No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUNE 24, 2003 AGENDAI i r i i i i i CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E OBERNDORF. At-Large FICE MAYOR LOUIS R JONES. Baystde -Distrtct 4 HJJ~RY E DIEZ, EL, Kernpsvdle -Dtstrtct 2 M_~RGARET L EURE. Centervdle -Dtstrtct I REBA S McCLANAN, Rose Hall -Dtstrtct 3 RICHARD ~ M~DDOX, Beach - Dtstrtct 6 J1M REEVE, Princess ~4nne -Dtstrtct 7 PETER W SCHMIDT. At-Large RON A VI~ANUEYA, At-Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At-Large J./~4ES L WOOD, Lynnhaven -Dtstrtct 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JAMES K SPORE, Ctgy Manager LESLIE L LILLEZ Ctgy Attomey RUTH HODGES SMITH, 3434C, C~ty Clerk 24 June 2003 CITY HALL BUILDING 1 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIFE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE (757) 427-4303 FAX(Z57) 426-5669 E MAIL Ctycncl~vbgov corn CITY COUNCIL'S DISCUSSION - Conference Room - Ao TALENT BANK APPLICATION-CITY COUNCIL APPOINTIVE AGENCIES Council Lady Reba S. McClanan Council Lady Rosemary Wilson 2:00 PM II CITY ATTORNEY'S BRIEFING Ao CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT Rodenck R. Ingrain, Assistant City Attorney III. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS IV. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Ve INFORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION - Conference Room- 4:30 PM i ii i i i i I ii I i I ~ iii i ! i · iii i i ii i i i i i i I VI. FORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdoff B. INVOCATION: Reverend Kevin O'Brien Star of the Sea Catholic Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS June 10, 2003 . RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 WORKSHOPS April 15, 2003 April 24, 2003 April 29, 2003 May 01, 2003 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. PUBLIC COMMENT CONSOLIDATED VENDING MACHINE CONTRACT Steven T. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer I. CONSENT AGENDA J. RESOLUTIONS Resolution concurring with a Revenue Bond issuance by the Industrial Development Authority of Mathews County and the Industrial Development Authority of Northampto~ County and Towns: UJFT Community Campus, L.L.C. Not to exceed $20,000,000 2. Resolution re Revenue Bond ~ssuance by the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority LifeNet Not to exceed $21,000,000 i .i I i i i . . . Resolution re procedures for considering unsolicited requests from private entities re qualifying projects under the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA); and, direct the City's Purchasing Agent to cause these procedures be avmlable to the public and post same m the City's Purchasing office and on the web site Resolution to endorse the application for Federal Transportation Enhancement Funds for the Ferry Plantation House Restoration (Phase I) Resolution to AUTHORIZE the promulgation of Amendment Number 7 to the Specifications and Standards Manual oft he Engineering Division, Department of Public Works. Ko ORDINANCES 1. Ordinances to AMEND the City Code: a. §§ 5-5 and 5-12 and REPEAL § 5-11 re domestic animals. b. § 2-78 re background investigations of applicants for public employment c. § 7 1 re definition of a bicycle do § 23-7 re interference with City officers in the performance of their duties; and, ADDING § 23-7.3 re resisting lawful arrest §§ 21-3, 21-199, 21-29, 21-323.1, 21-323 and 21-344 to reflect revisions to the State Code re motor vehicles, farm machinery, highway signs, work area speed limits, electrical devices, reimbursement of expenses § 35-11 to reflect revisions to the State Code re administrative collection of delinquent taxes or charges . Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the Department of Museums and Cultural Arts to ACCEPT two (2) bronze statues, for display at the Judicial Center, from the Council of Garden Clubs of Virginia Beach and the Virgima Beach Child Advocacy Network (VBCAN). . Ordinance to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachment into a portion of the City's property al Lake Rudee in Shadowlawn Heights by PAUL S. and DENA HIGH SAWYER to construct and maintain a fixed pier, aluminum ramp, floating pier, boat lift and four (4) piles at 7 Caribbean Avenue. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) . Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $1,599,750 from the Virginia Comprehensive Services Act office to the FY 2002-03 operating budget of the Comprehensive Servmes Act (CSA) special revenue fund re mandated special education and foster care services. . Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $145,569 in additional State revenue and $128,760 of fund balance within the Sheriff's Department Special Revenue Fund in the FY 2003-04 operating budget re compensation and purchase of additional equipment. [ [ i i · i i i i [ ! i Ii . Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $5,450 in civil charges collected fi.om the Wetlands and Coastal Primary Sand Dune ordinance violations to the Department of Agriculture's FY 2002-03 operating budget re environmental restoration and habitat enhancement projects . Ordinance to TRANSFER $18,000 to the FY 2002-03 Municipal Council Donations account in behalf of the Virginia Beach Public Schools Education Foundation L. PLANNING . Apphcation ofTRACY REDBURN re expansion ora nonconforming use to construct a garage for the one story structure at 615 Twenty-Sixth Street. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH Recommendation DENIAL . Application of KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. re &scontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Denn Lane on the north side of Southern Boulevard, west of Jersey Avenue, to create a consolidated parcel of approximately 5.5 acres. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE Recommendation APPROVAL . Application of RACHAEL A. SPRINGER for a Condtttonal Use Permtt re a residential kennel for up to seven (7) dogs at 5544 Hatteras Road. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE Recommendation APPROVAL Application of MOSE MAST - VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE CO. for a Con&tional Use Permzt re a bulk storage yard to store raw materials and finished marble products in Oceana West Corporate Park at 506 Viking Drive. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH Recommendation APPROVAL . Application of GRAND SLAM USA for a Conchttonal Use Permit re a commercial recreational facility to operate three (3) indoor batting cages, instructional and practice facilities, glove repair and a retail business at 3636 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Suite ! 07. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN Recommendation APPROVAL o Application of WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST for a Con&tional Use Permtt re a bulk storage for pallets, recyclable cardboard materials and seasonal sales are~ at 1149 Nimmo Parkway. DISTRICT 7 -PRINCESS ANNE Recommendation APPROVAL I ' i i I i ' i i i ~ i i i i I I i i I i i o Applications ofJOSEPlt G. PIPER to subdivide the existing lot into three (3) lots, with two (2) flag lots, at 2332 Seaboard Road re: DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE a. Vartance to ~ 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance bo Change of Zo_ning Dtstrzct Classtficatton from AG-2 Agricultural District to R-15 Residential District Recommendation DENIAL Application of TRITON PCS/SUNCOM for a Modi~catton to the Green Run Land Use Plan re a wireless communication tower on the east side of Independence Boulevard, southeast of Nesb~tt Drive, witlun an existing Vlrgima Power substation area. DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL Recommendation APPROVAL 9. Ordinance to AMEND § 5.6 of the City's Subdivimon Ordinance re the width of sidewalks. Recommendation APPROVAL M. APPOINTMENTS ARTS AND HtTMANIT~S COMMISSION BEACHES AND WATERWAYS COMMISSION HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION (HRPDC) PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PERFORMING ARTS THEATRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD SHORE DRIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TOWING ADVISORY BOARD YOUTH SERVICES COUNCIL i i ii i . i ~ i i i i ii ii i i i rl i i i ~ i ii [ i I i I i ii i I N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS O. NEW BUSINESS P. ADJOURNMENT If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 42%4303 Hearing impaired, call: TDD only 427-4305 (TDD - Telephonic Device for the Deaf) .genda 06/19/03/gw ww vbgov com I I ~I i I I Il I I I ! I I I I. CITY COUNCIL'S DISCUSSION - Conference Room- 2:00 PM A, TALENT BANK APPLICATION-CITY COUNCIL APPOINTIVE AGENCIES Council Lady Reba S. McClanan Council Lady Rosemary Wilson II. CITY ATTORNEY'S BRIEFING A. CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT Roderick R. Ingrain, Assistant C~ty Attorney III. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS IV. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS i ii F i i i i - iII i V. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 4:30 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION I i i i I i I i i 1 i i i i VI. FORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Kevm O'Brien Star of the Sea Catholic Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS June 10, 2003 . RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 WORKSHOPS April 15, 2003 April 24, 2003 April 29, 2003 May 01, 20O3 G AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. PUBLIC COMMENT . CONSOLIDATED VENDING MACHINE CONTRACT Steven T. Thompson, Chief Financml Officer i i i [ i i i Ill I I ~ouR N~ ~ esolution CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virgima Beach City Councd convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Vlrg~ma Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2 2-3712 of the Code of Vargima reqmres a certfficat~on by the govemang body that such Closed Session was conducted ~n conformity with Virginia Law NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the V~rginla Beach C~ty Councd hereby cemfies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were &scussed m Closed Session to which tlus certlficat~on resolution applies; and, (b) only such pubhc bus~ness matters as were identffied m the motion convening th~s Closed Session were heard, d~scussed or considered by Virginia Beach City' Council I. CONSENT AGENDA J. RESOLUTIONS o Resolution concumng with a Revenue Bond issuance by the Industrial Development Authority of Mathews County and the Industrial Development Authority of County and Towns: UJFT Commumty Campus, L.L.C. Not to exceed $20,000,000 2. Resolution re Revenue Bond issuance by the City of Virginia Beach Development LifeNet Not to exceed $21,000,000 . Resolution re procedures for considering unsolicited requests from private entities re quahfymg projects under the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA); and, direct the C~ty's Purchasing Agent to cause these procedures be available to the public and post same in the C~ty's Purchasing office and on the web site. , Resolmion to endorse the application for Federal Transportation Enhancement Funds for the Ferry Plantation House Restoration (Phase I) o Resolution to AUTHORIZE the promulgatxon of Amendment Number 7 to the Specifications and Standards Manual of the Engineering Division, Department of Public Works. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM II I II ITEM: Resolubon Approving the Issuance of ~ndustnal Development Bonds (UJFT Community Campus, L L.C., a V~rgmla non-stock, non-profit corporation MEETING DATE: .Tune 24, 2003 [] Background: The City of V~rg~n~a Beach Development Authority held a pubhc heanng for the issuance of ~ndustnal revenue bonds for the UJFT Community Campus, L L C, a V~rg~n~a non-stock, non-profit corporation (the "Company") The bonds are to be ~ssued by (a) the Industrial Development Authority of Mathews County, Virginia of ~ts revenue bonds m an amount not to exceed $10,000,000 and (b) the Joint Industrial Development Authority of Northampton County and Towns of ~ts revenue bond ~n an amount not to exceed $10,000,000 ~n each instance. The bonds w~ll be used to assist the Company ~n financing a campus complex to be located on an approximately 20 acre parcel east of the ~ntersecbon of W~tchduck and Grayson Roads in Virginia Beach, Wrg~n~a, to provide facd~bes for educational, social and recreational acbwt~es, ~nclud~ng an approximately 126,000 square foot two-story building and outdoor recreational facd~bes to be owned by the Company, and used by the T~dewater Jewish Foundabon, the Hebrew Academy of T~dewater, Jewish Famdy Services of T~dewater, the Jewish Commumty Center of Southampton Roads and the Un~ted Jewish Federabon of T~dewater The proceeds of the bonds w~ll also finance land acqu~s~bon and s~te preparabon costs and the cost of ~ssumg the bonds [] Considerations: The matter comes before Councd for ~ts approval pursuant to Secbon 15.2-4906 of the Code of V~rgm~a, whmh prowdes that the h~ghest elected governmental umt of the Iocahty hawng jurisd~cbon over the ~ssuer of private act~wty bonds and over the area m which any facility financed w~th the proceeds of private activity bonds ~s located must approve the ~ssuance of the bonds. [] Public Information: The request was duly adverbsed for pubhc hearing on May 20, 2003 before the C~ty of Virginia Beach Development Authority, which has adopted a Resolution recommending that the C~ty Councd approve the issuance of the bonds. [] Alternatives: Not Approve [] Recommendations: Approval [] Attachments: IDP Submission to Council Not~ce of Pubhc Heanng Record of Public Hearing Development Authority's Resolubon Disclosure Statement Authonty's Statement F~scal Impact Statement Summary Sheet Letter from Department of Economic Development dated April 15, 2003 Inducement Resolubon for the City of Norfolk Authority Resolution for C~ty of V~rgin~a Beach Location Map Recommended Action: Approval tyGa~~ Submitting Department/Agency: Development Authori unsel City Manager:~ ~L" ~)~'~ A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH THE ISSUANCE BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA, AND THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY AND TOWNS OF REVENUE BONDS 1N AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000,000 FOR THE UJFT COMMUNITY CAMPUS, L.L C. WHEREAS, there has been described to the City of Vlrgima Beach Development Authority (the Authonty), the plans of UJFT Community Campus, L.L.C., a Virginia non-stock, non-profit corporation (the Company) the pnnmpal business address of whmh ts 5041 Corporate Woods Drive, State 150, Vtrgmaa Beach, Virginia 23462, for the issuance by (a) the Industrial Development Authority of Mathews County, Virg, ma (the Mathews Authority) of its revenue bond m an amount not to exceed $10,000,000 and (b) the Joint Industrial Development Authority of Northampton County and Towns (the Northampton Authority) of its revenue bond tn an amount not to exceed $10,000,000, in each instance, to assist the Company tn financing a campus complex to be located on an approximately 20 acre parcel east of the intersection of W~tchduck and Grayson Roads in Virginia Beach, Virginia, to provide facilities for educatmnal, social and recreational activities, including an approximately 126,000 square foot two-story building and outdoor recreational facilities to be owned by the Company (the ProJect), and used by the Tidewater Jewish Foundation, the Hebrew Academy of Tidewater, Jewish Family Services of Tidewater, the Jewish Community Center of Southampton Roads and the Umted Jewish Federation of Tidewater. The proceeds of the bonds will also finance land acqmsition and s~te preparation costs and the cost of issuing the bonds; and WHEREAS, the above facilities will be owned by the Company and will be located in Virginia Beach, Virgtma; and WHEREAS, a public hearing with respect to the bonds as required by Virginia law and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), was held by the Authority on May 20, 2003, and WHEREAS, the Mathews Authority so held a pubhc heanng with respect to its bond on April 29, 2003, and the Joint Industrial Development Authority of Northampton County and Towns so held a public heanng with respect to its bond on May 19, 2003, and, in each instance, adopted approving resolutions (the Authority Resolutions) with respect to the bonds on that date; and WHEREAS, the Authority has adopted a resolution recommending that the C~ty Counml of the C~ty of Vlrgania Beach (the Council) concur with the Authority Resolutions, and WHEREAS, Section 15.2-4905 of the Code of Vlrgania of 1950, as amended (the Virginia Code), provides that the Council must concur with the adoption of the Authority Resolutions prior to the issuance of the bonds; and WHEREAS, the Intemal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), provides that the tnghest elected governmental officials of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area m which any facility financed w~th the proceeds of private act~wty bonds is located shall approve the ~ssuance of such bonds; and WHEREAS, the property is located xn the City of V~rg~nia Beach and the members of the Council consUtute the highest elected governmental officials of the City of V~rginia Beach; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authonty Resolutions, the Authonty's resolution and a statement in the form prescribed by Section 15.2-4907 of the Virginia Code have been filed w~th the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH: 1. The Council concurs w~th the adoption of the Authonty Resolutions, and approves the ~ssuance of its bond by the Mathews Authority and the issuance of its bond by the Northampton Authority, m each case to the extent required by the Code and Section 15.2-4905 of the V~rginia Code. 2. The concurrence with the Authority Resolutions, and the approval of the issuance of the bonds, as reqmred by the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the V~rginia Code, does not constxtute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the bonds of the creditworttuness of the Company and the bonds shall provide that the City of V~rg~nia Beach shall not be obligated to pay the bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto and neither the froth or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virgima or the City of V~rginia Beach shall be pledged thereto 3. Th~s resolution shall take effect mamediately upon its adoption. #832410 vl Adopted by the Council of the C~ty of V~rgima Beach, Vlrgima on the dayof ,20O3. lEGAL SUFFICIENCY Arrowhead Kemp~dle  Meadows ? DUNOEIM~E CT ~ CI, AIRMOI~I' CT C B N Unwerstt / Brandon PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION TYPE OF PROJECT: UJFT Commumty Campus, L.L.C Revenue Bond Intersection of W~tchduck and Grayson Roads Virginia Beach, VA Faciht~es for educational, social and recreational act~vitms VIRGINIA BEACH Virginia Beach Development Authority 222 Central Park Avenue, State 1000 V~rglma Beach, VA 23462 (757) 437-6464 FAX (757) 499-9894 Webstte www vbgov corn In Reply Refer to Our File No DA1553 May 20, 2003 The Honorable Meyera E. Obemdorf, Mayor Members of City Council Municipal Center Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Re UJFT Communtty Campus, L.L C, A Vtrgtma non-stock, non-profit corporatton Industrial Development Revenue Bonds Dear Mayor Obemdorf and Members of City Council We submit the following in connection with project UJFT Community Campus, L.L C., a Virginia non-stock, non-profit corporation, located at the ~ntersection of Wltchduck and Grayson Roads in Virg~ma Beach, Vlrg~ma. (1) Evidence of publication of the notice of heanng ~s attached as Exhibit A, and a summary of the statements made at the public heanng is attached as Exhibit B The City of V~rg~ma Beach Development Authonty's (the "Authority") resolution recommen&ng Council's approval is attached as Exhibit C (2) The Disclosure Statement is attached as Exhibit D (3) The statement of the Authonty's reasons for its approval as a benefit for the City of Virginia Beach and its recommendation that C~ty Council approve the modification of the bonds described above is attached as Exhibit E. The Honorable Meyera E. Obemdorfi Mayor Members of City Council May 20, 2003 Page 2 (4) The Fiscal Impact Statement is attached as Exhibit F (5) Attached as Exhibit G ~s a summary sheet setting forth the type of ~ssue, and ~dent~fy~ng the Project and the pnncipals (6) Attached as Exhibit H ~s a letter from the appropriate C~ty department commenting on the Project. RGJ/GLF/rab Enclosures Chai an~~ EXHIBIT A THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT NORFOLK, VIRGINIA AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION The Virginian-Pilot KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P C. 150 W MAIN ST NORFOLK VA 23510 REFERENCE: 10236406 836191v2 10303367 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA State of Virginia City of Norfolk This day, D. Johnson personally appeared before me and after being duly sworn, made oath that 1) She is affidavit clerk of The Virgln~an-P~lot, a newspaper published by Landmark Communications Inc., in the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Suffolk, and V~rgln~a Beach, Common- wealth of Virginia and in the state of North Carolina 2)That the advertIsement hereto annexed has been publlshed ~n said newspaper on the date stated. PUBLISHED ON: 05/06 05/13 NOTICE OF PUBLtC HEARING TO BE HELD BY Tr,E CJT% OF VIRGINIA BEACH DL=V£LOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE BENERT OF UJFT COMMUNITY CAMPUS IL C Notice ~s hereby gwen that the C~ of Wgmla Beac~ Development Authority (the Virginia Beach Authority), whose address ~s 222 Central ~' a~,Ul~ ~I UJI'I ~;ommun~ Camps L L C a V~rgmla non stock non-pror~ corlx>rat on (the Company) the ' '~, ,,$ ,, a z~oz TOr ~TtE Issuance a ' Industnal Develol~nent Aut ' by { ) the ... . honty of Mathews County, Virginia (the ,~amews Authority) ot ~s revenue bond in an amo~qt not to exceed.. , .S.~.0 000 O00_and (t~) the Joint Industrial Development Authority of r~ortham[0ton L;ounty and Towns (the Northampton Authority) of ~ts rev ?ue bond in, an amount not to exceed $10 000 000 to assist the L;ompany In l'~nancmg a campus complex to be located on an approxi- mately 20 acre parcel east of the ~rterseot~on of W tchduck and Gray. son Roads m Virginia Beach V~rgmla and near the V~rgin~a Beach Free W~II Bept~st Church, to prowcle fac~htles for educational social and rec reatJonal actrvmes including an approximately 126 000 square foot two-story budding and outdoor recreatJonal fac~lmes to be Owned b the .C~o. rn~p_a,.?J_.th.e_ ?r~jact),.a._nd~ used by the T,dewater Jewish Foundat~Yon · .= .ri?u,? acaoemy or/~oewater, Jewish Family Services of T~dewa- ~e~te~ej~eew~hr.~mrn. umty .C_e.~er of Southampton Roads and the ~ ~n re]eraTJon ol' hoewater The Ixoceeds of the bends wdl also finance land acqulsrbon and s~te preparation costs and the cost of. lssu~n~ the bon~s The public heanng wflmh may be cont,nued or aajourneo wdl be held at 8.30 a m on May 20 2003 befme the V~r gm'a Beach AuthorRy at rts offices located at 222 Central Suite 2000 ¥1rgmla Beach Virgmm 23462 Any person interested ,n the ~ssuance of the bonds Should al~oear and be heard Any person - .~,,~. -:a,,-8 may dali [ne virginia I~each Authority at 437-6464 Please place such call at least three (3) days m advance , of the meeting and pu~hc hearing. The bonds w~ll not constitute a debt ~ or pledge of the faith and credit of the Commonwealth of V~ ma or t any poht~cal sul:x:l~s~on thereof mclud ng the Virginia Beachq~uthonty ! Neither the Commonwealth of V~rglnkq nor any pol~t~..al sulx:l v s on l!Se.~?_cBd,ng t..he V,rgm,a Beach ~,~hont~ sha~ be o~l,gated to /pay me oonos, or ~ne interest thereon, or other costs Incident ther /except from the revenues and monies - --~,~ .......... etd the faith an'* ~.,~., ~- ~ .... . a .~.u-u ~.ut~/'~lor, a/~o nelmer - ~,=..,, ,,v. u,~ tuxmg power ot the Commonwealth of V~r gmla nor any polrtlcal sul~l~vls~on thereof ncludmg the V~rglma Beach Authority wdl be pledged to the payment of the Pnnclpal of or mtere on Such boncls or other costs incldertt thereto st CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VP May 6 2003 and Tuesday May 13 2003 10303357 TOTAL COST: 691.56 AD SPACE 102 LINE FILED ON 05/16/_~_~__~ ~ Legal: ~ ~ Suk~cr~b~d 9/dd s~,_ to bef~re~e_.~n my _c~ty and state on the day and year af~r~~lS ~~,,.~ , Nota~ry ,% ', '~~__~slon expires January 31, 2004 Exhibit B NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF UJFT COMMUNITY CAMPUS, L.L.C Notice is hereby given that the City of V~rgtma Beach Development Authority (the Virginia Beach Authority), whose address is 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1000, Virgtma Beach, Vlrgima 23462, will hold a public heanng on the plan of financing of UJFT Community Campus, L.L.C., a Vlrgima non-stock, non-profit corporation (the Company), the pnnmpal business address of which ~s 5041 Corporate Woods Drive, Suite 150, Virgima Beach, V~_rgima 23462, for the issuance by (a) the Industrial Development Authority of Mathews County, Virglma (the Mathews Authority) of its revenue bond in an amount not to exceed $10,000,000, and (b) the Joint Industrial Development Authority of Northampton County and Towns (the Northampton Authority) of its revenue bond in an amount not to exceed $10,000,000 to assist the Company in financmg a campus complex to be located on an approximately 20 acre parcel east of the intersection of Wltchduck and Grayson Roads in Virgnma Beach, Virginia, and near V~rg~ma Beach Free Will Baptist Church, to provide facilities for educational, social and recreational activities, including an approximately 126,000 square foot two-story building and outdoor recreational facilities to be owned by the Company (the ProJect), and used by the Tidewater Jewish Foundation, the Hebrew Academy of Tidewater, Jewish Family Services of T~dewater, the Jewish Commumty Center of Southampton Roads and the Umted Jewish Federation of Tidewater. The proceeds of the bonds will also finance land acqmsit~on and site preparation costs and the cost of ~ssuing the bonds. The pubhc heanng, Much may be continued or adjourned, will be held at 8.30 a.m. on May 20, 2003, before the Vlrglma Beach Authority at its offices located at 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1000, Virgama Beach, Virginia 23462. Any person ~nterested in the issuance of the bonds should appear and be heard. Any person who is disabled and will reqmre an accommodation in order to parttcipate in the pubhc heanng may call the Virgnnia Beach Authority at 437-6464. Please place such call at least three (3) days in advance of the meeting and public heanng The bonds will not constitute a debt or pledge of the froth and credit of the Commonwealth of Virginia or any political subdivision thereof, mcludmg the Virglma Beach Authority. Nmther the Commonwealth of Virginia nor any political sub&vision thereof, including the Virgnnia Beach Authority, shall be obligated to pay the bonds, or the interest thereon, or other costs incident thereto, except from the revenues and momes pledged therefor, and neither the froth and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of V~rglnia nor any pohtmal subdivision thereof, ~ncluding the Vlrgima Beach Authority, will be pledged to the payment of the pnnmpal of or interest on such bonds or other costs incident thereto. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY To be published in The Virginian Pilot on Tuesday, May 6, 2003~ and Tuesday, May 13, 2003 Exhibit C CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RECORD OF PUBLIC HEARING (UJFT COMMUNITY CAMPUS, L.L.C. REVENUE BOND) At 8 30 a.m on May 20, 2003, the Chairman of the City of V~rgqnia Beach Development Authority (the "Authority") announced the commencement of a public heanng on the request of UJFT Commumty Campus, L L C, a Virginia non-stock corporation ("UJFT"), and that a not~ce of public heanng was published once a week for two consecutive weeks in The V~rgnnian-P~lot, the second publication being not less than six (6) days nor more than twenty-one (21) days prior to the heanng. The Chmrman indicated that a copy of the notme and a certificate of publication of such notice have been or w~ll be filed with the records of the Authority and will be provided to the Clerk of the C~ty Council of the C~ty of V~rg~ma Beach. The following individual appeared and addressed the Authority' Mr. George Consolvo appeared on behalf of UJFT. Mr. Consolvo descrtbed the revenue bond of UJFT which ~s utilized to finance the construction of a campus complex to be located on an approximately 20 acre parcel east of the ~ntersection of Witchduck and Grayson Roads in V~rg~nia Beach, Virgima, to provide facdit~es for educational, social and recreational activitaes, including an approximately 126,000 square foot two-story building and outdoor recreatmnal facihties to be owned by the UJFT, and used by the Tidewater Jewish Foundation, the Hebrew Academy of T~dewater, Jewish Family Services of Tidewater, the Jewish Community Center of Southampton Roads and the Umted Jewish Federation of T~dewater. Mr. Consolvo further added that ~t ~s necessary under federal and V~rginia law that the Authority hold a public heanng and that the ~ssuance of the Bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of Mathews County, V~rginia, and the Joint Industrial Development Authority of Northampton County and Towns be approved by the City Council of the C~ty of Virginia Beach Mr. Consolvo closed his remarks by noting that the presence of the campus complex will enhance educational, social and recreational activities ~n Virglma Beach. No other persons appeared to address the Authority and the Cham'nan closed the public hearing. The Authority then adopted a resolution (a) recommenchng that the Council of the City of V~rginia Beach approve the issuance of the Bonds in an amount up to $20,000,000, (b) directing the transmission of a F~scal Impact Statement with respect to the Bonds to the Council of the City of V~rginia Beach and (c) requesting that ~ts recommendation be received at the next regular or special meeting at which this matter can be properly placed on the Council's agenda for hearing. #836199 v2 Exhibit D RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, there has been described to the City of Virg~ma Beach Development Authority (the Authority), the plans of UJFT Commumty Campus, L.L.C., a Virgtma non-stock, non-profit corporation (the Company) the pnnc~pal business address of which ~s 5041 Corporate Woods Drive, Suite 150, V~rgm~a Beach, Virginia 23462, for the issuance by (a) the Industrial Development Authority of Mathews County, Virgima (the Mathews Authority) of its revenue bond in an amount not to exceed $10,000,000 and (b) the Joint Industnal Development Authority of Northampton County and Towns (the Northampton Authority) of ~ts revenue bond in an amount not to exceed $10,000,000, ~n each instance, to assist the Company xn financing a campus complex to be located on an approximately 20 acre parcel east of the intersection of W~tchduck and Grayson Roads in V~rginia Beach, Virgima, to provide facilities for educational, social and recreational act~wt~es, including an approximately 126,000 square foot two-story building and outdoor recreational facilities to be owned by the Company (the Project), and used by the T~dewater Jewish Foundation, the Hebrew Academy of Tidewater, Jewish Family Services of T~dewater, the Jewish Community Center of Southampton Roads and the Umted Jewish Federation of Tidewater. The proceeds of the bonds will also finance land acquisition and rote preparation costs and the cost of ~ssuing the bonds; and WHEREAS, the above facilities will be owned by the Company and will be located in Virginia Beach, Virginia; and WHEREAS, a public heanng with respect to the bonds as reqmred by Virginia law and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), was held by the Authority on May 20, 2003; WHEREAS, the Mathews Authority so held a public heating w~th respect to ~ts bond on April 29, 2003, and the Joint Industrial Development Authonty of Northampton County and Towns so held a public heanng w~th respect to its bond on May 19, 2003, and, ~n each ~nstance, adopted approving resolutions (the Authority Resolutions) w~th respect to the bonds on that date; and WHEREAS, the Company has elected to proceed w~th a plan of finance pursuant to whmh the bonds will be privately placed w~th a group of banks led by Bank of America, N.A. (the Lender), for its own account and for investment purposes; and WHEREAS, the Company ~n its appearance before the Authonty has described the debt service cost savings relating to the ~ssuance of the bonds as qualified tax-exempt obligations within the meaning of §265(b)(3) of the Code and the social, educational, recreatmnal and other benefits to the C~ty of Vlrg~ma Beach to be denved from the issuance of the bonds to finance the Project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: 1. It is hereby found and determaned that the assuance of the bonds wall benefit the ~nhabitants of the City of Virgania Beach and promote their safety, health, welfare, convenience and prosperity. 