husband and I have put so much of ourselves In our home. We love at. Our living area is not just inside the house. It is expanded outside all the way to the fence bordering the racquet club, the front porch. This past year, we invested an awful lot of money to improve our home to update it. That also included landscaping with very definite plans of additional landscaping on our backyard. I'd like for you to understand that our home as xmportant to us. And, I know earlier today that somebody smd that, oh, there is only opposition of a few adjoining property owners. We're important. Our home is important to us. The breakfast that we have on our deck, weekend, Saturday, Sunday lunches we have on our deck. Some our evening dinners that really go all the way into the fall. We sit outside on our deck with antique candle lanterns. I try to cook and make a nice meal. And, we enjoy the fragrance of Gardenia and Jasmine. It's beautiful. It's just beautiful. I have to say that Saturday we invited Bill Gambrell to our home I have also acknowledge Bill allayed some of my concerns. My husband has been involved in cell phone tower placements so he is much more ~nfonned than I. However, I don't know if all of you members know this term "co-location" or "pole farm". This can be brought about by additional placement. Once we have precedent or you g~ve a recommendation Item//17 & 18 Voacestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 32 for thas, how can my husband and I have the City' s support that at will never go beyond these two towers and as membership wanes and we all know that everybody signs up for the health club at the beganmng of the year and they fade out after they're soar or golf season opens, they don't go. What's goang to happen when the membershap needs really to be boosted up and nobody wants to do at because now kids don't want to go any more. It's nerdy to be at the pool with your family. We all know that's really hfe. Ed Weeden: Ms. Hall, your time as up. Angela Hall: Okay. My time is up. Please take it into account and Bill smd that it would spill over lighung. The better word is "Vulgarian." That light that Mr. Gambrell saw from our home, we even joked that we needed a visor m our house. It's bad and it is beang a bad nexghbor. We throw all the tennis balls back into their court. We do everything we can but I would like a few minutes. Please look on your map. Where you see our property as actually where the tennas court butts up to one home. There is no landscaping there. This racquet club stands to make an awful lot of monetary gmn from thts lease. The cellular phone company is going to stand to get a lot of new subscribers. What happens to property owner with their landscaping? We have even decided on a pergola to try and defuse some of the hghtxng. The hghtmg is atrocious. It is very lnvasive. One evening somebody was playing tenms at 4:00 in the mormng. That's ridiculous. That' s being a bad neighbor. And, I feel that if it's not going to stop and something needs to be addressed, I ask you to please look at this and have them come in and reduce the light height that as right there right now. It's not goang to improve. It's not going to be easier. Ronald Rapley: Ms. Hall. Angela Hall: Mr. Gambrell smd it would be reduced. But, I really want an assurance and I would like an assurance that they can never come back and ask for an additional pole and have a pole farm an our backyard Ronald Rapley: Ms. Hall. Angela Hall: Thank you. Ronald Rlpley: We'll make sure they readdress that. Angela Hall: Thank you. Robert Miller: Jim Naylor and Nancy Naylor. Jim Naylor: Mr. Chmrrnan, members of the Planmng Commission. Good afternoon. My name is Jam Naylor. I live in Bishopsgate. I back up the Little Neck Swam and Racquet Club. I've been an the Lattle Neck area for 13 years. I was attracted to the area because of the character of the neaghborhood The family friendly atmosphere and the school Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 33 system and those familiar with the area know there is no commercial development once you get pass the Home Depot on Vlrgmm Beach Boulevard. The entire area is residential. There are a few churches. We got a firehouse and we have the swim club. I come to you today with my friends and neighbors for an attempt to preserve the quality of life that ~s attracting not only myself. But, most people, who have moved Into the Little Neck area. There is a proposal before you, that's attempting to change the original proffers that were approved by the City for the protection of the community back in, I believe an 1981. As a shareholder of the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club, I'm troubled that the membership was never given an opportunity to vote on amending this deed. The only vote was a vote to sign a lease with Voicestream. I'm asking you to honor the deed not alter it. I'm not agmnst ~mproved coverage just like most people have spoken here. I'm against smoke stacks in a recreation site that was designed and approved for family friendly activities. There are activities that should be considered and there are other alternative sites that should be considered and other people have spoken to those. And, many of these sites don't alter the character or the atmosphere of the Little Neck area. The bordenng properties, which were B~shopsgate and Little Neck Estates, overwhelming have voted against these properties. We don't want to be guinea p~gs of thxs type for resxdential intrusion. Those an favor of the proposal have made the determination as long as it's not in their backyard. This is an acceptable alternative. Interesting enough, the City has taken the same position by not allowing cell towers on recreation parks because they are inconsistent with recreational activities but yet we are proposing to place them in a recreational facility. The appearance is that the swim club overwhelming voted for this proposal. I just want to gave you a couple of numbers. There are over 900 members In the swim club. There are only about 338 that are paying members. Only if you're a paying member could you vote, 30 percent or more voted to abstain from the vote, so really when you get down to it there were a little over 200 people that voted for this. So, even ff their numbers are 2-1 probably are correct, when you break at down by all the numbers you're talking about very small numbers. And, I did want to comment on that petition that was sent out that was asking people whether they were in favor of towers. Actually, the petmon, I would thank that you probably have an front of you had one question on lt. And, the petition that was sent out to everybody really asked for whether or not whether you wanted nnproved cell coverage. Well, we all want that. We have an opportumty to serve a greater need by supporting alternative sites that will not compromise the aesthetics of our neighborhood and the quality of life in our community. I ask you to deny this Conditional Use Permit. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Nancy Naylor and Toni Mlnnls. Nancy Naylor: Good aftemoon ladies and gentlemen of the Commission My name is Nancy Naylor. I have been a resident of Little Neck and a member of the Little Neck Sw~m and Racquet Club for 13 years. I come before you today to express my strong opposition for the proposed commumcat~ons facility at the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club. As an educator and a lifelong child advocate, I view this proposal as reckless, child Item//17 & 18 Voacestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 34 unfriendly and one that clearly jeopardazes the safety of children. L~ttle Neck Swim and Racquet Club xs a family recreataonal facility that serves far more children than adults. This is a summertime haven for children, a place where children can enjoy a safe and healthy environment. I question why we need to sacrifice the health and safety of cluldren for the convemence of w~reless freedom. There are several safety concerns that must be addressed. First and foremost as hghtenlng. Lightemng as one of natures more deadliest phenomenon. According to the severe weather awareness website, every thunderstorm produces lightening which for your ~nfonnation lolls more people each year than tornados. I am presenting to you a pmture from a video clip of hghtening wluch hit a south tower ~n Chesapeake June 26, 2002. WVEC, Channel 13 provided me with this p~cmre. Visualize this wathan feet of a swimming pool. More troubling as the report that I have obtained for you from the International Conference of Atmospheric Electricity, whach states the following. Measurements of hghtening strikes to towers between 30 and 200 meters in height have shown that such towers ~ncrease the incidents of lightemng at the tower locataon and that the probability of hghtening to a tower increases roughly as the square of the towers height. Tins study clearly suggests that the livehhood of a hghtening strike is magmfied ten times over because of the proposed height of these towers. Common sense d~ctates that tall towers will attract lightening. And, the combinataon of water and electricity are a deadly combination. Another concern ~s that the current plan allows for 112-foot towers wit/un 50 feet of a clubhouse and several feet from a swimming pool. Section 232 requires that there be a safety fall zone of 110 percent of the tower height from the residence. I'm going to fimsh. Th~s ~s ~mportant. Shouldn't there be a stricter standard for a high. Ronald l~pley: Ms. Naylor, do you have a lot more to say? Nancy Naylor: No, I don't. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Nancy Naylor: Shouldn't there be a stricter standard for a high occupancy recreational facihty. These towers will serve as an attractive nuisance to teenagers who frequent the pool dunng non business hours. The interest of this ~ndustry and the financaal benefit to a pnvate sw~m club should not supersede our abihty to preserve the aesthetics of our neighborhood and to protect the safety of children. Ttus proposal ~s reckless, dangerous and child unfriendly and I find it unfortunate that we have reached the point that we would rob children of a safe and healthy play area. Thank you. Robert Miller: Thank you. Toni Minnis and Bipin Vyas. Tom Mlrlnls: Hi. My name as Toni Minnis and I reside at 861 Bashopsgate Lane and it's adjacent to the racquetball tenms swam club. I brought a picture of our home so that you can see and that as m the w~ntemme right around Christmas so you can see why the homeowners are concerned about our property values. From that pmture right there, if you look at the p~cmre the cell towers will tower over the tree lane that is there. Beang a Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 35 license realtor for 19 years that does affect your property values. Have you all been out loolong at houses probably have passed a house that had a tall VEPCO towers or tall poles. There's people that just drive right by it. Don't stop the car, I'm not getting out. This as going to affect our property values. We live next to the swim club for a long tame and we are neighbors with them. And, we tolerated things like tennis balls an the yard and the tenms people getting upset when they miss the balls and you can hear them cursing. The parties at night and there are not a whole lot of them but there's possibly underage drinking parties at night and at 12:00-1:00 o'clock, they tend to get a little rowdy and that is not all the time. We have been good neighbors with the racquetball swim club and we don't want these in our backyard. We already compromised a lot with the racquetball club and this is where we want it to stop. And, that is all that I have to say. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Bipin Vyas and Mary Lee Wilkerson. Bipin Vyas: Good afternoon everyone. My name is Bip~n Vyas. I live probably closest to the towers than anyone else. Robert Miller: Turn around. Bapan Vyas: This as my house nght there. Well, anyway, I have three businesses in Virgama Beach and three teenagers in the house so I can understand the importance of the cell phones. We are sharing a common fence with the racquet club and my house. In the winter there are no leaves on the trees you can see the whole club activity from my backyard deck and probably lake more than live more than 200 feet from the tower. I strongly opposed these proposed towers. Those who are In favor of the towers would oppose the same if they are in my place. Since the club is benefiting from the towers when they are practically in my backyard. We have no problem with our cell phones and towers are going near our houses and those who are having problems with their cell phone service they wall never get to see those towers. They won't have any problem with their property values. I only request that the City Council to approve another location for this eyesore tower away from the development of new technology. Thank you. Ronald Rlpley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Mary Lee Walkerson and John Walker. Mary Wilkerson: Well, I think I would say good evening. Your eyes are getting lazy so I can see how t~red you're getting so I will try to be brief. I'm Mary Wilkerson. I live on Blshopsgate Lane, although not exactly adjacent to the club. I'm one of the charter members My children grew up there. They learned how to sw~m there. Subsequently, we became hfeguards there, which are water safety instructors there. And, also they were lifeguards at the beach. So, I know what I'm talking about. I really do. The property ~s Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 36 one matter. I'm a teacher. I'm concerned about children and children safety. And, this neighbor just alluded to a lot so I'll try to leave a lot of that out. L~ghtemng is my greatest concern. While my daughters were up there working one time, the hghtening was striking, she and two other lifeguards had to hit the ground. If you know anything about hghtemng clouds, you got most of the negative part at the bottom and then you got most of the positive at the top and it's hunting to make a connection to the ground. The connection to the ground that is going to ground it is going to be water. Where are cluldren playing? And, tins tower ~s this close. I'm thinking, come on people, these are our children. We don't put these in elementary schools. We put them on lugh schools because they can go on top of the bmldmg. Let's not take those same children and want to put that tower right over there, where those children are going to be pla3nng It's a dangerous situation. Every year or two, we know that there's somebody at the beach, very few clouds ~n the sky and what happens? L~ghtemng strikes. L~ghtemng has been known to strike from 20 miles away but not very often. Granted, it's normally 3-5 miles away. But, even at that, try to get them out of the pool trying to get them corralled someplace else where they are going to be safe. That's a disaster waiting to happen. And, I'm very concerned about the safety of the children and the poles. It is known and I'll read to you what Norah says, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admimstration gives these warnings. There is no absolute safety from lightemng. However, avoid being in or near high places, asolated trees, which by the way the big trees d~ed away up there, shelters, communicatuon towers and I fail to see these as poles. They're towers. Flag poles, light poles and other things of height. Now, that's from a very reputable anstitut~on here that's telling us this. However, doing a lot of search on the internet, I came across towers placed ~n church steeples. And, I wrote down one of them. Bell Mount United Methodist Church ~n Hills Borough Village in Memphis, Tennessee. If the technology is there you got several churches on the pemnsula, Little Neck area that could be placed in their steeple. Number one, that would take care of the property value. I hope you do deny th~s. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: John Walker and Ruth Kral. John Walker: Good afternoon Chatrman and Planning Commission. My name is John Walker. I'm a resident of V~rgunla Beach for 10 years and I worked ~n the wireless industry for 20 years, more ff you ~nclude my time an the Marine Corp. I was contracted by the Bashopsgate C~v~c League to look at the plan and recommend perhaps, alternatives to their plan. I think everyone would agree probably the best cell s~te would be a site where we don't even know it's there. And, the question is that possible? Is that a possibflaty? And, the answer ~s yes. I beheve a plan was submitted to you termed B~shopsgate alternative wireless site study. And, in the plan you have examples where different facfl~tles were used such as church steeples in Coral Gables, Florida; Newbury, Vermont, another c~ty in Vermont and other areas of the country. Technology also exists, which allows careers to use one antenna opposed to two just minimizing one, the height of the towers as well as the need for multiple structures. In exam~mng Volcestreams or Item #17 & 18 Voacestream GSM II, L L.C. Page 37 T-Mobile's apphcation, I found no evidence that th~s was consadered. I also found no evidence that multiple sites were consadered either when I reviewed what was submitted to the Planmng Department. I have before me an example of stealth tower that was desagned an the Nlmmo area of Vargama Beach. Mr. Dan had asked a questaon, are there any towers that are shorter than the 112-foot heaght. Yes, there are. This one that was bmlt and constructed by SunCom an Nimmo was only 90 feet in height. So, I feel what the need is for T-Mobde to honestly reexamine thear proposal and for the Planmng Commission to request T-Mobile to defer thear commission to look at technology that as available currently that wall meet the needs. One that will gave the coverage catizens desare and will also mitigate the opposation, which has been expressed. And, that type of plan as possible. I also request that perhaps that in the future apphcations by wireless careers that more informataon be provided so that those who are opposed can have a fmr opportunity to present alternative plans. It was very difficult to examane the T-Mobile plan because much of the techmcal anformation that's required such as their eqmpment type, antenna types, power levels was not provided. And, that information is vital. If any sort of altemative plan as to be drafted. And, also I live in Larkspur. And, an Larkspur, we don't have good coverage either. I have had Verizon. I have had SunCom, I now have Sprint and I tell you I drop calls too. Because I really wonder if thas plan is approved will these smoke stacks also come to Larkspur? I wash you to consider that please. Thank you. Ronald Ripley. Thank you. Robert Miller: Ruth Kral. Donald Horsley: Your time is already up. Ruth Kral: Done already? Ronald Ripley: Stephen, on that again? Ruth Kral: Good afternoon. My name is Ruth Kral. I'm the Presadent of the Bishopsgate Civac League. And, I'm speaking here an opposition. One thang that I wanted to poant out is that I don't know whether or not you have seen a samulated photo of what the plan looks like and why so many resadents are opposed to this plan. Thas is a simulated photo. It was not shown at any of the meetangs with any of the community. And, I think the reason as because you can see how tall these poles are. And, Charhe Kmmel, who is a former Planmng Commissaoner, as the andivadual who dad thas photo and he's opposed to the plan. So, that may explain why you have so many people who are opposed to at I don't thank from all the an&viduals that you heard hear speaking and I'm one of the last ones, a lot of what I was goang to say has been smd but nobody as opposang cell phone coverage. And, I think it's very easy for a lot of different people in the Lattle Neck commumty who are not darectly affected by the detrimental ampact, to be for the benefits. Of course, everybody wants cell phone coverage but the aesthetics are problematac. And, I would like to refer to your own Comprehensave Plan for the Lattle Neck commumty. It Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 38 ldentffies as the first objectave protecting the ex~stang residential character of Lattle Neck. I do not thank 10-11 story cell towers an the swim clubs parking lot protect the existing residentml character of L~ttle Neck. And, I don't know why you all would want to have a plan ff you're not goang to follow lt. I would like to rebut something that was smd earlier, not rebut at but just to clarify it a httle b~t. The pool's talkang about a 2-1 vote Yes, I thank ~t was a 2-1 vote. I do not beheve that the numbers have been released but they are only approximately. It's a private club. There are 350 members. They have 70 percent voting with a 2-1 vote. We're talking about 162 private members. It's a boom for them. Of course, they're going to be for It. But, I don't thank it's fair for the adjmning property owners to be adversely affected both financially and wsually by the pool's decision that completely dasregards the property's antended uses, the current restnctave condations on the pool. And, one of the thangs that an addition to the aesthetics and the other pmnt that I wanted to make as that the applicant is reqmred to submat substantial evadence, just a little bit longer. I'm almost closang, that no other alternative exists and because this is a precedentaal apphcation, it's the first an the resadential neighborhood. It's the first in the recreataon area. It's the first next to a pool. I thank alternatives need to be explored and I would encourage you all to do that and ask the Planning Commission to take a step back and take a serious look at how cell towers are sited in resadentlal communitaes. And, I urge you to deny thas petition. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: That's all the speakers we have. Ronald Ripley: That's all the speakers that have sagned up to speak. We have two others over there that did sagned up? Mark Noms: Mark Noms. I was here but then I had to leave but now I am back. Robert Miller: You already sent us a note. Ronald Ripley: We received a note from you. Mark Norris: Okay. Ronald R~pley: We receaved that. Come up please. Robert Miller: She could be in here somewhere. Ronald Ripley: Yeah. Could you please state your name? Kalyam Samudra: Sure. My name is Kalyani Samudra I did fill out a card. I'm not sure why you don't seem to have lt. Ronald Rapley: I don't know what happened to it either. Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 39 Kalyanl Samudra: Okay. Ronald Ripley: We have a lot of cards up here. I'm sorry. Please, go ahead. Kalyani Samudra: Okay. I am a homeowner of the adjoining property. I hve at 3113 Beldover Lane. As a homeowner, a mother of a young and a physician, I have many of the concerns that came p. I not going to belabor them. The aesthetics, the noise, the property value issue, all of those tinngs concern me and I would not have bought my home two years ago if had I known that this might have been In the works. Secondly, T- Mobile says these are radio frequency waves that the towers would omit are safe, no worse than a microwave. But, how many of us would stand in front of a running microwave 24-7, 365 days a year for years. Intermittent exposure is one thing. Indefinite continuous exposure over the years is another. For the same reason why I don't put my two-year old daughter in front of a running microwave constantly throughout her child hood or place a cell phone to her ear, again, constantly, not for 18 years. I don't want her living next to these towers. And, I know that other homebuyers are going to have this concern especially with young children. And, they're going to pick someone else's house over mine. I also share a concern about the fact that the main beneficiaries are going to be financially the club and T-Mobile. To the detriment of my family, my neighbors and our commumty, please oppose these towers or at least defer your decision until other alternatives, particularly investigated by some independent consultants are explored. Thank you. Robert Miller: I did find your card and I apologize. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Well, I understand that is all the speakers and so, Mr. RomIne, I don't know how you want to do this. Steve Romine: Let me take the lead and try to respond too much of what I just heard. And, if I omit some of the questions concerns, I hope you bnng them up to my attention. We'll get those questions answered. And, th~s is not necessarily in any defined order but really responding to which I heard them. First of all, let me address what I heard from a few speakers that are in opposition to us regarding health concerns. As I ~ndlcated earlier, the Federal government regulates emissions from these faclhties and there's an MPE. The MPE ratio in tins is less than five percent, winch considers it completely safe. It's also a consideration that the locality can't really consider when they are placing towers. It's pre-empted by the Federal government with respect to health concerns but I did want to be respective and respond to that. I also find it precarious that Mr. Walker, who was retained I guess wltinn the last 30 days to try and find an alternative site indicates that the school ~s a safe s~te to go to and churches are okay but the club is dangerous for children I threw that out there for your consideration. I'm going to let Bill Gambrell discuss the issue about the precedence whether this is the first time ever these have been placed ~n a remdentlal area. I think you'll find that is not true. He has some examples of that. I'm going to let him talk about the alternatives that we looked at on the peninsula to determine why this is the best optimal reasonable solution that we Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L C. Page 40 found So, I'll leave those two th~ngs to him. And, I'm going to try and pick off some of the other issues that were rinsed. When you call back to about maybe two hours ago when I made my comments, these facilities are allowed ~n all d~stricts w~th a CUP. They're allowed in residential districts. This ~s not a residential district. This is an 0-2 Office district. It's a 5.5-acre parcel, well screened. We have proposed to enhance the spill over light tremendously by replacing all the lights, which ~s a tremendous benefit to the adjo~mng neighbors. We're going to enhance the landscaping and we're gmng to add a lot of capital ~mprovements to the club as an offset to a shght burden that we think we're going to have on the visual effect. There was another ~ssue rinsed about commercialization. These poles are the nature of a public utility. They're not unlike the hght poles in the peninsula. They're not unlike telephone hnes, not unlike electric poles. It does not change the use of character of the sxte. It does not change the zoning. The amendment to the conditions we made, three of the four were determined to be obsolete. Kay Wilson may want to address some of these ~ssues and why we amended three of the four conditions that were on there. One condition that ~s remaining, we just clarified to make it absolutely clear that we can install these antennas there. It doesn't change the use or character of the club. It doesn't rezone the club. 112 feet ~s necessary. It's the minimum height necessary because we have to get above the tree hne. We're co-locating four carriers, two per pole about 6-8 foot antennas, about a two foot separation and another 6-8 foot of an antenna. So, you have two of these poles that are going to carry four carriers. The bottom career if you do your math ~s going to be right at about 100 feet or so. The trees around that club are 65-85 feet, 65 on the Beldover s~de north on the Bishopsgate side about 85 on the L~ttle Neck s~de. The trees on the pemnsula can extend over 100 feet, 105 feet ~n some places, maybe taller. I haven't done a study. The point of the matter ~s for these things to effective th~s signal has to promulgate out over the top of those trees. That's why 112 feet was determined. We also narrowed that pole to 22 inches to make it as slim as possible and as least ~ntrusive as possible. We've made a lot of compromise. Everything ~s ~nternal and everythxng ~s as slim or as low as possible. Let me alleviate the fear that people have about chmb~ng the towers. Children will not be able to chmb these towers. There's no physical way you can do that unless you do some act ora crane and you put ~t on top of the tower. There's no way to gmn a foothold or a handhold to climb these towers. L~ttle Neck Estate was represented today and I would hke to address them qmckly. They said that none of them were opposed to this apphcation. And, I am going to point to the photo simulation in a second because I th~nk we have a battle of the photo s~mulat~on here m a minute between the photo s~mulat~on that I saw. Do I have a lma~t on my rebuttal? Okay. Let me wrap up real quick. There's no wsible alternative. We did three tests ~f I would refer to your photo s~mulation, ~n the picture there are v~ews from each d~rect~on. Mrs. Kral's photo simulation on a quick scale to that shows that it ~s m error. It is not a scale Her math on the vote was offby about 18 percent too. I'd just like to point that out. Some of the active members did vote ~n favor. There's a letter ~n your packet about hghtening. I'll leave that to you. Our last paragraph indicates that this will help &ss~pate hghtemng that m~ght strike. We have sophisticated ground existent, more hkely to be hit by lightemng under a tree ~n that area or near one of the braidings. And, so I stand by for questions. Item #17 & 18 Vomestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 41 Ronald Rlpley: Let me ask you a question. Steve Romine: Sure. Ronald Rlpley: L~ghtening was rinsed and that's a safety issue Could you describe the grounding? Can you describe why that grounding would be beneficial to the neighborhood? Steve Romine: I can refer you to the letter and I do have some of the technical engineers here if you want me to call one forward. I can call a constmctmn manager forward and they might be able to address if you would like to hear that? Ronald Ripley: Yes. Jeff, are you ready to discuss that? Jeff is with T-Mobile. He's their construction engineer. Ronald Ripley: And, while he's coming up, the ~ssue of climbing up a pole, how's the pole serviced? Steve Romine: I'll let Jeff address that as well. Ronald Rlpley: Okay. Jeff Donovan: I'm Jeff Donovan, construction manager for T-Mobde. Were in the State of V~rgnnia. The concern you brought up in regards to number one, the lightening. We employ hghtenlng specialist for two concerns. One is for equipment. We have high dollar equipment that makes the radios work, makes the cell site work. So, that is one concern that the protection of our equipment as well as protection of our technicians. Technicians will be the ones servicing the sites closest to the tower and the times that they are out are in times of storm when they'll struggle. The power outages and different ttungs of that nature, so thunderstorms and lightening would be in the area. So, those are the two pnmary concerns. The general public is a concern but they are not in the immediate vicinity of most of the sites. So, with the grounding technology what we do is drive copper rods, steel rods well into the ground to divert the lightening. Should hghtemng occur and hit the structure and divert it down into the earth where there is less potential and dissipates it in there. The letter from Emerson Network Power essentially states and there are many theories and many studies done on lightening. What we do to protect our equipment is the radial affect essentially anything within a 45 degree angle from the top of tower is shielded per say from the lightening. Should lightening within the, for instance this case this 112 foot structure, should it occur within the 224 foot diameter, if it occurs within that 224 feet, yes it may be attracted to the structure but it actually serves as a protection within that 224 foot diameter. It will take the hghtemng and divert it ~nto the earth where it will be safe for a technician safe for anybody that happens within the 112 foot of the structure. Ronald Rlpley. What is the 224-foot? Say that again. Item #17 & 18 Voacestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 42 JeffDonovan: Essentially the height of the pole is, if you take that and shadow It down, one to one is a 112 foot radius is essentially shielded from the earth being struck by hghtenlng or a tree within that 112 foot. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Chmbing the pole? How do you servxce the pole? JeffDonovan: We service the poles with cranes and man baskets. Steve Rom~ne: What's the surface? JeffDonovan: Oh, I'm sorry. Ronald Ripley: No, servace. How do you servme? Because the question of chmbang came up, which I've never heard that before but I never really thought about it. There's no ladders or anything on the pole? Jeff Donovan: On a typical structure, you will see bolts, ladders, some means to physically climb at without the means of a crane, man basket or anything else of your choosing that height. These poles will be slim lined poles. Essentially the only thing on ~t will be paint. As you get near the top, there will be fiberglass radio dome cover, which covers the antennas. They would have to be removed by a crane and then service personnel will have to be lifted by a crane and by a man basket to service the antennas. Donald Horsley: How often does that have to be done? Jeff Donovan: Very rarely in regards to servicing. We mention monthly mmntenance. We do monthly mmntenance inside the shelters. We add ra&os. We remove radios. We optimize the dafferent things within the shelter. That is our routine monthly mmntenance. We also go out to the site to make sure there is no vandalism. No rodents, anything of that nature. The antennas maintenance is typically, I would say once a year. If you wanted to average at out, twice a year for optimization if you wanted to tilt the antennas down, you need to get in there to tilt them downward, bring them upward some or even to physically change out the antennas should an antenna go bad. I don't know what the life expectancy is of an antenna. Of over thousands that we have, we may have replaced three out of a thousand Ronald Rapley: Are there any other questions? Joe, do you have a question? Joe Strange: Yeah. Did I understand you to say that the grounding mechanism would shaeld the area 112 feet from the base of the pole? JeffDonovan: The main question is the height of the structure which as many indavlduals are knowledgeable about lightening or even kind of common sense says, you know something sticking up higher in the air, ~t may be more potentaal to be struck then a two foot tree that sits right besides the structure So, within a 112 feet radius of the pole, Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L C. Page 43 unless there is another structure that exceeds the 45-degree tone, the pole is more hkely to take the hit than the smaller structure besade lt. And, should the tower be struck, the groun&ng system as an place to davert the energy down anto the earth and not let at arch on to the ground, on to the water, on to trees, on to buildings. Many homes now they wall put air termmals on their roofs so that iflightemng should strike their home it hats the mr terminals as opposed to at hatting the roofing and catching fire to the roof. So, the theory and the adea is to davert the energy into the earth where it can safely dassipate as opposed to creating an explosaon or a spark or anything that could cause other hazardous conditions. Ronald Ripley: I thank Mr. Din has a question. William Din: I've got a couple of questaons. Farst, I don't see any pictures of the actual pole and the structure in the parking lot. Okay, you know, I see thear picture. I don't see any pictures from you other than the picnic areas without a pole coming out. How is that actually attached? Is it an independent pole that's behind the structure? Jeff Donovan: The pole as independent of the shelter. The shelter as essentially just a building, a shed. Anything that you might build is s~milar and same construction that as used in that case, otherwise, it's actually more protective because they're built more conscaence to vandalism or storms and stronger construction. The cables, which go to the antennas, will be buried under ground an a concrete trough, PVC conducers in many different ways. Our proposal would be a concrete trough so that lines can be placed underground to come up an the foundation of the pole itself. The foundation of the pole ~s totally independent of the foundation of the building. William Dan: What's protecting the base of the pole from vehicle traffic or anything hke that? JeffDonovan: From vehicle traffic. Steve Romane: The poles are place off the pavement in the grassy area between the parking area and the fence, so the poles are not actually an the parking lot. The vehicle would have to jump the curb and go about five feet. I presume you put protectave. Jeff Donovan: Many thangs can be done. Actually the pole itself 1s samllar as in a warehouse or in a parking lot you would put a steel bollard a post to take the impact of a blow. William Dan: Raght. But, I don't see any of that in any of the pictures that I see of the actual pole or even a schematic sketch of this thing. Bill Gambrell: I've got an actual drawing from the manufacturer of the pole and some of the other questaons I think you have, I might be able to answer them. But, this shows that Item #17 & 18 Voacestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 44 the only difference in th~s pole that you will see is that tiffs pole was an original pole that was proposed at 115 feet and the same manufacturer... Ronald Rlpley: Bill, you need to speak ~nto the mac. Bill Gambrell' That's a detailed drawing. Each pole 1s lin engineered pole specifically for this site. So, I think that shows a 115-feet. The height of this pole has been reduced. This gives you the schematic drawing that you want. Your question about the location of the poles as actually in the parlong lot. I tried to develop a good picture for you but unfortunately, whale I think this is fmrly distorted, I didn't want to gave you the same impression in the opposite direction. But, if you look at the pxcture that they gave you, this tree is 85 feet tall. So, this is 85-foot tall tree and this is a 35-foot tall structure, then based on the proposal, these would really be about this tall. They wouldn't be anywhere close to this height And, the p~ctures are deceiving because and they would be deceiving if I even give you some and that is why I didn't because, the depth ~n the field just doesn't work very well with them. This pole that you see in th~s picture, I scaled it at a 105 feet here. And, tbas is a challenge. William Din: One of the things we're deahng with here is the aesthetic and what it looks like from various positions. You know, ffyou're in the parking lot what does it actually look like? What's protecting it? That is one of the concerns there. Bill Gambrell: It's a good question. Wllham Din: And, I don't think th~s really shows me what it is going to look like in adjacent to this shelter per say. Okay. I don't know ~f this was brought up but you have two poles there, 112 feet tall, two users in each pole. Did you consider using one pole and maybe extending this one pole another 10 feet to put the other users in there? Why do you have to have two polesV Bill Gambrell: We were really trying to limit the v~sual intrusion that this was gmng to make. The goal was to provide for multiple carders. Every part of this application was developed ~n concert and with sensitivity to 232. The increased height of the poles really became more intrusive in my mind as a planner. It's not impossible to do, ff a taller pole would be more acceptable, I'd suspect that the providers would feel okay w~th that but my sense ~s that minimizing the height of the pole, which has always been one of goals in Virginia Beach was an appropriate way to approach ~t. I would hke to answer your question about 232. Wilham Dm: About what? Bill Gambrell: About Section 232 and questions were raised about whether this comphes w~th 232. I think your staff has told you that ~t does. And, I can tell you that I am very familiar w~th ~t. And, I can tell you that it was absolutely designed intentionally to meet all the codes and the requirements of the C~ty of V~rg~nia Beach ordinance as very, very Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 45 best it could. And, I am sensitive to the adjoining property owners and that truly is why you have these landscape buffers that you got and the reductuon in lighting that you have and the limitation on the height of the poles. The issue of whether these can go in steeples in L~ttle Neck. If they could go in steeples in Little Neck they would be there if you could get reception. Churches can do that except for the fact that none of the steeples in L~ttle Neck come anywhere close to exceeding the height of the trees. So, if you have one steeple across the street and I think Verizon or AT&T, one of the two providers did ask the church when they were doing the renovations if they could go xn there. They did their radio test and it doesn't work. And, that would only accommodate one provider. So, then you have four other providers or three other providers coming back and saying what about us. What are you going to do for us? And, that's why this application was designed to accommodate as many proxaders as were interested. But the structures that are there don't work. We absolutely looed at it. And, if you have questions about the alternative sighting, I can address each and every one of them. William Din: Not necessarily the alternative sighting here. I'm looking at the aesthetics of this one site here. To me, one pole would be better than two poles. What would the height have to be in order to accommodate all the users in one pole? Bill Gambrell: I ttunk the separation is generally gmng to be about 5,6, or 7 feet wittun the pole. So, if you wanted to put four providers in the pole, perhaps the pole would go up another 15, maybe 20 feet ~n height. It's probably more ~mposing to the site that each and every one of these poles also have to accommodate cable runs that go up in the middle to the antennas. And, that would substantially increase the g~rth to the pole. And, it would really make it more intrusive. The goal really was to minimize every part of this apphcation. If I can emphasize one ttung, in my role m this it was absolute trying to develop a s~te that really was considerate of the environment. You do have an activity center here. If you look anywhere else in the peninsula, I can't tell you where I have more concentration of activity centers. But, the application and that is why all the public meetings is why all the ~nput was really trytng, on my perspective to control the aesthetacs. William Din: Well, I fully believe you have and everybody has put a lot of effort into th~s thing. And, I appreciate your efforts and everybody else's efforts in providing the comments to you. And, I know you put a lot of effort in trying to accommodate all those. Agmn, there are options that people have asked us to look for, alternatives not only just sites. Bill Gambrell: I think I can answer any questions. William Din: Would you consider just this one s~te. I think onginally, you proposed three poles on this site. It was reduced to two. I'm just wondering why did we go all the way down to one and maybe increase the height another ten feet if that is what it took. I don't know if those options were looked at because the aesthetics are a problem and people are concerned with the massiveness of two poles in this area. And, It just struck Item//17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 46 me when I was lookang