2. To assist the Company, the Authority hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Varginia Beach, V~rginia (the Council), concur with the Approving Resolutions, the forms of which have been presented at this meeting, as required by §15.2-4905 of the Code of Vlrg~ma of 1950, as amended (the Varg~ma Code), and hereby directs the Chmrman or Vice Chairman of the Authority to submit to the Council the statement in the form prescribed by §15.2-4907 of the Virginia Code, a reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at the public hearing held by the Authority pursuant to § 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code, and a copy of this resolution. 3. All costs and expenses in connectaon with the financing plan shall be paid from the proceeds of the bonds to the extent permatted by law or from funds of the Company and the Authority shall have no responsability therefor. 4. All acts of the officers of the Authority which are in conformity with the purposes and intent of this resolution and an furtherance of the issuance and sale of the bonds are hereby approved and confirmed. 5 This resolution shall take effect immediately upon uts adoption. The undersigned hereby certifies that the above resolution was duly adopted by a roll call vote of the commissioners of the City of Vargima Beach Development Authority at a meetang duly called and held on May 20, 2003, and that such resolutmn is an full force and effect on the date hereof. Dated ~(~.,~ ~cD ,2003 ~>~- Secretary, City of Virgima Beach Development Authority #832409 v2 Exhibit E DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Date May 20, 2003 Applicant's Name(s): UJFT Community Campus, L.L.C. All Owners (if different from applicant): N/A Type of Application: Rezonlng From To Conditional Use Permit. Street Closure: Subdivision Variance' Other: Revenue Bonds issued through the Industrial Development Authority of Mathews County, Virginia, and the Joint Industrial Development Authority of Northampton County and Towns The following is to be completed by or for the Applicant: 1. If the applicant ~s a CORPORATION, hst all the officers of the Corporation' See attached schedule. If the applicant ~s a PARTNERSH~, FIRM or other Umncorporated Organization, hst all members or partners in the organization: N/A The following is to be completed by or for the Owner 0f different from the apphcant) 1. If the Owner is a CORPORATION, list all the officers of the Corporation' N/A . If the Owner ts a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM or other Umncorporated Orgamzatlon, list all members or panners in the organization: N/A UJFT C/O~.UNITY CAMPUS, L.L.C. Its: ,"-) ,f:_{ : /~z;'Trg.e y ! BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF UJFT COMMUNITY CAMPUS, L.L.C Robert O. Copeland, Manager Robert H Josephberg, Manager Ron Kramer, Manager Philip S. Rovner, Secretary T~dewater Jewish Foundation, Inc. - S~ngle Member Schedule to D~sclosure Statement #836180 vl VIRGINIA BEACH EXHIBIT F Vng~ma Beach Development Authority 222 Central Park Avenue, State 1000 V~rgm~a Beach, VA 23462 (757) 437-6464 FAX (757) 499-9894 Webstte www vbgov com CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS (UJFT COMMUNITY CAMPUS, L.L.C.) The Authority recommends approval of the captioned financings. The finanmngs wall benefit the c~txzens of the Cxty of V~rg~ma Beach, Virginia, by prowdxng xmproved educational social and recreational facfl~tles whmh promotes the health and welfare of the City's citizens , EXHIBIT G FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY The understgned apphcant, m order to perrmt the Ctty of Vtrgama Beach Development Authority subrmssxon of the following mformataon m comphance wath Sectton 15 24907 of the Code of V~rgmaa of 1950, as amended, states Dated Name of apphcant UJFT Commumty Campus, L L C Facility Located m Vtrgtma Beach, Virginia t Maxamum amount of financmg sought 2 Estmaated taxable value of facility's real property to be constructed m the locahty 3 Esttmated real property tax per year using present tax rates 4 Esmnated personal property tax per year using present tax rates 5 Esttmated merchant's capxtal tax per year using present tax rates 6 a. Esttmated dollar value per year of goods that wall be purchased from Varguua compames wathm the locahty b Estamated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from non-V~rgmaa compames wathm the locahty c Esttmated dollar value per year of services that wall be purchased from Vtrglma compames wathm the locahty d Esttmated dollar value per year of serwces that wall be purchased from non-V~rgmaa compames wathm the locahty 7 Estamated number of regular employees on year round bas~s 8 Average annual salary per employee May 20, 2003 #836179 vi $20,000,000 23,000,000 -0~ -0- -0- 300,000 100,000 100,000 -0- 120 20,750 UJFT COMMUNITY CAMPUS, L L C nzed Representative CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By ~~,_~~--- ,~- EXHIBIT H SUMMARY SHEET CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CONCURRENCE WITH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA, AND JOINT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY AND TOWNS UJFT COMMUNITY CAMPUS, L.L.C. REVENUE BONDS o . o . PROJECT NAME: LOCATION' DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: AMOUNT OF BOND ISSUE: PRINCIPALS' ZONING CLASSIFICATION: ao Present zomng classification of the Property b. Is rezoning proposed: Yes No X UJFT COMMUNITY CAMPUS, L.L C Witchduck and Grayson Roads Virginia Beach, VA Facflines for educational, somal and recreational actlvltaes $20,000,000 See attached last of officers and directors c. If so, to what zomng classification9 N/A BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF UJFT COMMUNITY CAMPUS, L.L.C Robert O. Copeland, Manager Robert H. Josephberg, Manager Ron Kramer, Manager Philip S Rovner, Secretary Tidewater Jewish Foundation, Inc. - Single Member Schedule to Summary Sheet #836182 vl VIRGINIA BEACH EXHIBIT I May 20, 2003 Vtrgmm Beach Development Authority 222 Central Park Avenue, State 1000 V~rgmm Beach, VA 23462 (757) 437-6464 FAX (757) 499-9894 Webstte www vbgox~ corn Mr. Robert G. Jones Chairman Virginia Beach Development Authority 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Re: UJFT Community Campus, L.L.C. Industrial Development Revenue Bonds Dear Bob: It is the finding of the Department of Economic Development that the proposed purchase of an approximately 20 acre parcel located east of the intersection of Witchduck and Grayson Roads in Virginia Beach to construct an approximately 126,000 sq. ft. two-story building and outdoor recreational facilities will be in the public's best interest and benefit the citizens of Virginia Beach. This proposed project will increase annual employment, stimulate the local economy, increase the tax base, and provide educational, social and recreational facilities that will promote the health and welfare of the City's citizens I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Mark R Wawner Project Development Manager MRW:Ils EXHIBIT J RESOLUTION OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY AND TOWNS WHEREAS, there has been described to the Industrial Development Authority of Northampton County and Towns (the Authority) the plans of the UJFT Commumty Campus, L.L.C. (the Company) for the issuance of the Authonty's revenue bond (the Bond) an an amount not to exceed $10,000,000; and WHEREAS, the Company has elected to proceed wath a plan of finance pursuant to winch the Bond will be privately placed w~th a group of banks lead by Bank of America, N.A. (the Lender), for ~ts own account and for investment purposes; and WHEREAS, the Company m its appearance before the Authority has described the debt servme cost savings relating to the issuance of the Bond as a "quahfied tax-exempt obhgat~on" w~ttnn the meamng of Section 265(b)(3) of the Intemal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and has represented that the Company is a corporanon described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Code which ~s not orgamzed and operated exclusively for rehg~ous purposes and winch ~s exempt fi'om federal income taxation pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Company m its appearance before the Authority has descnbed the educational, health, recreational and other benefits to the City of Virgnma Beach (the City) and the Commonwealth of Virginia to be denved from the ~ssuance of the Bond and has requested the Authority to agree to ~ssue the Bond under the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 49, T~tle 15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the Act), to assist the Company ~n permanently financing a campus complex to be located on an approximately 20 acre parcel east of the mtersectlon of Witchduck and Grayson Roads ~n V~rg~ma Beach, Virgnma, to provide faciht~es for educational, social and recreational activities, including an approxamately 126,000 square foot two-story building and outdoor recreational facilities to be owned by the Company (the "Project"), and used by the T~dewater Jewish Foundation, the Hebrew Academy of Tidewater, Jewish Family Services of Tidewater, the Jewish Community Center of Southampton Roads and the United Jewish Federation of T~dewater; and WHEREAS, the proceeds of the bond will also finance land acquisition and s~te preparation costs and the cost of issmng the bond, and WHEREAS, a pubhc heanng has been held by the Authority as required by the Act and Section 147(f) of the Code on the date hereof; WHEREAS, there have been presented to tins meeting the forms of the following documents and instruments winch the Authority proposes to execute to carry out the transactions described above: (a) Bond Purchase and F~nancmg Agreement (the Bond Purchase Agreement), dated as of June 1, 2003, among the Authority, the Company and the Lender, together w~th the Company's promissory note (the Note) payable to the Authority; and (b) The Authonty's $10,000,000 Revenue Bond (UJFT Commumty Campus ProJect) Series 2003 (the Bond), m regtstered form, and payable and beanng interest as set forth thereto. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUS~ DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY AND TOWNS: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the plan of finance described above is in accordance with the purposes of the Act and will benefit the inhabitants of Northampton County, V~rgnma, and the Commonwealth of V~rglma and promote their safety, health, educatmn and welfare 2. To assist the Company m such plan of finance, the Authority hereby agrees to undertake the issuance of the Bond. As the Company and the Lender have not finalized the term and rate of ~nterest on the Bond, the Chasrman or Vine Chamnan of the Authority is hereby authorized to approve such matters; provided that the term of the Bond shall not exceed twenty-five (25) years and the ~mtial rate of~nterest on the Bond, winch will bear interest at a vanable rate, shall not exceed sm percent (6%) per annum. 3. Concurrently with the ~ssuance of the Bond, the Chairman or Vine Chamnan of the Authority ~s hereby authorized and chrected to execute and to deliver the Bond Purchase Agreement to the other parties thereto. 4. SubJect to the limitations set forth in paragraph 2 hereof, the Chatrman or Vine Chmrman of the Authority ~s hereby authorized and d~rected to execute, the Secretary or Assistant Secretary ~s authorized and d~rected to affix and attest the seal of the Authority, and e~ther ~s authorized and directed to dehver the Bond to the Lender upon the terms prowded in the Bond Purchase Agreement; provided, however, that dehvery of the Bond shall not occur (a) until the Bond has been approved by the Board of Supervisors of Northampton County, Virgima (the Board), (b) until the C~ty of V~rginia Beach Development Authority has conducted a pubhc heanng ~n accordance w~th the Act and the Code w~th respect to the Bond and (c) until the C~ty Council of the C~ty of Vzrgima Beach by resolution (the Concumng Resolution) concurs w~th the adoption of tins resolution in accordance w~th the Act. All terms of the Bond are by this reference thereto incorporated here~n as a part of flus resolution 5 The Chairman or V~ce Chasrman of the Authority is hereby authorzzed and d~rected to execute and dehver to the Lender an assignment of the Note and of the rights of the Authority under the Bond Purchase Agreement (except for the reserved fights set forth therem). 6. The Bond Purchase Agreement, the Note and the Bond shall be in substantmlly the forms presented at ti'ns meeting wtuch are hereby approved, with such completions, omissions, ~nsemons and changes as may be approved by the Chatrman or Vice Chatrman of the Authority, execution to constitute conclusive evidence of bas approval of any such omissions, ~nsertions and changes. 7. The officers of the Authority are hereby authonzed and directed to execute and deliver all ce~ficates and instruments, ~nclud~ng Internal Revenue Service Form 8038, and to take all such further action as they may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bond and the undertaking of the plan of finance described here~n. 8. The Authority hereby agrees to the recommendation of the Company that Kaufrnan & Canoles, P.C, Norfolk, Virgima, be appointed as bond counsel and hereby appoints such finn to supervise the proceedings and approve the issuance of the Bond The Authority hereby further appoints McGmreWoods LLP as the Authority's counsel to approve the ~ssuance of the Bond. 9. All costs and expenses ~n connection with the financing, including the Authonty's adrnmtstrative fees, the fees and expenses of bond counsel, counsel for the Authority and counsel for the Lender, shall be prod from the proceeds of the Bond or from funds of the Company. If for any reason the Bond is not issued, it ~s understood that all such fees and expenses (other than the Authonty's adm~mstrat~ve fee which ~s payable only if the Bond is ~ssued) shall be paid by the Company and that the Authority shall have no responslbfllty therefor. 10. In adopting this resolution, the Authority intends to evidence "official intent" within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. The Authority, including its directors, officers, employees, agents and counsel, shall not be hable and hereby disclaims all liability to any person for any damages, direct or consequential, resulting from the Authonty's failure to issue the Bond or for any other reason, and the Company shall agree to lndemmfy and hold harmless the Authority and its directors, officers, employees, agents and counsel from and against all liablht~es, claims, penalties, losses, costs and expenses m any way connected with the Project or the issuance of the Bond. 11. The Authonty hereby designates the Bond a "qualified tax-exempt obligation" wit/un the meamng of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code for calendar year 2003. 12. The Authonty's officers shall perform such other acts and adopt such further resolutions as may be required to implement its undertakmgs as hereinabove set forth. 13. The Authority hereby recommends that the Board approve the ~ssuance of the Bond and hereby directs the Chairman or Vice Chairman to submit to the Board the statement m the form prescribed by Section 15.2-4907 of the Act, to provide to the Board a reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at the public hearing reqmred by Sectaon 15.2-4906 of the Act, and to provide a copy of this resolution and, upon ats receipt, a copy of the Concurring Resolution 14. Neither the Authority nor the County have endorsed the creditworthiness of the Company or the ability of the Company to repay the Note and any purchaser of the Bond shall agree to purchase the Bond at their sole risk and that no representations of any kind have been made to the Lender by e~ther the Authority or the County. 15. Tlus resolution shall take effect ~mmedmtely upon its adoption. The undersigned hereby certifies that the above resolution was duly adopted by roll call vote by a majority of the directors of the Indusmal Development Authority of Northampton County and Towns, at a meeting duly called and held on May 19, 2003, and that such resolution is in full force and effect on the date hereof. Dated: ./'/]~17 / q ,2003 ~ec~a~, Industhal Development Authority of Northampton County and Towns #838314 vl EXHIBIT K RESOLUlqON OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, there has been described to the Industrial Development Authority of Mathews County, Virginia (the Authority), the plans of the UJFT Community Campus, L.L.C. (the Company) for the issuance of the Authority's revenue bond (the Bond) in an amount not to exceed $10,000,000; and WHEREAS, the Company has elected to proceed with a plan of finance pursuant to which the Bond will be privately placed with a group of banks lead by Bank of America, N.A. (the Lender), for its own account and for investment purposes; and WHEREAS, the Company in its appearance before the Authority has described the debt service cost savings relating to the issuance of the Bond as a "qualified tax-exempt obligation" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Intemal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and has represented that the Company is a corporation described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Code which is not organized and operated exclusively for religious purposes and which is exempt from federal income taxation pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Company in its appearance before the Authority has described the educational, health, recreational and other benefits to the City of Virginia Beach (the City) and the Commonwealth of Virginia to be derived from the issuance of the Bond and has requested the Authority to agree to issue the Bond under the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 49, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the Act), to assist the Company in permanently financing a campus complex to be located on an approximately 20 acre parcel east of the ~ntersection of Witchduck and Crrayson Roads in Virginia Beach, Virginia, to provide facilities for educational, social and recreational activities, including an approximately 126,000 square foot two-story building and outdoor recreational facilities to be owned by the Company (the "Project"), and used by the Tidewater Jewish Foundation, the Hebrew Academy of Tidewater, Jewish Family Services of Tidewater, the Jewish Community Center of Southampton Roads and the United Jewish Federation of Tidewater; and WHEREAS, the proceeds of the bond will also finance land acquisition and site preparation costs and the cost of issuing the bond; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Authority as required by the Act and Section 147(t') of the Code on the date hereof; WHEREAS, there have been presented to this meeting the forms of the following documents and instruments which the Authority proposes to execute to carry out the transactions described above: (a) Bond Purchase and Financing Agreement (the Bond Purchase Agreement), dated as of June 1, 2003, among the Authority, the Company and the Lender, together with the Company's promissory note (the Note) payable to the Authority; and (b) The Authority's $10,000,000 Revenue Bond (UJFT Community Campus Project) Series 2003 (the Bond), in registered form, and payable and beating interest as set forth therein. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the plan of finance described above is in accordance with the purposes of the Act and will benefit the inhabitants of Mathews County, Virginia, and the Commonwealth of Virginia and promote their safety, health, education and welfare. 2. To assist the Company in such plan of finance, the Authority hereby agrees to undertake the issuance of the Bond. As the Company and the Lender have not finalized the term and rate of interest on the Bond, the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Authority is hereby authorized to approve such matters; provided that the term of the Bond shall not exceed twenty-five (25) years and the initial rate of interest on the Bond, which will bear interest at a variable rate, shall not exceed six percent (6%) per annum. 3. Concurrently with the issuance of the Bond, the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Authority is hereby authorized and directed to execute and to deliver the Bond Purchase Agreement to the other parties thereto. 4 Subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph 2 hereof, the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Authority is hereby authorized and directed to execute, the Secretary or Assistant Secretary is authorized and directed to affix and attest the seal of the Authority, and either is authorized and directed to deliver the Bond to the Lender upon the terms provided in the Bond Purchase Agreement; provided, however, that delivery of the Bond shall not occur (a) until the Bond has been approved by the Board of Supervisors of Mathews County, Virgxnia (the Board), (b) until the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority has conducted a public hearing in accordance with the Act and the Code with respect to the Bond and (c) until the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach by resolution (the Concurring Resolution) concurs w~th the adoption of this resolution in accordance with the Act. All terms of the Bond are by this reference thereto incorporated here~n as a part of this resolution. 5. The Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Authority is hereby authorized and d~rected to execute and deliver to the Lender an assignment of the Note and of the rights of the Authority under the Bond Purchase Agreement (except for the reserved rights set forth therein). 6. The Bond Purchase Agreement, the Note and the Bond shall be in substantially the forms presented at this meeting which are hereby approved, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes as may be approved by the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Authority, his execution to constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of any such omissions, insertions and changes. 7. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver all certificates and insmmaents, including Internal Revenue Service Form 8038, and to take all such further action as they may consider necessary or desirable ~n connection with the issuance and sale of the Bond and the undertaking of the plan of finance described herein. 8 The Authority hereby agrees to the recommendation of the Company that Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, be appointed as bond counsel and hereby appoints such firm to supervise the proceedings and approve the issuance of the Bond. The Authority hereby further appoints McGuireWoods LLP as the Authority's counsel to approve the issuance of the Bond. 9. All costs and expenses in connection with the financing, including the Authority's administrative fees, the fees and expenses of bond counsel, counsel for the Authority and counsel for the Lender, shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bond or from funds of the Company. If for any reason the Bond is not issued, it is understood that all such fees and expenses (other than the Authority's administrative fee which is payable only if the Bond is issued) shall be paid by the Company and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor. 10. In adopting this resolution, the Authority intends to evidence "official intent" witlun the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. The Authority, including its directors, officers, employees, agents and counsel, shall not be liable and hereby disclaims all liability to any person for any damages, direct or consequential, resulting from the Authority's failure to issue the Bond or for any other reason, and the Company shall agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Authority and its directors, officers, employees, agents and counsel from and against all liabilities, clmms, penalties, losses, costs and expenses in any way connected with the Project or the issuance of the Bond. 11. The Authority hereby designates the Bond a "qualified tax-exempt obligation" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code for calendar year 2003. 12. The Authority's officers shall perform such other acts and adopt such further resolutions as may be required to implement its undertakings as hereinabove set forth. 13 The Authority hereby recommends that the Board approve the issuance of the Bond and hereby directs the Chmnnan or Vice Chairman to submit to the Board the statement in the form prescribed by Section 15.2-4907 of the Act, to provide to the Board a reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at the public hearing required by Sectton 15.2-4906 of the Act, and to provide a copy of this resolution and, upon its receipt, a copy of the Concurring Resolution. 14 Neither the Authority nor the County have endorsed the creditworthiness of the Company or the ability of the Company to repay the Note and any purchaser of the Bond shall agree to purchase the Bond at their sole nsk and that no representations of any kind have been made to the Lender by either the Authority or the County. 15. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The undersigned hereby certifies that the above resolution was duly adopted by roll call vote by a majority of the directors of the Industrial Development Authority of Mathews County, Virginia, at a meeting duly called and held on April 29, 2003, and that such resolution is in full force and effect on the date hereof. Dated: ,2003 ofity ../' of Mathews County, Virginia #832407 v2 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Resolution Approwng the Issuance of Industnal Development Bond ~n an amount not to exceed $21,000,000 MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 · Background: The C~ty of V~rg~nia Beach Development Authority held a pubhc heanng for the ~ssuance of revenue bonds for L~feNet, a V~rg~ma non-profit, non-stock and non-member corporabon (the "Company") The bonds are to be ~ssued ~n the amount now esbmated at $21,000,000 00. The bonds will be used to assist the Company ~n financing (A) the acquisition of an approximately 15 82 acre tract of land at the eastern end of a 22 39 acre tract and a five-year opbon to purchase the additional 6 57 acres, located at the mtersecbon of Princess Anne Road and Concert Drive, Virginia Beach, V~rg~ma, (the "Property), (B) the development, construction and equipping on the Property of an organ procurement and t~ssue processing facility containing approximately 40,000+/- square feet and an office and adm~n~strabon fac~hty containing approximately 58,000+/- square feet and (c) the costs of ~ssuance of the revenue bonds · Considerations: The matter comes before Council for ~ts approval pursuant to Secbon 15.2-4907 which requires the C~ty Councd to concur w~th the adoption of the V~rg~n~a Beach Development Authority Resolubon and approve the ~ssuance of the Bond · Public Information: The request was duly advertised on May 20, 2003 for pubhc heanng before the C~ty of V~rg~n~a Beach Development Authority, which has adopted a Resolubon recommending that the City Council approve the ~ssuance of the bonds · Alternatives: Not Approve · Recommendations: Approval · Attachments: IDP Submission to Council Locabon Map Resolution for C~ty of V~rg~n~a Beach Affidavit and Nobce of Public Heanng Record of Publm Hearing Development Authority's Resolution Disclosure Statement Authonty's Statement F~scal Impact Statement Summary Sheet Letter from Department of Economic Development dated Submitting Department/Agency: Development A ounsel City Manager~ ~-- .~"~b'~ LOCATION MAP Applicant: Project: Bonds: LifeNet, a Virginia non-stock corporation Construction and equipping of tissue bank facility and office buildIng, and purchase of the property at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Princess Anne Road and Concert Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia consisting of 15.82 acres. Not to exceed $21,000,000 revenue bonds 7 Ci~ECH LA 8 SPRING GARDEN LA 9 ~OCASSET CT New Df, E3 Presb STARLhNG FARM Prmcess Perk Saint LLJkeS Cath VeRz[m Wireless Complex V~?g}ma'BeacE -/ SEE GRID R3, 84 I I WOODSI~JGE 11~' I 2 IVLm#T~RT OR 3 NEWPORT ~T 4 I~R~O~-~/OOD SEE &~iD B7 I 5 BROOk'WOOD Pt ID~i~WO00 CT 6 REXMORE LA IRONS"lONE CT 7 DOMINION C1' JAVB.JN CT 8 BIG SPRINGS Pt. SEABuRY C~ 9 MEADOWGLEN RD WOODBRIDGE PL I2 RELDSTONF PL Ohve Hohness BELLS ~ARf~;'~ t GEOVE LAND 1 MIL BROOK CT SEE GRID. K8 HARVEST MOON V~rgJnla Bea SEE GRID 1 DENSEWOODS 2 GREAT V1EW CT 3 TREE TRUNK CT CHR£STOPHEE FARMS RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS FOR LIFENET WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Tax Code"), provides that the highest elected governmental officials of the governmental malts having judsdmtion over the ~ssue of private actav~ty bonds and over the area ~n which any facility financed wath the proceeds of private activity bonds ~s located shall approve the ~ssuance of such bonds; and WHEREAS, the City of Vlrg~ma Beach Development Authority (the "Authority") issues its bonds on behalf of the C~ty of Virginia Beach, V~rgima (the "C~ty") and the members of the City Council of the City (the "Council") constitute the lughest elected governmental officials of the City; and WHEREAS, Sectton 15.2-4906 of the Code of V~rg~nia of 1950, as amended (the "Vlrg~ma Code"), provides that the Council shall w~thin 60 calendar days from the date of the pubhc heanng with respect to industrial development revenue bonds either approve or disapprove the issuance of such bonds; and WHEREAS, the C~ty of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the "Authority') held a public heanng on May 20, 2003 with respect to the application of LifeNet (the "Company") for the ~ssuance of the Authority's Industrial Development Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $21,000,000 00 (the "Bonds") to assist the Company ~n financing (A) the acquisition of an approximately 15.82 acre tract of land at the eastern end of a 22.39 acre tract and a five-year option to purchase the addmonal 6.57 acres, all located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Pnncess Anne Road and Concert Drive, V~rgima Beach, Virginia, (B) the development, construction and equipping on the Property of an organ procurement and t~ssue processing facihty contaimng approximately 40,000~ square feet and an office and adm~nistratmn facihty containing approximately 58,000~ square feet, and (C) the costs of xssuance of the Bonds (collectxvely, the "Project"), and WHEREAS, following the pubhc hearing held May 20, 2003, the Authority approved the ~ssuance of the Bonds in an amount not to exceed $21,000,000 for the benefit of the Company to finance the Project, and WHEREAS, the Authority has favorably considered the Company's apphcatmn and a copy of the Authonty's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed on, a reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at the public heating w~th respect to the Bonds and a statement in the form prescribed by Section 15.2-4907 of the Virginia Code have been filed wath the Council, together w~th the Authority's recommendation that the Councd approve the ~ssuance of the Bonds; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. The recitals made ~n the preambles to this Resolutmn are hereby adopted as a part of this Resolution. 2. The C~ty Council approves the ~ssuance of the Bonds by the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project for the benefit of the Company to the extent of and as reqmred by Section 147(f)(2) of the Tax Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the V~rgmia Code. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as reqmred by Section 147(0(2) of the Tax Code and Section 15.2- 4906 of the V~rgima Code, does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Company, but, as reqmred by Section 15.2-4909 of the Virgunia Code, the Bonds shall provide that neaher the City nor the Authonty shall be obhgated to pay the 2 Bonds or the ~nterest thereon or other costs ~ncident thereto except from the revenues and momes pledged therefor and neither the faith, credit nor taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the C~ty or the Authonty shall be pledged thereto. 3. In adopting th~s Resolution, the C~ty, including ~ts elected representatives, officers, employees and agents, shall not be liable and hereby d~scla~ms all hability for any damages to any person, direct or consequential, resulting from the Authority's failure to issue the Bonds for any reason. 4. This Resolution shall take effect ammed~ately on its adoption. Adopted by a quorum of the Council of the City of Virgima Beach, Virginia, on June 24, 2003. #397692 vl - Resolution-City Councd-LffeNet APPROVED AS TO ~ SUFFICIENCY VIRGINIA BEACH ~,~rg~ma Beach Development Authority 222 Central Park Avenue, State 1000 V~rgm~a Beach, ~A 23462 (757) 437-6464 FAX (757) 499-9894 Webstte www vbgov com In Reply Refer to Our File No DA1552 May 20, 2003 The Honorable Meyera E. Obemdorf, Mayor Members of City Council Mumclpal Center Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Re. LtfeNet, a Vtrgtnta non-profit, non-stock and non-member corporatzon Industrial Development Revenue Bonds Dear Mayor Oberndorf and Members of C~ty Council. We submit the following in connection with project LlfeNet, a Vlrglma non-profit, non- stock and non-member corporation, located at the intersection of Pnncess Anne Road and Concert Drive in V~rglma Beach, Vlrg~ma. (1) Evidence of publication of the notice of heanng is attached as Exhibit A, and a summary of the statements made at the public heanng is attached as Exhibit B. The City of Vlrglma Beach Development Authonty's (the "Authority") resolution recommending Council's approval is attached as Exhibit ¢ (2) The Disclosure Statement is attached as Exhibit D (3) The statement of the Authonty's reasons for its approval as a benefit for the City of Virginia Beach and its recommendation that City Council approve the modification of the bonds described above is attached as Exhibit E. (4) The Fiscal Impact Statement is attached as Exhibit F The Honorable Meyera E. Obemdorf, Mayor Members of City Council May 20, 2003 Page 2 (5) Attached as Exhibit G is a summary sheet setting forth the type of issue, and ~dentifying the ProJect and the pnnmpals. (6) Attached as Exhibit H is a letter from the appropriate City department commenting on the Project. Very truly y~ours, RGJ/GLF/rab Enclosures EXHIBIT A THE VIRGINIAN- PILOT NORFOLK, VIRGINIA AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION The Vlrglnlan- Pilot WILLIAMS, MULLENS, CLARK, DOBB ONE COLUMBUS CENTER FRAN HILDRETH VA BEACH VA 23462 REFERENCE 10250043 392304vl 10304922 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA State of Virginia City of Norfolk This day, D. Johnson personally appeared before me and after being duly sworn, made oath that- 1) She is affidavit clerk of The Virgln~an-Pilot, a newspaper published by Landmark Communications Inc., ~n the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach, Common- wealth of V~rgln~a and in the state of North Carolina 2)That the advertisement hereto annexed has been published ~n said newspaper on the date stated. PUBLISHED ON. 05/06 05/13 TOTAL COST: 488.16 AD SPACE 72 LINE FILED ON. 05/l~_~f~ .......... + Legal Affiant. Subs~nd sw~,to ~for~~:nd state on the day and year ~e~d~hl~r~: \\ p~D~g(3~,-M.y ~mm~ ~~~res January 31, 2004 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REVENUE BOND FINANCING OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Not~ce ~s hereby given that the C~ty of V~rginia Beach Development Authority (the "Authoritf'), whose address ~s 222 Central Park Avenue, State 1000, V~rginia Beach, V~rginia, will hold a pubhc heating at 8.30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 20, 2003, on the apphcation and plan of financing of L~feNet, whose principal place of business ~s located at 5809 Ward Court, V~rg~nia Beach, VA 23455 (the "Company"), for the ~ssuance of the Authonty's Revenue Bonds ("Bonds") pursuant to Chapter 643 of the Acts of Assembly of 1964, as amended and supplemented by the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Title 15.2, Chapter 49 of the Code of Virg~ma of 1950, as amended (the "Act"), in an amount not to exceed $21,000,000 to assist the Company m financing (A) the acqms~t~on of an approximately 15.82 acre tract of land at the eastem end of a 22 39 acre tract and a five-year option to purchase the additional 6.57 acres, all located m the southeast quadrant of the ~ntersect~on of Pnncess Anne Road and Concert Drive, Vn'g~ma Beach, Virguna 23456 (the "Property"), (B) the development, construction and equipping on the Property of an organ procurement and tissue procesmng facility contmmng approximately 40,000 square feet and an office and admimstrat~on facility containing approximately 58,000 square feet and (C) the costs of issuance of the Bonds (collectively, the "ProJect"). As required by the Act, the Bonds will not pledge the credtt or taxing power of the C~ty of V~rgtma Beach, V~rgmia, or the Authority, but will be payable solely from revenues derived from the Company and pledges of those revenues Any persons ~nterested m the issuance of the Bonds or the location or nature of the proposed ProJect may appear and be heard A copy of the Company's application is on file and is open for ~nspect~on at the Authority's office dunng business hours CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 60085 0062/#392304 vl - NotJce of Pubhc Heanng-L~feNet EXHIBIT B CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RECORD OF PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 20, 2003 (LifeNet Project) The Chatr of the City of Vtrg~ma Beach Development Authority (the "Authority") announced the commencement of a public heanng on the request of LffeNet (the "Borrower"), and that a Notice of the Heanng was published once a week for two consecutive weeks in The Vtrgznzan-Ptlot, a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Virglma Beach, Varglma. Such public hearing was noticed for May 20, 2003. Such pubhc hearmg was held not less than sax days and not more than 21 days after the second notme appeared an The Vzrgtntan-Pilot A copy of the Notice and Certificate of Publication of such notice have been filed with the records of the Caty Council of the City of Virginia Beach. hearing: The followang individuals appeared and addressed the Authonty at such public C. Grigsby Scifres, an attorney with Wilhams Mullen, appeared on behalf of the Borrower. Mr. Scifres gave a brief descnption of the proposed financing and explmned that the proposed issuance of bonds (the "Bonds") would be used to assist the Borrower an financing (A) the acqmsltlon of an approximately 15.82 acre tract of land at the eastern end of a 22.39 acre tract and a five-year optaon to purchase the add~tlonal 6.57 acres, all located an the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Pnncess Anne Road and Concert Drive, Virginia Beach, Varginia 23456 (the "Property"), 03) the development, construction and equipping on the Property of an organ procurement and tissue processing facility containing approxamately 40,000-~ square feet and an office and adrmmstration facility containing approximately 58,000-a: square feet, and (C) the costs of issuance of the Bonds (collectively, the "Project"). Mr. Scifres outlined certmn benefits inuring to the Caty and ats citizens, including retmmng LifeNet m the City, provading for the growing demand for tmsue and organ transplants, constructaon of a new facahty, increased employment and increased spending in the City. In addltaon, Mr. Scifres further noted that all necessary zomng permats and approvals have been obtained Raymond T. St. John and Pat Thompson from LifeNet also appeared and made brief comments further highlighting the poants made by Mr. Scifres, as outhned above, and answered specific quesUons raased by members of the Authority Mr. Gary L. Fentress, Assastant City Attorney and counsel to the Authority, also appeared and made brief comments further h~ghhghting the poants made by Mr. Scffres, as outlined above. No other persons appeared to address the Authority, and the Chaar closed the public hearing. The Authority hereby recommends that the C~ty Council of the Caty of Virginia Beach, Virginia approve the issuance of up to $21,000,000 of variable rate demand revenue bonds m support of the proposed financing and hereby transmits the Fiscal Impact Statement to the City Council of the City of Vlrgima Beach and asks that this recommendataon be received at its next regular meeting at whmh this matter can be properly placed on the Council's agenda for heanng. #397677 v l - Record of Pubhc Heanng-L~feNet Exhibit C RESOLUTION OF CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACIt DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WHER/~AS, LifeNet, a Virginia non-profit, non-stock and non-member corporation (the "Company"), which is exempt from federal income taxation as a charitable organization pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, has applied to the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the "Authority") for assistance in financing (A) the acquis~tmn of an approximately 15.82 acre tract of land at the eastern end of a 22.39 acre tract and a five-year option to purchase the additional 6 57 acres, all located m the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Princess Anne Road and Concert Drive, V~rginia Beach, V~rgmia 23456 (the "Property"), 03) the development, construction and equipping on the Property of an organ procurement and tissue processing facility containing approximately 40,000+/- square feet and an office and administration fatality containing approxn'nately 58,000+/- square feet and (C) the costs of msuance of the revenue bonds (collectively, the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Company, in ~ts application, d~scussmns and appearance before the Authority has described the benefits of the Project to the City of V~rgmia Beach, Vir~ma ("City") and the Authority; and WHEREAS, the Company has requested the Authority to agree to ~ssue ~ts industrial development revenue bonds in the mount now estimated at $21,000,000 00 (the "Bonds") to finance the costs of Project; and WHEREAS, the Authority ~s empowered to issue and sell bonds, lend the proceeds of such bonds, and acqmre, own, lease, and dispose of properties, and is vested w~th all powers necessary to enable ~t to accomplish its purposes, which purposes and powers are enumerated in Chapter 643 of the Acts of Assembly of 1964, as amended and supplemented by the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Title 15 2, Chapter 49 of the Code of V~rgm~a of 1950, as amended (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, a public hearing with respect to the Project and the ~ssuance of the Bonds has been held on May 20, 2003, as required by Sectmn 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and by Section 15.2-4906 of the Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THAT 1. The Authority finds that (0 the development, constmctmn, eqmppmg and operation of the Project will increase annual employment, stimulate the local economy and increase the tax base, (n) providing financing for the Project will be in the public interest and will benefit the inhabitants of the C~ty and the Commonwealth of V~rgmia and (ii0 the issuance of the Bonds will be consistent wtth the purposes of the Act and the powers of the Authority. 2 To assmt the Company with respect to the Project, the Authority agrees to undertake the issuance of the Bonds m an mount not to exceed $21,000,000.00 on terms and conchtions to be mutually agreed on between the Authority and the Company. The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds will be loaned to the Company pursuant to a loan agreement and related documents winch will prowde payments to the Authority sufficient to pay the pnnc~pal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and to pay all other expenses m connection with the maintenance of the Project. The Bonds will be msued m form and pursuant to terms to be set by the Authority, and the payment of the Bonds shall be secured by, among other collateral, an assignment, for the benefit of the holders of the Bonds, of the Authonty's rights to payments under such loan agreement and will be additionally secured by a deed of trust on the Project. 3. It having been represented to the Authority that ~t ~s necessary to proceed immediately with the development, construction and equipping of the Project, the Authority hereby agrees that the Company may proceed w~th plans for the Project, enter into contracts for development, construction and eqmppmg and take such other steps as it may deem appropriate in connection therewith, provided that nothing hereto shall be deemed to authorize the Company to obhgate the Authority without ~ts consent in each instance to the payment of any monies or the performance of any acts ~n connection with the Project. The Authority further agrees that the Company may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the Bonds for all lawful costs so ~ncurred by ~t pnor to the adoptmn of these resoluttons. 4. The Authority hereby agrees to the recommendation of the Company that W~lliams Mullen, a professmnal corporation, Vir~da Beach, Virginia, be appointed as bond counsel and hereby appoints such finn to supervise the proceedings and approve the issuance of the Bonds. 5. The Authority hereby agrees, if requested, to accept the recommendation of the Company with respect to the appointment of a placement agent or underwhter for the sale of the Bonds and a remarketung agent for the remarketmg of the Bonds pursuant to terms to be mutually agreed on. 6 All lawful costs and expenses m connection wath the financing and the development, constructmn and eqmppmg of the Project, ~nclud~ng the fees and expenses of the Authority, counsel for the Authority, bond counsel, the placement agent or underwriter for the sale of the Bonds, the trustee for the Trust Indenture, any letter of crecht issuer, counsel for any letter of credit ~ssuer, and the remarket~ng agent for the remarket~ng of the Bonds, shall be prod from the proceeds of the Bonds or by the Company. If for any reason such Bonds are not issued, or such Bonds are ~ssued but ~t ~s determined that a part or all of such costs are not lawfully payable out of Bond proceeds, ~t ~ is understood that all such expenses shall be paid by the Company and that the Authonty shall have no responsibility therefore. 7. In adopting this Resolutmn, the Authority intends to declare "offimal intent" toward the ~ssuance of the Bonds within the meaning of regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Sections 103 and 141-150 of the Code, including Section 1.150-2 of such regulations. 8 The Authority hereby recommends that the City Council for the City approve the ~ssuance of the Bonds and hereby directs the Chmr or Vice-Chmr to subrmt to the C~ty Council for the City the statement m the form prescribed by Section 15.2-4907 of the Act, a reasonably detatled summary of the comments expressed at the public hearing required by Sectmn 15.2-4906 of the Act, and a copy of this Resolution. 9. Tlus Resolution will take effect immediately on its adoption. The undersigned hereby certifies that the above Resolution was duly adopted by the Commissioners of the City of V~rgmia Beach Development Authority at a meeting duly called at winch a quorum was present and acting throughout on May 20, 2003, and that such Resolutton is in full force and effect on the date hereof. Date: ,2003 ~,~. ,~.~c~,.x~X Secretary, C~ty 0~Virg~maUBeach Development Authority //393558 v 1 - Resolutton-Authonty-offic~al ~ntc'nt Exhibit D DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Date: April 28, 2003 Applicant: LIFENET All Owners 0f d~fferent from Apphcant): NONE Type of Apphcation $20,300,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds to assist Apphcant in financing (A) the acqmsitmn of an approximately 15.82 acre tract of land and a five year option on the remmning 6.57 acres, all located m the southeast quadrant of the intersectmn of Princess Anne Road and Concert Drive, Virgima Beach, V~rg~ma 23456 (the "Property"), and (B) the construction and equipping of a tissue bank processing facility and an office bmldmg on the Property containing at least 29,000 square feet (collectively, the "Project"). ii i i ii i The Apphcant is a non-profit, non-stock Virginia corporation which has a determinatxon letter from the Intemal Revenue Service grantxng ~t charitable organization status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. See attached Exhibit A for the list of the officers and Board of Directors 2. The Applicant is the owner of the ProJect. LI3'ENET, a Vzrginia non-profit, non-stock corporation ~ ~ Secretary By .. R~ym~t. Jo~, 60085 03562 #392298 vl - [hsclosure Stmt-Lffenet EXHIBIT A Officers and Board of Directors OFFICERS. R~chard L. Hurwitz, MD Chairman Raymond T. St. John Secretary BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Rachard L. Hurwitz, MD Gerald M. Bowers John Herre, MD Ann Lange 660O85 0062 #392298 vl - Dmclosure Stmt-Lffenet -2- VIRGINIA BEACH EXHIBIT E V~rgtma Beach Development Authority 222 Central Park Avenue, State 1000 V~rg~ma Beach, VA 23462 (757) 437-6464 FAX (757) 499-9894 Webstte www vbgov corn CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VARIABLE RATE DEMAND REVENUE BONDS (LIFENET PROJECT), SERIES 2003 The C~ty of V~rg~nia Beach Development authority recommends approval of the above- referenced financing. The benefits of' the Project to the City ~nclude retention, and further development and expansion, of an organ procurement and t~ssue transplantation business providing a much needed service to individuals and health care providers throughout the Commonwealth of V~rg~nla, ~ncreased employment in the City of V~rginia Beach and ~ncreased purchases of goods, services and eqmpment Exhtb~t F FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT DATE TO CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH APPLICANT: LIFENET TYPE OF FACILITY: Organ procurement/tassue processang/office and admlmstrative 1. Maximum amount of financing sought. $ 21,000,000 . Estimated taxable value of the facihty's real property to be constructed m the mumcapahty: $ .. 1.6,000,000 o Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates: $ 195,200 , Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates: $ 0 Estimated merchant's capital (business hcense) tax per year using present tax rates: $ 0 . (a) Estimated purchased (b) Estimated purchased (c) Estimated purchased dollar value per year of goods that wall be from V~rglma compames within the locality dollar value per year of good that will be from non-Vtrgmaa companies w~thin the locahty: dollar value per year of servaces that will be from Virgama companies w~thin the locahty: (d) Estimated dollar value per year of servaces that will purchased from non-Vlrgqnia companies w~th~n the locality: $ 3,512,000 $ 4.390,00,0 $ 786,000 $__25,383,000 7. Estimated number of regular Employees on year round basis' 388 8. Average annual salary per employee: $ 43,703 The information contained an this Statement as based solely on facts and estimates provided by the Apphcant, and the Authonty has made no independent ~nvestlgation with respect thereto. #393563 vl - F~scal Impact Statement - L~feNet CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Exhibit O SUMMARY SHEET CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND 1. PROJECT NAME: LIFENET 2. LOCATION: Southeast comer of intersection of Concert Drive and Princess Anne Road. o DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Developing, constructing and eqmpplng 40,000 square feet organ procurement and tissue processing facility and 58,000 ± square feet office and administration bmlding. 4. AMOUNT OF BOND ISSUE: Not to exceed $21,000,000. o PRINC~ALS: No owners: non-stock, non-member, Virginia corporation. 501(c)(3) organization. Officers and directors are: Richard L. Hurwltz, MD, Chmrman Raymond T. St. John, Secretary Puchard L. Hurwltz, MD, Board Member Gerald M. Bowers, Board Member John Herre, MD, Board Member Ann Lange, Board Member o ZONING CLASSIFICATION: a. Present zoning classification of the Property: Con&tional I-1 b. Is rezoning proposed? Yes No X c If so, to what zoning classification? Note: Property rezoned recently from R-5D to Con&tional I-1 (light industrial) NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE ON 8 -1/2 X 14 INCH PLAIN BOND PAPER #393564 vl - Summary Sheet - DfeNet VIRGINIA BEACH EXHIBIT H V~rgmia Beach Development Authority 222 Central Park Avenue, State 1000 V~rg~ma Beach, VA 23462 (757) 437-6464 FAX (757) 499-9894 Webstte www vbgov corn May20,2003 Mr. Robert G. Jones Chairman Virginia Beach Development Authority 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Re: LifeNet Industrial Development Revenue Bonds Dear Bob: It is the finding of the Department of Economxc Development that the proposed purchase of 15.82 acres located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Pnncess Anne Road and Concert Drive to construct (1) a 40,000 sq. ft. organ procurement and tissue processing facility; and (2) a 58,000 sq. ft. office and administration facility will be in the public's best interest and benefit the citizens of Virginia Beach. This proposed project will increase annual employment, stimulate the local economy, increase the tax base, and provide a valuable service to the citizenry in the processing and distribution of tissues and organs for transplant, thereby meeting the public purpose test. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Mark R. Wawner Project Development Manager MRW:lls Item VJ. 1. - 23 - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 51250 Mayor Oberndorf DECLARED A PUBLIC HEARING: Public/Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA) The following regtstered to speak tn OPPOSITION: Robert O'Connor, 204 52nd Street, Phone: 428-0902, represented the Cttizens Actzon Coahnon, Inc. did not beheve the project relative the unsohctted proposal was umque Mr. O'Connor suggested an Oversight Committee be established John D. Moss, 4109 Richardson Road, Phone 363-7745, represented the Vtrg~nia Beach Taxpayers Alhance, and requested DEFERRAL wtth an Oversight Committee established. There being no further speakers, Mayor Oberndorf CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. June 3, 2003 -9- CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION P UBLIC/P~A TE ED UCA TIONAL FA CILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2002 (PPEA) ITEM # 51229 (Continued) Mr. Thompson advzsed the 45-day pubhc nottce for submittal of complettng unsohctted proposals ts a minimum. Submittal cannot be less than 45 days. When the staff recommends a project, a time table shall be assigned dependtng on the complextty and the urgency determtned by Ctty Councd Mr. Thompson advised an unsolictted proposal has been recetved on the Theatre project PPEA origtnally started with transportation issues and spilled over into education and evolved into almost any land of public use facthty Concerning other Iocalitzes in Virgtma utilizing the PPEA, Patrtcta Phdlips, Director of Finance, advised Chesapeake ts evaluating an office budding for thetr Community Services Board. Stafford County ts acttvely reviewing proposals relattve schools Concern was expressed relative utilization ora fee Implementatton of Guidelines relative use of local and minority firms was also requested. Mrs. Phillips advised this PPEA was adopted by the General Assemblyfor their use. The State has projects they are considering. Concern was expressed relative firms not being treated fairly and deemed not qualified to bid on the Conventton Center. The local firms shouM be given the opportunity to at least offer thetr quote to Turner Constructton. Information shall be provided by E. Dean Block, D~rector of Public Works. The City Manager advtsed the PPEA is really a follow-on to the Public/Private Transportation Act (PPTA). The General Assembly thought this techmque might have advantages on projects other than transportatwn and have expanded its scope. There was a proposal to complete the Southeastern Parkway by the PPT,4 a number of years ago. ,4s this was a Virginia Department of Transportation project, VODT revtewed this proposal. The City Attorney advised the PPTA does not requtre locahties develop these types of guidehnes The PPEA would su. ffice for construction of local roads However, the City ts not anttctpat~ng recetvtng an unsolictted proposal on a road The PPE4 is usually associated with some type of toll or revenue producing facility, probably not appeanng on a local road The City Attorney advised the State Code 's provistons stipulate the receivtng of an unsohcited proposal. The fee can be charged, then the City must advertise and give others the opportunity to submit a proposal wtthin a minimum of 45 days. The City Council will stipulate the time hmit. There are two types of PPEA proposals, sohczted and unsolictted. If City Councd decides to place a project on property, not owned or controlled, and receives a PPEA, tt would be difficult to have a competitive process. June 3, 2003 -8- CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION PUBLIC/PRIVA TE ED UCA TIONAL FA CILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE A CT OF 2002 (PPEA) 3:15 P.M. ITEM # 51229 Steve Thompson, Chtef Ftnancial Officer, advised the Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA), became effecttve July 1, 2002 Mr Thompson referenced Item K 5 The Resolutton re procedures for constdering unsohctted requests from private entities re qualtfytng projects under the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002; and, dtrect the Ctty's Purchastng Agent to cause these procedures be avatlable to the pubhc and post same tn the Ctty's Purchasing office and on the web stte This Resolutton ts for unsohctted proposals only. Solictted proposals are project spectfc Guidelines are not spectficalIy tted to any project. This issue ts not Theatre specifc. PPEA May be appropriate if: Proposals demonstrate speed, savtngs or other benefits where only one developer ts practtcal Potential property or project is untque Will Not: Avotd debt Save constructton costs tn and of ttself May not be sutted where quahty and expertence are crtttcal Council Concerns Process to constder unsoltctted proposals - 1 City Counctl adopts Gutdeltnes 2 City Counctl approves spectfcprojectfor PPEA process 3 City develops project crtterta, including board characteristics, financtng and development 4 45-day publtc notice for submittal ofcomplettng unsohctted proposals 5 Followed by evaluatton and award t:fapproprtate The fee - may be charged as a "revzew fee ", based on antictpated costs Proposed fee 1% of proJect costs ($2,500 mtntmum, $25,000 maxtmum) Discourages frivolous submittals Recovers Ctty costs to revtew proposals zf necessary (or offset against projecO June 3, 2003 Virginia Beach City Council June 3, 2003 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones Harry E. Diezel Margaret L. Eure Reba McClanan Richard A. Maddox Jim Reeve Peter Schmidt Ron A. Villanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood At-Large Bayside - District 4 Kempsville - District 6 Centerville - District 1 Rose Hall - District 3 Beach - District 6 Princess Anne - District 7 At-Large At-Large At-Large Lynnhaven - District 5 CITY MANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERB~%TIM Resolution re procedures for considering unsolicited requests from private entities requal~fying projects under Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM' Resolution to Adopt Procedures regarding requests made pursuant to be The Public-Private Education and Facilities Infrastructure Act of 2002 MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 · Background: The Public-Private Education and Facilities Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA) became effective July 1, 2002. The Act provides that a public entity may consider proposals by private entities for qualifying projects pursuant to the PPEA. The public entity must adopt procedures that enable the public entity to comply with the PPEA. · Considerations: The proposed procedures are required for the City to be able to consider "Unsolicited Proposals" for qualifying projects submitted under the PPEA. The Act provides that the City may still consider "Solicited Proposals" for qualifying projects without adoption of these procedures. · Public Information: A Council briefing was presented on May 13, 2003 and a Public Hearing was conducted on June 3ra. This item was deferred on June 3, 2003 to June 24, 2003 to allow for modifications of the procedures to require proposals to include a statement regarding participation efforts intended to be undertaken for this project with regard to minority-owned, women-owned, and small businesses. In addition, there will be no review fees charged to the private entity submitting an unsolicited Proposal, and the period of time for the City to receive competing Unsolicited Proposals has been extended from at least 45 days to at least 60 days. Adopted procedures must be made publicly available. · Alternatives: Do not adopt the proposed procedures, which will prohibit the submission of "Unsolicited Proposals" for qualifying projects. · Recommendations: Adopt procedures. Recommended Action: Approval , ~ ~ ~ Submitting Department/Agency: Finance~~¥~£L. ~~~~~- City Manager~ ~--, '~~Z. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERING UNSOLICITED REQUESTS FROM PRIVATE ENTITIES FOR APPROVAL OF QUALIFYING PROJECTS UNDER THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE EDUCATION FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2002 WHEREAS, the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 ("Act") has the potential, in certain cases, to provide for the construction of public facilities more quickly and at a lower cost; and WHEREAS, for the City Council to be able to consider unsolicited proposals from private entities for approval of qualifying projects under the Act, procedures must be established that permit the City to comply with the provisions of the Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That, as required by Virginia Code ~ 56-575.16, the City Council hereby adopts the "City of Virginia Beach Procedures Regarding Requests Made Pursuant to the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002," attached as Exhibit A, as the procedures that will be followed in considering all unsolicited requests from private entities for approval of qualifying projects under the Act. 27 28 29 3O 2. That the City's Purchasing Agent is hereby directed to make these procedures publicly available, which shall include posting them in Purchasing Division offices and on the City's webs~te. 31 32 Adopted by the Council of the City of V~rginia Beach, Virginia on the 24th day of June, 2003. CA-8885 ORDIN\NONCODE\PPEARes.wpd June 17, 2003 R3 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: ,,.', Finance Department -- APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY' city Attorn~s Offic/~/ EXHIBIT A City of Virginia Beach Procedures Regarding Requests Made Pursuant to the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on June 24, 2003 Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures III. IV. Vo VI. VII. Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................. p. 3 General Provisions ............................................................................. p. 3 A. Proposals ............................................................................................. p. 3 B. Affected Local Sunsdmnons ................................................................. p. 4 C. Vxrginia Freedom of Information Act ..................................................... p. 4 D. Use of Public Funds ............................................................................ p. 5 E. Applicability of Other Laws .................................................................... p. 5 Solicited Bid/Proposals ............................................................................... p. 5 Unsolicited Proposals ............................................................................... p. 5 A. Decision to Accept and Consider Unsolicited Proposal; Notice ............. p. 6 B Contents of Initial Submission ................................................................ p. 6 C. Review Fees .......................................................................................... p. 7 D Imtial Review at the Conceptual Stage .................................................... p. 7 E. Format for Submissions at the Conceptual Stage ................................... p. 7 F. Format for Submissions at the Detailed Stage ....................................... p. 12 Proposal Evaluation and Selection Criteria ............................................. p. 13 A Quahfications and Experience ......................................................... p. 13 B. Project Characteristics .................................................................... p. 14 C. Project F~nancing ............................................................................... p. 14 D. Project Benefit and Compatabllity ......................................................... p. 15 Comprehensive Agreement ....................................................................... p. 16 Governing Provisions ................................................................................ p 17 -2- Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures I. INTRODUCTION The Public-Private Education Facihtles and Infrastructure Act of 2002, Va. Code Ann. §§ 56-575.1 to -575.16 (LNMB Supp. 2002) (the "PPEA"), grants a public entity the authority to create pubhc-private partnerships for the development of a wide range of projects for public use ("qualifying projects") ~fthe pubhc entity determines that there as a need for a project and that private involvement may provide the project to the pubhc in a timely or cost-effective fashion. The definition of"public entity" in § 56-575.1 of the PPEA includes, inter aha, any pohtlcal subdivision of the Commonwealth. Section 56-575.16 of the PPEA provades that a public entity having the power to acquire, design, construct, improve, renovate, expand, eqmp, maintain, or operate a qualifying project (a "responsible pubhc entity") may not consader any unsolicited proposal by a private entity for approval of the qualifying project pursuant to the PPEA until the responsible pubhc entity has adopted and made pubhcly available procedures that are sufficient to enable the responsible pubhc entity to comply wath the PPEA. Accordingly, these procedures (the "Procedures") have been adopted by the City Council (the "Council") as the governing body of the City of V~rgima Beach (the "City "). II. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Proposals 1. Pursuant to Section 56-575.4 of the PPEA, a proposal to promde a qualifying project to a responsible pubhc entity may be either sohclted from private entities by the pubhc entity (a "Sohcated Bad/Proposal") or dehvered to the pubhc entity by a private entaty on an unsolicited basis (an "Unsohc~ted Proposal"). In either case, any such proposal shall be clearly identafied as a "PPEA Proposal." 2. The requirements for any particular Solicated Bid/Proposal shall be as specified ~n the solicitation by the City for that particular proposal and shall be consistent w~th all applicable provas~ons of the PPEA. 3. Any Unsohc~ted Proposal shall be submitted to the City by dehvering six complete cop~es, together w~th the required matial review fee as provided below in § IV(C), to the Purchasing Agent, Department of F~nance, Purchasang Div~saon, 2388 Court Plaza Drive, Virginia Beach, VA 23456. Other reqmrements for an Unsolicated Proposal are as set forth below in § IV. A working group may be designated by the City Manager to revaew and evaluate all unsohc~ted proposals. 4. The City may reqmre that any proposal be clarified. Such clanficatmn may ~nclude but is not hm~ted to submission of additional documentation, responses to specific questions, and ~nterv~ews with potential project participants. -3- Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures B. Affected Local Jurisdictions 1. The term "affected local jurisdiction" includes any county, city or town in which all or a portion of a qualifying project is located. 2. Any private entity submitting a Solicited Bid/Proposal or an Unsolicited Proposal to the City as the responsible pubhc entity for a qualifying project must provide any other affected local junsdmtion with a copy of the proposal by certified mail, express delivery, or hand delivery within five (5) business days of submission of the proposal to the City. Any such other affected local jurisdiction shall have 60 days from the date it receives its copy of the proposal to submit written comments to the City and to indicate whether the proposed qualifying project is compatible with the affected local jurisdmtlon's local comprehensive plan, local infrastructure development plans, capital improvements budget, or other government spending plan. The City will consider comments received within the 60-day period prior to entenng into a comprehensive agreement pursuant to the PPEA regarding the proposal. However, the City may begin or continue its evaluation of any such proposal dunng the 60-day period for the receipt of comments from affected local jurisdictions. C. Virginia Freedom of Information Act 1. Any confidential and proprietary information provided to a responsible public entity by a private entity pursuant to the PPEA shall be subject to disclosure under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") except as provided by § 56-575 4(G) of the PPEA. 2. To prevent the release of any confidential and proprietary information that otherwise could be held in confidence pursuant to § 56-575.4(G) of the PPEA, the private entity submitting the information must (i) invoke the exclusion from FOIA when the data or materials are submitted to the City or before such submission, (i0 identify the data and materials for which protection from d~sclosure is sought, and (iii) state why the exclusion from disclosure is necessary A private entity may request and receive a determination from the City as to the anticipated scope of protection prior to subm~ttang the proposal. The City is authorized and obligated to protect only confidential proprietary anformatlon, and thus will not protect any port~on of a proposal from disclosure if the entire proposal has been designated confidential by the private entity without reasonably differentiating between the proprietary and non-proprietary information contained therein. 3. Upon receipt of a request from a private entity that designated portions of a proposal be protected from disclosure as confidential and proprietary, the Cay will determine whether such protection is appropriate under applicable law and, if appropriate, the scope of such appropriate protection, and shall commumcate its determination to the private entity. If the determination regarding protection or the scope thereof differs from the private entity's request, then the C~ty w~ll accord the private -4- Pubh'c-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures entity a reasonably opportunity to clarify and justify ~ts request. Upon a final determination by the City to accord less protection than requested by the private entity, the private entity will be given an opportunity to w~thdraw its proposal. A proposal so withdrawn will be treated m the same manner as a proposal not accepted for publication and conceptual-phase consideration as provided below in § IV(A)(1). D. Use of Public Funds Virgima constitutional and statutory requirements as they apply to appropriation and expenditure of public funds apply to any comprehensive agreement entered into under the PPEA. Accordingly, the processes and procedural requirements associated with the expenditure or obligation of pubhc funds shall be incorporated into planning for any PPEA project or projects. E. Applicabilit3' of Other Laws Nothing in the PPEA shall affect the duty of the City to comply with all other apphcable law not in conflict with the PPEA. The applicability of the Virginia Public Procurement Act (the "VPPA") is as set forth ~n the PPEA. III. SOLICITED BID/PROPOSALS The procedures applicable to any particular Solicited Bid/Proposal shall be specified in the solicitation for that proposal and shall be consistent with the requirements of the PPEA and any other applicable law. All such solicitations shall be by ~ssuance of a wntten Invitation to B~d ("IFB") or Request for Proposal ("RFP") within the meaning of those terms as used ~n the C~ty of Vlrgima Beach Procurement ordinance. Any proposal submitted pursuant to the PPEA that ~s not received in response to an IFB or RFP shall be an Unsolicited Proposal under these procedures. Such Unsohcited Proposals include but are not limited to (a) proposals received ~n response to a notme of the pnor receipt of another Unsolicited Proposal as reqmred by the PPEA and provided for below in § IV(A)(2) and (b) proposals received in response to publicity by the City concerning particular needs when the C~ty has not issued a corresponding IFB or RFP, even if the City otherwise has encouraged the submission of proposals pursuant to the PPEA that address those needs. IV. UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS The process for evaluating an Unsohclted Proposal, described in detail below, consists of four steps. Briefly summarized, upon receipt of an Unsolicited Proposal the City's first step will be to determine whether to accept it for consideration at the conceptual stage. If so, then in step two the City will g~ve pubhc notice of the Unsohcited Proposal, and allow for submission of other competing proposals. In step -5- Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Ac~ of 2002 Procedures three the City will proceed with a review at the conceptual stage of the original Unsolicited Proposal and/or any proposal recexved in response to the public notice and accepted for consideration at the conceptual stage. Step four is an in-depth review at the detailed stage of the original Unsohcited Proposal and/or any proposal received in response to the public not,ce and accepted for consideration at the detailed stage. The City shall be afforded sufficient time as ~t deems necessary for complete review and evaluatmn of all proposals submitted; proposals shall remain vahd and not revised, other than by the stated procedure, during th~s period. However, the City may, at its sole discretion, d~scontinue ~ts evaluation of any proposal at any t~me. Furthermore, if the City determines that ~t is in the C~ty's interest to do so with respect to any Unsolicited Proposal, the C~ty may eliminate review at the conceptual stage and proceed directly to a review at the detailed stage. A. Decision to Accept and Consider Unsolicited Proposal[ Notice 1. Upon receipt from a private entity of any Unsolicxted Proposal accompanied by payment of any required fees, the C~ty will determine whether to accept the Unsohcited Proposal for pubhcatlon and conceptual-phase consideration, as described below. If the City determines not to accept the proposal at this stage, it will remm the proposal and the accompanying imtial review fee to the private entity. 2. If the City chooses to accept an Unsolimted Proposal for conceptual-phase consideration, ~t shall gnve public notice of the proposal in accordance with the PPEA and shall specify a penod of time not less than 4-5 60 days during which ~t will receive competing Unsolicited Proposals pursuant to § 56-575.4(A) of the PPEA. Although not required by the PPEA, at the discretion of the City such notice may be given consistent with the reqmrements for public notice as set forth in the Virgtma Beach City Procurement ordinance. Dunng the 4-5 60-day period for receiving competing Unsohc~ted Proposals, the City may continue to evaluate the original Unsolicited Proposal. B. Contents of Initial Submission 1. An Unsolicited Proposal must contain information on the private entity's qualifications and experience, project characteristics, project financing, anticipated pubhc reaction, and project benefit and compatibility. The information should be adequate to enable the City to evaluate the pract~cahty and sufficiency of the proposal. The private entity may request that the City consider a two-step proposal process, consisting of an ~nitlal conceptual submission to be followed by a more detailed submission. 2 Unsolicited Proposals should provide a concise description of the private entity's capabihty to complete the proposed qualifying project and the benefits to be derived from the project by the C~ty. Project benefits to be considered may occur during the construction, renovation, expansion or improvement phase and during the life -6- Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures cycle of the project. Proposals also should ~nclude a comprehensive scope of work and a financial plan for the project, contaimng enough detail to allow an analysis by the City of the financial feasibility of the proposed project, including but not limited to (a) the identity of any parties expected to provide financing for the project and Co) a statement indicating whether the private entny intends to request the City to provide resources for financing the project and the nature and extent of any such resources. The scope of work shall be of sufficient detail to identify the level of quality of the project commensurate with recognized design standards or by project qualities established or prescribed by the City of Virginia Beach for a given project. 3. The C~ty may require additional submissions to clarify information previously provided or to address other areas of concern to the City. C. Review Fees A review fee will not be charged of a private entity submitting an Unsolicited Proposal to the City. D. Initial Review at the Conceptual Stage 1. Only proposals complying with the requirements of the PPEA and these Procedures that contain sufficient information for a meaningful evaluation and that are prowded in an appropnate format, as described below, will be consxdered by the City for further review at the conceptual stage. 2. The City will detenmne at this initial stage of review whether it will proceed using procurement through competitive sealed bidding as defined in the VPPA or procedures developed by the City that are consistent with procurement of other than professional services through competmve negotiation as defined in the VPPA. 3 After reviewing an Unsolicxted Proposal and any competing Unsolicited Proposals submitted during the notice period, the City may determine (a) not to proceed further with any proposal, (b) to proceed to the detailed phase of review with the original proposal, (c) to proceed to the detailed phase with a competing proposal, or (d) to proceed to the detailed phase wnh multiple proposals. At all times the City retains the right to reject any proposal at any time for any reason whatsoever. E. Format for Submissions at the Conceptual Staee Unsolicited Proposals at the conceptual stage shall contmn the following ~nformation ~n the following format, plus such additional ~nformation as the City may request: -7- Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures 1. Qualification and Experience a. Identify the legal structure of the finn or consortium of firms making the proposal. Identify the organizational structure for the project, the management approach and how each partner and major subcontractor m the structure fits into the overall team. b. Describe the experience of the firm or consortium of finns making the proposal and the key pnnclpals involved in the proposed project including experience with projects of comparable s~ze, value, quality and complexity. Describe the length of time in business, business experience, public sector experience and other engagements of the firm or consortium of finns. Include the identity of any finns that will provide design, construction and completion guarantees and warranties and a description of such guarantees and warranties. Provide resumes of the key individuals who will be involved in the project c. Provide the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons within the firm or consortium of firms who may be contacted for further information. d. Provide a current or most recently audited financial statement of the firm or firms and each parmer with an equity interest of twenty percent or greater. go submitting the proposal. Identify the officers and directors of the firm or firms f. Identify all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary or affiliated business entity relationship with the firm or firms submitting the proposal. The State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, at Virginia Code § 2.2- 3101, defines "parent-subsidiary relationship" as "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." In the same Code section, the Act defines "affiliated business entity relationship" as "a relationship, other than parent-subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest ~n the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlhng owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relat~onslup between the entit~es." -8- Pubh'c-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures g. Identify all known contractors or service providers, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, and legal services. 2. Project Charactenstlcs a. Provide a description of the project, including the conceptual design. Describe the proposed project in sufficient detail so that type, quality, value and intent of the project, the location, preliminary value of the land necessary to be acquired, and the communities that may be affected are clearly identified. b. Identify and fully describe any work to be performed by the City or any other public entity. c. Include a list of all federal, state and local permits and approvals required for the project and a schedule for obtaining such permits and approvals. d Identify any anticipated adverse social, economic and environmental impacts of the project. Specify the strategies or actions to mitigate known impacts of the project. e. Identify the projected positive social, economic and environmental impacts of the project. f. Identify the proposed schedule for the work on the project, including the estimated time for completion. g. Propose allocation of nsk and liability for work completed beyond the agreement's completion date, and assurances for timely completion of the project. h. State assumptions related to ownership, legal liability, law enforcement and operation of the project and the existence of any restrictions on the public entity's use of the project. i. Provide information relative to phased or partial openings of the proposed project prior to completion of the entire work. j. Describe any architectural, building, engineering, or other applicable standards that the proposed project will meet. Define applicable quality standards to be adhered to for achieving the desired product outcome(s). -9- Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures 3. Project Financing a Provide a preliminary estimate and estimating methodology of the cost of the work by phase, segment, or both. b. Submit a plan for the development, financing and operation of the project showing the anticipated schedule on which funds will be required Describe the anticipated costs of and proposed sources and uses for such funds. c. Include a list and discussion of assumptions underlying all major elements of the plan. with these factors. d. Identify all anticipated risk factors and methods for dealing e. Identify any local, state or federal resources that the private entity contemplates requesting for the project. Describe the total commitment, if any, expected from governmental sources (and identify each such source) and the timing of any anticipated commitment. f. Identify any third parties that the private entity contemplates will provide financing for the project and describe the nature and timing of each such commitment. 4. Project Benefit and Compatibility a. Describe the anticipated benefits to the commumty, region or state, including anticipated benefits to the economic condition of the City, and ~dentlfy who will benefit from the project and how they will benefit. b. Identify any anticipated public support or opposition, as well as any anticipated government support or opposition, for the project. c. Explain the strategy and plans that will be carded out to involve and inform the general public, business community, and governmental agencies in areas affected by the project. d. Explain whether and, if so, how the project is cntical to attracting or maintaining competitive industries and businesses to the City or the surrounding region. e. Explain whether and, if so, how the project is compatible with the City's comprehensive plan, ~nfrastructure development plans, capital ~mprovements budget, or other government spending plan. -10- Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures f. Explain how quality standards of the project will be satisfied in comparison with the qualities anticipated or proposed by the City of Virginia Beach for the project. g. Provide a statement setting forth participation efforts that are intended to be undertaken in connection with this project with regard to the following types of businesses. O) (ii,) minority-owned businesses; woman-owned businesses; and small businesses. For the purposes of these guidelines these terms shall be defined as follows: "m~nority-owned business" shall mean a business or other entity that ~s at least fifty-one (51) percent owned and controlled by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged person(s). Such disadvantage may arise from cultural, racial, chrome economic circumstance or background, or other s~mflar cause. Such persons ~nclude, but are not limited to, Afncan Americans, Hispanic Americans, As~an Americans, Eskimos, and Aleuts; "woman-owned business" shall mean a bus~ness or other entity that is at least fifty-one (51) percent owned or controlled by one or more women; "small business" shall mean a business or other entity that (0 has received $10 million or less in annual gross ~ncome under generally accepted accounting principles for each of its last three fiscal years or lesser time period if ~t has been in existence less than three years, (ii) has fewer than 100 employees, and (iii) has a net worth of $2 million or less. As used ~n these defimtions, the term "control" shall mean exercising the power to make policy demsions and being actively involved in day-to-day management. Prior to final payrnent, the private enttty must provide documentation regarding the actual minonty-owned, small woman-owned, and small-business participation efforts undertaken ~n connection with the contract, as well as documentation demonstrating that such businesses were minority or women-owned or small businesses. -11- Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures F. Format for Submissions at the Detailed Stage If the City decides to proceed to the detailed phase of rewew with one or more Unsolicited Proposals, then the following information must be provided by the private entity unless waived by the City: 1. A topographical map (1:2,000 or other appropriate scale) depicting the location of the proposed project. 2. A list of public utility facilities, if any, that will be crossed by the qualifying project and a statement of the plans of the private entity to accommodate such crossings. 3. A statement and strategy setting out the plans for secunng all necessary property. The statement must include the names and addresses, if known, of the current owners of the subject property as well as a list of any property the private entity intends to request the public entity to condemn. 4. A detailed hsting of all firms that will provide specific design, construction and completion guarantees and warranties, and a brief description of such guarantees and warranties. 5. A total life-cycle cost specifying methodology and assumptions of the project or projects and the proposed project start date. Include anticipated commitment of all parties; equity, debt, and other financing mechanisms; and a schedule of project revenues and project costs. The life-cycle cost analysis should include, but not be limited to, a detailed analysis of the projected return, rate of return, or both, expected useful life of facdity and estimated annual operating expenses. 6. A detailed discussion of assumptions about user fees or rates, and usage of the projects. 7. Identification of any known government support or opposition, or general public support or opposition for the project. Government or public support should be demonstrated through resolution of official bodies, minutes of meetings, letters, or other official communications. 8. Demonstration of consistency with appropriate local comprehensive or infrastructure development plans or indication of the steps required for acceptance ~nto such plans. 9. Sufficient design and engineering detml to establish floor plans, elevations, and site characteristics. 10. Explanation of how the proposed project would impact local development plans of each affected local junsdmtion. -12- Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures 11. the proposal. Identify the officers and directors of the firm or firms submitting 12. Identify all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary or affiliated business entity relationship with the finn or firms submitting the proposal. The State and Local Government Confhct of Interests Act, at Virginia Code § 2.2-3101, defines "parent-subsidiary relationship" as "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." In the same Code section, the Act defines "affihated business entity relatxonship" as "a relationship, other than parent-subsidiary relat~onshxp, that exists when 0) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other busaness entity, (fi) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (fii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered m determining the existence of an affihated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." 13. Identify all known contractors or service providers, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate servmes, financxal services, and legal services. 14. Detailed analysis of the financial feasibility of the proposed project, including its impact on similar facilities operated or planned by the City. Include a detailed description of any financing plan proposed for the project, a comparison of that plan with financing alternatives that may be available to the City, and all underl3nng data supporting any conclusions reached in the analysis or the selection by the private entity of the finanmng plan proposed for the project. 15. Additional material and ~nformation as the City may request. V. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION CRITERIA Some or all of the following matters may be considered in the evaluation and selection of PPEA proposals. However, the City retains the right at all times to reject any proposal at any time for any reason whatsoever. A. Qualifications and Experience Factors to be considered m e~ther phase of the City's review to determine whether the private entity possesses the requisite qualifications and experience may include but are not necessarily limited to: -13- Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures 1. Experience with similar projects of comparable scope & value; 2. Demonstration of ability to perform work at the appropriate level of quality standards; 3. Leadership structure; 4. Project manager's experience; 5. Management approach; 6. Financial condition; and 7. ProJect ownership. B. Project Characteristics Factors to be considered in determining the project characteristics may include but are not necessarily hm~ted to: 1. Project defimtlon; 2. Proposed project schedule; 3. Operation of the project; 4. Technology; techmcal feasibihty; 5. Conformity to laws, regulations, and standards; 6. Environmental ~mpacts; 7. Condemation ~mpacts; 8. State and local permits; and 9. Maintenance of the project. 10. Quahty standards to meet proposed project quality. C. Project Financing Factors to be considered ~n determining whether the proposed project financing allows adequate access to the necessary capital to finance the project may include but are not necessarily hmlted to: -14- Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures . Cost and cost benefit to the City; Financing and the impact on the debt or debt burden of the City; 3. Financial plan; 4. Estimated cost; 5. Life-cycle cost analysis; and 6. The identity of any third party that will provide financing for the project and the nature and timing of their commitment. 7. Comparable costs of other project delivery methods. D. Proiect Benefit and Compatibility Factors to be considered in determining the proposed project's compatibility with the appropnate local or regional comprehensive or development plans may include but are not necessarily hm~ted to: 1. Community benefits; 2. Community support or opposition, or both; 3. Public ~nvolvement strategy; 4. Compat~bihty with existing and planned facihties, and 5. Compat~bdity with local, regtonal, and state economic development efforts. o and expenditures. F~scal ~mpact to the City of Vlrgima Beach in terms of revenues 7. Economic output of the project in terms of jobs and total economic impact on the local economy. 