at the information that we had that we didn't really have a pacture of a schematic of what thas actually looks like an the parking lot. You know, tins is an amportant aspect of at because looking at it from the neighborhood, winch you do have pictures of. Lookang through the tree, you do see that. If you're lookang through the fence, there's nothang there. What does it look like? How does it protect? I understand. B~ll Gambrell: In all of the poles and I'll ask everyone m every single pole that you have in the City of Virginia Beach, when you have a triangular installed hat, when you add that dimension to them, you get a much more mtmsave look. The width of the garth of the pole, af you want to consider that impact on aesthetics, it's tremendous as well because the wider they get the more noticeable they become. So, that was really the purpose is to really try to minimize at. Wilham Din: And the one question on hghtemng. Is there an affinity for poles like this to attract hghtemng? Bill Gambrell: I'm not the expert but I can you that I have talked to police, fire and rescue people ~n this City and I can tell you that every single provider in the country has probably a milhon dollars located in the base of these antennas. So, the idea that lighterang strike as going to occur. They're gmng to protect that lightening strike and they protect at through the groundang. If there is anything that's probably more valuable to them as being the promders is the infrastructure they have in the ground. They wouldn't put poles up where they were goang to potentially knock out a mllhon dollars at a time. They're really very considerate of at. And, really the technology really takes the energy and directs it into the ground. As opposed to standing underneath a tree where the energy becomes part of the canopy. It's really an ~ssue where your almost safer at the pole then you are adjacent to the trees. Absolutely. William Din: The dissipation of the hghtening into the ground is there an effective area around the base where it goes ~nto the ground? Is there? Ball Gambrell: The letter that I have and I haven't read at so, but he says the facts of the sate is to install towers shghtly ancrease probability of lightening striking the ~mmedlate vicinity reahstically within the 125 foot radaus of the tower. In addition, the power ground plan amproves protectaon of the pool and other structures in the area if lightemng occurs an the area, we would prefer that it int the tower. This is from Emerson. They develop commumcataon poles for everybody, T-Mobale, Vomestream or Venzon, all of the providers. I looked at it very carefully and I didn't take casually any of the comments that I received as I went through the pubhc process It is challenging and this is part of the challenge of the pubhc process In trying to make sure that you're doing an accurate job. Tins as accurate. So, a lot of the opposition, unfortunately that I feel hke I have encountered has been because informatmn isn't beang provided necessarily by some of the folks aren't supportive of the application. In every instance, we tried to find the very best answers. Looking through Emerson, they are one of the largest manufacturers ~n the world. Item//17 & 18 Voacestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 47 Ronald Rapley: Mr. Gambrell, I thank Ms. Katsaas has a questaon. Kathy Katsms: Yes. First of all, flus was provaded to us and of course it was on a scale like you said but T-Mobile hasn't provided us wath how the towers are going to look on the property. Bill Gambrell: I think Steve did pass out some photos but I don't think he d~d that. Steve Romane: Let me first respond to that. We have photos here that are from the manufacturer. They're kind of a different style. I'll pass them out. Here's an actual photo of the manufacturer. It's just a little taller than what we have on another apphcataon that at could look lake. Kathy Katsias: My other question was in Mr. Walker's proposal or alternative study, he mentions steeples and puttang the towers on top of church steeples. Can you address that? Bill Gambrell: I have a fmr amount of respect for Mr. Walker. I worked w~th him when I used to a mumcipal planner. But, the proposal he gave you mixes thangs. In the first place it talks about shared antennas. I forget the name, metta antennas, none of them are stealth. All of them, from what I understand, 20 of the antennas themselves, 22 anches in width. That means you can need 12 of them ~n a pole to accommodate what you're getting in these two poles with two antennas. All of the alternative sites an partmular with regard to these steeples, none of which exceed above the heaght of the trees so your promulgation doesn't work. That's the challenge here is that you have a great canopy cover. And the RF engineers like to call it clutter, but in fact what at does ~t dassipates the sagnal and ~t doesn't work. If they worked, I would be the first one here to tell you that you want these at a lower height. The ex~sting hghts ~n the area are 45 feet tall. If you could work them at 45 feet or 65 feet tall I would be here before you w~th an application that did that. I have personally looked beyond what T-Mobile has done to see whether or not I can find any apphcatlons that would result in that type of use. It doesn't occur when you have this type of situataon. They're very site specffic and the canopy cover ~s really a challenge. Kathy Katsias: Thank you. Ronald Rapley: Dot Wood has a question. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Gambrell, I noticed that one of the speakers today smd that these poles are not allowed on elementary schools. I know that we have quite a few of them on high schools ~n the City but are they allowed on elementary schools in Virginia Beach? Bill Gambrell: Let me see if I can get a pacture for you. I can tell you that answer as that I don't beheve there is an official pohcy. However, when the school board d~d consider putting commumcat~on faciht~es at their hagh schools and they didn't d~scuss the issue of Item #17 & 18 Vo~cestream GSM II, L L.C Page 48 elementary schools because there were no ex~sting structures at the elementary school that lend themselves to it. The elementary school sites are qmte a b~t smaller and they don't have any tall structures so to speak of, but at Woodstock Elementary School you have one of the tallest towers in the City. It was recently rebuilt. It was an ex~sting tower that was accommodate WHRO, which ~s a partner w~th V~rgima Beach Schools and it also accommodates every other single w~reless provider ~n the City. That ~s absolutely not to say nor are any of the other pictures I have that I can show you where these are located m residential zones but that's the optimal answer. In fact, the difference ~n this application and some of the applications, I can show you where there are tall structures commumcation facilities in residential neighborhoods and on pubhc properties. They may not be the best examples, but they don't set precedence. They absolutely don't set precedence. They do set precedence it's a precedence for hawng a thin pole, a very, very th~n pole, with multiple providers in ~t. The pole that Mr. Walker alluded to by Verizon or SunCom at General Booth ~s a single provider pole and is going to be replaced and it is in an area where there ~s no canopy cover. It ~s totally commercial surrounding the s~te. Ronald Ripley: Joe Strange has a question. Joseph Strange: Yeah. We keep talking about all these alternative places you m~ght put them. How many places d~d you study? Bill Gambrell: These three boards and I'm not going to use them until you have a unspecific question about the sites represent the entire L~ttle Neck pemnsula. Tlus will take you from the 7-eleven at Kings Grant or a little bit closer to the Boulevard and take you all the way out. The large drawing that I have is probably easier to work from but the ~ndlvidual drawings have some information, much of the information that the individual drawings are going tell you is like w~th the school site that I mentioned to you earher. It would put these tall structures in the m~ddle of a playing field. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Gambrell, can you pull that mic over to you a httle bit? B~ll Gambrell: I'd rather speak to this larger drawing which shows the enttre pemnsula. And, I can speak to the various s~tes ~n the pemnsula. And, I can tell you that even before I was hired to work on this application, I had the luxury of riding around the City of Virgima Beach m the L~ttle Neck peninsula, probably more than most people. I worked for a while doing Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area work and I can tell you countless variances that I worked on ~n the peninsula, so I'm really familiar w~th the pemnsula. Th~s map shows the entire peninsula. When you get south of th~s area here you start to get coverage from the tower that's located behind the Sam's Club. So, you really are getting ~nto this area before you start to find a site that's not going to conflict with what you have here. We specffically looked at the baseball fields here at Kings Grant Elementary School because they had tall structures. There are light poles over there. An apphcat~on over here would drive the height of the tower up to 135 or 145 feet at best and there would still be overlap. So, as we looked, I looked at Bnll F~eld, I looked at Kangston Elementary School and I showed you my reasomng for why that wasn't an Item #17 & 18 Voacestream GSM II, L.L.C Page 49 appropriate s~te. It's wide open. You will put communication faclhtaes if they meet, and this is important. Remember when I said these are very sensative to all the rules and requirements that we have an place today. So, if I meet all my setbacks like this application does I'll be in the middle of Brill Field. IfI go over here to the park site, which is north of the racquet club site, I have a park sate, by the way I have pacmre of park sites that have communicataon facihties ~n them as well an the City and other c~ties Most of the time the only t~me they've been approved as if there is an existing structure there that you can attach to. They don't become a greater nuisance they are just simply part of something this already ex,sting. And, that is the rationale here. Is that the intrusion that the people that surround th~s club have is a very, very active activity center. Very bright and as Mrs. Hall smd, at as Hollywood when you look out her window. And, that is a great benefit when you see the reductaon of hght going 85 percent down and all the lights can be directed to the ground. We looked at the park sate and the park sate presented some of the same challenges you have here. And, yes you could probably meet the setbacks, however, you're going to be close to these people's property or you can be close to these people's property. You're goang to have to cut down a lot of trees and the issue of whether or not you can climb towers. If you're really, really a gemus and your out m the middle of the woods and you can't be seen, you might be able to find a way to shimmy up these towers. In an activity center like th~s these poles are very special. They don't have chmbmg rods on them but if you're out in the woods and you were away from people you maght find a better oppommity for vandalism and you may find a better opportunity to try to chmb the poles. So, as you go up the Little Neck peninsula, the other site you have, you have the Little Neck Methodist Church and I explained to you that we discounted that sate for a couple of reasons. The Fourth District Court of Appeals made an argument that said that localities have the right to thear own land use decisions when it comes to these things. It was a rezoning. There were thousands, not thousands, literally an entire peninsula that was opposed to an application there and at really just didn't make a lot of sense to go back. But, at also didn't make a lot of sense to go back and ask for an application and a variance to the Resource Protectaon Area. So, then as you go further up the pemnsula you find on Harris Road. Again, you're goang to end up tradang your situation. You're goang to continue to have neaghbors. Some neighbors are not going to lake the idea of havang taller structures around. If you go to Hams Road, I can't make my setbacks and I got Chesapeake Bay ampacts. The andivldual maps that I made for you wall show you where the Resource Protectaon comes an and will show you where the other adjoimng properties are. As I go further up L~ttle Neck, I get to Sycamore Road where there was an old veterinarian. It's under development. Ken Ohve smd you are able to buy lots there for about $400,000 a piece. There is no place on that property that will meet the setbacks and it won't be smack down in the m~ddle of residential with no activity center at all as you have with the club. As you travel up further you have the park here the tennis courts are on, it to as entirely eaten up w~th resource protection area and at too can't meet the setbacks from adjacent residential homes. When you get far up in the peninsula, even though there's still nothing else up there for you to be able to get to that would be e~ther not Chesapeake Bay impacted or not ampacted by not being able to meet the setbacks from adjacent residential homes, you also have the problem of overlappang with the servace that you get from the Harbour Gate Item #17 & 18 Vomestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 50 Towers or from the towers you have over there on the condominiums on Shore Drive. Every conceivable site I looked at presented challenges Th~s site that we have in front of you today presented challenges as well. But, there seemed to be m~t~gating circumstances that make this the most appropriate site considering all the rules that we have an place and considering the impact on the surrounding property owners and trying to accomplish a service that the providers have. I looked at every s~ngle property that there was to potentially look at and tried to find why it would or wouldn't be a good site. I won't tell you that there aren't other sttes that are there. I will tell you that there are other s~tes that are there that are going to bnng to you the same type of dlssent~on or challenges that you've been presented w~th today, every s~ngle site. Ronald Ripley: Any other questions of Mr. Gambrell? Donald Horsley: I've got one. Go back over the park. What's the reason why you couldn't go to the park? B~ll Gambrell: Tlus park right here? In order to meet the setbacks from the residential, to meet the setbacks from the road, I would have to be almost in the middle of their play area on th~s site and I'd have to cut trees. And, I have a situation where I already have the communities out here paying for lights to go out because they have vandals out there because ~t is not a very active place. So, ~t's hard to meet the setbacks. I'd have the adjacent property owners that maybe weren't favorable to the idea in the first place and ~t really was a more passive area park. It's unlike the park that you have in Kemspville, there's a major power transmission hne that rtms through and you have four prowders on the tower for that. It's very, very different. But, that was the discounting of that. And, you can see it's a ~rregular shaped parcel so that down here at the tip you don't get anywhere close to being able to meet your setbacks. As you get ~nto the center, we already have an activity area and then you go over here and you're closer to the homes. And, agmn, I'm afrmd that I would bnng to you a different set of residents who w~ll tell you, "oh my gosh, not here, not ~n our community park" I mean ~t's a real challenge. And, I do appreciate all the people's concerns that aren't supportive ofxt and I told them that from the very onset. And, I also told them that ~fthere ~s anything that you can recommend to me, and Tim Flncham from T-Mobile has smd th~s countless t~mes, if there's anything you can recommend. Any better situation that really addresses all the needs we will absolutely look at ~t. And, that has been the case, absolutely has been the case all along. Donald Horsley: I have one follow up Can you come wath a picture that you can show us what ~t will look like ~n that parking lot? Th~s is their version. Can you give us a d~agram? Bill Gambrell: I would cut down half the d~stance and maybe that would be what they look hke. They really appear to me to be 200 feet. I know they weren't done intentionally wrong but hke I smd, the clubhouse ~n that p~cture is I think ~s about 35 feet. Item #17 & 18 Volcestream GSM II, L.L C. Page 51 So, if you take the height of that clubhouse and you multiply it by three, that's going to put you where the height of these towers are and that's about how thick they are. Kathy Kats~as: Bill, do these pictures depict the towers in the back? Bill Gambrell: Yes ma' am. And, actually those pictures are a result of balloons that were flown in the air and that shown the actual height and where they would be when the towers were constructed. Kathy Katsias: They look like trees. Bill Gambrell: Many of us are not going to notice this application if and when ~t's approved. Some people are going to hang on it. But many people who think that there's a challenge with ~t now like those people who thought there was a challenge with the Lynnhaven United Methodist Church will probably say, "they're not so bad." But, that's absolutely the mtent~on and the design. Yes ma'am. Jamce Anderson: Bill, how large ~s that elementary school field? Bill Gambrell: Brill Field. Janlce Anderson: Is that rather large? Ball Gambrell: I'm going to guess that the school s~te itself looks like its about 20 acres. Jamce Anderson: 20 acres. Bill Gambrell: Of which all of this portion is dedicated to building parking areas an this portion, which is open. And, agmn, I would be pushing these structures close to these homes with no backdrop. Ronald Ripley: No trees on that field. Bill Gambrell: No trees. And, the trees really do provide a visual bamer. If you look at the facilities throughout the City and you see a backdrop of the trees, at really does help them tremendously There aren't any trees. There's nothing to obscure the visual there. Ronald R~pley: Dot? Dorothy Wood: I think Mr. Fuschettl would like to say something. If he has something different, I will certmnly sponsor him. Ronald Pupley: Okay. Well, lets finish with this first. One second. Robert Miller: One of the things that is obvious as that you have put these towers an a Item #17 & 18 Vo~cestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 52 location of the s~te that is favorable to the location of the famhties that are being built for the club. They could have put on another location on the site, somewhere else that would have stall been 200 feet away from houses. R~ght? Bill Gambrell: Yes sar. Robert Miller: So, they could have been put closer to the road or something hke that? Bill Gambrell: Yes sir. Robert Miller: Did you all look at that and dascuss that too? Is there further reasomng besides the actual? Ball Gambrell: The goal was to meet setbacks. The goal was to try to make sure that they were outside the activity areas. As we went to the pubhc meeting, originally they were not outside the actav~ty areas and that was something that came fairly clear to us that they were concerned about it being an the activity area. They were concerned about ~t because some folks are concerned about the health affects assocaated wath telecommumcatlon facilltaes and some folks are just concerned about the fact that technicians would be walking in and out of the site. So, they were located there for that purpose. I can tell you if there is a better location on ti'ns sate that meets everybody's interest they could be moved, absolutely. Robert Miller: Well that is what I was leading to. If you looked at other locataons, none of those were down the furthest analysis you d~d on th~s. Bill Gambrell: Correct. Robert Miller: I'm not sure they meet anybody's favor. Ronald Rapley: Bill, thank you very much. Now, there's a gentleman back there. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Fuschetti. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Fuschett~ wants to make another comment. And, I assume tins is new ~nfonnation? Steve Fuschetti: I'll let you be the judge of that. I was just slttang here listening to tins. I just think ~t's very important for you to understand that the photos that we provided were done by Charhe Krummel. These were photos that were done and obviously by someone who we asked to do it but someone's who integrity is beyond anyone's doubt here. I do want to underscore that fact that whether our photos or their photos or our statistic or their statastlcs will say whatever they say, the importance of getting an independent view of how to get cellular servace into a densely residential area that has no apparent Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 53 commercxal value 1s so obvious to me as we listen to this, I thank you for your patience in allowing me to point that out again. But, at is critical to this. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Okay. That's a quite long discussion there. Anybody want to make any comments here? Robert Miller: I'll start. Ronald Ripley: Step up on the box. Robert Miller: Sure. Have no fear. How long have we been here? Ronald Ripley: Thas has been a pretty long application. Robert Miller: I know that we got here nme this morning. Ronald Ripley: I don't mind but we have two more items to deal with too Robert Miller: Yeah. I think the difficulties that we're hearing from everybody without disrespect to the people's statement either for or agmnst are somewhat redundant and repetitive but they've been said and they've been said and they've said. And, not that they haven't been said well, I think they've been said well by both sides. I can't help but look back to the United Methodist Church and thank we pushed and said that looks like a good decasaon, let's go that way. That obviously did not work out. There was a tremendous amount of opposition to that. If you go forward with this and if we were to make a recommendation to go forward, I would anticipate perhaps a similar result. It just doesn't feel and fortunately you get a whole lot better just because each time you tried to put something in Little Neck and I hve on Brea Road and my cellular phone service isn't very good. Bill, I don't know it's not good over there but your map says, it's suppose to be alright. I &dn't mean to do that to hurt you an anyway. I apologize af I did. Mostly, my feeling is that no matter where we put these poles or suggest that these poles be placed after the study of the study of the study that might be the study of the original study, we'll still be at the same answer. A lot of people may or may not like this and I think what we found out over the years that I've served on Planning Commission and watched City Council is that our favorite answer as go to water towers and go to Vargima Power poles and to go to schools with the athletic fields where we're able to put these tower sates. If you really stay there and look at them, they're intrusive when you stay there and look at them an most cases but at least we feel lake people are lookang at a water tower so they can't see the antenna perhaps. And, as an engineer I can think you can always stand there long enough to see the problem that perhaps you're looking for. I would wish there was an exact place on Little Neck that would say, "please, put it here, put It on top of my water tank." I was just thinking that we don't want to recommend a water tank out there. Clarence Warnstaff saw me earlier and said, "make sure you take care of my neighbors" and he didn't tell me which one of his neighbors I was suppose to take care of though so I'm in a little bit of a conundrum figunng out which one of you are Item #17 & 18 Vo~cestream GSM II, L.L C. Page 54 his exact neighbors. I don't feel hke if we're going to debate this and move it to three or more sites, I don't feel hke we're going to come to any different end then th~s is going to be in a place that someone ~s going to say, "not here, not now, not ever." So, I think the chmce ~s pretty s~mple. E~ther we prowde cellular service to that peninsula or we wmt until, as some people had smd, "there's some other technology" through satellites or other possibilities. I'm not that kand of engtneer. People think that because you're an engineer, you're suppose to understand, how to fix cars and do all k~nds of things, and I don't know how to do any of those things. So, I don't know what the technology ~s that is going to answer lt. I know that on top of my building I now have a broadband antenna, httle t~ny th~ng like that and it sends all my, and ~nstead of a T-1 connection. I now have that. I don't exactly know how all that works but it seems to work fairly effectively. I'm sure there are technologtes that are coming along and if we wait long enough perhaps there won't be any towers. But, I also know and I occasionally talk to some of the students at ODU and some other places and enguneenng students that one day we may be ZBOTS. And, I love using that term because they all look at you and frown and th~nk, "what is he talking about?" Because they are sure they know everytlung about whatever there is that's going on and when I smd something like that I hke to surprise them because it doesn't exist. It's just something that you put on our belt and you push a button and you levitate 12-15 feet in the air. You don't need cars anymore. So, I suppose someday we won't need cars but right now we need cars and we need roads and the government th~nks we need to fix the holes m the road. I honestly do not we can study this flung beyond a reasonable point and find an answer that some of you, may be it would be th~s group s~tting over there next. I don't know, which one of you ~s Clarence' s neighbors and that group will be s~tting over there and you'll be against ~t and you'll be for ~t. I think I'm out of gas with th~s flung and no sir you can't come back up again. We're just running off at the mouth now because we get to talk and I get to go first. Well, you don't have to. I already answered my own question. My answer to the question is that if can move it to a better place on this site then I'm also in favor of that ff it would help the neighbors in some way, shape or form. I'm going to support the request to put it on this s~te. Send ~t forward. Ronald R~pley: Mr. Dm, do you have a question? Wilham D~n: I guess I have a comment also. In a lot of ways I feel the same way has expressed his comments. I tlunk we need to come out with a win-w~n out of th~s th~ng. I think there are a lot of people on both s~des of the fence who want the servme, who need the service and people who want the service but don't want the poles. I don't think there's anybody, out here m this room that debates the fact that th~s area, is under served of cellular serwce. And, it's really a debate as to where are we going to put these poles. Eventually these poles are going to get someplace. I th~nk my concern ~s to make sure wherever we p~ck a s~te that it's adequate to supply enough service for th~s area and not to have to go through th~s evolution agmn if we can avoid lt. I object to two poles to maybe one pole might be less objectionable. I th~nk the prohferatmn of cell phones is evasive ~nto everybody's life even at th~s meeting, I've heard several cell phones go off I really don't th~nk ~n residential area ~t ~s needed as much as ~n commercial area. And, ! Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 55 do believe that in some instances that this is a commercial invasion of a residential area. I'm heartened by the fact that the funds that are being shared here will help the neighborhood through the Little Neck Community Enhancement Fund But, I think and I don't want to look for a temporary fix here. I want to look for a fix that will help everybody an this area and help the City and help the neighbors live with each other. I think what's mostly nupacted here are the neighbors who are around tins site. We've heard from several of those neighbors who actually along the fence line who really object to this. I think they honestly feel and rightly or wrongly they will be impacted the most with property values, resale values of their homes. And, I think they are the most affected on this. A lot of the people I've heard who want the service probably don't live in this area adjacent to the area that won't be visually anpacted by it as much. So, I think we have to listen to adjacent property owners. I have some reservation that this is an intrusive area as far as the maintenance of this area of the poles go. I believe that there as some noise issue. I think there are some vehicle issues. With that, agmn, like I said I don't want a temporary fix here. If narrowing this down to this sate is the site, my recommendation is to one pole. Maybe at has to be ten feet higher. It's only one pole So, my point of view here, I don't thank I'm going to support this because of the issues that I see that there ~s some reservations that this ~s a temporary fix that there should be some other option out there that we should be able to consider. And, I don't think we've been presented that so, with that, I probably won't be support this. Ronald Ripley: Don Horsley has a comment and then Dot Wood. Donald Horsley: Well, I didn't know that the upper portion of the City was deprived of something as the rural area but we don't have phone service either. We have cell telephones and we become very dependent on those things and when you get involved in a business and you get a call and it's breaking up and you can't hear, you get very lmtated. I know I do and even where I live In Blackwater and every once in a while I'll get call through but most of my stuff goes through to voicemail and then I spend an hour hstemng to voicemail and I have to go to the house to do that on the other phone because I can't use my phone to get my vomemail. So, I can understand the frustrations that people have with using it. A lot of times we fear the inevitable and I have a lot of faith that the folks that have explored ti'ns site have looked at a lot of different places in that area. And, we've heard tower apphcataons before and the tree issue is the bag issue. If we can find a grove of trees, that's the best place to pursue to put a tower. It looks like that this is the best place that they've been able to come up with in this area. I plan to support this. I think they've done an excellent job on trying to calm an issue that I think an the long mn everybody will benefit from it's not just one group. And, I guess for those reasons, I think the safety issue, you know everybody's concerned about children and safety and whom do you put your belief in? We got one letter that says that these towers are completely safe and then we got the idea that says they're not safe But, I got a feeling that if people are going to invest this kind of money they're not going to do it on something in an area where they know they're going to have kids involved that's going to be unsafe and I put my behefan that, so, I'm going to support this effort that they're coming out with. The only thing that I would ofhked to have seen would have been Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L C. Page 56 these pictures that Will had asked about earlier on what would it look like. And, maybe because we don't' know actually what it's going to look like and maybe we're better off if we don't know if it's the right thing. We've got to wait and see the real thing because if we're given a picture and says that th~s what the utopia is and it doesn't look like that then everybody's mad. So, I th~nk unless we really know what it's going to look like we're better off and I appreciate that effort from them. I think the applicant's been very frank in his comments and I think they've done a good job of looking around and moving these poles around the site to meet the setbacks and get ~t out of the activity area and I think the racquet club whether you think it's a monetary gain for them or not, I think it's a good gmn for the community to be able to benefit from the lease of the sites. But, I do plan to support the application. Ronald Pdpley: Dot? Dorothy Wood: Thank you. I appreciate the concerns of the possibility that the towers can be, a hghtemng magnet and that the hght poles have a possible affect on the health of children. Because of these concerns, I've carefully studied the reports and m particularly a letter by Mr. Neal Rose, who's Vice Chairman of our School Board and I think he's also an affected resident. I would like to quote Mr. Rose and he smd in his letter that, "he was sure that parents would take their children out ofharrns way if lightening is in the vicinity. And, then if the parents are not at the pool, the life guard such as Mrs. Wilkerson's children, I am sure will also remove the children." I think the sun from Mr Rose that the sun offers much more of a health hazard to the hfeguards and to the children swimming then any possible radio waves. I support this application for several reasons. The first is the safety. We had Mr. Bmley from the Fire Department tell us how the fire trucks can't receive calls w~th their cell phones in this area. I read this morning the USA Today how many calls now that so many emergency calls are coming from cell phones. I hope that the application will not adversely impact the neighbors and their real estate values. We heard two different sides today. We've heard neighbors say that the values will be adversely impacted because of no cell sermce. And, then we hear neighbors saying that the cell service towers w~ll affect theirs. One lady was talking about the light that's coming from the towers now, the present light poles ~n her house and I beheve from what Mr. Gambrell smd that the new hghts w~ll have less impact on her. Many of these homes I've heard the neighbors say were purchased near the recreation center and I've heard several people say that ti'us was a problem to them with the tennis balls and the loud no~se and the parties. I don't ttunk this is going to change at all because of the cell towers. It has been developed with an enormous community participation to try to move this someplace else w~ll just result in a different set of neighbors who object. The club is on a large parcel and the application meets all the City's requirements. The cell poles are well screened and the applicant has committed to making significant capital improvements that will further benefit the commumty, lnstalhng new hghts to minimize the hght pollution. And, I understand they are going to remove some of the impervious parking surface and replace it w~th green space, which will eliminate parking next to the neighbor's houses. I think the neighbors that are lmmedmtely adjacent to the club w~ll benefit as well from the significant reduction in Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 57 light glare. It is clear that the club's trying to be a good neighbor and the apphcant has gone out of his way to work wath the community. Good people can certainly disagree. I have a great deal of respect for a lot of people I've seen here today. Mrs. Kral wath her work w~th the Girl Scouts. Mr. Miller w~th his work w~th the students ~n Pnncess Anne H~gh School and also he's one of the soccer coaches. I see other people here in the neighborhood with both s~des are wonderful neighbors and have done a lot for the community. I am certain that ff it ~s the will of the Planning Commassion to move tins application forward, there will be no negatave effects to the community. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Yes, Janme. Janice Anderson: I'd just hke to make a comment on the applicataon. I think the applicant has done an excellent job trying to work with the commumty and with the sate. I do have some problems w~th tins application and I'm not going to be supportang the application. Not because the efforts but I think they have done everything that they could. My concern is and we keep hearing that I don't want them on my side but ~t's going to be the next site. Maybe that is why you don't have cell sermce in that area. In 97, they turned it down on the church sate, a little further up the street. I'm assumxng that the Council decided then it wasn't good for the neighborhood. So, I don't think the cell tower down the street is going to be any different m that end result. This is a commercial entity that's going in to what should be a residential area. One of the gentlemen d~d bnng up the deed restnctaons and I think that changes the whole intent of the pool. The pool only approved to be in there as a pool and as a recreation area. It was not to be a industrial or any commercxal business. If you do tins and take out one of the proffers, it roms into an industrial area. Not industrial but an office area. There's no way it can revert back and ~f the club goes under and at would have to be a commercial sate. So, those are the reasons I won't be support Ronald Rapley: Thank you very much. Are there any other comments? Joe. Joseph Strange: I'd just like to say that, I wall reluctantly, be supportang this apphcation. I say reluctantly because I don't think there is a perfect solutaon to this problem out there. And, I suffer a lot of anxiety over changes such as this before and I know what at's lake to people. I just hope that it doesn't mm out to be as intrusive to these people hves they k~nd of tinnk ~ts going to be. I tinnk that the applicant has gone out of their way to work wath the commumty. Cellular service is here to stay. It's not a fade. And, I think and I hope that any money that they maght get ~n this five percent, s~nce the people around ~t since they think to lose the most by it being there. I hope most of this money goes to the ~mmedmte are there to offset any devaluatmn of their property that they maght w~ll happen. But, I will be support the apphcation today. Ronald R~pley. Charhe and then Gene. Charhe Salle': Okay. I'm going to support tins apphcataon too, although, I mean candidly af I were one of the landowners of the residences that boarded the fence here, I'd Item #17 & 18 Vo~cestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 58 probably be much opposed to lt. And, ~t's unfommate that those who live right adjacent to any type of pubhc works facihty disproportionably share the burden that comes with that development of that type of facility and that is what I view tins as, it's a public utility facility. And, if you live next to where a new road constmctaon is coming through, I think you just proportionally bare the cost of that and the burden of that on your property. But, it's one of those things. It's a fact ofhfe that pubhc utility and public amprovements are goang to occur. It appears to me that this is the only practical site in this area to relocate this facility. I guess it's a question of eather no service or servme at this site. And, I thank that in this day and age that cell phone service is a necessaty. And, I ttunk the service needs to be provided to that are and I think it enhances the safety. It promotes the general welfare of the area to provide this service and having listen to all of what we heard today and nobody has come up wath a site that would be better than the one that we before us today. So, in understanding and appeahng to the property owners who wall be right next to at, but at the same time for the majority of people who have expressed a negative opinion today, when these towers are built I bet within two weeks they nde them and never pay any attention to them. So, it wall become part of the neighborhood and I've seen that with water towers. I've seen people dimly to a water tower being bmlt in the neaghborhood and by the time tt's been there six weeks or six months at least, everybody's forgotten the thing exists. And, I thank that's what will occur here if these towers are built. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Charhe. Gene. Eugene Crabtree: Real quick lake. I support Dot, Charlie of what they say so I'm not going to repeat theirs. We've heard a lot of things about statastms and things speaking of danger, radiataon, etc., and from having worked m a couple of places to where investigators are assagned to have done things, I have never seen an investigator to disapprove his theory. He always works to prove Ins theory. Therefore, you can take statistics and you can take studaes and you skew them anyway you want them to one side or the other, to what way which side is right and which sade xs wrong. Recreational use of the facility and they say at's only recreational. My grandson thinks cell phone as recreational, so therefore, he has one in his ear all the time. If~t wasn't him, he probably wouldn't have any recreataon so I don't know if I would disallow that as being a misuse of the recreational property. I am going to support tins. I hope that the home values do not go down. And, as far as the towers being ugly, I think that ugly is in the site of the beholder and as Charlie says, "I think after a httle while you won't even see it." Dot said at right. They smd they were going to mm the lights m and at's going to down to where the light will not be as ~ntmsave on the surrounding property. So, therefore, I think it is going to be a commumty enhancement and I think the profits from it will benefit the entire community of Great Neck. In fact, that entire area that goes all the way over to Vlrgima Beach Boulevard and maybe every a little blt across the Boulevard, so, I'm going to support the apphcat~on. Ronald Rlpley: Barry, do you want to comment? Item #17 & 18 Vomestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 59 Barry Knight: Yeah. I live an the southern end of the City and I don't have any cell service eather. I'm lake Don. It all goes to voicemml and you can't get out down there. The thing that kind of scares me as that IS not really an inconvenience because I can come home or go to my farm and make a phone calls from there. What if some accident happens out there and here I am removed from a landline and it takes me five or ten minutes or maybe I can't even get to phone and I understand that Little Neck the proxlmaty to landlines are whole lot closer. But you could be involved in an acmdent or some person could have a heart attack on the walk way and time is of the essence. So, the safety issue kind of struck a cord wath me because I kand of relate to at living where I live. So, because of the safety assue I'm going to support the cell towers. Ronald Ripley: And, I will be suppomng it also and the safety weaghed very heavily on my thinking of the support. I think that the alternative sites have been looked at as hard as they possibly could and I think the need has been demonstrated. In fact, when you go back to the report that was g~ven to the Planning Commission on January 23, 2001 and you see the map and you see at does indicate that there's a tower an Lattle Neck but it's in error. It's the tower that was mined down, so at's glaringly in the middle of the City and the needs there and I thank Bob Miller said it well, "are we going to provide the oppormmty for cell commumcatlon in the peninsula or not?" And, it does unfortunately is becoming a utility and at's almost like the telephone wires have sprung out all throughout the whole city. And, we would like to get nd of them. You don't even see them after awhile. They just blur because you don't have them you don't get the telephone. Anyway, I do think at's an appropriate location. I do think that this as what I would consider a somewhat commercial mode and probably in deed an appropriate spot for it to be and safety was critical to my thinking. So, I will be supporting lt. Kathy? Kathy Katsaas: I'd like to thank everybody for coming down and voming thear opinions for and against this apphcataon. I also want to comment on what a wonderful and thorough presentation Bill Gambrell has presented us and by T-Mobile in trying to address all the concerns of the neighborhood. I think everybody has smd what I was going to say and I'm the last one. I am also concerned about the safety assue and I think we all agree that the Little Neck area deserves cellular service, therefore, Mr. Chairman I recommend approval of this application. Ronald Rlpley: So, we have a motion by Kathy Katslas to approve. Do I have a second? Eugene Crabtree: Second. Ronald Ripley: A second by Gene Crabtree. So, we're ready to vote. AYE 9 NAY 2 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON CRABTREE DIN AYE NAY NAY Item #17 & 18 Voicestream GSM II, L.L.C. Page 60 HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-2, the motion carries. M~ C-6 Not Laundry~Carwash o~C USA 4 18 6 Gpin 1467-29-3972 ZONING HISTORY 1. 