8. Submission of required statement regardin~ participation efforts that are to be undertaken with regard to minority-owned businesses, woman-owned businesses, and small businesses. Failure to submit thru statement shall constitute grounds to reject any proposal. -15- Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures VI. COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT Prior to acqmring, designing, constructing, improving, renovating, expanding, equipping, maintaining, or operating any qualifying project, a selected private entity shall enter into a comprehensive agreement with the City as provided by the PPEA. Any such comprehensive agreement, and any amendment thereto, must be approved by the C~ty Councd before xt ~s entered into on behalf of the City. As provided by the PPEA, the terms of the comprehensive agreement shall include but not be limited to: 1. Delivery of maintenance, performance and payment bonds or letters of credit m connection with any acquisition, design, construction, improvement, renovation, expansion, equipping, maintenance, or operation of the qualifying project, in the forms and amounts satisfactory to the City; 2. Review and approval of plans and specffications for the qualifyxng project by the C~ty; 3. The nght of the C~ty to inspect the qualifying project; 4. Mmntenance of a policy or pohcies of hability insurance or self- insurance ~n from and amount satmfactory to the City and reasonably sufficient to insure coverage of tort liability to the public and employees and to enable the continued operation of the qualifying project; 5 Monitoring of the practices of the operator by the City to ensure proper mmntenance; Reimbursement to be prod to the City for services provided by the City; o periodic bas~s, Fihng by the operator of appropriate financial statements on a 8. Polimes and procedures govermng the rights and responsib~hties of the City and the operator in the event that the comprehensive agreement is terminated or there is a material default by the operator, including the conditions governing assumption of the duties and responsibilities of the operator by the C~ty and the transfer or purchase of property or other interests of the operator by the City; 9. Providing for such user fees, lease payments, or service payments, ~f any, as may be established from time to t~me by agreement of the parties, whxch shall be the same for persons using the famht~es under hke conditions and shall not materially -16- Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures discourage use of the qualifyang project. Classifications according to reasonable categories for assessment of user fees may be made. 10. Requiring a copy of any servme contract to be filed w~th the C~ty and providing that a schedule of the current user fees or lease payments shall be made available by the operator to any member of the public upon request. 11. The terms and conditions under which the responsible public entity may contribute financial resources, if any, for the qualifying project; and 12. Any other provisaons reqmred by applicable law. Any changes in the terms of the comprehensive agreement as may be agreed upon by the parties from time to time shall be added to the comprehensive agreement only by written amendment. VII. GOVERNING PROVISIONS In the event of any conflict between these provisions and the PPEA, the terms of the PPEA shall control. -17- CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: MEETING DATE: Resolution Endorsing Apphcation for Federal Transportation Enhancement Funds for the Following Project: Ferry Plantation House Restoration - Phase I June 24, 2003 Background: The Federal Transportation Enhancement Program is a category of fundtng (80% federal, 20% match) which offers an opportunity for unique and creative actmns to ~ntegrate transportation into commumties and the natural environment. In prewous years, the following City projects have been awarded funds' Pungo-Park Connector Trml, Arts Center/Oceanfront Connector Trail, Cape Henry L~ghthouse RestoraUon, and Cape Henry Extension Trail. Funding applications for the Ferry Plantation House project were submitted in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2002 Considerations: Approximately $18.5 milhon may be available for statew~de Enhancement projects in FY 2003-2004. These funds are awarded on a compent~ve bas~s by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and do not count toward the City's urban allocation. To be eligible, an application, along with a Resolution of Endorsement from Council, must be submitted by July 1. An endorsement by the Metropolitan Planmng Organization ~s also required. Public Information: The Ferry Plantation House Restoration, Phase I project has been approved by Council at seven previous Council meetings Alternatives: 1) Continue flus competitive grant process to fund this project, 2) Seek/provide other funding for this project; 3) Do not fund this project. Recommendations: The Council must endorse this project by Resolution in order to qualify for possible funding approval. Attachments: 1) A Resolution of Endorsement for the project; 2) Project descnptmn Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager~ l~- .~~Y'~ F'\Users\WMacah\WP\ORDRES\enchancementarf wpd RESOLUTION OF ENDORSEMENT TO THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR THE FERRY PLANTATION HOUSE RESTORATION (PHASE I) AS A PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation, along with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, has announced the availability of Transportation Enhancement Funds for qualified projects; WHEREAS, approximately Eighteen and One-Half Mzllion Dollars ($18.5 Million) may be available to Virginia localzties for transportation enhancement projects during the 2003-2004 Fiscal Year; WHEREAS, the City Council has been advised that projects funded by this program require a local match, either in-kind or cash, of twenty percent (20%); WHEREAS, the City Councml has been further advised and acknowledges that in the event the City elects to cancel a project funded by this program prior to its completion, the Czty shall be requzred to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportatmon for funds expended for such project; WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Planning Organization has endorsed the City's proposed transportation enhancement project; WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board construction allocation procedures, a resolutzon of endorsement must be recezved from the City Council before the 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Virginia Department of Transportation will program an enhancement project in the applicant's locality; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the importance of transportation enhancement projects as a way of integrating transportation into our community and natural environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the Council hereby endorses to the Commonwealth Transportation Board the Ferry Plantation House Restoration I) as a proposed transportation enhancement project. ADOPTED by the Council of the Cmty of Vmrginza Beach, Virginia, this day of , 2003. CA-8901 wmm/ordres/EnhancementRes, wpd June 9, 2003 Ri APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS- Planning Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: C'- ~ttorney's O'ff~c~- FERRY PLANTATION HOUSE RESTORATION, PHASE I Located in the City of Virginia Beach, Ferry Plantation was once an ~ntegral part of the Colom al and post-colonial transportation system when a ferry operated to carry people and goods across the western branch of the Lynnhaven Raver. The property ~s located on the Bays~de Hmtory Trml, a driving, walking, and bilong trml that has already received an Award for Excellence by the Learning Resources Network. This traxl will be used as a model for future h~story trmls Ferry Plantation House will educate people about the h~story of the area, including transportatmn systems that were used on the ~mportant waterways of Virgima. The house, built circa 1830, is one of the few remmmng examples of Federal period architecture remmning in the Tidewater area of Virgima. The site was formerly the location of the ferry landing estabhshed in 1642; the first brick courthouse for Princess Anne County built 1735, a post-office, a tavern, a jail including stock and pdlory built 1735, and the Walke manor house of 1751. The plantation site was the source of one of the most significant, intact, 18~' century collections unearthed by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation's Archaeology Department, prior to the construction of Cheswick Lane. Ferry Plantation House is now owned by the City of V~rglnla Beach and leased to the Fnends of the Ferry Plantation House (FOFPH) to oversee the restoratmn and rehabd~tation. Using as a basis for fimd~ng a $68,500 appropnatmn from the C~ty, FOFPH has leveraged the ~mt~al funding w~th fund- raising and m-kind donations to do much of what was recommended ~n an ~mt~al architectural rev~e~ as Phase I to stabilize the house. In-kind donations and fund-rinsing efforts have augmented the initial funding through partnenng with professional orgamzatmns, ~nd~mduals, and commumty groups. An Architectural Advisory Board was formed in 1998 to further provide grat~s, expert advme on the h~stoncal restoration of the property. Funds are requested to complete Phase I for those specialized areas where expertise is required which precludes donations of services, specifically, stabilizing the existing fragde, original brick exterior whmh was protected by stucco until it was removed by a developer in 1989. Also, the house, including a bathroom, must be made ADA accessible, and the walkway needs to be improved to conform to histoncal as well as safety standards. The estimated cost for this phase of the project is $145,000, non-federal participation will be $30,000 and requested funding through the Virginia Transportation Enhancement Program is $115,000. We beheve the project meets ten of the twelve enhancement criteria. Upon completion of this phase, the property will enhance the surrounding neighborhood and provide a visual historic interpretation of the site of the colomal ferry landing. As part of the Bays~de H~story Trail, this phase will provide an upgrading of the project and its site with interpretive s~gnage for pedestrians and cyclists when the house ~s closed, while safety and access~bdity features w~ll allow the house to be open for the public. Total estimated cost is $145,000 ($115,000 enhancement fund request; $30,000 local match). CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual, Amendment #7 MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 Background: The Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual was adopted by City Council on June 14, 1994 with the provision that all amendments shall be forwarded to C~ty Council for adoption. Considerations: Amendment #7 includes a compilation of proposed revisions to the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual These rewsions ~nclude minor typographical revisions to the Table of Contents and three technical changes to Chapter 8 and Appendix C A summary of these changes is attached. The amendment has been comp~led and reviewed by City staff Alternatives: Not Adopt the changes to the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual. Recommendations: Public Works recommends adoption of Amendment #7. Attachments: Letter from Tidewater Builders Associabon Resolution to Adopt Amendment Number 7 of the Public Works Specificabons and Standards Manual Summary of Changes to the Public Works Specificabons and Standards Manual (February 2003) Recommended Action: Adopt Amendment #7 to Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual Submitting Department/Agency: Pubhc Work~ A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION AND PROMULGATION OF AMENDMENT NUMBER 7 TO THE PUBLIC WORKS SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS MANUAL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 WHE~, by resolution adopted June 14, 1994, City Council authorized the adoption and promulgation of the Specifications and Standards Manual ("Manual") developed by the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works; W1~EREAS, pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Manual, all amendments to the Manual must be presented to City Council for formal adoption, and since its original adoption in 1994, the Council has approved six previous amendments to the manual; and WHEREAS, over the past year, employees of the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division have developed revisions and updates to all ex~sting engineering materials, details, and technical requirements relating to the Manual and have compiled an Amendment Number 7. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the Council hereby approves and authorizes the adoption and promulgation of Amendment Number 7 to the Specifications and Standards Manual developed by the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2003 May 30, 2003 27 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: 29 ~lic Works J APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ~ Department ~,-~------- 1953-2003 John C Napol,tano ' . President : '~_ John W luhano III - V~ce president Edward O Yoder Associate wce pres~ent Jeffrey J Wermers Treasurer John E Ohvlen Secretary Channing A Pfelffer Execubve vice president/ Chief execubve officer Budder D~rectors John W A~nshe Jr Wdham B Cross Scott L Crumley Robert H DeFord Ill Dennis M Graf Pete O Kotandes Branch P Lawson W H McCutcheonJr Associate Directors G Robert Aston Jr J Gregory Dodd Thomas C Leffew Pamla H Pekmn J Van Rose Jr Clarence E Sutton R~chard B Thurmond H Mac Weaver II Directors Emenh Joseph C Add~ngton Jr Edward P Brogan Wdham J Fanney R~chard D Guy Wdham L Hendncks Frederick J Napodtano Sr Juhan Rashl~nd Howard M We~sberg NAHB Past Presidents Fredenck J Napol~no Sr Stanley Waranch NAHB L~fe B~rectors Edward P Brogan Lawrence J Goldnch Robert A Lawson Jr Stephen J Magula Jr Fredenck J Napol~no Sr V~ncent A Napol~ano M~chael D Newsome Juhan Rashkmd M~chael P Rashkmd Stanley Waranch Howard M We~sberg Wendell A White HBAV Past Presidents LeeA Gffford (deceased) David A Howard (deceased) Fredenck J Napol~no Sr Vincent A Napohtano Theodore S Schlossman Douglas W Talbot Stanley Waranch Honorary Members Doyle E Hull Owen B Pickett "/"," 2 8 Tidewater Builders Association March 26, 2003 Mr. Phillip D. Pullen, PE Office of the City Engineer Mummpal Center Building 2 2405 Courthouse Drive Virg]ma Beach, V]rgima Re: Public Works Specifications and Standards - 2003 Dear Phil; Our builder members were notified of the proposed revisions to Drawings C-9 and C-gA and the new Specification for utility test hole backfill, C-20 in early February We also posted the specfficatlons on our webslte. To date, I have not received any negative comments regarding these rems~ons. I hope tins will assast you m completing your review. Thank you for allowing us an oppormmty to comment. Please adwse when the revisions become final and we'll make notice on our website. Regards, Claudia K. Cotton Staff Vice Premdent 2117 Smth Avenue, Chesapeake, VA 23320-2515, Phone (757) 420-2434, Fax (757) 424-5954, www tbaonhne org Affihated w~h the Home Budders Assoc~abon of V~rg~ma and the National Asso~abon of Home Budders Stmunary of Changes to the Public Works Eng~neenng Specifications and Standards Manual February 2003 General Table of Contents Minor typographical revisions. CHAPTER 8 Section 8.7 Retention (Wet) and Detention (Dry) Storm Water Management Facility (SWMF) Design Guidelines After the 3~d paragraph, the following paragraph was added: "Shallow Marshes are prohibited in residential neighborhoods and commercial developments bordering residential properties." APPENDIX C Replace Drawing C-9 (Concrete Paver Substitute) with the attached Revised Drawings C-9 and C-9A. Add new Drawing C-20 (Utihty Test Hole Backfill Standard). Ko ORDINANCES 1. Orchnances to AMEND the City Code: a. 38 5-5 and 5-12 and REPEAL § 5-11 re domestic animals. b. § 2-78 re background investigations of applicants for public employment c. § 7.1 re definition of a bicycle do 8 23-7 re interference with City officers in the performance of their duties; and, ADDING § 23-7.3 re resisting lawful arrest e. 88 21-3, 21-199, 21-29, 21-323.1, 21-323 and 21-344 to reflect revisions to the State Code re motor vehicles, farm machinery, highway signs, work area speed limits, electrical devices, reimbursement of expenses 8 35-11 to reflect rev~slons to the State Code re administrative collection of delinquent taxes or charges . Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the Department of Museums and Cultural Arts to ACCEPT two (2) bronze statues, for display at the Judicial Center, l~om the Council of Garden Clubs of Virginia Beach and the Virginia Beach Child Advocacy Network (VBC~). o Ordinance to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachment into a portion of the City's property al Lake Rudee in Shadowlawn Heights by PAUL S. and DENA HIGH SAWYER to construct and maintain a fixed pier, aluminum ramp, floating pier, boat lift and four (4) piles at 7 Caribbean Avenue. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) . Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $1,599,750 from the Virginia Comprehensive Services Act office to the FY 2002-03 operating budget of the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) special revenue fund re mandated special education and foster care servtces. . Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $145,569 in additional State revenue and $128,760 of fund balance within the Sheriff's Department Special Revenue Fund in the FY 2003-04 operating budget re compensation and purchase of additional equipment. . Orchnance to APPROPRIATE $5,450 in civil charges collected from the Wetlands and Coastal Primary Sand Dune ordinance violations to the Department of Agriculture's FY 2002-03 operating budget re environmental restoration and habitat enhancement projects . Ordinance to TRANSFER $18,000 to the FY 2002-03 Municipal Council Donations account ~n behalf of the Virginia Beach Public Schools Education Foundation i i i ii · ! i i i i i CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain the C~ty Code Pertaining to Domestic Animals MEETING DATE: July 24, 2003 Background: The 2003 Session of the General Assembly made several changes to the State Code regarding domestic animals. To reflect these changes, City Code §§ 5-5 and 5-12 must be amended, and City Code § 5-11 should be repealed, requiring City Animal Control Officers to use State Code § 3.1- 796.122. Considerations: Amending §§ 5-5 and 5-12 of the City Code will ensure these provisions of the Code correctly reflect the provisions of the State Code that go into effect July 1, 2003. Repealing § 5-11 will require future cruelty to animal charges to be written under State Code, thus ensuring subsequent offenses can be charged as felonies, if warranted. Public Information: This ordinance w~ll be advertised in the same manner other Council agenda items are advertised. · Recommendations: Adopt ordinance · Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Law F:\UserskSTs]outs\WP\WORKkKDRkSec 5-5 5-11 5-12 arfwpd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO CONTROL OF DANGEROUS OR VICIOUS DOG, CRUELTY TO ANIMALS GENERALLY, AND ABANDONING DOMESTIC ANIMAL IN PUBLIC PLACE OR ON PROPERTY OF ANOTHER. SECTIONS AMENDED' §~ 5-5 AND 5-12 SECTION REPEALED' §5-11 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 5-11 is repealed and Sect!ons 5-5, and 5-12 of the City Code are hereby amended and reordalned, to read as follows: Sec. 5-5. Control of dangerous or vicious dog. (a) Definitions. As used in this section, each of the following terms shall have the meaning respectively ascribed thereto- Dangerous dog means a canine or canine crossbreed ~ that has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal, u=,~== =~,=,~ ~ uv~, or killed a companion anlma however, when a doq attacks or bites another dog, the attackinq or b~tinq doq shall not be deemed danqerous (1) if no serious physical injury as determined by a licensed veterinarian has occurred to the ocher dog as a result of the attack or bite or (il) both do~s are owned by the same person. No dog shall be found to be a dancerous do~ as a result of biting, attackin~ or inflictin~ injury on another dog while enqaged with an owner or custodian as part of lawful hunting or participatin~ in an orqanized, lawful dog handling event. 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Owner shall include any person who (i) has a right of property (ii) keeps or harbors; (iii) has in his or her care; (iv) acts as custodian of; or (v) permits to remain on or about his or her premises, any dangerous or vicious dog. Vicious dog means a canine or canine crossbreed ~ that has (i) killed a person; (ii) inflicted serious injury to a person, including multiple bites, serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health or serious impairment of a bodily function; or (iii) continued to exhibit the type of behavior ~ that resulted in a previous finding by a court that it is a dangerous dog, provided that its owner has been given notice of that finding. COMMENT This amendment redefines "dangerous dog" to exclude instances of dog ~ dog where 1) there is no serious physical i~u~ to the attacked dog, or 2) when both dogs are owned by the same person, or 3) if the dog is with the owner or custodian while engaged in a law~l hunting event or dog handling event. (b) Any animal control officer who has reason to believe after investigatzon that a canine or canine crossbreed within his or her jurisdictzon is a dangerous or vzcious dog shall apply to a magistrate of the City of Virgznia Beach for the issuance of a summons requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to appear before the general district court at a specifzed time. The summons shall advise the owner of the nature of the proceeding and the matters at issue. The animal control officer shall confzne the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. If the animal control officer determines that the owner 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 or custodian can confine the animal in a manner that protects the public safety, he or she may permit the owner or custodian to confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. The court, through its contempt powers, may compel the owner, custodian or harborer of the animal to prcduce the animal. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a dangerous dog, the court shall order the animal's owner to comply with the appzopziate provisions of thzs ~ ordinance. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a vicious dog, the court shall order that the animal be euthanized in accordance with the provIsions of Code of Vzrginia ~ 3.1-796.119, as amended. COMMENT Thisamendmentexpandsthelegalliabili~rtheactsofadogtoinclude"custodians"aswell as owners. (c) No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous or vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed. No animal shall be found to be a dangerous or vicious dog if the threat, injury or damage was sustained by a person who was (i) committing, at the time, a crime upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian; (ii) committing, at the time, a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian; or (iii) provoking, tormenting or physically abusing the animal, or can be shown to have repeatedly 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 9O 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 provoked, tormented, abused or assaulted the animal at other times. No police dog that was engaged in the performance of its duties as such at the time of the acts complained of shall be found to be a dangerous or vicious dog. No animal which, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, or its owner or owner's property, shall be found to be a dangerous or vicious dog. COUNT This amendment expands the legal liabiliW ~r the acts of a dog to include "custodians" as well as owners. (e) Ail certificates obtained pursuant to this section shall be renewed annually for the same fee and in the same manner as the initial certificate was obtained. CertIficates or renewals thereof required pursuant to this section shall only be issued to persons eighteen (18) years of age or older, who present satisfactory evidence (i) of the animal's current rabies vaccination, applicable; and (ii) that the animal is and will be confined in a proper enclosure, or is and will be confined inside the owner's residence, or is and will be muzzled and confined in the owner's fenced-in yard until a proper enclosure is constructed. Additionally, any owner who applies for a certificate or renewal thereof under this section shall not be issued a certificate or renewal thereof unless he or she presents satisfactory evidence that (i) his or her residence is and will continue to be posted 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 with clearly visible signs warning both minors and adults of the presence of a dangerous dog on the property; and (ii) the animal has been permanently identified by means of a %attoc on the inside thigh or by electronic implantation. Any certificate or renewal thereof required to be obtained under 5h~s section shall only be issued to a person eighteen (18) years of aqe or older who pres~n~.~ satisfactory evidence that (i) the animal has been neutered or spayed; and (ii) he or she has obtained liability insurance coverage for animal bites, at policy limits of at least ~ one hundred thousand dollars ($50,000.00 $100,000.00) . COMMENT This amendment increases the liability insurance policy for owners of dogs that have been declared "dangerous" from $50,000.00 to $100,000.00. Proof of insurance is necessary to obtain the required registration certificate and the owner must be at least 18 years of age. (i) Any person who owns an animal ~ that has been found to be a dangerous dog and who willfully fails to comply with ~ provision the requirements of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. COMMENT Thisamendmentonly modifieswordingto mirrorwordingusedinthestatecode. (k) Notwithstandinq the provisions of subsection (b), an animal control officer may determine, after investigation, whether 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 a doq is a dangerous doq. If the animal control officer determines that a dog is a danqerous dog, he or she may order the animal's owner to comply with the provisions of this section. If the animal owner disaqrees with the animal control officer's determlnatlon, he or she may appeal the determination to the general district court for a trial on the merits. COMMENT This amendment allows the Animal Control Officer, after an investigation, to declare a dog "Dangerous" and require the owner to comply with the restrictions imposed by this ordinance. If the owner disagrees with the Animal Control Officer's determination, the owner may appeal to the General District Court. (1) The owner of any companion animal that is injured or killed by a doq shall be entitled to recover damages consistent with the provisions of Code of Virqinia ~ 3.1-796.127 from the owner of such doq in an appropriate action at law if (i) the injury occurred on the premises of the companion animal's owner, and (ii) the owner of the offending doq did not have the permission of the companion animal's owner for the dog to be on the premises at the time of the attack. COMMENT This amendment allows for civil recovery of damages from a dog owner when his dog kills or injures another person's companion animal if the incident took place on the premises of the companion animal's owner and the attacking dog was trespassing at the time of the attack. Sec 5,~ ................~ ==~ ~x to=,~,=~ ~ ............ (Reserved) 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 (a) Any person who does any of the following shall be guilty (1) Overrides, overdrives, overloads, tortures, ill treats, ~=~ infl~ts inhumane injury or pain not connected with~==--- fad= s~=~=~f=~ or med~=~ experimentation to, or cruell-- or ~...~=~=oS~=~ly b=~s, maims, rout ..... ~ any animal, whether belonging to himself or another, or deprives any animal of necessary o~°t=~=, food or =~ or proper °~==~e= and protection from the weather or causes any of the above things or, being the ~.~=~ of ouch animal, permits such ~o ~ (2) Wzllf..lly o=ts on ~u~, ~no~.~=~es, engage= in or ~n any way furthers any act of cruelty to any animal. {3~ C=z=~=o or ~°=o to be carried in or upon any vehicle or vessel oz otherwise any animal in a cruel, brutal, oz- inhumane manner, so as to produce torture oz- unnecessary suffering. {b, ~,o~,ing ~n th~s o=~ion shall be const ....... to the dehorning of cattle. uff~ce= . (~) :lumane - : s of the ~=~, pursuant ~ section 10 2-3n~, of the Code of Virginia, shall be vested with the authority of enforcing this section. COMMF,~T This section has been repealed because State Code § 3.1-796.122 that makes some second animal cruelty offenses a felony when committed within five years of a previous animal cruelty conviction, uses the wording "or any previous violation of this subsection or subsection A", but does not make this applicable when the previous conviction was charged under a similar local ordinance. 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 Sec. 5-12. Abandoning or dumping domestic animal~ in public place or on property of another. (a) Any person who shall abandon any dog, cat or other domesticated animal in any public place, including the right-of-way of any public road, street or highway, or on the property of another shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to dump or otherwise dispose of a companion animal for the purpose of d~sposal, on public property, including a public highway, right-of-way, property adjacent to such highway or right-of-way, or on private property without the written consent of the owner thereof or his agent. 195 When a violation of this subsection has been observed by any 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 person, and the companion animal illegally dumped or d!sposed of has been ejected or removed from a motor vehicle, the owner or operator of such motor vehicle shall be presumed to be the person ejecting or disposing of the companion animal. Such presumptmon shall be rebuttable by competent evidence. A violation of this subsection shall constitute a class 1 m~sdemeanor punlshable by confinement in jail for not more than twelve (12) months and a fmne of not less than $250 or more than $2,500, either or both. COMMENT This amendment defines the illegal disposal of companion animals and makes such illegal disposal a Class 1 misdemeanor. This Ordinance will take effect July 1, 2003. 208 209 210 211 212 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Vlrg~nza Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2003. CA-8892 stsiouts/wp/work/KDR/Sec. 5-5, 5-11 & 5-12.ord.wpd R4 June 11, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT- ~uDe/az{ 6f- Animal Con~Jrol APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY' / Ci' -' 's ~ffi-ce ty ttorney Police Department CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain the City Code Pertaining to Background Investigations of Applicants for Public Employment MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 Background: The City Code currently requires background investigations via the Virginia Central Criminal Record Exchange for persons applying for City employment or volunteer service for specified types of jobs. The 2003 Session of the General Assembly now requires applicants who are offered or accept employment to also provide personal descriptive information, along with finger pnnts for submission to the FBI for further background investigation. Considerations: Amending § 2-78 will ensure this provision of the City Code correctly reflects the requirements of the State Code. Public Information: This ordinance will be advertised in the same manner other Council agenda items are advertised. · Recommendations: Adopt Ordinance · Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Adopt Submitting Department/Agency: Law Code Revision for Background and FBI Checks Because the C~ty of V~rg~ma Beach has a local ordinance reqmnng background checks on employees, we must comply with the state code changes (added section 15.2-1503.1) addressed ~n H2373. Facts: The amendment to the State Code reqmres that we collect fingerprints and do an FBI record check on any apphcant who is offered or accepts employment after July 1, 2003. Th~s ~ncludes those employed through a temporary services agency. We do not need to do th~s check on volunteers. They can continue to have a V~rglma State Check only. Cost associated with an FBI check: $37.00 (current charge for the State Criminal Record Check is $15.00). T~me frame for the State Police to obtain the FBI check is approximately 1 week (state checks are currently completed ~n approximately 24 hours). All individuals employed ~n Police and the 911 Center already have th~s level of check performed What needs to happen: · Once the ordinance ~s approved by C~ty Council, we (Human Resources) need to send a copy to the Virginia State Pohce and ask that they forward our request to the FBI and ask for a number for us to use. Th~s is necessary for us to be able to receive the results of an FBI check. We need to work out the process to have the candidates referred to the Forensic Services D~v~s~on of Pohce for fingerpnnt~ng and for the fingerpnnt cards and appropriate paperwork to be sent to the V~rginia State Police We must work w~th the temporary services providers to ~nsure that the same level of checks are performed on temporary staff assigned to the City. A decision wall be needed concerning who will pay for the expanded checks - the employee or the City. Currently the city departments absorb the cost. Concerns: The budgetary ~mpact could be substantial for some departments and/or candidates ~f we choose to charge them. · The process will be different and ~ncludes additional steps in the select~on process. Alternative: · We have been informed by the C~ty Attorney's Office that our only option (and th~s really doesn't seem to be an option) ~s to repeal the current ordinance requinng background checks and no longer reqmre Criminal Record Checks at all. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH PERTAINING TO BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS OF APPLICANTS FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH· VIRGINIA: That Section 2-78 of the City Code is hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows: Sec. 2-78. Background investigations of a~licants for public _B~mployment. (a) In order to determine whether, in the interest of public welfare and safety, an applicant for public emplo~Lent who is offered or accepts employment with the city, including applicants for employment under contract with any city agency, may be disqualified from such employment by reason of a criminal record, the director of human resources or his designee shall require any such applicant to submit to finger printing and to provide personal descriptive information to be forwarded along with the applicant's fingerprints through the Central Criminal Record Exchange to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of obtaining criminal history information reqarding such applicant. Such applicant shall pay for the cost of fingerprinting or a criminal records check, or both. Further, the director of human resources or his designee shall request from the Virginia Central Criminal Record Exchange a criminal record check of each applicant ~=~c~ ---l-~ent .... appl~ ........... ~ .......................... ~ --- city a~ency, and each% applicant for city volunteer service whose 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 anticipated duties or responsibilities will involve (1) access to public records or to personal information as defined in Code of Virginia section 2.1-379, (ii) accountability for public funds, (iii) access to city supplies, (iv) entry into secured areas outside of working hours, (v) right of entry onto private property, or (vi) child care or assistance to the elderly or disabled. (b) Criminal history information considered in accordance with this section shall include outstanding warrants, pendlng criminal charges and records of conviction. Records of dlsposltlOpS which occurred while an applIcant was considered a 3uven~le shall not be referenced unless authorized by court order, federal regulation or state statute authorizing such dissemination. (c) Any applicant who is denied employment or rejected as a volunteer on the basis of an investigation summary obtained in accordance with this section may inspect that summary for the purpose of clarifying, explaining or denying the information therein. (d) The criminal history information provided in accordance with this section shall be used solely to assess eligibility for public employment or service, and shall not be disseminated to any person not involved in the assessment process. COMMENT This amendment requires those persons offered employment w~h the Ci~, including applicants ~r employment under contract with any ci~ agency to submit to a criminal background check that includes the submission of candidate's fingerprints and personal descriptive in~rmation to the F.B.I. 55 56 57 58 59 60 This ordinance will be effective on July 1, 2003. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2003. CA-8893 stsiouts/wp/work/KDR/Sec.2-78.ord.wpd R4 June 11, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS' Poll6e D~partment ' ~an ~e sb'urces - -- APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFIC.~E. ~C~f: Department of La~ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain the C~ty Code Pertaining to the Definition of Bicycle MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 Background: The 2003 Session of the General Assembly changed the definition of "bicycle" to include the requirement that the machine must have a seat. This definition specifically excludes toys for young children. The change also states that a bicycle is considered a vehicle when operated on the highway. Considerations: Amending City Code § 7-1 will result ~n the City Code definition of "bicycle" mirroring the State Code definition of "bicycle" Public Information: This ordinance will be advertised in the same manner other Council agenda items are advertised. · Recommendations: Adopt ordinance · Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: Law City Manager~ [~__ ,~~ F \Users\STslouts\WP\WOKKkKI)R\Sec 7-1 arf wpd 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE DEFINITION OF BICYCLE SECTION AMENDED: 7-1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 7-1 of the City Code is hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows' Sec. 7-1. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, unless clearly indicated to the contrary- Bicycle: A device propelled solely by human power, upon which a person may ride either on or astride a regular sea- attached thereto, having pedals, two {2) or having two or more wheels tandem, including children's bicycles except a toy Intended for use by young children. A bicycle shall be a vehicle while operated on the highway, and a seat height of moze than twenty-five {25) inches fr~m the ground when adjusted to its maximum hezght. COMMENT This amendment modifies the current definition of bicycle to include the requirement that the machine must have a seat. The change specifically excludes toys for young children. The change also states that a bicycle is considered a vehicle when operated on the highway. This ordinance will take effect on July 1, 2003. 27 28 Adopted by the Cmty Council of the C~_ty of Virginia, on this day of , 2003. 29 30 31 CA-8897 stsiouts/wp/work/KDR/Sec. 7-1. ord. wpd R3 June 10, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS' Police Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ~ De~art~r{t of Law - CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain the City Code Pertaining to Resisting and Making Materially False Statements to Law Enforcement Officers MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 Background: The 2003 session of the General Assembly defined the concept of "intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent a lawful arrest" and classified such conduct as a Class 1 misdemeanor. The General Assembly also changed the act of making false statements to law enforcement officers from a Class 2 misdemeanor to a Class 1 misdemeanor. Considerations: Amending §23-7 and adding §23-7.3 will ensure these portions of the City Code correctly reflect the provisions of the State Code. Public Information: This ordinance will be advertised in the same manner other Council agenda items are advertised. · Recommendations: Adopt ordinance · Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: Law City Manager:~ I~'- ' '~~ F:\Users\STs~outs\WP\WORKkKDRKSec. 23-7 & 23-7.3 arf. wpd 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO MISLEADING, OBSTRUCTING, ETC., CITY OFFICERS AND ADDING A NEW SECTION PERTAINING TO RESISTING LAWFUL ARREST SECTION AMENDED: ~23-7 SECTION ADDED: ~23-7.3 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA' That Section 23-7 of the City Code is hereby amended and reordained, and Section 23-7.3 is hereby added to read as follows- Sec. 23-7. R~i~ting, Misleading, obstructing, etc., city officers. (a) If any person without just cause knowingly obstructs a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, witness or any law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties as such, or fails or refuses without just cause to cease such obstruction when requested to do so by such judge, magistrate, justice, juror, witness or law enforcement officer, he shall be guzlty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (b) If any person, by threats or force, knowzngly attempts to intimidate or impede a judge, magistrate, ]ustzce, ]uror, witness, or any law enforcement officer, lawfully engaged zn his dutzes as such, or to obstruct or impede the administration of justice in any court, he shall be deemed to be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (c) Any person who knowingly and willfully makes any materially false statement or representation to a law-enforcement officer who is in the course of conducting an investigation of a crime by another is guilty of a Class ~ ! m~sdemeanor. 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 (d) Any person or persons who unreasonably or unnecessarily obstruct a member or members of a rescue squad, whether governmental, private or volunteer, in the performance of the rescue mission or who shall fail or refuse to cease such obstruction or move on when requested to do so by a member of a rescue squad going to or at the site of a rescue mission shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. COMMENT This amendment changes ~e violation of providing ~lse in~rmation to a law- en~rcement officer ~om a Class 2 misdemeanor to a Class I misdemeanor. Sec. 23-7.3 Resistinq lawful arrest; penalty (a) Any person who intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a law-enforcement officer from lawfully arrestinq him, with or without a warrant, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (b) For the purpose of this section, intentionally preventinq or attempting to prevent a lawful arrest means fleeinc from a law-enforcement officer when (1) the officer applies physical force to the person or (2) the officer communicates to the person that he is under arrest and (1} the officer has %he legal authority and the ~mmediate Dhyslcal ability to place the person under arrest, and (ii) a reasonable person who receives such communication knows or should know that he or she is not 53 free to leave. 54 This Ordinance will be effective July 1, 2003. 55 56 57 58 59 COMMENT This new law defines and makes punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor the act of resisting a lawful arrest. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2003. 60 61 62 CA-8896 Stiouts/Work/KDR/Sec. 23-7. 23-7.3 ord.wpd R4 June 12, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS- Polic~ Depar~m~6~- - - APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY'~~ .~,~_~~, City Attorney's Office CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TEM: An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain the City Code Pertaining to Motor Vehicles MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 Background: The 2003 Session of the General Assembly made several changes to the State Traffic Code. The following secbons of the C~ty Code should be amended to reflect the changes to the State Code: §§ 21-3, 21-199, 21-299, 21-321.1, 21-323, and 21-344. Considerations: Amending the referenced ordinances will result ~n these portions of the City Code correctly reflecbng the new prows~ons of the State Code which go into effect July 1, 2003. Public Information: This ordinance will be advertised in the same manner other Council agenda items are advertised. · Recommendations: Adopt ordinance · Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Adopt Submitting Department/Agency: Law City Manage~h~'~,~--. ~S'ca~ F \Users\STslouts\WP~RK~KDR\Sec 21 et al. arf wpd 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO MOTOR VEHICLES SECTIONS AMENDED' ~ 21-3, 21-199, 21-299, 21-323.1, 21-323 and 21-344, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Sections 21-3, 21-199, 21-299, 21-323, and 21-344, of the City Code are hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows: Sec. 21-3. Compliance with chapter; general penalty for violations. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate or refuse, fail or neglect to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter. Unless otherwise specifically provided, a violation of this chapter shall constitute a traffic infraction punishable by a fine of not more than two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) ($200.00). COMMENT Thisamendmentincreasesthema~mum fine~rtrafficin~actionsffom $200 ~ $250. 21 22 23 24 25 26 Sec. 21-199. Connection between vehicles. (a) The connection between any two (2) vehicles, one of which is towing or drawing the other on a highway, shall consist of a fifth wheel, drawbar or other similar device not to exceed ten (I0) fifteen (15) feet in length from one vehicle to the other, and such two (2) vehicles shall, in addition to such drawbar or other 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 similar device, be equipped, at all times when so operated on the highway, with an emergency chain. (b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to in case of a bona f~d= =~,L=~gency resulting , ..... ' ....... : when such v-~:-~- '- bezng towed to the ~==~=o~ ~=zage or repair o~o~ ~~ o=~ furnish the -- -- ' .... 2 -- -- ~ ..... L ' ~=qu~zed se~=. ~ any such case, o~ connection may ~o~,o~-t -- I _~ __ _~ _ ' ...... ~o~=~ ~ = chain, rope o~ cable of not ~=r fi~==~ ..... ~'~=' ~==~=--~ zn length between vehicles~ provided, that a licensed operator shall be at the controls of the towed vehicle to brake and steer vehicle and control the lights thereof. (i) any farm tractor when such farm tractor is towing any farm implement or farm machinery by means of a draw bar coupled with a safety hitch pin or manufacturer's coupling device or (ii) any tow truck towing a vehicle by means of a wheel lift apparatus that employs a safety strap to hold two of the towed vehicle's wheels within a wheel lift 43 cradle in a manner consistent with instructions of the manufacturer 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 of such wheel lift apparatus. (c) For the purpose of subsection (b) "tow truck" means any motor vehicle that is constructed and used primarily for towinG, lifting or otherwise moving illegally parked or disabled vehicles. COMMENT This amendment changes the maximum allowable length of a required fifth wheel, drawbar or other similar device from 10 feet to 15 feet in length, measuring from the towing vehicle to the towed vehicle, and exempts farm tractors and tow trucks, as defined, from these restrictions. 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Sec. 21-299. Defacing, injuring, etc., signs. (a) Any person who shall intentionally deface, obscure, ~ damage, knock down or remove any ~-i~3~ legally posted, hiqhway sign as provided in this chapter shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor· (b) For the purposes of this section, "hiqhway siqn" includes, but is not limited to, an electrically powered or electronic device installed or erected by the Virginia Department of Transportation or any City of Virginia Beach agency to prevent collisions, control traffic, or provide ~uidance or warning to operators of motor vehicles. COMMENT TLs amendme~ requires ~e act of damag~g, deicing or obscuring a highw~ sign be imenfion~ ~ order to be a ~ol~ion of this ordinance. The term "highway sign" is also defined so as to include electrically powered and electronic de~ces. · · · . Sec. 21-321.1. Decreased maximum speeds in highway work zones. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate any motor vehicle in excess of a maximum speed limit approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation or by the director of public works specifically for a highway work zone. This section shall be enforceable when workers are present and when such work zone is indicated by signs displaying the maximum speed limit and the penalty for violation. 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 (b) For purposes of this section, "highway work zone" means a construction or maintenance area that is located on or beside a highway and marked by appropriate warning signs or other traffic-control devices indicating that work is in progress. (c) Violation of this section shall constitute a traffic infraction punishable by a fine of not more than two hundred fifty five hundred dollars ($250.00) ($500.00); provided, that nothing in this section shall preclude the prosecution and conviction of any person whose operation of any motor vehicle in a highway work zone, apart from speed, demonstrates a reckless disregard for life, limb or property. COMb{ENT This amendment increases the ma~mum fine ~r speeding ~ property posted h~hway work zones bom $250 to $500. Sec. 21-323. Use of electrical devices to check speed; arrest without warrant. (a) The speed of any motor vehicle may be checked by the use of laser speed determination devices, radar~ or other electrical devices. The results of such checks shall be accepted as prima facie evidence of the speed of such motor vehicle in any court or legal proceedings where the speed of the motor vehicle is at issue. (b) In any court or legal proceeding in which any question arises about the calibration or accuracy of any laser speed determination device, radar~ or other electrical device used to check the speed 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 of any motor vehicle, a certificate, or a true copy thereof, showing the calibration or accuracy of the speedometer of any vehicle or of any tuning fork employed in calibrating or testing the device, and when and by whom the calibration was made, shall be admissible as evidence of the facts therein state. No calibration or testing of such device shall be valid for longer than six (6) months. (c) The driver of any such motor vehicle may be arrested without a warrant under this section, provided the arresting officer is in uniform and displays his badge of authority and provided such officer has observed the registration of the speed of such motor vehicle by a laser speed determination device, radar or other electrical device, or has received a radio message from the officer who observed the speed of the motor vehicle registered by the laser speed determination device, radar or other electrical device; provided that, in case of an arrest based on such a message, such radio message has been dispatched ~mmediately after the speed of the motor vehicle was registered and shall have furnished the license number or other positive identification of the vehicle and the registered speed to the arresting officer. (d) For laser speed determination devices only, law enforcement officers shall, upon the request of the affected motorist, permit such motorist to observe the readinq of the device. 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 COM~E~ This amendment allows officers to use laser speed determination devices to detect speeding vehicles and requires officers to show the vehicle operator the reading of the device, if requested. Sec. 21-344 . Reimbursement for expenses of ~,~,,w ,,,~' ~ - incurred from emerqenc~ responses. (=~ Any person who~= ~- convzcted of viol=t~on of s=~on 21~6 o=~=zon ~-~22 of thms Code, or of ==~=~on I0.2-266 oz 29.1-730 of the Code of Virginia, when his operation of a motor vehicle, engine, train or watercraft --~ ~ ~- ~---:--- = : proximate ~o= of any acczdent oz znc~dent ~e~~ng zn an appropriate emergency response, shall be 1~-'-le in ~- separate c~v~' action to the city, and to any volunteer rescue squad, which may provide ouch emezgenc~- response =~= th= ~==oonable expense == in an amount not to exceed one thousand .... I~ , . ~= .... ($I 00~ 00' in the "===ou,,obl= expense, ~ loca may I - fl= ~ = -t fee of one hundred doll~ ~0.~) or ~ mznute-by-mznute accounting of th= actual costs incurred. ..... ' '- ' "appropriate emergency response" ~ ~ used zn thzo sectzon, ' ~ighti ....... fize~ ng, zncludes ~II cost= of providing law-=~o~cement, rescue, and emergency medical (c~ The provmszons .... ~ = ~= ~hz ection o::~ not preempt or ~.~ dy .......................... ty zeme =.=~z=~= to the , , ~:=~v:~==~: the~ or any volunteer rescue squad to recover the reasonable expenses of an emergency 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 response to =,~ =~d=~= or znc~dent not znvolvinw impa~=d dr~vzng or operation of a vehicle as set forth herein. id) No ~ol~y or cont~=~ of~13 znjuzy or property = ..... ~XLL~ ~ liability insurance zelatin~ to the ownership, maintenance, or use of = motor vehzcle, en ne, ====~, motorboat, or ,=~==~==~= ~oo==d, or issued for delivery, in the coJ~onweal~ o~=~ =~,o~== agaznst any civil liability under this section. (a) Any person convicted of violatinq any of the followinq provisions of the Code of Virginia, or any similar ordinance in the City Code, shall be liable in a separate civil action for reasonable expenses incurred by the City of Virginia Beach or by any volunteer rescue squad, or both, when providinq a appropriate emerqency response to any accident or incident related to such violation. (i) The provisions of Code of Virqinia sections 18.2-51.4, 18.2-266 or 29.1-783, when such operation of motor vehicle, enqine, train or watercraft while so impaired is the proximate cause of the accident or incident; (~i) The provisions of Article 7 (section 46.2-852 et seq.) of Chapter 8 of Title 46.2 relatinq to reckless driving, when such reckless drivinq is the proximate cause of the accident or incident; (iii) The provisions of Article 1 (section 46.2-300 et seq.) of Chapter 3 of Title 46.2 relating to driving without a 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 license or drivinq with a suspended or revoked license; and (iv) The provisions of Code of Virginia section 46.2-894 relating to improperly leaving the scene of an accident. (b) Personal liability under this section for reasonable expenses of an appropriate emerqency response shall not exceed $1,000 in the aggregate for a particular accident or incident. In determininq the "reasonable expenses" a flat fee of $100 may be billed, or a minute-by-minute accountin~ of the actual cost incurred may be billed. (c) As used in this section, "appropriate emergency response" includes all cost of providin~ law-enforcement, fire-fighting, rescue and emergency medical services. (d) The provisions of this section shall not preempt or limit any remedy available to the Commonwealth, the City of Virqinia Beach, or to any volunteer rescue squad to recover the reasonable expenses of an emerqency response to an accident or incident not involving impaired drivlnq operation of a vehicle or other conduct as set forth herein. COMMENT This amendment now allows the Ci~ ~oUce and Fff~ and volunteer rescue squads to recuper~e expenses incurred responding not only to DUI incidents but also to specified incidents involving charges of rec~ess driving, dri~ng without a license or with a suspended or revoked license, and lea~ng the scene of an accident. This ordinance will take effect on July 1, 2003. 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 Adopted by the City Council of the Czty of Vlrgzn~a Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2003. CA-8895 Stiouts/WORK/KDR/Sect. 21 et al.ord.wpd R5 June 11, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: Police Departmeh-t--- F'C~ee f~)f e artm~nt E}nergency Me'd~cal Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney~ s Office CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: MEETING DATE: Ordinance to Increase the Amount of City Fees for Costs Associated With Collecting Delinquent Taxes and City Charges June 24, 2003 Background: In its 2003 session, the General Assembly revised Virginia Code § 58.1- 3958, which authorizes fees to offset expenses incurred in collecting delinquent taxes and City charges. The new legislation authorizes a $10 increase in these fees, which may only be imposed on seriously delinquent accounts. Considerations: The ordinance proposes increasing the existing $20 fee to $30 for taxes or charges collected before court judgment is obtained. The existing $25 fee for taxes or charges collected after a judgment has been entered would rise to $35. Public Information: The item will be advertised as part of the City Council's Agenda. Alternatives: Leave the fees at their existing levels. Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval of Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: City Treasurer 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AN ORDINANCE TO INCREASE CITY FEES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS INCURRED IN COLLECTING DELINQUENT TAXES OR CHARGES SECTION AMENDED: ~ 35-11 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA . BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 35-11 of the City Code is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows- Sec. 35-11. Payment of administrative costs in collection of delinquent taxes or charges. The treasurer of the city is hereby authorized to impose a fee to cover the administrative cost associated with the collection of delinquent taxes or other delinquent charges. Such fee shall be in addition to all penalties and interests, and shall be in the amount of twenty thirty dollars ($20.00) ($30.00) for taxes or other charges collected sdbsequent to the fl~ of o warrant or ~o~y other appropriate legal action more than thirty (30) days after notice of delinquent taxes or charqes has been provided, pursuant to Virginia Code ~ 58.1-3919, but prior to any judgment, and in the amount of twenty-five The fee shall be thirty-five dollars ($25.00) ($35.00) for taxes or other charges collected subsequent to judgment. COMMENT In its recent session, the General Assembly revised Virginia Code § 58.1-3958, which author~es Les to offset expenses incurred in collecting delinquent taxes and City charges, to increase the amount of these Les. The ordinance proposes increasing the existing $20 he to $30 hr taxes or charges colle~ed be~re judgment, and increasing the e~sting $25 fee to $35 for taxes or charges collected a~er a judgment has been entered. 29 30 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall be effective on July 1, 2003. 31 32 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2003. CA-8902 DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/35-011ord.wpd R2 June 10, 2003 A 'P~ ED AS ~TO ONTENTS: ¢ .ty ~re~surek APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Department ~JLaw / CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Celebrate Children Garden MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 · Background: The Council of Garden Clubs of V~rginia Beach and the Virginia Beach Child Advocacy Network (VBCAN) propose to donate two separate original bronze sculptures depicting children at play from world-renowned artist Robert Cunningham, to be placed in the exisbng Celebrate Children Garden at the V~rg~n~a Beach Judicial Center. The works of art will be worth approximately $70,000. The Celebrate Children Garden celebrates and honors children. Four benches were placed around the garden in the Spring of 2002. The landscape plan also includes shrubs, flowers, and trees. It is a quiet place to reflect on those chddren who will at some point in their young lives perhaps need the intervention of the courts, whether ~t is due to problems such as child abuse or celebratory events such as an adoption. In reflection of the needs of chddren, the VBCAN and the Council of Garden Clubs propose to also include ~n the Celebrate Children Garden two bronze sculptures of chddren to serve as a permanent reminder that all children deserve a life of happiness and joy. These sculptures w~ll be made of bronze by world-renowned sculptor, Robert Cunn~ngham (see attached biography). His statue enbtled, Chzidren's C~rcle, ~s of three ethnically d~verse chddren playing in a c~rcle holding hands. The other sculpture that ~s planned to be ~ncluded m the garden will consist of multiple flgunnes (depending on fundra~sers) of Children-at-Play (arbst's sketches attached). The statuary selected for the Celebrate Children Garden w~ll represent chddren of different racIal/ethnic ong~n. The construcbon and art~sbc medium for the proposed artwork is designed for outside d~splay. The proposed sculpture will weather naturally, and the parma will improve over bme w~th httle or no maintenance required The VBCAN and the Councd of Garden Clubs w~ll pay all fees to buy the sculptures. The Department of General Services will ~nstall the pieces of art ~n theIr location. · Considerations: Following the approval process outlined ~n Adm~n~strabve Direcbve 6.06, the V~rg~nia Beach Arts and Humanibes Commission has rewewed and evaluate all aspects related to the acceptance of these sculptures and makes a recommendabon to City Councd to accept the donabon of this artwork The Department of General Services has reviewed the proposal. Their findings are as follows: - Site ~s appropriate for the placement of the proposed artwork. - Artwork w~ll require mInimum maintenance. - Landscape Services staff will install acceptable plant material in the raised plant bed, and will insure that the artwork placed ~n the tufted area is not damaged by mowers or string-trimming equipment. - There ~s no conflict w~th further development of the Judicial Center. Community support and endorsement ~s reflected with the commitment of the Council of Garden Clubs and the VBCAN, two organizabons conmsting of over 1,500 members w~th a combined history of over 50 years of responsible civic support to the Virg~ma Beach area. In addition, letters of support and endorsement from various community, c~v~c, and business leaders are following th~s request. · Public Information: Pubhc ~nformation and notificabon will be handled through the Council agenda nobfication process. Meebngs have been held w~th all the applicable City departments. · Alternatives: Do not accept the donation of artwork, place the artwork ~n another location ~n the City, or suggest a different type of artwork or subject matter · Recommendations: The C~ty of V~rg~nia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission, Department of Museums and Cultural Arts and the Department of General Services recommends approval of the attached ordinance to accept the donabon of two original bronze works of arts dep~cbng chddren at play to be placed in the existing Celebrate Children Garden at the V~rgin~a Beach Judicial Center. · Attachments: Ordinance Sketches of Proposed Artwork Revmew Letter from Department of General Services Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Museums and Cultural Arts 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE AND INSTALLATION OF A DONATION OF SCULPTURES FROM THE COUNCIL OF GARDEN CLUBS OF VIRGINIA BEACH AND THE VIRGINIA BEACH CHILD ADVOCACY NETWORK WHEREAS, the Council of Garden Clubs of Virginia Beach and the Vlrgznza Beach Chzld Advocacy Network wish to commIssIon and, once completed, donate two sculptures to be placed in the Celebrate Children Garden at the Vzrgznza Beach Judlczal Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That the Department of Museums and Cultural Arts hereby authorized to accept from the Council of Garden Clubs of Virginia Beach and the V~rg~nla Beach Child Advocacy Network two bronze sculptures to De created by artist Robert Cunn~ngham. 