10/09167- REZONING from RM (Residential Multifamily) to CL (Limited Commem~al) 2. 01/27/98- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Church) 3. 07/11188- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Auto Repair) 4. 01/28/92- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (B~ngo Hall() 5. 04/14192 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Indoor Recreation) 6. 06/27~83 - REZONING from B-2 (Bus~ness) to A-2 (Apartment) 7. 12/17/84 - REZONING from I-2 (Industnal) to A-2 (Apartment) 8. 02/29196- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Communication Tower) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Laundry/Carwash USA-Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Laundry/Carwash USA for a Conditional Use Permit for a carwash on the northwest corner of Newtown Road and Cabot Avenue (GPIN 1467-29-3972). Said parcel contains 1 57 acres more or less DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE The purpose of this request ~s to construct a seven bay automatic car wash ~n addition to the proposed by-right commercial building on the s~te. Considerations: The apphcant ~s proposing to construct two separate buildings on th~s 1.57-acre site. The commercial building shown will contain a laundry and dry cleaning establishment as well as other small service-oriented uses. There will also be a car wash building containing seven bays and an office space. There w~ll be a manager on duty during all hours of operation for the car wash Hours of operation for the car wash are 8 00 am to 10:00 pm, seven days a week. The applicant has met several times w~th the adjoining ne~ghborhood's civic league, known as Lake Edward, as well as the Planning Department and Police Department staff concerning the proposed development of this site The design of the s~te ~s a result of d~scuss~ons over concerns associated with the car wash use such as noise and loitering. The onentat,ons of the buildings on the s~te, the block wall along the western property I~ne, and hours of operation are a result of collaborative efforts. The civic league has endorsed th~s proposal in wr~bng The s~te plan shows an 8,280 square foot commercial building that w~ll be designed for three to four users. A car wash building ~s also shown with seven car wash bays and a two-story equipment room/manager's office. Seventy-two (72) parking spaces are shown Five vacuums are shown ~n the parking area along the south s~de of the car wash building. An 8-foot h~gh masonry wall has been prowded along the western property line to screen the car wash from the adjacent residential neighborhood. Laundry/Carwash Page 2 of 3 The car wash building has been oriented toward the southeast corner of the s~te, away from the res~denbal neighborhood The commercial building sits behind the car wash budding with parking ~n front, between the commercial budding and Newtown Road. Staff recommended approval There was no opposition to the request · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a mobon by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve th~s request w~th the following cond~bons' The development of the s~te shall substantially conform with the site plan enbtled "Concept Plan for Laundry/Car Wash USA" prepared by Gallup Surveyors and Engineers and dated January 3, 2003 A copy of the s~te plan exhibited to C~ty Council is on file ~n the Planmng Department. , The buildings shall substanbally conform to the rendering entitled "Laundry/Car Wash USA" A color copy of the rendering exhibited to City Councd is on file ~n the Planning Department . Hours of operation for the car wash are limited to 8'00 am to 10.00 pm seven days a week. A manager for the car wash will be on-site dunng all hours of operation 4 Any freestanding sign on the site must be monument style, with a brick or block base of a light earth-tone color to match the buddings. 5 The dumpster enclosure shown on the s~te plan must be revised to be constructed of light earth-tone block, s~mdar to the buildings. 6. Additional shrubbery along the northern side of the stormwater management facility w~ll be required on the detaded site plan ~n heu of landscape ~slands ~n the area containing ten parking spaces w~th vacuums south of the car wash 7 No outside speakers will be allowed 8 No posters, advertisement or other signage is to be d~splayed in the windows on the commercial building All I~ght~ng fixtures, to include building-mounted type will be of appropriate height and design to prevent d~rect reflection and glare towards adjacent neighborhood. A I~ghbng plan shall be prowded as part of the detailed site plan to be rewewed by the Crime Prevent,on Office of the Police Department and the Planning Department. 10. The buildings and block wall must be kept free of graffit~ at all t~mes Laundry/Carwash Page 3 of 3 · Attachments: Staff Rewew D~sclosure Statement Planmng Commission M~nutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planmng Commission recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planmng Departmen~ City Manager: ~/'~ )/~-- ,'~~ LAUNDRY/CARWASH USA/# 19 March 12, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: C06-210-CUP-2002 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a car wash ADDRESS: Northwest comer of Newtown Road and Cabot Avenue Ma~ C-6 Not 'co Scale USA Gpin 1467-29-3972 / / GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: 14672939720000 2 - KEMPSVILLE SITE SIZE: 1.57 acres Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 LAUNDRY/CARWASH USA I # 19 Page I STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Barbara Duke To construct a seven bay automatic car wash in addition to the proposed by-right commercial building on the s~te. This application was deferred in December 2003 at the request of the applicant, so that the applicant could meet with the civic league in the adjoining neighborhood. Major Issues: Degree to which the proposal is compatible with adjacent residential neighborhood and consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and ZoninQ The site is currently a vacant grassy field zoned B-2 Community Business District. Cabot Avenue on the southern edge of the site also serves as the boundary line between Norfolk and Virginia Beach. Cabot Avenue is not fully improved, but it is used for access to a shopping center that is located south of the subject site, within Norfolk city bruits. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: · 7-Eleven Convenience Store / B-2 Community Bus~ness District Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 LAUNDRY/CARWASH USA/# 19 Page 2 South: East: West: · City boundary line between Norfolk and Virginia Beach, commercial uses and multi-family development are located south of the site in Norfolk. · Newtown Road · Lake Edward West Towhomes / A-12 Apartment District Zoning History The subject site was rezoned from R-M (Residential Multifamily) to CL-1 (Limited Commercial in October 1967, and has never been developed. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The site is a grassy field with some trees on the perimeter. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: There ~s a 12 inch water main in Newtown Road fronting the property. There is a 6 inch water main in Redkirk Lane fronting the property. Sewer: There is a 12 inch force main in Newtown Road fronting the property. There is a 48 inch HRSD force main in Newtown Road fronting the property. There is a dead end gravity sewer manhole in the cul-de-sac in Redkirk Lane. This site must connect to City water and sewer. Transportation Newtown Road ~n the vicinity of this application is considered a four lane divided major urban artenal. It is designated on the Master Transportation Plan as a 120 foot wide right of way. There are no projects identified to upgrade th~s roadway ~n the current Capital Improvement Program. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 LAUNDRY/CARWASH USA ! # 19 Page 3 Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated TraffiC Volume Capacity Ex~st~ng Land Use z. 515 Newtown Road 37,000 ~ ADT ~ 17,300 ADT Proposed Land Use 3_ 756 Average Da~ly Tnps 2 as defined by 12,000 square feet commercial retail 3 as defined by retad plus car wash Public Safety Police: The applicant has worked with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department to identify and incorporate crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as it pertains to this site. Fire and Rescue: Fire safety requirements will be addressed during detailed site plan rewew. Comprehensive Plan The subject site is located in the Bayside Planning Area. The Comprehensive Plan policies and planned land use map recommend support for commercial proposals that demonstrate a higher level of aesthetic quahty than existing in the immediate and surrounding physical environment and that expand economic vitality. Any actiwty offered on the subject site shall be cognizant of the abutting residential neighborhood and shall not compromise the neighborhood with negative impacts caused by noise, unsafe access, lighbng, etc. Summary of Proposal Proposal The applicant ~s proposing to construct two separate buildings on this 1.57- acre site, The commercial building shown will contain a laundry and dry cleaning establishment as well as other small service-oriented uses. There Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 LAUNDRY/CARWASH USA/# 19 Page 4 w~ll also be a car wash building containing seven bays and an office space. There will be a manager on duty during all hours of operation for the car wash. Hours of operation for the car wash are 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, seven days a week. The applicant has met several times with the adjoining neighborhood's civic league, known as Lake Edward, as well as the Planning Department and Police Department staff concerning the proposed development of this site. The design of the site is a result of discussions over concerns associated with the car wash use such as noise and loitering. The orientations of the buildings on the site, the block wall along the western property line, and hours of operation are a result of collaborative efforts. The civic league has endorsed this proposal in writing. Site Desi,qn The site plan shows an 8,280 square foot commercial building that will be designed for three to four users. A car wash building is also shown with seven car wash bays and a two-story equipment room/manager's office. 72 parking spaces are shown. Five vacuums are shown in the parking area along the south side of the car wash building. An 8-foot high masonry wall has been provided along the western property hne to screen the car wash from the adjacent residential neighborhood. The car wash building has been oriented toward the southeast corner of the site, away from the residential neighborhood. The commercial building sits behind the car wash building with parking in front, between the commercial building and Newtown Road. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access The site will have one entrance/exit to Newtown Road. The parking for the car wash is located on the south side of the entrance and parking for the commercial building is located on the north side of the entrance. This design minimizes conflicts between the two uses on the site. · There is a sidewalk within the Newtown Road right-of-way along the frontage of th~s site. The site plan shows a proposed five-foot wide pedestnan Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 LAUNDRY/CARWASH USA ! # 19 Page 5 walkway from the right-of-way to the commercial building. Architectural Design · The car wash building and the commercial building on the site will use the same materials, colors and roof feature. Both buildings are split face block in a light earth-tone shade. The buildings will have blue and yellow accent bands across the top and will have blue metal roofing. The elevation of the roof parapet is varied. The commercial building will have a corner entrance feature for the main business, which w~ll be a laundry and dry cleamng facility. Three other doorways are located on the east s~de of the building facing Newtown Road. The building has several windows along the south and east sides. · The wall shown along the western property line will be constructed of split face block in the same light earth-tone shade as the buildings. The car wash building is shown ~n the southeast comer of the site, oriented away from the residential neighborhood adjacent to the west side of the site. There will be a two-story structure containing an equipment room on the hrst floor and a manager's office on the second floor located at the western end of the car wash building. Seven automatic car wash bays make up the remainder of thIs building. Landscape and Open Space Design The site plan shows parking lot landscaping, foundat,on and street front landscaping for the commercial building in accordance with the site plan ordinance. Foundation landscaping is also shown along the edge of the car wash building that faces Newtown Road. There are no landscape ~slands shown within the parking area where the vacuums are located, south of the car wash building. This area is set at an angle to Newtown Road and there is a small stormwater management facility as well as some street front landscaping buffering this area from the roadway. It is suggested that additional landscaping be provided between the parking Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 LAUNDRY/CARWASH USA/# 19 ...... Page 6 and the stormwater management facility in lieu of the required landscape ~slands between parking spaces in this area. A fifteen-foot buffer w~th Category IV landscaping is shown along the entire length of the western property line in accordance with the zoning ordinance. In addition, the 8 foot high block wall has been provided to screen and buffer the car wash from the adjoining neighborhood. Evaluation of Request The request for a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash on the subject site is acceptable. The applicant has designed the site to minimize ~mpacts on the adjoining neighborhood to the west. The southeast corner of the site is an open space containing a dry stormwater management facility and street front landscaping that provides a good screen for the car wash building when viewed from Newtown Road. The proposed buildings have the same materials, colors and roof style. The block wall w~ll also be of the same material and color as the buildings. A pedestrian walkway from Newtown Road has been incorporated into the main parking area on the site. The quality of the buildings proposed and the collaborative effort put forth by the applicant represent an improvement to the site that has the support of the civic league representing the adjoining neighborhood of Lake Edward. This request is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations to support quality new development in this area when ~t ~s compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. The car wash is considered by staff to be compatible with the surrounding area provided the condibons listed below are incorporated. The request for a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash is recommended for approval subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions 1. The development of the site shall substantially conform with the site plan entitled "Concept Plan for Laundry/Car Wash USA" prepared by Gallup Surveyors and Engineers and dated January 3, 2003. A copy of the site plan exhibited to City Council is on file in the Planning Department. 2. The buildings shall substantially conform to the rendering entitled "Laundry/Car Wash USA". A color copy of the rendering exhibited to City Council is on file in the Planning Department. 3. Hours of operation for the car wash are limIted to 8:00 am to 10:00 pm seven days a week. A manager for the car wash will be on-site during all hours of Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 LAUNDRY/CARWASH USA/# 19 Page 7 operation. 4. Any freestanding sign on the site must be monument style, with a brick or block base of a light earth-tone color to match the buildings. 5. The dumpster enclosure shown on the site plan must be revised to be constructed of hght earth-tone block, simdar to the buddings. 6. Additional shrubbery along the northern side of the stormwater management facility wdl be required on the detailed site plan in heu of landscape islands in the area containing ten parking spaces w~th vacuums south of the car wash. 7. No outside speakers will be allowed. 8. No posters, advertisement or other signage is to be displayed in the windows on the commercial building. , All lighting fixtures, to include building-mounted type will be of appropriate height and design to prevent direct reflection and glare towards adjacent neighborhood. A lighting plan shall be provided as part of the detailed site plan to be reviewed by the Crime Prevention Office of the Police Department and the Planning Department. 10. The buildings and block wall must be kept free of graffiti at all times. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 LAUNDRY/CARWASH USA/# 19 Page 8 z~ m {33 O .-.4 g O o~O~ N/~03.~3~ 0 0 r'~ Z ~:~ Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 LAUNDRWCARWASH USA/# 19 Page 9 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 LAUNDRY/CARWASH USA ! # 19 Page 10 January 2, 2003 Dear Mr. Gallup: Greetings from the Lake Edward Area Civic League and the Lake Edward Community. We would like to take thge opportunity to express our stncere thanka' to you for your support and the great job you are doing. aVlr Gallup, on Thursday, 21 November 02, The Lake Edward Area Civic League and The Lake Edward Community voted, overwhelmingly, to support a Conditional Use Permit for the developmenl of Laundry/Carwash-USA, to be located on the northwest corner of Newtown Road and Cabot Avenue. We realize th~s respor~e is late however; it was imperative that the information presentqd at the meeting was dtsseminated lo all area restdents or neighborhoods.' Your efforts and concerns are appreciated. Please feel free to contact me at your convenience, (75 7-671-832 7). Thanks for your efJorts. Stncerely. George Wzlliam.~..Ir. President, Lake Edward Area Civic League Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 LAUNDRY/CARWASH USA I if 19 ...... Page 11 Applicant's Name: List All Current Prol~rty Owners: APPLICATIO, ~ PAGE 4 OF 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ' ~ GITYZOF'VIRGINIA BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Laundry/Carwash USA Jose Da~oan & Joana I. Dayoan PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, l~t all officers of the Corporatton below' (Attach hst ~fnecessary) If the prcrperty owner ~s a PARTNERSHIP. FIRM, or other UNINCORI~RATED ORGANIZATION, hst all members or partners tn th~ organization below: (Attach list (fneces~ary) Check h=re if the property owner is NOT a corpora~on, parmemhip, firm, or other unincorporated organization If the applicant u not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Dbclo~ure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the apphcant ~a a CORPORATION, hat all officezs of the Corporatwn below- (Attach l~t ~fnecessary) · If the apphcant ts a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, hat all members or paflae~ tn the orgamzalaon below: (Attach list if necessary) Sole Proprietor {~ Check here if the applu:ant ts NOT a corporatmn, parmership, firm, or other umncorporated orgamzat~on CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. $ignatur~ Jose Dayoan Print Name Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 LAUNDRY/CARWASH USA/# 19 Page 12 Item # 19 Laundry/carwash, USA Con&nonal Use Perrmt for a carwash Northwest comer of Newtown Road and Cabot Avenue District 2 Kempsville March 12, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The last consent ~tem is Item #19. Robert Miller: Dot, we have oppos~tlon to this? Dorothy Wood: We do s~r? Robert Miller: Yes. Dorothy Wood: Okay. Well that is all the consent items. Ronald Ripley: We have opposinon for Item #197 Robert Miller: Yes, we do. Ronald Ripley: Okay. REGULAR Robert Miller: The next ~tem is Item//19, Laundry/Carwash, USA. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Gallup, you might note that this was on the Consent agenda. Brace Gallup: Yes. I've been thinkang about that all afternoon. Ronald Ripley: We l~nd of like the application. Brace Gallup: I appreciate that. My name ~s Brace Gallup. I'm a local engineer. I represent the Laundry/Carwash USA on this application. I'll be very brief. Th~s is a vacant piece of commercial property on Newtown Road. It's zoned B-2. There's a 7- eleven here on the comer. There's Froth Mission Church right here. This is Lake Edward Townhouse Community back here. The C~ty of Norfolk hne is right on the south side. And, this a httle strip shopping center right here. There are various businesses ~n there. My clients operate a small facility similar to this on West Little Creek Road ~n Norfolk. They operated for a number of years. Th~s would be their second s~te. It's going to be a much more elaborate s~te, ~f we can look at the s~te plan. We've had several meetings w~th the Lake Edward area civic league. We worked with George Wilhams, the Item #19 Laundry/carwash, USA Page 2 President of that league. He actually attended two of the civic league meetings. We arrived at this plan, which addressed a lot of the concerns. A gain, the 7-eleven is here, the church is here and these are the townhouses. We have put the carwash here angled to the property and put the vacuums here the back end with the BMP and the shrubs to get it as far away from the church and the netghborhood as we can. The owners also agree to extend an eight-foot htgh masonry wall, whtch basically seals the residenttal area from the commercial area. Agmn, ttus is B-2 piece of property. It's been used. The commercial building is a permitted Use. The carwash takes the Use permit. My chent is trying to be a good neighbor has recognized the concerns. Some of the people who hved here were at the civic league meetings and he has agreed to put this wall up which basically would be a sound wall. And, the ctvic league has endorsed thts plan. We have been m front of Board of Zoning Appeals. W e had some setback issues here and also the height of the wall. Those variances have been approved. I wasn't aware there was any more opposition but evtdently there ~s. I'll standby for questions. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Diana Baming. Diana Baming: D~ana Barmng. Robert Miller: I truly apologize. I couldn't read Diana Barnmg: That's okay. Maybe I don't have an object~on. I'm sorry. I'm Diana Baming. Good evening. Robert Miller: Good night. Diana Baming: Th~s ~s, I assume, strictly gotng to be a carwash? It's not going to be a laundro mat. My objectton was is there are five laundro mats within a quarter mile of this site. And, I was just wondering why were we going to put another laundry tn the district, right down on Baker Road. There's one next shopping center over there ts a laundro mat. Across the Boulevard, there's another laundro mat and turn down Old Newtown and there's another laundro mat there. And, I just thought we needed six laundro mats but it looks hke it's strictly gotng to be a carwash. So, ~f it's strictly going to be a carwash, I really don't have any objectton. Robert Miller: Well, it's a laundry. Diana Barning: It is going to be a laundry too? Ronald Rlpley: My understanding ~t's a combination. Is that correct? And, the carwash and the only reason why ~t is here is the laundro mat ~s a by right use probably. And, the Condittonal Use Permit ~s really for the carwash because the carwash has noise. It has Item # 19 Laundry/carwash, USA Page 3 fumes. It has th~ngs that could be objectionable to adjacent property owners. So, that ~s why we have to run through th~s s~te. Diana Bam~ng: The laundro mat ~s not a quesuon? Okay. Ronald Ripley: No ma'am. Diana Bam~ng: Sorry to take your t~me. Donald Horsley: Sorry to take your time. Bruce Gallup: I'm sorry she took my t~me. If you have any questions I'll be glad to answer them. The laundro mat ~s a permitted use. Ronald Ripley: Any questions of the apphcant or any comments? Any motions? Donald Horsley: I make a motion that the application be approved. Dorothy Wood: Second. Ronald Ripley: A motion to approve by Don Horsley. Seconded by Dot Wood. We're ready to vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald R~pley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. Thank you. Map G-10-11 Map ~ot to Scale Beach VIPGINIA BEAg. H, HIGHEP EDUC4- CENTER ,I-2 0-2 :onclitlon~l 0-2 Cond, t'ionoJ AT~-2 ZONING HISTORY 1. 08-21-90- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (communication tower)- Granted 2. 08-11-92 - REZONING - R-5D Residential to I-1 Industnal- Granted 3. 07-03-92 - REZONING - R-5D Res~denbal to O-1Off~ce - Granted 4. 12-03-92 - REZONING - R-5D Residential and P-1 Preservation to 0-2 Office - Granted CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach / LifeNet- Change of Zoning District Classification MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Apphcat[on of City of Virg[ma Beach for a Chan.qe of Zoninq District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial Property located on the east side of Pnncess Anne Road, north of Dam Neck Road and south of Concert Drive (GPIN 14857371870000). The proposed zoning to Conditional I-1 is for hght industrial land use. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for residential land use at or above 3 5 dwelhng units per acre Parcel contains 21.5 acres. DISTRICT 3- ROSE HALL The purpose of this request is to allow for the development of the site primarily for the storage and d~stribution of human t~ssues and organs. Considerations: The property Is vacant and was used in the recent past for cropland. The s~te is zoned R-5D Residential Duplex District. The City of Virginia Beach, current owner of the property, will sell approximately 15.82 acres of the total site to LifeNet for their ~mmed~ate development needs City Council declared this property as "excess" at their March 25, 2003 meeting. L[feNet will have an opt[on to purchase the remaining 6.57 acres for their future development needs. LifeNet w~ll have five years from the t~me it closes on the 15.82 acres to exercise ~ts opt[on It will have a right of first refusal on the property for years six through ten. L[feNet proposes to construct up to164,560 square feet of office and "clean room" warehouse space on the subject site in five phases between now and 2012. The change of zoning will allow for the development of the site with a local firm that provides a vital service. The use ~s consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, with the Princess Anne Corridor Plan, which-notes that uses in th~sarea should "strengthen and complement the-- - - institutional, educational, and cultural activities ~n th[s area." Moreover, the use will complement the future Sentara Health Care campus to be located on the opposite s~de of Pnncess Anne Road City of V~rg~nia Beach / L~feNet Page 2 of 2 The submItted site and architectural rendenngs depict a building and sIte layout that will complement the other existing and future buildings ~n the Educational Core of Princess Anne Commons. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request. · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request · Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planmng Commission M~nutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department/-j~~ City Manager~5 [~.. ~) ~'~ Planning Commission recommends CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET / #1 April 9, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: G 10-210-C RZ-2003 REQUEST: Chanqe of Zoning District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District. ADDRESS: Property located on the east side of Pnncess Anne Road, north of Dam Neck Road and south of Concert Drive. Beach Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET / #1 Page 1 GPIN' ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER' PURPOSE: 14857371870000 3- ROSE HALL 22.39 acres. Stephen White To allow for the development of the site primarily for the storage and d~stribution of human t~ssues and organs. Major Issues: · Degree to which the proposal is consistent with the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. · Degree to which the proposal is compatible with the uses in the surrounding area. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zoning The property is vacant and was used in the recent past for cropland. The site is zoned R-5D Residential Duplex District. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: · V~rginia Beach H~gher Education Center / P-1 Preservation · Vacant parcel/B-2 Business · Princess Anne Road · Across Princess Anne Road, Princess Anne Park / Conditional 0-2 Office and P-1 Preservation · City of Virginia Beach facilities (Public Works / Pubhc Utilities Maintenance Yard) /I-2 Industrial Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET / #1 Page 2 West: · Single-family residential/R-5D Residential Duplex · Concert Drive · Across Concert Drive, Virginia Beach Higher Education Center / R-5D Residential Duplex · Princess Anne Road Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing Zoning: The 22.39 acres could be developed with uses permitted in the R-5D Residential Distnct. Specifically, the site could support approximately 134 dwelling units. With Proposed Zoning: The site can be developed consistent w~th the proffers. Specifically, use of the site will be limited to office, allograft tissue processing, distribution and warehousing associated with LifeNet. "AIIograft" ~s defined as '~the graft of tissue obtained from a donor of the same species as, but with a different genetic make- up from, the recipient, as a bssue transplant between two humans" (American Heritage Dictionary). Zoning History The subject site has been zoned R-5D Residential Duplex since the adoption of the City Zoning Ordinance, in 1988. The site was zoned R-8 Residential prior to that. Zoning activity in the surrounding area since 1990 is shown on the attached Zoning History Map. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The s~te is in an AICUZ of 65 toT0dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is a 24-~nch water main along Princess Anne Road and a 12-inch water line along Concert Drive. There is a 10-inch gravity sewer line along Concert Drive. The site must connect to water and sewer. Planning Commission Agenda ~'~,~~ April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET / #1 Page 3 Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Princess Anne Road in the vicinity of this proposal is an eight-lane divided arterial. It is designated on the MTP as a 150 foot wide divided roadway with controlled access. Concert Drive is a four-lane collector. It ~s not designated on the MTP. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Ex~stmg Land Use z_ 1,435 ADT Pnncess Anne Road 50,150 65,700 ADT 1 ADT 1 (LOS C) Proposed Land Use 3_ 1,773 ADT Average Da~ly Trips 2 as dehned by 134 duplex dwelhng un~ts 3 as dehned by 534 esbmated employees Schools The rezoning will result ~n the loss of a potential 134 dwellings on the property should the City ever decide to sell the land for that purpose. Thus, potential future student generation from th~s property will be s~gnificantly reduced. Public Safety Police: The apphcant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Fire and Rescue: A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained before occupancy. Fire code permits may be required at the t~me of occupancy, contact the Fire Department for permit information. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET / #1 Page 4 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for residential land use at or above 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan's "Princess Anne Corridor Study," adopted by City Council on July 11,2000, identifies this area of the Princess Anne Corridor as the 'Educational Core.' The Plan recommends that land uses ~n th~s area "whether public or private, must strengthen and complement the institutional, educational, and cultural activities in this area. Related site design and architectural quality should be comparable to and compabble with" the ex~sting educational facilities ~n the area (p.20). Summary of Proposal Proposal · LifeNet proposes to construct up 164,560 square feet of office and "clean room" warehouse space on the subject site in five phases between now and 2012. · LifeNet is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that prowdes human organs and tissues for transplantation and also conducts educational and support services. The City of Virginia Beach, current owner of the property, will sell approximately 15.82 acres of the total site to LifeNet for their immediate development needs. City Council declared this property as "excess" at their March 25, 2003 meeting. LifeNet will have an option to purchase the remaining 6.57 acres for their future development needs. LifeNet will have five years from the time it closes on the 15.82 acres to exercise its option. It wdl have a right of first refusal on the property for years six through ten. A purchase agreement between the City and LifeNet requires that approximately 29,000 square feet of 'clean rooms' and office space be developed within 8 months of closing on the 15.82 acre parcel. The phasing of the project is shown below: Planning Commission Agenda ~'~/~',,~ April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET ! #1 Page 5 · The total 22.39 acres is subject to this change of zoning and the proffers. Site Desiqn · The proposed site design shows the main building set toward the 'rear' of the property near the City's Public Works / Public Utilities Maintenance Yard. · Parking for the first phases of development is shown in the northern corner of the property adjacent to the City's yard and Concert Drive. · Stormwater is proposed to be conveyed to a regional facility located to the north along Rosemont Road. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · Vehicular access to the site is shown from Concert Drive, opposite the existing access point for the Virginia Beach Higher Education Center. This divided entrance roadway terminates in a curvilinear drive that feeds into the parking lot for the imtial phases, the delivery drives at the northern side of the property and into drive aisles and parking at the main entrance to the building. This curvilinear dnve will eventually provide access to additional parking that w~ll be Planning Commission Agenda ,~ April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET / #1 Page 6 constructed with the later phases of development. The curvilinear drive mirrors the curvilinear drive that provides access to the Higher Education Center. Pedestrian access will be provided through sidewalks on the site that will connect to the public sidewalk system. Architectural Desi.an The building is designed to be compatible to the architectural styling of the buildings that exist in the Educational Core of Pnncess Anne Commons. The submitted renderings depict a building that will also be compatible to the buildings proposed for the Sentara Health Care campus on the south side of Princess Anne Road. The submitted renderings show a building constructed of masonry, with extensive glazing and aluminum panels. The main entrance to the building is enhanced with a greater use of the masonry and vertical articulation breaking up the honzontal line of the roof. The proposed design is consistent with the intent of the Design Guidelines for Pnncess Anne Commons. Landscape and Open Space · Landscaped areas are ~ndicated on the submitted renderings and plans. Landscaped buffers are shown along the eastern boundary of the site adjacent and the northern boundary. The City Zoning Ordinance requires a 25-foot wide landscape buffer with Category I landscape plantings along the eastern lot line where the site adjoins the R-5D Residential District (Landstown Court). Proffer S~x, below, also volunteers that LifeNet will, when the 6.5 acre option parcel ~s developed, landscape the corner of the parcel at the intersection of Concert Drive and Princess Anne Road. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET / #1 Page 7 Proffers PROFFER # 1 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 2 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 3 Staff Evaluation: The Property shall be developed as an office, allograft tissue processing, distribution and warehouse complex, and shall be subject to the terms of that certain Purchase Agreement between LifeNet and Grantee to be executed upon LifeNet's acquisition of the Property, as such Purchase Agreement may be subsequently amended. This proffer/s acceptable. The proposed uses are consistent with the recommendations of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan regarding uses that "strengthen and complement the institutional, educational, and cultural activities in this area." The buildings and other structures on the Property shall be developed consistent with the site plan, elevations, and rendering attached as exhibits to the Purchase Agreement (collectively, "Conceptual Plans"), which is on file with the C~ty. The site and building design shall utihze and substantially adhere to the Conceptual Plans. Adherence to the Conceptual Plans shall be established through the procedure outlined in Proffer 7. This proffer/s acceptable. The proposed design is consistent with the recommendations of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan that ''site design and architectural quality should be comparable to and compabble with" the ex/sting educational facil/bes In the area. The primary extenor building materials utilized on the pnncipal structures located on the Property shall consist of any combination of the following: brick, glass, metal, pre- cast concrete, or stone, and will be compatible with the public buildings located in the immediate vicinity. This proffer is acceptable and assures that the buildings will meet the recommendations of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan, as noted above, and the Design Guidelines for Princess Anne Commons. Planning Commission Agenda ~_,,~"'~_,~ April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET ! #1 Page 8 PROFFER # 4 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 5 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 6 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 7 All outdoor lighting shall be shielded to direct light and glare onto the premises; said lighting and glare shall be deflected, shaded, and focused away from adjoining property. Any outdoor parking lot lighting fixtures shall not be erected any higher than 20 feet. This proffer is acceptable. The Property shall be used for offices, warehouse functions, distribution functions, accessory uses and allograft tissue processing. This proffer is acceptable. The proposed uses are consistent with the recommendations of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan regarding uses that "strengthen and complement the institutional, educational, and cultural activities in this area." At such bme as improvements are constructed on that approximate 6.5-acre parcel adjacent to the intersection of Pnncess Anne Road and Concert Drive, which is part of the Property, the owner of such parcel will accent with landscaping the comer of the Property at the intersection of Princess Anne Road and Concert Drive. This proffer is acceptable. It assures that the intersection will be enhanced with landscape design similar to that existing or proposed for the other corners. LifeNet will submit to the City's Director of Planning all site, landscaping and architectural plans (the "Plans") for the development of the Property for review and approval to confirm conformance of the Plans with these Proffers prior to the issuance of any development permits during the life of the project. If the Director of Planning does not approve the Plans, the reasons therefor shall be clearly and specifically set forth ~n writing so that the objections may be addressed and resolved. If the Director of Planning and LifeNet cannot resolve any such objections, LifeNet shall have the right to appeal the objections of the Director of Planning to the City Manager or his designee. Likewise, if the objections cannot be resolved with the C~ty Manager Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET / #1 Page 9 or his designee, LifeNet will have the right to appeal the objections to City Council. All approvals by the C~ty shall be at its reasonable discretion, and the City's approval or specific objections shall be delivered to LifeNet no later than thirty (30) days after submission of the Plans or request for rewew by the City Manager or the City Council. LifeNet shall make any such request for review after the final opinion is rendered by the D~rector of Planning or the City Manager as applicable. The City shall also impose a restriction on the Property and the Option Parcel prohibiting any resubdivision of the Property or the Option Parcel without the pnor written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The foregoing requirements and restriction shall be included in the deed of conveyance of the Property and the Option Parcel to L~feNet. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable and merely provides a method of review for the architectural and site plans to assure their consistency with these proffers. Due to the unique involvement of the City as the seller of the property, this proffer also provides a method for addressing any proposed subdivision of the property in the future that might be problematic for any reason. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request This request for a change of zoning from R-5D Residential District to I-1 Industrial D~stnct is acceptable as proffered. The change of zoning will allow for the development of the site with a local hrm that provides a vital service. The use ~s consistent w~th the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, w~th the Princess Anne Corridor Plan, which Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET / #1 Page 10 notes that uses in this area should "strengthen and complement the institutional, educational, and cultural activities in this area." Moreover, the use will complement the future Sentara Health Care campus to be located on the opposite side of Princess Anne Road. The submitted site and architectural renderings depict a building and site layout that will complement the other existing and future buildings in the Educational Core of Princess Anne Commons. Thus, Staff concludes that the proposal meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of the change of zoning as proffered. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET / #1 Page 11 $~,t 26q I J Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET I #1 Page 12 0 U 0 PHASES I & 2 Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET / #1 Page 13 PHASES I & 2 Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET / #1 Page 14 FUTURE PHASES Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET / #1 Page 15 FUTURE PHASES Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET ! #1 Page 16 Z O Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET ! #1 Page 17 Planning Commission Agenda ~'~',~_,~,~ April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET ! #1 Page 18 Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET ! #1 Page 19 Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET / #1 Page 20 Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - LIFENET / #1 Page 21 Item #1 City of V~rgima Beach/Llfenet Change of Zomng District Classification East side of Princess Anne Road, north of Dam Neck Road and south of Concert Drive District 3 Rose Hall April 9, 2003 REGULAR Ronald Rlpley: The first one Mr. Miller, will you call that? Robert Miller: Item #1, City of Virginia Beach/Lifenet Christian Cbalds: Good afternoon. Ronald Ripley: Good afternoon. Christian Childs: My name is Christian Childs. I'm an attorney in the City of Virginia Beach with law firm Wllhams Mullen and before you today with a joint presentation. This matter is an application of the City of Virginia Beach. My firm represents Llfenet, wluch is today represented here by Patrick Thompson, Vice President for that company. Llfenet is a 501C3 non-profit organization that provides human organs and tissues for transplantation and conducts educational and support services. This is information that is provided to you in your package. Lifenet proposes to construct approximately 164,000 square foot building on this property to use as its main headquarters. The City Council has had an opportunity to review and approved a proposed contract that would allow for this project to go forward. Necessary for th~s project to go forward is a Change of the Zoning Classification from the R-SD to the I-1 Light Industnal. And, today Mr. Thompson is here to represent Llfenet support and we would ask on behalf of Lifenet that this matter be approved. Mr. Couch is here today to provide some additional information and background on behalf of the City. Thank you. David Couch: Thank you, members of the Commission. My name is Dave Couch. I'm with the Economic Development Department. We've been working with L~fenet for a little over a year now. Lifenet is a long standing Virgania Beach Company. They've been in business in the City of Vlrg~ma Beach for a little over 20 years. They're currently located in four locations in Airport Industrial Park. In the course of working with Lifenet, they thought this was a beneficial location. They felt together with other activities going on in the Princess Anne Commons area and the educational components and what not, that they would do very well in that comdor. They are looking to pursue as you heard from Christian approximately 164,000 square foot facility in the course of a few years. They currently employ a little over 300 people in Virginia Beach. I'm looking to expand over 500 people over the course of the project. It's a little under $40 million dollars in investment just for land and building alone and over the next 30 months Item #1 City of Virginia Beach/Lffenet Page 2 they plan to anvest another $12 million dollars an furmture, fixtures & eqmpment. So, with that we are in concurrence w~th the Planning Department ~n supportang the rezoning of the property from an economac development standpoint. We feel that this project is ~n keeping wath the City's v~slon for the comdor and also strengthemng the economic vltahty of the C~ty. I'll be glad to answer any questions. Ronald Ripley: Questions? Dorothy Wood. I'd lake to make a motion to approve ~fthere are no questions? Ronald Ripley: If there are no questions. Before we do that, is there any opposat~on? Eugene Crabtree: I've got one question. Does Lifenet deal strictly in organ or do they maintmn a tassue bank as well? Patrick Thompson: Lifenet is an organ and tissue bank. Eugene Crabtree: Organ and tassue bank facility that will support the Sentara Medical Facihty that is going to go ~n across the road, I presume? Patrick Thompson: We do work very closely wnh the Sentara organization both in provisions of organs and as well as tissues. So, I would add that Llfenet is the largest freestandang organ and tissue bank in the nation today. In services that we provide not to our local and surrounding communities but to the nation at large that are vital and necessary. Eugene Crabtree: I was sure of that. I just wanted that to go into the record. Ronald Ripley: Will there be any helicopter ports or anything hke that to emergency move tissues around? Patnck Thompson: Not at all. All our transportataon is strictly ground transportation. Just local land vehicles. That's it, no emergency vehicles. No helicopters of that nature. Ronald Ripley: Your initial employment wall be about how many? Patrick Thompson: We're currently at 360 employees and we anticipate in the next five years extending up to 500 employees. Our projections will fluctuate depending on the needs of the organization. Right now, we're thinking somewhere in the 500 range. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Patnck Thompson: Okay. Ronald Ripley: Any other questions? Item #1 City of Virginia Beach/Llfenet Page 3 Kathy Katsias: How much of th~s area is refrigerated? These organs that are re~gerated, how are they maintained? Patrick Thompson: There's a clear distinction between organs and t~ssues. Organs are, when they are donated, they have to be immediately implanted into the recipients, whereas tissues are brought back to our facility for further testing. We do freeze them down at minus 80 degrees centigrade. These are chest freezers, 20 square cubic feet of chest freezers. We have anticipated approximately 100 of these in square footage of about 10,000 square feet. Ronald Ripley: Commissioners have any other questions? Yes, Kathy. Kathy Katslas: So, when these organs have to be transported immedmtely, how do you get them to the location. Patrick Thompson: Understand, there's no surgical or clinical type procedure that's occurring at this facihty. These procedures are done wlthan the local hospitals and they're transported through the hospital system. Kathy Katsias: Oh, okay. Not through you to another City. Patrick Thompson: If they are transported to another city we do escort them. And, we utilize ambulance or private aviation, depending on the distance from the recovery. Kathy Katsias: Okay, thank you. Patrick Thompson: Okay. Ed Weeden: I just need tum to identify himself for the record. Patrick Thompson: Oh, I'm sorry, my name is Patrick Thompson. I'm the Vice President of Corporate Support for Lifenet. Ronald Rlpley: Thank you. Okay. Thank you all very much. Is there anybody opposition to this apphcatlon? Okay, thank you all very much. Now, Dot. Dorothy Wood: Again, I would to welcome them to the Pnncess Anne Corridor. I think it's a wonderful use of the land. And, I would like to make a motion that it be approved. Ronald Ripley: We got a motion by Dot Wood to approve, a second by Barry I~nlght. I do think it also is a excellent complementary use. It definitely ties in with the Sentara plan which is a huge medical facility going right directly across the street and d~rectly tied in with the educational facilities that are m the area. It's just an absolute wonderful compliment to the City. We're really looking forward to you to being there. We appreciate you making your presentation to us. Are there any other comments? Yes, Joe. Item #1 City of Virginia Beach/Llfenet Page 4 Joseph Strange: I'd just hke to kind of echo of what you said there. I think it's an exciting oppormmty to have a company in the biotechnology field here. Vlrg~ma Beach needs thru. It needs at to attract other technology base compames xnto this area. And, I think ~ts one of the more excat~ng things to happen in that comdor. Ronald Rlpley: Very good Other comments? Call for the question. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. Thank you all very much. FORM NO P S 119 City o£ Virginia Reach In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5710 DATE: April 10, 2003 TO: FROM: Leslie L. Lilley ..~ B. Kay Wilson~0~ DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application City of Virginia Beach and LifeNet The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on April 22, 2003. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated March 7, 2003, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss thas matter further. BKW Enclosure Prepared by: Williams Mullen 900 One Columbus Center Virginia Beach, VA 23462 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this "l"'~day of f'~~ ,2003, by and among the I CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("City"), the owner of a certain parcel of property located at Princess Anne Road and Concert Drive in Virginia Beach, Virginia, as described on EXHIBIT A attached hereto, and LIFENET, a Virginia non-profit corporation CLifeNet"), the contract purchaser of the property (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Grantors"); and the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee")'. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors have initiated an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee, so as to change the classification from R-5D to Conditional I-1 on certain property which contains approximately 22.39 acres, more or less, located in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, which property is more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A (hereinafter the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property currently consists of two tax parcels of approximately 15.82 acres and 6.5 acres. Upon acquisition of either of the parcels constituting the Property by LifeNet, LifeNet shall succeed to all rights and obligations of the "Grantors" under this Agreement as to such portion of the Property, and the City shall have no further fights or obligations of a "Grantor" under this Agreement (but will retain all rights as the "Grantee") as to such portion of the Property conveyed to LifeNet; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes, including mixed use purposes, through zoning and other land development legislation; and GPIN 1485-73-7187 WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict, and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the subject Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of the 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 I-1 are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantors' rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered in writing in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as part of the proposed conditional amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for in the existing I-1 zoning district by the existing City's Zoning Ordinance ("CZO"), the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the new Zoning Map relative to the Property, all of which have a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning; and WHEREAS, said conditions having been proffered by the Grantors and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, such conditions shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the Property covered by such conditions; provided, however, that such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment if the subsequent amendment is part of the comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance, unless, notwithstanding the foregoing, these conditions are amended or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and executed by the record owner of the subject Property at the time of recordation of such instrument; provided, further, that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee advertised pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2204, which said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, for themselves, their successors, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion of quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that these proffers (collectively, the "Proffers") shall constitute covenants running with the said Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors, their heirs, personal representatives, assigns, grantees and other successors in interest or title, namely: 1. The Property shall be developed as an office, allograft tissue processing, distribution and warehouse complex, and shall be subject to the terms of that certain Purchase Agreement between LifeNet and Grantee to be executed upon LifeNet's acquisition of the Property, as such Purchase Agreement may be subsequently amended. 2. The buildings and other structures on the Property shall be developed consistent with the site plan, elevations, and rendering attached as exhibits to the Purchase Agreement (collectively, "Conceptual Plans"), which is on file with the City. The site and building design shall utilize and substantially adhere to the Conceptual Plans. Adherence to the Conceptual Plans shall be established through the procedure outlined in Proffer 7. 3. The primary exterior building materials utilized on the principal structures located on the Property shall consist of any combination of the following: brick, glass, metal, pre-cast concrete, or stone, and will be compatible with the public buildings located in the immediate vicinity. 4. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded to direct light and glare onto the premises; said lighting and glare shall be deflected, shaded, and focused away from adjoining property. Any outdoor parking lot lighting fixtures shall not be erected any higher than 20 feet. 5. The Property shall be used for offices, warehouse functions, distribution functions, accessory uses and allograft tissue processing. 6. At such time as improvements are constructed on that approximate 6.5-acre parcel adjacent to the intersection of Princess Anne Road and Concert Drive, which is part of the Property, the owner of such parcel will accent with landscaping the comer of the Property at the intersection of Princess Anne Road and Concert Drive. 7. LifeNet will submit to the City's Director of Planning all site, landscaping and architectural plans (the "Plans") for the development of the Property for review and approval to confirm conformance of the Plans with these Proffers prior to the issuance of any development permits during the life of the project. If the Director of Planning does not approve the Plans, the reasons therefor shall be clearly and specifically set forth in writing so that the objections may be addressed and resolved. If the Director of Planning and LifeNet cannot resolve any such objections, LifeNet shall have the right to appeal the objections of the Director of Planning to the City Manager or his designee. Likewise, if the objections cannot be resolved with the City Manager or his designee, LifeNet will have the fight to appeal the objections to City Council. All approvals by the City shall be at its reasonable discretion, and the City's approval or specific objections shall be delivered to LifeNet no later than thirty (30) days after submission of the Plans or request for review by the City Manager or the City Council. LifeNet shall make any such request for review after the final opinion is rendered by the Director of Planning or the City Manager as applicable. The City shall also impose a restriction on the Property and the Option Parcel prohibiting any resubdivision of the Property or the Option Parcel without the prior written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The foregoing requirements and restriction shall be included in the deed of conveyance of the Property and the Option Parcel to LifeNet. 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. All references hereinabove to zoning districts and to regulations applicable thereto, refer to the City Zoning Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date the conditional rezoning amendment is approved by the Grantee. 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, 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 CZO or this Agreement, the Grantors shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) the Zoning Map shall show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the subject Property on the map and that the ordinance and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department and that they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and indexed in the names of the Grantors and Grantee. [SIGNATURES BEGIN ON NEXT PAGE] WITNESS the following signatures, thereunto duly authorized: GRANTOR: LIFENET, a V~on By: ........ " -- _ (Prinrted l~lame and Title) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF (J~.(4/~ ~,, f~//,zc~to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .~'¥'"'-day of ~k. 6~, ~_ 0~ , 2003, by Patrick Thompson, Vice President of LifeNet, a Virginia non-profit corporation, on its behalf. He/She is personally known to me or has produced N/A as identification. My commission expires: [SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT] GRANTOR AND GRANTEE: [SEAL] ATTEST: -/ '~iiy ~21erk CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia BY:fflty Manager/Designee of the City Manager COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of -'~/~6~q CA ,2003, by ~t2~C ~ '7'~t9~ , gi~, Manag~.,~tDesigne~e of the City Manager of the City of Virginia Beach, on its behklf. ~_~She is personally known to me or has produced as identification. My commission expires: Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The Beach, on foregoing instr_ume~nt, was acknowledged before me this i'/~Lday of ,2003, by '~x,'44, ~r×la,,q._~ x q~ , City Clerk of the City of Virginia its behalf. He2She is .)p-ei-sonally-known to me or has produced as identification. ~o~clSublic My commission expires: 6600850058/#3869 ! 5 v 1 - hfenet proffers - final EXHIBIT A Purchase parcel: ALL that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and designated and described as "PARCEL 4 (Purchase Parcel) Area 15.82 Acres", as shown on the plat entitled "EXHIBIT SHOWING EXCESS PROPERTIES TO BE CONVEYED TO LIFENET BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" dated January 13, 2003, and attached hereto as Exhibit A. Option Parcel: ALL that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and designated and described as "PARCEL 5 (Option Parcel) Area 6.57 Acres", as shown on the plat entitled "EXHIBIT SHOWING EXCESS PROPERTIES TO BE CONVEYED TO LIFENET BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" dated January 13, 2003, and attached hereto as Exhibit A. PARCEL [' J ~.'",~ PARCEL Z o Existing EQsen~nt ~ ----- 7,.'- ' ~-- - =~E - ' ~HIB~ SHOWING ~CESS PROPE~ES TO BE CO~ TO LIFENET BY THE CiTY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"=200' JANUARY 13, 200.3 PREPARED BY: REV1SED: FEBRUARY 27. 2003  ROUSE--SIRINE ASSOCIATES, LTD. ~Lt~S AND MAPPING CONSULTANTS VIRGINIA BF. AI:~, ~R~NIA ~2 03/07/03 FRI 11-22 [TX/RX NO 7433] CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach I Notice Requirements MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 · Background: Amendment to Sections 105, 106, 107, 108, 221, 1405 and 1605 of the C~ty Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to written nobce and posbng of signs for appl~cabons for rezon~ng and other applications The City Council referred to the Planning Commission the proposed amendments. Considerations: Under current prows~ons of the C~ty Zoning Ordinance, signs containing mformat~on about board and commission items for which the Department of Planning staffs (rezon~ngs, cond~bonal use permits, Board of Zoning Appeals applications, etc.) must be posted at least 15 days prior to the first pubhc heanng at which the item ~s considered In addition, the C~ty Zoning Ordinance (CZO) ~ncorporates by reference Virginia Code provisions requiring wntten notice to be ma~led to adjacent property owners and certain other persons at least 5 days pnor to public hearings. The attached amendments apply to the Board of Zomng Appeals, Planning ~ommiss~on and the Wetlands Board. A separate agenda item applies to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board The proposed amendments would not apply to applications filed pnor to the date of adoption of the amendments. The Planning Commission placed this ~tem on the consent agenda because the proposed amendment would g~ve the public add~bonal time to fully research and d~scuss applications pnor to the public heanng Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request. City of VirginIa Beach / Notice Amendments Page 2 of 2 · Attachments: Staff Review Ordinances Planning Commission M~nutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~~ ~.~ City Manager~ l~_ ~) ~ March 12, 2003 Background: Under current provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance, s~gns containing information about board and commission items for which the Department of Planning staffs (rezonings, conditional use permits, Board of Zoning Appeals applications, etc.) must be posted at least 15 days prior to the first public hearing at which the item is considered. In addition, the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) incorporates by reference Virginia Code provisions requiring written notice to be mailed to adjacent property owners and certain other persons at least 5 days prior to public hearings. There have been comments from the public that these notification periods are not sufficient, as they do not give the public adequate time to research a proposal and to discuss it with others ~n the community. Proposed Amendments: Amendment to Sections 105, 106, 107, 108, 221, 1405 and 1605 of the City Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to written notice and posting of signs for applications for rezoning and other applications. The City Council, through the attached resolution, referred to the Planning Commission proposed amendments to those prowsions of the CZO which prescribe the time for posting of signs and mailing of written notice. The hme for posting of signs would be increased from 15 to 30 days prior to the public hearing at which an application is to be heard and the time by which written notice must be mailed would be increased from 5 to 15 days. The proposed amendments would not apply to apphcations filed pnor to the date of adoption of the amendments. The amendments should have minimal affect on existing staff processes. There however, increased potential for some applications to these boards and commissions to be placed on a later agenda than they would be currently as a result of the increased time for notification. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / NOTICE REQUIREMENTS / # 14 Page I Evaluation: The proposed amendments are recommended for approval. The amendments may result in increased application review hme ~n some circumstances and increased workload on staff as it responds to a greater number of ~nquiries due to the longer period of notihcation to the public. However, the increased time for pubhc notice will prowde greater involvement of the public and allow for a higher level of d~scussion on submitted applications among all concerned parties. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / NOTICE REQUIREMENTS / # 14 Page 2 1 REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARGARET L. EURE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 105, 106, 107, 108, 221, 1405 AND 1605 OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, PERTAINING TO WRITTEN NOTICE AND POSTING OF SIGNS FOR REZONING AND OTHER APPLICATIONS Sections Amended: City Zoning Ordinance Sections 105, 106, 107, 108, 221, 1405 and 1605 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 BE IT ORDAINED BY TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Sections 105, 107, 108, 221, 1405 and 1605 of the City Zoning Ordinance are hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 105. Nonconformity. · (d) Enlargement or extension of nonconformity. No nonconforming use shall be increased in magnitude. No nonconforming use shall be enlarged or extended to cover a greater land area than was occupied by the nonconformity on the effective date of this ordinance or amendment thereto. No nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any other portion of the lot, parcel, or structure not occupied by the nonconformity on the effective date of this ordinance or amendment thereto, and no nonconforming structure shall be moved at all except to come into compliance with the terms of this ordinance. No nonconforming structure shall be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 63 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 structurally altered, if the effect is to increase the nonconformity. As an exception to the above, any condition of development prohibited by this section may be permitted by resolution of the city council based upon its finding that the proposed condition is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than is the existing nonconformity. City Council may attach such conditions and safeguards to its approval as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this ordinance. Applications for the enlargement, extension or relocation of a nonconforming use or structure shall be filed with the planning director. The application shall be accompanied by a fee of one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00) to cover the cost of publication of notice of public hearing and processing. Notice shall be given as provided by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia; provided, however, that written notice as prescribed therein shall be given at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. A sign shall be posted on the site in accordance with the requirements of section 108 of this ordinance. COMMENT The proposed amendment concerns notice of applications to enlarge, etc. a nonconforming use to another use. It would require written notice to adjacent property owners to be given at least 15 days prior to the Council hearing at which the application is heard. Such applications do not require Planning Commission action. 51 52 (e) (1) Conversion of a nonconforming use to another use. No nonconforming use shall be converted to another use which 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 7O 71 72 73 74 75 76 does not conform to this ordinance except upon a resolution of the city council authorizing such conversion, based upon its finding that the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than is the existing nonconforming use. In the resolution authorizing such change, the city council may attach such conditions and safeguards to its approval as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this ordinance. When any nonconforming use is converted to another use, the new use and accompanying conditions of development shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance in each respect that the existing use conforms, and in any instance where the existing use does not conform to those provisions, the new use shall not be more deficient. Any such use authorized by the city council shall thereafter be subject to the provisions of this section and to any conditions or restrictions attached by the city council. Applications for the conversion of a nonconforming use or structure shall be filed with the planning director. The application shall be accompanied by a fee of one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00) to cover the cost of publication of notice of public hearing and processing. Notice shall be given as provided by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Virginia; provided, however, that written notice as prescribed therein shall be given at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. A sign shall be posted on the site in accordance with the requirements of section 108 of this ordinance. COMMENT The proposed amendment concerns notice of applications to convert a nonconforming use to another use. It would require written notice to adjacent property owners to be given at least 15 days prior to the City Council hearing at which the application is heard. Such applications do not require Planning Commission action. 88 89 9O 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 Sec. 106. Appeals and variances. (a) The board of zoning appeals shall hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the administration or enforcement of this ordinance. An appeal shall be filed with the zoning administrator, and include the grounds of appeal, within thirty (30) days of the date of the decision appealed, unless the notice of violation involves temporary or seasonal commercial uses, parking of commercial trucks in residential zoning districts, or similar short-term recurring violations, in which case the appeal period is ten (10) days from the date of the notice of violation. All decisions not timely appealed shall be final and unappealable. In addition thereto, the board shall have such other powers and duties as are set forth in Section 15.2-2309 of the Code of Virginia; 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 provided, however, that the board shall have no authority to hear and decide applications for conditional use permits, and provided further, that written notice as prescribed in Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virqinia shall be qiven at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearinq before the board. COMMENT The proposed amendment concerns notice of applications of matters coming before the Board of Zoning Appeals. It would require written notice to adjacent property owners to be given at least 15 days prior to the Board hearing at which the application is heard. 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 Sec. 107. Amendments. (c) Planning commission action; making any commission recommendation on a shall give notice of forth in Section 15.2-2204 of provided, however, that written be qiven at least fifteen (15) notice of hearing. Before proposed amendment, the planning a public hearing thereon, as set the Code of Virginia, as amendedi notice as prescribed therein shall days prior to the hearinq. COMMENT The proposed amendment requires written notice of rezoning applications and amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map to be given to adjacent property owners and certain other persons at least 15 days prior to the public hearing before the Planning Commission. 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 Sec. 108. Posting of signs relating to applications for rezoning, etc. (a) In any case in which a property owner or other authorized person petitions the city council for the approval of any application seeking a rezoning, conditional use permit, approval of a PD-H1 or PD-H2 land use plan, resolution pertaining to a nonconforming use or structure, subdivision or floodplain variance or reconsideration of conditions, the applicant shall erect, on the property which is the subject of the application, a sign of a size, type and lettering approved by the planning director. One such sign shall be posted within ten (10) feet of every public street adjoining the property or in such alternate location or locations as may be prescribed by the planning director. Such sign shall be erected not less than fifteen ~15) thirty (30) days before the planning commission hearing, or if none, the city council hearing, and shall state the nature of the application and date and time of the hearing. Such signs may not be removed until the city council has acted upon the application, and shall be removed no later than five (5) days thereafter. In any case in which the planning commission or city council determines that the requirements of this section have not been met, the application shall be deferred; provided, however, that the city council may, for any other appropriate reason, deny such application. (b) Applications before the board of zoning appeals shall be subject to the requirements of subsection (a) hereof. Any 6 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 application in which such requirements have not been met may be deferred or denied by the board. COMMENT The proposed amendment requires signs containing information about planning items to be posted 30, rather than 15, days, prior to the meeting at which the subject application is to be heard. Sec. 221. Procedural requirements and general standards for conditional uses. (d) Action by the planning commission. After receiving the report of the director, with all pertinent related material, the planning commission shall give notice of and hold a public hearing in accordance with applicable provisions of Virginia Code Section 15.2-2204; provided, however, that written notice as prescribed therein shall be given at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearinq. Within forty-five (45) days after the hearing, the commission shall submit its recommendations to the city council through the planning director; provided, however, that upon mutual agreement between the commission and the applicant, such time may be extended. COMMENT The proposed amendment requires written notice of conditional use permit applications to be given to adjacent property owners and certain other persons at least 15 days prior to the public hearing before the Planning Commission. 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 (h) Revocation of conditional use permit. If the provisions of this ordinance or the requirements of the conditional use permit are not met, the city council may revoke the conditional use permit after notice and hearing as provided by Virginia Code Section 15.2-2204; provided, however, that written notice as prescribed therein shall be qiven at least fifteen (15} days .prior to the hearing. COMMENT The proposed amendment requires written notice of revocations of conditional use permit applications to be given to adjacent property owners and certain other persons at least 15 days prior to the public hearing before the City Council. Sec. 1405. Public hearing procedure on permit applications [wetlands permit applications]. Not later than sixty (60) days after receipt of a complete application, the Wetlands Board shall hold a public hearing on such application. The applicant, the city council, the commissioner, the owner of record of any land adjacent to the wetlands in question, known claimants of water rights in or adjacent to the wetlands in question, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Virginia Water Control Board, the Department of Transportation and any governmental agencies expressing an interest therein shall be notified of the hearing. The Board shall mail such notices not less than twenty (20) days prior to the date set for the hearing. The Board shall 8 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 also cause notice of the hearing to be published at least once a week for two (2) weeks prior to such hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Virginia Beach. The published notice shall state that copies of the application may be examined in the planning department. The costs of such publication shall be paid by the applicant. The applicant shall also erect, on the property which is the subject of the hearing, a sign of a size, type and lettering approved by the board. One such sign shall be posted within ten (10) feet of every public street adjoining the property, and within ten (10) feet of any body of water or waterway less than five hundred (500) feet wide adjoining the property or in such alternate location or locations as may be prescribed by the planning director. Such sign shall be erected not less than fifteen (15) thirty (30) days before the Wetlands Board hearing and shall state the nature of the application and date and time of the hearing. Such signs shall be removed no later than five (5) days thereafter. In any case in which the Wetlands Board determines that the requirements of this section have not been met, the application shall be deferred or denied. COMMENT The proposed amendment requires signs containing in~rmation about applications ~r wetlands permits to be posed 30, ra~er than 15, days be~re the public hearing be~re the Wetlands Board. 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 Sec. 1605. Public hearing procedure on permit applications [coastal primary sand dune permit applications]. Not later than sixty (60) days after receipt of a complete application, the Wetlands Board shall hold a public hearing on the application. The applicant, city council, commissioner, owner of record of any land adjacent to the coastal primary sand dunes in question, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the State Water Control Board, the Department of Transportation and any governmental agency expressing an interest in the application shall be notified of the hearing. The Board shall mail these notices not less than twenty (20) days prior to the date set for the hearing. The Board shall also cause notice of the hearing to be published at least once a week for two (2) weeks prior to such hearing in the newspaper having a general circulation in the City of Virginia Beach. The costs of publication shall be paid by the applicant. The applicant shall also erect, on the property which is the subject of the hearing, a sign of a size, type and lettering approved by the board. One such sign shall be posted within ten (10) feet of every public street adjoining the property, and within ten (10) feet of any body of water or waterway less than five hundred (500) feet wide adjoining the property or in such alternate location or locations as may be prescribed by the planning director. Such sign shall be erected not less than fifteen (15) thirty (30) days before the Wetlands Board hearing and shall state the nature of the application and 10 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 date and time of the hearing. Such signs shall be removed no later than five (5) days thereafter. In any case in which the Wetlands Board determines that the requirements of this section have not been met, the application shall be deferred or denied. COMMENT The proposed amendment requires signs containing information about applications for coastal primary sand dune permits to be posted 30, rather than 15, days before the public hearing before the Wetlands Board. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That this Ordinance shall not apply to any application, otherwise subject to the provisions hereof, filed prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance. 263 264 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2003. CA-8753 wmm\ordres~postsignordinwpd February 10, 2003 R-2 Approved as to Contents: Approved as to legal Sufficiency: Planning Department City Attorney's Office 11 Item # 14 C~ty of Virg~ma Beach/Not~ce Requirements Amendments to Sections 105, 106, 107, 108, 221, 1405 and 1605 of the C~ty Zoning Ordinance pertaimng to written not~ce and posting of signs for applications for rezoning and other applications March 12, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next ~tem is Item #14, the City of V~rginia Beach. It's an Amendment to Sections 105, 106, 107, 108, 221, 1405 and 1605 for the City Zomng Ordinance, pertmmng to the written notice and posting of signs for applications for rezomng and other applications. Mr. Scott, would you please comment on that? Robert Scott: Yes ma'am. This is an opportunity to basically increase public awareness of the items on the agenda. Right now, we have a requirement set out ~n the state code that we notxfy in written form the adjacent property owners and there is a time hmit which is I think is five days. Th~s element here would go way beyond the State mandated rmnimum and provide a lengthier period of time. Additionally, we also require today although there is no State law reqmring ~t, we require by local law the posting of s~gns on every property that is subject of your actions here. And, I think ~t's required that they be posted 15 days prior to the applications w~th length ~n that time, I th~nk is 30 days. There are some disadvantages to this but we th~ng they are worth it. It puts a little more extra burden on the applicant because the apphcant is going to have to maintain those signs for a longer period of t~me. And, from nme to time, although I tlunk this ~s going to be infrequent, it may cause an apphcation to be delayed in the cycle of consideration. But we think that the advantages out weigh the disadvantages and were recommending approval of it because we think that one of the principal tenants, if you will is are way of doing business ~n V~rgima Beach is we like to be open to the pubhc as we can be. It provides an ~ncreased opportumty for notification of the awareness. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Scott. Is there any objection to Item #14, the City of Virginia Beach notice requirements for c~ty zoning ordinance? Heating none. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve th~s consent ~tem. Number 14 is the City of V~rg~ma Beach with a zomng change. I would move to approve those consent ~tems w~th those conditions. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve this consent agenda item as read. Do we have a second? Charlie Salle': Second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Charhe Salle'. Motion made by Dot Wood. Any discussion? We're ready to vote. Item #14 City of Virginia Beach/Notice Requirements Page 2 AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach, City Zoning Ordinance Amendment MEETING DATE: April 22, 2003 Background: Amendment to Section 901 of the City Zoning Ordinance to include public or private colleges and universities as permitted uses ~n the B-2, B-3, B-3A, and B-4 Bus~ness Distncts. Considerations: The City Council by resolution referred to the Planning Commission these proposed amendments to Secbon 901 of the CZO, which would allow public or private colleges and universities as permitted principal (~ e., of-r~ght) uses ~n the B-2, B-3, B-3A and B-4 Bus~ness Districts Recommendations: The Planning Commission, in considenng the amendment referred by the City Council, developed an alternative amendment. Due to legal advertising requirements, the alternative amendment could not be placed on the April 22 Council agenda. It has been placed on City Council's May 13 agenda. Staff recommends that th~s item be deferred to the May 13 City Council meeting to be considered w~th the alternative amendment developed by the Planning Commission. Recommended Action: Staff recommends deferral to the May 13 C~ty Council meeting Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen~ City Manager: ~ ~& -~ t~'~ i i i I I i I i i L. APPOINTMENTS MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL PARKS AND P~C~ATION COMMISSION THE PLANNING COUNCIL VIRGINIA BEACH COMMLrNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (VBCDC) M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS 1. ABSTRACT OF CIVIL CASES RESOLVED- March 2003 O. ADJOURNMENT i · i i i iii CIVIL LAWSUITS RESOLVED DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2003 Mark Hedspeth v. Ctty of Vtrgtnta Beach and Vtrginia Department of Transportation - Negligence City of Vtrgtnta Beach and Karen Lasley v. Mothers, Inc and Brenda McCormick- Zoning violation. Walters Properttes, Inc. v. The Ctty of Vtrgtnta Beach - Contract litigation City of Virgtnta Beach v. Link-Belt Constructton Equtpment Company d/b/a Ltnk-Belt Constructton Equtpment Mtd-Atlanttc - Contract litigation Ocean Development LLC v. City of Vtrgtnta Beach- Litigation of land use decisions. City of Virgznia Beach v. Atttc Wall, LLC- Pavilion Condemnation City of Virgima Beach v. Robert Snyder- Pavilion Condemnation City of Vtrgtma Beach v. Pioneer Lodge - Pavilion Condemnation Note: Disposition details available on request from the City Attorney's Office