2. That the Department of Public Works is directed to install the above-referenced statues in the Celebrate Chmldren Garden at the Virgznia Beach Judicial Center. Adopted by the Council of the Czty of Vmrgznla Beach, V~rg~n!a on the day of , 2003. CA-8920 Ordzn/Noncode/sculptord.wpd R-1 - June 17, 2003 Approved as to Content: Departmer~t %~ Museums and Cultural Arts Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: Department SKETCHES OF PROPOSED ARTWORK SKETCHES OF PROPOSED ARTWORK ~ORM NO P S OF OUR NA'T~ City o£ Vi ini : Beach INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE Date' To: From: SubJect: May 12, 2003 Barry Shockley, General S Chuck Davis, GS/Bmldlnge~ Celebrate Children Garden The application for the donation of art work associated w~th the above project has been reviewed by both Eddie Barnes and me. In reviewing the apphcation and the support material, we both are of the following oplmon: , The site is appropriate for the placement of the art work being proposed by the group . Based upon the type of art work being recommended, there will be minimum mmntenance on the art work. Landscape Services staff will ~nstall acceptable plant material ~n the rinsed plant bed, and will insure that the art work placed ~n the turfed area is not damaged by mowers or stnng-trimming equipment. o Based on the current placement of the art work, there ~s no confhct with further development of the Judicial Center. Due to this art work being governed by the Adrmnistratlve Directive concerning donated art work and not memorials, the request submitted does not have to be reviewed by the Memorials Committee. If I can prowde you with further ~nformation, please let me know. mtp attachment c: Eddie Barnes E~y Spruill CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Encroachment Request for Paul S. Sawyer and Dena High Sawyer MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 Background: Mr. and Mrs. Paul S. Sawyer have requested permission to encroach ~nto city property of Lake Rudee near the end of Caribbean Avenue in Shadowlawn Heights. The purpose is to build and maintain a fixed p~er, an aluminum ramp, a floating pier, a boat I~ft, and four (4) p~les ~n Lake Rudee behind a house they are building at 7 Caribbean Avenue. Considerations: Staff has reviewed th~s request and has no objections to this encroachment from an operational and maintenance standpoint. There are s~milar approved encroachments in this neighborhood. Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda. Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as requested, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by Council. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of this encroachment subject to the applicant complying with conditions set forth in the agreement. Authonze City Manager to sign agreement. Attachments: OrdInance, Locabon Map, Agreementwith plat attached and Photos. Recommended Action: Approve request and authorize City Manager to sign agreement Submitting Department/AgencY: Public Works ~ ~,~ ~ City Manager: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A PORTION OF THE CITY'S PROPERTY KNOWN AS LAKE RUDEE BY PAUL S. SAWYER AND DENA HIGH SAWYER, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGN AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, PAUL S. SAWYER AND DENA HIGH SAWYER, desire to construct and maintain a fixed pier, an aluminum ramp, a floating pier, a boat lift, and four (4) piles upon the City's property known as Lake Rudee. WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2- 2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize a temporary encroachment upon the City's property subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA' That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained ~n §§ 15.2- 2009 and 15 2-2107, Code of Virgima, 1950, as amended, PAUL S. SAWYER AND DENA HIGH SAWYER, their he~rs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for a fixed pier, an aluminum ramp, a floating p~er, a boat lift, and four (4) piles upon the City's property known as Lake Rudee as shown on that certain plat entitled "ENCROACHMENT REQUEST PROPOSED PRIVATE PIER FOR PAUL S. SAYER LOT A, RESUB. LOTS 1 THRU 5, BLK. 40, SHADOW LAWN HEIGHTS BEACH DISTRICT VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (INST. NO 20020820301176) DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2003", a copy of which ~s on file in the Department of Public Works and 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 to which reference is made for a more particular description; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment is expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of V~rginia Beach and PAUL S. SAWYER and DENA HIGH SAWYER (the "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authodzed designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as PAUL S. SAWYER and DENA HIGH SAWYER and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. Adopted by the Council of the City of VIrginia Beach, Virginia, on the ~ day of ,2003. 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 CA- PREPARED May 20, 2003 H'\WP8\KENNEDY~ENCS\sawyer.ord.wpd APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS S I GNATURE DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENC~ FORM c~ A~om~eZ. PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTIONS 58.1-811 (a)(3) AND 58.1-811 (c)(4) REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of . c%~ . , 20 ~ , by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and PAUL S. SAWYER and DENA HIGH SAWYER, his wife, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. W I T N E S S E T H: THAT, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract or parcel of land designated and described as: "Lot A, Block 40 (a Re-Subdivision of Lots 1 thru 5 in Blk. 40, M.B. 7, PG. 14), Subdivision of Shadowlawn Heights, Instrument No. 200208203019176", and being further designated and described as 7 Caribbean Ave., Virginia Beach, VA 23451; and WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a fixed pier, an aluminum ramp, a floating pier, a boat lift, and four (4) piles, a "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 property known as Lake Rudee, the "Encroachment Area"; and the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within the Encroachment Area. I GPIN: 2427-00-3907 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use the Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to- wit: A Temporary Encroachment into the Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "ENCROACHMENT REQUEST PROPOSED PRIVATE PIER FOR PAUL S. SAWYER LOT A, RESUB. LOTS 1 THRU 5, BLK. 40, SHADOW LAWN HEIGHTS BEACH DISTRICT VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (INST. NO. 200208203019176) DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2003", a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from the Encroachment Area by the Grantee, and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and 2 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 post a performance bond or other form of surety, approved by the Development Services Center of the Planning Department, in accordance with their engineer's cost estimate. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain an approved Joint Permit Application from the Waterfront Operations Division of the Planning Department. The Grantee also agrees to obtain a waterfront construction permit from the aforementioned agency before beginning any work within the Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability insurance, or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment must conform to the minimum setback requirements as established by the City. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit, for review and approval, a survey of the Encroachment Area certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachment sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Utilities. 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 4 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, PAUL S. SAWYER and DENA HIGH SAWYER, his wife, the said Grantee has caused this Agreement to be executed by their signatures and seals 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. (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager 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, on behalf of the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. He/She is personally known to me. My Commission Expires: Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-w/t: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. My Commission Expires: Notary Public STATE OF ,C_q, ~~ CITY/COUNTY O~d ~ ~c¢ , b,,'% '.~e~-,~?.,t,n , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me -~'+~ day of ~a/ , 20~:~ , by PAUL this S. SAWYER and DENA HIGH SAWYER, his wife. My Commission Expires: (.~'~ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY C I T Y 'A"T APPROVED AS TO CONTENT ~TY REAL ESTATE AGENT ~ ~ ~ PROPOSED PIER .AI/[- ~ AND UFT L~r~ C. ~: /.._9 - O XI/i,'Z!.lllI~ PROPOSED PIER /.~. ~ . nX[D P~ ~ ~/J//tlL~~I~ " '~,~ ~~ .~ ~.1 z , R_ ~ ~,~/,3///--' ,"- D' 47' IPF ,, A 40' ~ ~- [ 59' RE-WORK EXISTI,O ,. 40' ~"~ _ ~. / F 66' B 19' '~___ RIPRAP HATCHED ~C ]~" ,Pr F. 55' .... ~". "~-~E~ ~ ~"~ L3 $ 32 10'45' W 9 62' $ ~~"~ s-~-o~o5 w ,ooo' ~ , I ~.:_ - ! LOT 6 -.-: 2427-00-2080 IPF LOT A ~ LOT B PROPOSED. 2427-00-3907 i 2427-00-3922 ,,,,, ,3 STY- FR o I ~ (u/c)~ o - .. .- ~ .. . ,~ ,- ~ o ,~ , o °I: . -. ~.ii~'o~i~, . .".1 .-.. u '55'55 w "~' t "PLAN VIEW CARIBBEAN AVENUE (50' R/W) i ~ 2002 WATERFRONT CONSULTING, INC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SCALE 1" = 30' I II ! WATERFRONT ENCROACHMENT REQUEST CONSULTING, INC PROPOSED PRIVATE PEIR FOR 1112 dENSEN DRIVE, STE. 206 PAUL S. SAWYER VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451 LOTS A, RESUB LOTS 1 THRU 5, BLK 40, SHADOW LAWN HEIGHTS PHONE: (757) 425-8244 BEACH DISTRICT VIRGINIA BEACH. VA FAX: (757) 313-9788 (INST NO 200208203019176) DATE FEBRUARY 22, 2003 i i LAKE RUDEE PAUL CARIBBEAN DGN M J S RESUBDiVIDED LOTS LAKE RUDEE / LOCATION MAP ENCROACHMENT S. SAWYER AND DENA FOR FOR ,,,"' HIGH 7 SAWYER CAR! BBEAN AVEN U E " ,,'""- .. SCALE: 1" = 200' ' ," : ," ! , PREPARED BY P/W ENG CADD DEPT MAY 20, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Comprehensive Services Act State Appropriation MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 Background: The Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) was established in 1993 in order to consolidate several funding streams for nonresidential and residential services for identified youth into a s~ngle pool of funding. CSA pool funds are used to provide mandated services for foster care children and for children requiring special education services as indicated by their Individualized Education Plan and to provide non-mandated services to Court Services and Mental Health/Mental Retardation/Substance Abuse Services youth. Section 2.2-5211 of the Code of Virginia requires the General Assembly and the local governing body to appropriate sufficient funds to provide mandated special education and foster care services. The current funding ratio for mandated children is 35 69% local and 64.31% State. The State CSA office typically underfunds all localities in the beginning of each Fiscal Year The State of Virginia requires the City to submit a supplemental allocation request in order to receive the remaining necessary State funds for Fiscal Year 2002- 2003. Other localities in Virginia are also required to submit these supplemental plans. Local funds are available within our CSA's budget to provide the required match. The State Comprehensive Services Act office has approved the City's supplemental request and has appropriated the necessary funds at the State level. Considerations: All of the services provided to the mandated populations have been rewewed and approved as necessary by the Family Assessment and Planning Team (FAPT). The FAPT ~s comprised of a cross section of city professionals who work with children. Public Information: Pubhc Information w~ll be handled through the normal council agenda process. Alternatives: None Recommendations: Receive and appropriate $1,599,750 ~n State funds. Attachments: Ordinance State Supplemental Approval Request on file Recommended Action: Adopbon of Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Community Policy and Management Team City Manager:~~/-- o ~ ~/~., AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $1,599,750 IN ADDITIONAL STATE FUNDS TO THE FY 2002-03 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 9 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 10 1. That $1,599,750 is hereby accepted from the State's 11 Comprehensive Services Act Office and appropriated to the FY 2002- 12 03 Operating Budget of the Comprehensive Services Act Special 13 Revenue Fund to fully fund required services for FY 2002-03. 14 2. That estimated revenue from the Commonwealth of 15 Virginia is hereby increased by $1,599,750. 16 17 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 18 Virginia on the day of , 2003. 19 20 Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of 21 City Council. 22 CA-8906 Noncode/word/CSA FY 2002-03 ord.doc R2 - June 12, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Management Servic~ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY City Atto~y s Office CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Additional appropriations for the Sheriff's Office operating and capital expenditures. MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 Background: During the 1990's attrition rates for the Sheriff's Department were over 40% with the majority of the turn over due to deputies taking positions w~th the C~ty's Police Department. At that time the City Council agreed to beg~n supplementing deputy salanes. A target of 90% was established, however due to budgetary constraints starting salaries were being maintained at 87% of the start,ng Pohce Officer salary. The City's FY 2003-04 Operating Budget contained funding to maintain Sheriff's deputies at 87% of police officers salaries. Over the last several months, discussions have been on going w~th the Sheriff's Office on how to achieve the 90% target and how to apply it throughout the Sheriff's Office over time. With the State providing a 2.25% increase to deputy salaries, the first such increase m three years, there was an opportunity to achieve the target effective December 1, 2003. The Sheriff's Office was interested in achieving th~s on July 1, 2003 through the one-time use of their fund balance Wh~le d~scuss~ons with the SherifFs Office were completed during the first week ~n May, a decision was made to bnng this issue outside of the budget adopbon to avoid confusion s~nce it had not been discussed previously. In add~bon, the state has approved $2,619 for a computer terminal to perform background checks. Considerations: A 2 25% ~ncrease ~n deputies' salaries effecbve July 1, 2003 will bring the starbng salanes of deputies to 90% of police officers Funding will come from the following sources: a $128,760 appropriation from the Shenff's fund balance and a $145,569 appropriation from the state. · Public Information: Pubhc Information will be handled through the normal Councd Agenda nobfication process. · Alternatives: There is no other source of funding avadable to meet this request. Recommendations: Increase the Shenff's FY 2004 Operating Budget by $274,329 to provide for an increase in starting salaries of deputies effective July 1, 2003 and fund additional equipment. · Attachments: Appropriation Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval of attached ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Sheriff Paul Lanteigne City Manager~~ IL ~~r~z. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $274,329 TO THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT FY 2003-04 OPERATING BUDGET TO ADDRESS COMPENSATION ISSUES AND PROVIDE FOR THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT WHEREAS, the State has provided $142,950 to fund a 2.25% 11 increase in the salaries of sworn posmtions in the Sheriff's 12 Department effective December 1, 2003 along with an additional 13 $2,619 for the purchase of a computer terminal to perform 14 background checks; and 15 WHEREAS, to allow the 2.25% increase to become effective 16 July 1, 2003, the Sheriff will provide $128,760 from fund balance 17 in the Sheriff's Department Special Revenue Fund. 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 19 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 2O 1. That $145,569 mn additional state revenue and $128,760 21 of fund balance from the Sheriff's Department Special Revenue 22 Funds ms hereby appropriated to the Sheriff's Department Specmal 23 Revenue Fund in the FY 2003-04 Operatmng Budget to fund salary 24 adjustments effective July 1, 2003 and for office equipment. 25 2. That the City will maintain startmng salarmes wmthmn 26 the Sheriff's Department at least 90% of starting salarmes 27 for comparable Police pos~tmons. 28 3. That, in the FY 2003-04 Operating budget, estmmated 29 revenue from the state government is hereby increased by $145,569 30 and estimated revenue from the fund balance of the Sheriff's 31 Department Special Revenue Fund is hereby increased by $128,760. 32 Adopted by the Council of the C~ty of Virginia Beach, 33 Virginia on the day of 2003. 34 35 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT 36 SUFF~I CI ENCY 39 ~ ' ~ ~' 40 Department of Management Services 41 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL Department of Law CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM II ITEM: MEETING DATE: Appropriation of Wetlands/Dunes Civil Charges June 24, 2003 Background: Civil charges are collected from violations of the City's Wetlands and Coastal Primary Sand Dune Ordinances. These funds are subsequently used for various environmental restoration and habitat enhancement projects in the City. These projects are coordinated and implemented by the Habitat Enhancement Committee, which was officially established by City Council in August, 1994. Considerations: As of June 3, 2003, the Wetlands Board of Virg~ma Beach has imposed civil charges in the amount of $5,450 to vanous ~nd~v~duals for wolabng the provisions of the Wetlands Zoning Ordinance during FY 2002-2003. These funds are used to enhance the City's natural environment, specifically through coastal sand dune stabilization, and tidal wetlands restoration. The Department of Agriculture requests that $5,450 be appropnated to the Wetlands/Dunes Restoration Fund to be used by the Habitat Enhancement Committee for vanous projects. Recent projects include the Lynnhaven Boat Ramp wetlands and dune stabilization and, Little Island Park dune stabilization. Possible future projects may include wetlands and shoreline enhancement at the Adam Thoroughgood House. Public Information: Public information will be provided through the normal City Council agenda process. Alternatives: No other funds are available for the described purpose. Recommendations: Approval of attached ordinance. Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Agriculture ~t~%a CityManager~k ,~t:~ ~ - Word/noncode/Wetlan~%fl]v]l Charges.arf wpd 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $5,450 IN CIVIL CHARGES COLLECTED FROM WETLANDS AND COASTAL PRIMARY SAND DUNE ZONING ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS TO THE FY 2002-03 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TO BE USED FOR WETLANDS AND COASTAL SAND DUNE RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That $5,450 collected from Virginia Beach Wetlands and Coastal Primary Sand Dune Zoning Ordinance violation charges is hereby appropriated to the FY 2002-03 operating budget of the Department of Agriculture for wetlands and coastal primary sand dune restoration and enhancement projects. 2. That estimated revenue in the FY 2002-03 operating budget from Virginia Beach Wetlands and Coastal Primary Sand Dune Zoning Ordinance civil charges is increased by $5,450. Adopted by the Counczl of the City of Vzrglnia Beach, Virginia, on the 24th day of June , 2003. Requires an affzrmative vote by a ma3orzty of members of City Council. CA8900 Noncode/Wetlands Civil Charges.ord.wpd R1 - June 9, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Management Services / APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY City Attorne~/~ office- CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: MEETING DATE: Ordinance Donating $18,000 to the Virginia Beach Public Schools Education Foundation June 24, 2003 Background: On July 2, 2003, the City Council adopted an ordinance setting the annual salary of the City Councilmember representing the Beach District at Zero Dollars. The same ordinance transferred $18,000 from the FY '03 Municipal Salaries account to the FY '03 Council Donations to provide a potenbal source of funding for a charitable donation by the City Council. The donation is now being made after twelve months have passed and the full amount of the salary has accumulated. Considerations: The proposed ordinance would donate the sum of $18,000 to the Virginia Beach Public Schools Education Foundation. Public Information: The ordinance requires no special advertising or other public notice. Recommendations: Adoption of Ordinance · Attachments: Recommended Action: Adoption of ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Management Services City Manager:~~--- F:kData~4,TY~Ordm~q(YNCODE \VBSchoolsE ducat~on FoundaUonarf. wpd 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 AN ORDINANCE DONATING $18,000 TO THE VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDUCATION FOUNDATION WHEREAS, the City has previously established the salary of the Beach District Councilmember at zero dollars ($0) per annum; WHEREAS, on July 2, 2003, an amount equal to a Councilmember's salary ($18,000) was transferred from the FY 2002- 03 Municipal Council Salaries account to the FY 2002-03 Council Donations account; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to donate these funds to the Virginia Beach Public Schools Education Foundation, a tax exempt non-profit organization. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia: That $18,000 in the FY 2002-03 Council Donations account is hereby donated to the Virginia Beach Public Schools Education Foundation, as authorized by Virginia Code ~ 15.2-953. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day.of , 2003. CA-8856 F:\Data\ATY\Ordin\VBSchoolsEducationFoundation.ord.wpd R4 - June 16, 2003 Approved as to Content: Management Services Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: Department of L. PLANNING lo Application of TRACY REDBURN re expanston ora nonconformzng use to construct a garage for the one story structure at 615 Twenty-Sixth Street. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH Recommendation DENIAL . Apphcation of KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. re chsconttnuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Denn Lane on the north side of Southern Boulevard, west of Jersey Avenue, to create a consolidated parcel of approximately 5.5 acres. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE Recommendation APPROVAL . Application of RACHAEL A. SPRINGER for a Condittonal Use Permtt re a residential kennel for up to seven (7) dogs at 5544 Hatteras Road. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE Recommendation APPROVAL . Application of MOSE MAST - VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE CO. for a Conditional Use Perrmt re a bulk storage yard to store raw materials and finished marble products in Oceana West Corporate Park at 506 Viking Drive. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH Recommendation APPROVAL . Application of GRAND SLAM USA for a Con&tional Use Permtt re a commercial recreational facility to operate three (3) indoor batting cages, instructional and practice facilities, glove repair and a retail business at 3636 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Suite 107. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN Recommendation APPROVAL . Application of WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST for a Conditional Use Permtt re a bulk storage for pallets, recyclable cardboard materials and seasonal sales area at 1149 Nimmo Parkway. DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE Recommendation APPROVAL i i ii i i i Ii i I i [ ii i i I i i I i . Applications of JOSEPH G. PIPER to subdivide the existing lot into three (3) lots, with two (2) flag lots, at 2332 Seaboard Road re: DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE a. Vartance to 3~ 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance bo Change of Zomng Dtsmct Classification from AG-2 Agricultural Dzstrict to R-15 Residential District Recommendation DENIAL ° Application of TRITON PCS/SUNCOM for a Modtficatton to the Green Run Land Use Plan re a wireless communication tower on the east side of Independence Boulevard, southeast of Nesbltt Drive, within an existing Virgima Power substation area. DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL Recommendation APPROVAL 9. Ordinance to AMEND § 5.6 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance re the width of sidewalks. Recommendation APPROVAL CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Trac~ Redburn, Expansion of a Nonconforming Use MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Tracy Redburn for the Expansion of a Nonconforming Use on property located at 615 26th Street (GPIN 2418808071 ). DISTRICT 6 - BEACH Considerations: The subject structure, located on the portion of the lot closest to Holly Road, is one of two dwelling units located on one parcel zoned R-5S Residential Single- Family District. The existing two dwelling units were constructed in the 1950s on three lots, each with dimensions of approximately 20 feet wide and 145 feet long. The subject structure is nonconforming because this district does not allow more than one s~ngle-family dwelling on an indiwdual parcel. The applicant desires to construct a 16 foot by 30 foot garage (480 square feet) to the east side of the nonconforming one story structure, which measures approximately 17 feet by 24 (408 square feet), resulting in a garage larger than the dwelling. While the lot is sized well above the minimum requirements for the R5-S District, under the current configuration, it would be impossible for the existing units to be built under today's standards without a subdivision variance creating two substandard lots. As such, expansion of one of the units, with a garage that is larger than the dwelling unit, is not recommended for approval as it prolongs the existence of this nonconforming situation that should be d~scouraged rather than enhanced. Over time, structures throughout th~s neighborhood of s~m~lar design and quality have been removed. Many of the lots where these nonconforming structures existed have been redeveloped ~n conformity with the Zoning Ordinance. Recommendations: Pursuant to Section 105(e) of the City Zoning Ordinance, a nonconforming structure may be enlarged only if the City CouncIl finds that the proposed structure, as enlarged, w~ll be "equally appropnate or more appropriate to the d~str~ct than ~s the ex~sting nonconformity" Staff concludes that the proposed enlargement is not reasonable, because it will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area, and will not be as appropriate to the district as the existing non-conforming use. Approval of the request would create more of a non- conformity than currently exists on the site Tracy Redburn Page 2 of 2 Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Locabon Map Resolubon (if approved) Recommended Action: Staff recommends demal Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~/~[~.~~ City Manager: ~\~..~~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE BY THE ADDITION OF A GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 615 26TM STREET, IN THE BEACH DISTRICT WHEREAS, Tracy Redburn, (hereinafter the "Applicant") has made application to the City Council for authorization to expand a nonconforming structure by the addition of a garage on a certain lot or parcel of land having the address of 615 26TM Street, in the R-5S Residential Single-Family Zoning District; WHEREAS, the said structure is a nonconforming structure, in that the structure is one of two dwelling units on one parcel in the R-5S Zoning District. Two dwelling units are not allowed on one parcel in the R-5S Zoning District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 105 of the City Zoning Ordinance, the expansion of a nonconforming structure is unlawful in the absence of a resolution of the City Council authorizing such action upon a finding that the proposed structure, as expanded, will be equally appropriate or more appropriate to the zoning district than is the existing structure; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed structure, as expanded, will be equally appropriate to the district as is the existing structure. 26 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 27 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 28 29 3O That the proposed expansion of the Applicant's dwelling with the addition of the sixteen (16) feet by thirty (30) feet garage is hereby authorized. 31 32 the Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on day of , 2003. CA-8908 bkw/work/nonconredburn, wpd R-2 June i2, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: P l~-r{{l~J~ep'art ~ent Department of La~ TRACY REDBURN June 24, 2003 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Change to a Non-Conforming Use. The structure is one of two dwelling units located on one parcel zoned R-5S Residential Single-Family District. The structure is nonconforming because this district does not allow more than one single-family dwelling on an individual parcel. 615 26~h Street N G.pm 2418-80-8071 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: 24188080710000 6- BEACH Change to a Non-Conforming Use TRACY REDBURN Page 1 SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: 11,875 square feet Carolyn A K. Smith Major Issues: Ensuring that the proposed addition and alteration to the nonconforming structure is no more detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and is as appropriate to the d~strict as the existing structure. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property has two ex~st~ng s~ngle- family dwellings on ~t that were constructed over 40 years ago. The property is currently zoned R-5S Residential Single-Family D~strict. This district allows only single-family dwelling umts. All other dwelling types are prohibited. The photo at nght shows the dwelling on the rear port~on of the lot, which is the subject of this request. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · Holly Road, vacant parcel that provides driveway access to th~s site / R-5S Residential Single- Family District · 26th Street, s~ngle family dwellings / R-5S Residential S~ngle-Family D~stnct · Single-family dwelling / R-5S Residential S~ngle- Family District · Single-family dwelling / R-5S Residential Single- Family District Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~~ TRACY REDBURN Page 2 '~' Zoning and Land Use Statistics Under the rules of the R-5S District, this property could be developed with one (1) single-family dwelling. While the lot area could accommodate subdivision into two parcels, the amount of lot width at the right-of-way is deficient by 25 feet, thereby not meeting the requirements of the Zomng Ordinance. Zoning History No other similar requests in the vicimty have been proposed within the last 20 years. Typically, structures of similar design and quahty have been removed. Lots where these nonconforming structures exist have been redeveloped and conformity w~th the City Zoning Ordinance has been met. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is ~n an AICUZ area of 70-75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The site is somewhat wooded and located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There are no sigmficant natural resources on this site. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer City water and sewer currently serve this property. Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: Adequate - no additional comments Budding permits must be obtained for all construction related to th~s project. All fire protection requirements will be ascertained dunng the building permit rewew process. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained prior to occupancy. Change to a Non-Conforming Use TRACY REDBURN Page 3 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as Suburban Residential/Medium and High Density. This is an area that is planned for residential uses at or above 3.5 dwelling units to the acre. Summary of Proposal The apphcant is proposing to add a 16 foot by 30 foot garage (480 square feet) to the east side of the nonconforming one story structure that is located on the northern port~on of the s~te. The existing two dwelling units were constructed in the 1950s on three lots, each wIth dimensions of approximately 20 feet wide and 145 feet long. A new driveway, with access along Holly Road, is also proposed. This ddve will utilize a portion of Lot 18 to the north The applicant has provided a deed that lists him as one of the owners of that lot. A portion of the ex~sting concrete drive ~s also currently located on Lot 18. No encroachments into setbacks are being requested nor are they needed with th~s proposal. /' $,CNE '/ PART OF LOT 18 N85'45'00'E ,,~Proposed x 30' (F) Existinp one-stQry block I~luildJng garage WOOD P R~V,[CY fENCE OF OTHERS ENCROACHES Oh LOT 6 H No 1 650 150. D0' , ~NYSICAL , Change to a Non-Conforming Use TRACY REDBURN Page 4 Evaluation of Request While the lot is sized well above the minimum requirements for the R5-S District, under the current configuration, it would be impossible for the existing units to be built under today's standards without a subdivision variance. As such, expansion of one of the units with a garage that is nearly the size of the dwelling unit is not recommended for approval as it prolongs the existence of this nonconforming situation that should be discouraged rather than enhanced. Over t~me, structures throughout this neighborhood of similar design and quality have been removed. Many of the lots where these nonconforming structures existed have been redeveloped in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff concludes that the proposed enlargement is not reasonable, because it will have a detrimental ~mpact on the surrounding area as it could encourage other owners of nonconforming properbes to follow suit. The expansion will not be as appropriate to the d~stnct as the existing non-conforming use. The request, therefore, is not acceptable as submitted. Change to a Non-Conforming Use {~ TRACY REDBURN ~-' Page 5 ~~ (F Existir II one-stQry PIN PART OF LOT 18 N83'45'OO'E 5 6 I I, 1 k.S. 17.3' STORY o~ [ v COVERED jl CONC. PORCH PIN I (F) ~. I _ I i p,N Proposed I 6' x 30' garage addi' woo~ PRIVACY FENCE OF ~ ', OTHERS ENCROACHES ON LOT 6 d ~n L~ · FRAME 12 O' DWELLING 37 3' · l I 81" '~ ONC. '7-q . _ 26TH STREET (~O'R/W) SB3'45'OO'W H. No. 1 650 150.DO' PIN PHYSICAL SURVEY ---- Change to a Non-Conforming Use TRACY REDBURN Page 6 Change to a Non-Conforming Use TRACY REDBURN ;~ *' Page 7 [~ 0 Change to a Non-Conforming Use TRACY REDBURN Page 8 Applicant's Name List All Current Property Owners APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 4 CHANGE IN NONCONFORMING USE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner :s a CORPORATION, list a~l officers of thc Corporauon below (,4ttach hst tfnecessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIR.M, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or panners m the orgarazauon below (Attach hst if necessary) -- Check here If the property owner is NOT a corporation, pannerstup, firm, or other unincorporated organization If the apphcant ts not the current owner of the property, complete the Apphcant Disclosure sectton below. APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporauon below (Attach hst tfnecessary) Ir'the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, hst all members or partners m the orgamzatmn below (,4ttach hst tfnecessary) I~} Check here if' the applicant Is NOT a corporation, partnerstup, firm, or other umncorporated organazation CERTIFICATION 1 certyy that the tnformatton contatned herein is true and accurat~ / Pnnt Name Change to a Non-Conforming Use TRACY REDBURN Page 9 ..... Ma~ ~ Kern Buildin Materials Mop Not to ZONING HISTORY 1. 07/01/74 - STREET CLOSURE (Denn Lane) APPROVED 2. 12/12/83- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (outside storage)APPROVED 3. 08/14/01 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (auto sales/repair) APPROVED I! CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM I I I I I I II I II II II I I ITEM: Kempsville Building Materials, Inc. - Closure of a Portion of Denn Lane MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 · Background: Application of Kempsville Building Matenals, Inc. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a port~on of Denn Lane located on the north side of Southern Boulevard, 250 feet west of Jersey Avenue. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE The purpose of this request is to incorporate the property ~nto the surroundIng site. Considerations: The subject s~te and the surrounding area have been zoned for I~ght industrial use s~nce the early 1960s. A street closure of a portion of Denn Lane d~rectly north of the subject site was approved in 1974 for the same applicant, Kempsville Building Materials. The porbon of Denn Lane requested for closure is currently paved and used as an access to the surrounding warehouse/storage facilities for Kempsville Building Materials. The V~ewers Committee determined that the closure of this portion of Denn Lane ~s acceptable and will not result in a public inconvenience. The apphcant plans to incorporate the right-of-way into the surrounding property, vacating all internal property lines w~thin the site to create a consolidated parcel of approximately 5.5 acres. This consolidation is a positive step toward the redevelopment envisioned for this area under the strategic growth concept being studied with the Comprehensive Plan update The Viewers Committee recommends approval of this street closure. The Planning Commission placed this ,tem on the consent agenda because the proposed closure would allow consolidation of adjacent properties for development Staff recommended approval. There was no opposibon Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve th~s request w~th the following conditions' Kempsville Building Materials Page 2 of 2 o The City Attorney's Office shall make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by C~ty Council. Copies of the policy are available ~n the Planning Department. . The applicant shall resubdiwde the property and vacate internal lot lines to ~ncorporate the closed area ~nto the adjoining parcels. The plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. . The applicant shall verify that no private utilibes exist within the right-of- way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from Dominion Virginia Power and Virginia Natural Gas indicate that there are none of their facilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from HRSD indicate that there are facilities in the surrounding area and the applicant must verify any easement requirements prior to submittal of the final plat 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be conbngent upon compliance with the above stated condibons within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat ~s not approved w~thin one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way th~s approval shall be considered null and void · Attachments: Staff Rewew D~sclosure Statement Ordinance Planning CommissIon M~nutes Locabon Map Recommended Action: Planning Commission recommends approval. Staff recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~~j,~ City Manager:~ \~... ~6Y~ May 14, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: DO 7-212-STC-2003 REQUEST: Street Closure ADDRESS: Portion of Denn Lane, located on the north side of Southern Boulevard, 250 feet west of Jersey Avenue Map D-7 Kern Buildin Materials Ho~ Not, t,o Scole ELECTION DISTRICT: 2- KEMPSVILLE Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 KEMPSVlLLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. / # 6 Page 1 SITE SIZE' STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 6,000 square feet Barbara Duke To close a portion of Denn Lane and incorporate the property into the surrounding site. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zonin,q The portion of Denn Lane requested for closure is currently paved and used as an access to the surrounding warehouse/storage facilibes for Kempsville Building Materials. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq North: South: East: West: · Warehouse and auto-related uses / I-1 Light Industnal District · Southern Boulevard · Warehouse use /I-1 L~ght Industnal District · Warehouse use /I-1 Light Industrial D~strict Zonin,q History The subject s~te and the surrounding area have been zoned for I~ght ~ndustnal use since the early 1960s. A street closure of a portion of Denn Lane directly north of the subject site was approved ~n 1974 for the same apphcant, Kempsville Building Materials. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There are no public water or sewer facilities w~th~n the right-of-way proposed for closure. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. / # 6 Page 2 Public Works There are no public drainage structures within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Public Safety Police: No Comments Fire and Rescue: No Comments Private Utilities Dominion Virginia Power and Virginia Natural Gas have no objection to the proposed street closure. Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) has facilities in the surrounding area and will need to be contacted by the applicant to determine if any easements are required. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as an area that is developed with a variety of I~ght industrial and commercial uses. This area is currently being studied with the update of the Comprehensive Plan and has been ~dentified as a strategic growth area dunng recent Comprehensive Plan public workshops Many of the properties in this area have long-term potential to be transformed from a land use pattern that is predominantly Iow intensity commercial and industrial to one that achieves a compatible mix of urban land uses and h~gher economic investment than exists today Parcel consolidation is encouraged in this area as a means to increase redevelopment potential. Evaluation of Request The Viewers Committee has reviewed the proposed street closure and has determined that the closure of th~s portion of Denn Lane ~s acceptable and will not result in a pubhc inconvenience The applicant plans to incorporate the right-of-way into the surrounding property and to vacate all internal property lines w~th~n the s~te to create a consolidated parcel of approximately 5.5 acres. This consolidation is a positive step toward the ! Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 KEMPSVlLLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. / # 6 Page 3 redevelopment envisioned for this area under the strategic growth concept being studied with the Comprehensive Plan update. The Viewers Committee recommends approval of th~s street closure with the following conditions. Conditions , . . The City Attorney's Office shall make the final determinabon regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Cop~es of the policy are available in the Planning Department The applicant shall resubdiv~de the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure Preliminary comments from Dominion Virginia Power and Virginia Natural Gas indicate that there are none of their facilities w~thln the right- of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from HRSD indicate that there are facilities ~n the surrounding area and the applicant must venfy any easement requirements prior to submittal of the final plat. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated condibons within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the C~ty Councd vote to close the right-of-way th~s approval shall be considered null and void. INOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 KEMPSVlLLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. I # 6 Page 4 -I 28 29 3O 31 32 35 34 33 ~ 1 315.58' TO [~OAD 50. 00' S 89'48'15" Wi/' / WES TERL Y ~ OF OENN LANE TQ -'" BE CLOSED . 615.58' ~ 42 · VA CA TED I I 13 14 15 16 250' TO A VEhiUE 41 £ASTERL Y ~ OF DENN LANE TO BE CLOSED SOUTHERN BOULEVARD ~ VAR. W~DTH 4O Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. / # 6 Page 5 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. / # 6 Page 6 Z Applicant's Name: K.emPsville Building Materials, Incorporated List All Current Property Owners: Kempsville Building Materials, Incorporated PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below:. (Attach list if necessary) Scott M. Candy. President, Bobby G. Jq.hnson., Vice President,. .... Brenda C. Onley, Vice President 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 · unmcorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure sect, ion below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below:. (Attach list if necessary) Scott M. Candy, President, Bobb. y G. Johnson, Vice President, Brenda C. Onley, Vice President if the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organizal]on below: (Attach list if necessary) [] Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true ~y:_ /W (/V v-! k.~- f / _ bby G. Johnson, Vice Presmdent · a~ - ISmgnature / / Print Name ~-. ' ' ,, , ,, ,, ~ , I1~ rml I i i Street Closure Application Page 8 of 15 modi§ed. 1016.2002 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 KEMPSVlLLE BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. / # 6 Page 7 ORDINANCE NO. IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN STREET KNOWN AS DENN LANE AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT ENTITLED "R/W CLOSURE EXHIBIT OF THE EASTERLY 25' PORTION OF DENN LANE ADJACENT TO LOT 42, BLOCK 48, EUCLID PLACE AND THE WESTERLY 25' PORTION OF DENN LANE ADJACENT TO LOT 33, BLOCK 49, EUCLID PLACE FOR KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MATERIALS, VIRIGNIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" A COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT A. WHEREAS, Kempsvfile Buflchng Materials, Inc. applied to the Council of the City of V~rginia Beach, Virgima, to have the hereinafter described street discontinued, closed, and vacated; and WHEREAS, it ~s the judgment of the Council that said street be discontinued, closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or before One (1) year from City Council's adoption of th~s Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, SECTION I BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the C~ty of Virginia Beach, Virgima, that the hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, subject to certain conditions being met on or before One (1) year from C~ty Councd's adoption of this ordinance: GPIN. (1467-84-5350, 1467-84-4898 and 1467-84-1392) All that certatn piece or parcel of land s~tuate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and described as "WESTERN V2 OF DENN LANE TO BE CLOSED" and "EASTERN ½ OF DENN LANE TO BE CLOSED" shown as the cross-hatched area on that certain plat entitled: "R/W CLOSURE EXHIBIT OF THE EASTERLY 25' PORTION OF DENN LANE ADJACENT TO LOT 42, BLOCK 48, EUCLID PLACE AND THE WESTERLY 25' PORTION OF DENN LANE ADJACENT TO LOT 33, BLOCK 49, EUCLID PLACE FOR KEMPSVILLE BUILDING MATERIALS, VIRIGNIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", Scale' 1"=30', dated April 02, 2003, prepared by Kellam-Gerwltz Englneenng, Inc., a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A SECTION The following conditions must be met on or before One (1) year from C~ty Council's adoption of this ordinance: 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determinatton regarchng ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Pohcy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by C~ty Council. Copies of smd policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdiwde the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoimng parcels. The resubdivision plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3 The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist witlun the right-of-way proposed for closure. Prelirmnary comments from the utihty compames indicate that there are no private ut~hnes within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilmes do exist, the applicant shall provide easements satisfactory to the utd~ty companies 4 Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon comphance w~th the above stated conditions w~thln 365 days of approval by City Council. If all conditions noted above are not ~n compliance and the final plat is not approved w~thin one year of the City Council vote to close the street, this approval will be considered null and void. SECTION Ill 1. If the prece&ng conditions are not fulfilled on or before June 23, 2004, this Ordinance will be deemed null and void w~thout further action by the C~ty Council. 2. If all conditions are met on or before June 23, 2004, the date of final closure is the date the street closure or&nance ~s recorded by the City Attorney SECTION IV A certified copy of this Or&nance shall be filed ~n the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor" Adopted by the Council of the City of Virgima Beach, V~rginia, on th~s ~ day of ,2003. CA-8738 May 22, 2003 F XDataL~O'Y~Forms\Street Closure\WORKING\CA8738 ORD doc APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Planmng Department APPROVED AS TO LEG~AI~ICIENCY C~ty Attorney THIS EXHIBIT IS BASED ON DOCUMENTS OF RECORD AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BOUNDARY SURVEY NOR A SUBDIVISION OF LAND. A FIELD SURVEY HAS NOT BEEN PERFORMED. THIS EXHIBIT IS INTENDED TO DEPICT THE PROPOSED R//W TO BE CLOSED ABOUT THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR ANY OTHER THAN GENERAL REFERENCE. 28 29 3O 31 32 35 UB 4, P 63 SCALE. 1' .. 30' GRAPHIC SCALE 15 0 15 30 60 FEET I INCH= 30 FEET 9'48'15" 34 50 00' 315.58' TO ROAD R/W TO BE VACA TED 250' TO A VEI~UE 12 13 ~4 15 16 s 89'48' 5" w /s 5.58' t EASTERLY ~ OF WESTERLY ~ OFj DENN LANE TO OENN LANE TO BE CLOSED BE CLOSED 50UTHERN BOULEVARD ~ VAR. ~DTH R/W ~ CM.B. ~, ~. 02 APRI~ 41 4O ,R_~__ CLOSURE EXHIBIT OF The easterly 25 porbon of Denn Lane adjacent to Lot 42, Block 48, Euclid Place and the westedy 25' portton of Denn Lane adjacent to Lot 33, Block 49, Euchd Place FOR KEMPSVILLE BUILDINC MATERIAL5 VIRGINIA BEACH VIRGINIA VO2085_rwEXH dwg TMF'/wcg KELLAM - GERWIT'Z ENGINEERING INC. ENGINEERING-SURVEYING--PLANNING SUITE (757)340-0828 Item #6 Kempsville Building Materials, Inc. Apphcat~on of Kempswlle Building Materials, Inc. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Denn Lane North sade of Southern Boulevard District 2 Kempsvllle May 14, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #6, Kemspville Bullchng Materials. An application of Kempsvflle Bmldlng Materials, Inc. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a pomon of Denn Lane located on the north s~de of Southern Boulevard. Tins is an the Kempsvalle D~stnct and has four conditions. Joel Weaver: H~. Joel Weaver, attorney for Kempsville Builchng Materials, Inc. Dorothy Wood: You read the conditions sir? Joel Weaver: Yes I have. Dorothy Wood: Is there any opposition to Kempsville Building Materials for an apphcataon for a chscontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Denn Lane? Heanng none, Mr. Din? Wllham Din: Tins as a closure of Denn Lane. Our Comprehensive Plan encourages consolidation of propemes an flus area so that the potential can be increased and tins wall go along way an dmng that. This pubhc road actually ~s an entrance way right now to Kempsvllle Building Materials and the viewers chd not see any detriment an closing this road to the City There are no utilities an this area. So, it was a very positive step an redevelopment envision for this area. As a result, the Planning Commissioners do not have any objection pumng it on consent agenda. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. D~n. Thank you Mr Weaver. Joel Weaver: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Mr. R~pley, I would move that we approve tins item on the consent agenda, Item #6 with four conditions. Ronald Rapley: So a motion to approve thxs ~tem that was just read by Dot Wood Do I have a second? Seconded by Gene Crabtree. Are there any comments? We're ready to vote. Item #6 Kempswlle Bmlchng Materials, Inc. Page 2 AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald R~pley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. to Scale Rachael A-12 Gpin 1467-12-8236 ZONING HISTORY 1. 11-9-70- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (apartments)- Granted II I I ITEM' CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM II I II Rachael A. Springer-Conditional Use Permit (Residential Kennel) 5544 Hatteras Road MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Rachael A. Springer for a Conditional Use per,,mit for a residential kennel on property located at 5544 Hatteras Road (GPIN 1467128236). DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE The purpose of this request is to keep up to seven dogs as pets at the apphcant's residential property. The City Zoning Ordinance allows only four dogs without a Conditional Use Permit. Considerations: The subject property is used as a residential dwelhng and is zoned R-7 5 Residential District. The applicant currently has three dogs in her home and would like to own up to four more. The dogs are pets and are not kept for any commercial purpose The dogs are a variety of breeds and range in size from small to large. The three additional dogs would be small to medium s~ze. The applicant has previously had four dogs on the property. No complaints related to the dogs have been reported to the Pohce Department or Animal Control. The applicant has submitted a petition ~nd~cating she has the support of her neighbors Staff recommends approval There was no opposibon at the hearing. Two emails voicing opposibon to the request were received prior to the heanng Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 6 - 4 to approve this request with the following condibons No more than seven adult dogs (over slx months of age) shall be kept on the property at any time. No breeding, grooming, or boarding of any other dogs for monetary or non-monetary purposes shall be permitted. Rachael Spnnger Page 2 of 2 2. A minimum three-foot planting bed shall be installed adjacent to the natural area on the northwest s~de of the property. The bed shall be consistent with Chesapeake Bay Preservabon Area (CBPA) Planting Bed drawing available at the Planning Department's Development Services Center. 3. Dog I~tter shall be picked up and disposed of on a daily basis. 4. The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed on an annual bas~s. · Attachments: Staff Review D~sclosure Statement Planning Commission M~nutes Locabon Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval Submitting DepartmentJAgency: Planning Department~~ City Manager: (~ ~/(~ - ~~ RACHAEL A. SPRINGER/# 3 May 14, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: C07 - 211 - CUP - 2003 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a residential kennel ADDRESS: 5544 Hatteras Road Scale Rachael S ' Gpm 1467-12-8236 GPIN: 14671282360000 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 RACHAEL A. SPRINGER / # 3 Page 1 ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 2 - KEMPSVILLE 16, 831 square feet Ashby Moss To keep up to seven dogs as pets at the applicant's residential property. The City Zoning Ordinance allows only four dogs without a Conditional Use Permit Major Issues: · Degree of noise associated with the dogs and its impact on neighboring property owners. · Proper disposal of dog litter and "Bayscaping" to prevent runoff to tributary of Elizabeth River and Chesapeake Bay. Land Use, Zoning, and Site C h a racte ri sti cs: Existinq Land Use and Zoning The subject property is used as a residential dwelling and is zoned R-7.5 Residenbal D~strict. Surroundin,q Land Use and Zoning The subject property is located within a residential neighborhood zoned R-7 5 Residential District S~ngle-family homes are also found behind the subject s~te to the east, but zoning for these lots which front Pnncess Anne Road is R-10 Residential D~stnct A drainage ditch separates the property from a vacant parcel on the northwest side. The d~tch leads directly to the Ehzabeth River. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 RACHAEL A. SPRINGER / # 3 Page 2 Zoning History The only zoning activity in the ~mmed~ate wcimty ~s a Conditional Use Permit for apartments approved in 1970 for the apartment complex east of the site across Princess Anne Road. Another Conditional Use Permit for a res~denbal kennel was approved on a 22,500 square foot property in the Wellington Woods neighborhood off of Great Neck Road for up to seven dogs on March 14, 2000. One of the conditions on this Use Permit required an annual review; if no complaints were received, administrative approval would be granted To date, the Zoning Office has received no further complaints on this property. This property was also located adjacent to a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. The applicant was required to create a landscape bed designed for maximum filtrabon of pollutants as a condition of the Use Permit. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer The residence is currently served by City water and sewer. Transportation No additional trips would be generated with the proposed use. Public S,afety Police: Fire and Rescue: Neither the Police Department nor Animal Control has had prior complaints for the subject property. Adequate - no further comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends th~s area for Iow-dens~ty residential land use at or below 3 5 dwelling units per acre. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 RACHAEL A. SPRINGER / # 3 Page 3 Summary of Proposal Proposal The appl,cant currently has three dogs ~n her home and would I~ke to own up to four more. The dogs are strictly pets and are not kept for any commercial purpose. The dogs are a variety of breeds and range in size from small to large The three additional dogs are small to medium size. · No complaints related to the dogs have been received on this property. The applicant has submitted a petition with signatures from 18 households on Hatteras Road, Iroquois Road, and Pnncess Anne Road supporting her Conditional Use Permit request. Site Design The applicant's property is 16,831 square feet, which is shghtly larger than the typical lots along Hatteras Road. · The rear yard is completely enclosed w~th a six-foot wood privacy fence On the northwest s~de, the property abuts a drainage ditch that leads directly to the Elizabeth River While much of the sloped area adjacent to the ditch is in a natural state, one of the recommended condibons is to create a landscape bed adjacent to this area specifically designed for maximum pollutant removal. Evaluation of Request The applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit for seven dogs is acceptable. The applicant lives on a relatively large lot that is fenced in. Although the property is adjacent to a tributary of the Elizabeth River, which ultimately leads to the Chesapeake Bay, a properly designed landscape bed and proper disposal of dog litter will mitigate runoff to the Bay The applicant has prewously had four dogs on the property, and no complaints related to the dogs have been reported to the Police Department or Animal Control. The apphcant has submitted a petition ~ndicating she has the support of her neighbors. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 RACHAEL A. SPRINGER / # 3 Page 4 Therefore, th~s application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions listed below: Conditions 1. No more than seven adult dogs (over six months of age) shall be kept on the property at any time. No breeding, grooming, or boarding of any other dogs for monetary or non-monetary purposes shall be permitted. 2. A minimum three-foot planting bed shall be installed adjacent to the natural area on the northwest s~de of the property. The bed shall be consistent with Chesapeake Bay Preservabon Area (CBPA) Planbng Bed drawing available at the Planning Department's Development Services Center. 3. Dog litter shall be picked up and disposed of on a daily basis. NO TE: i! Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 RACHAEL A. SPRINGER I # 3 Page 5 6'~rivac~ O 0 HiLL PRINCE RD. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 RACHAEL A. SPRINGER / # 3 Page 6 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 RACHAEL A. SPRINGER / # 3 Page 7 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 RACHAEL A. SPRINGER / # 3 Page 8 ' 'DIS~'L.osuRE: sTATEME , ....... i ii ii iii i i i rl ' "11 i i i · ~ Applicant's Nam~*~o-~-~-~ ~c_. ~ ~' /~- ~ ~,) ¢~ ~'~_~. List All Current Property Owners: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach hst ~f necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list a J! members or partners in the organization below:. (Attach list if neces.~ry) [~. I~eck here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. ff the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Property Owner Disclosure sectior~ below: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list ali officers of the Corporabon below: (Attach list ff necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) [[~heck here if the property owner ks NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organizabon. ! andaccurate. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true Pr, int Name Conditional Use Permrt Application Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 RACHAEL A. SPRINGER I # 3 Page 9 Item #3 Rachael Spnnger Conditional Use Permit for a residential kennel 5544 Hatteras Road District 2 Kempsv~lle May 14, 2003 REGULAR Robert M~ller: The next item ~s Rachael Springer. Rachael Spnnger: First of all, I must apologize for having to step out. When Ichd, my nerves were shot. I'm not accustomed to asking a group of people that I don't even know for somettung that I desperately want. Robert Miller: Are you Rachael Spnnger? Rachael Spnnger: I am Rachael Springer. Ronald R~pley: Well, just relax and don't worry about ~t. We're just a group of regular people. I can tell you. Go ahead. Rachael Springer: Okay. What I am asking for ~s not a kennel, so to speak. I do own three dogs at present. One of them ~s a Cavaher Kang Charles and I would like to own one of every color of these dogs. And, they only come in four colors. I brought a Cavaher book w~th me to show you a picture. They do not get any larger than 14 pounds. These dogs are my house pets. They are not nmmng loose m the yard. They go out m the mormng to go potty. They go out ~n the afternoon and they go out ~n the evemng. These dogs hve ~n our bedroom at night. And, I just wanted to show you a picture so that you would see the s~ze of a full-grown dog. I have no mtent~ons of ever putting these dogs ~nto a kennel ~n the backyard. I do own a large dog. She's a Rotwe~ller Labrador m~x. And, she hves m my house. She's a rescued dog and she lives ~n my house. Ronald Pdpley: Do you want to pass that around? Rachael Spnnger: Yes, I would hke to. I have hved ~n my neighborhood in the same house s~nce 1976, a total of 27 years. And, my dogs do go to obedience school and I'm hoping to get my Cavaliers ~nto therapy for nursing homes. Here are the p~cmres. Ronald Ripley: You said you w~sh to get what into a nursing home? Rachael Spnnger: I'm ~nterested ~n getting these dogs ~nto therapy dogs in nursing homes. Robert Miller: I thought you smd you were going to get the dogs ~nto therapy. Item//3 Rachael Springer Page 2 Rachael Springer: That's the pmnt of them going to obechence school ~s so that I can because I've called several nursing homes and WSlted them and asked them what I need and they said I have to take the dogs to obedience school. Which way do I start? Ronald Rapley: It doesn't matter. Start down there ~s fine. Do you have more to say? I thank we have a question. Dot Wood has a question. Dorothy Wood: I think ats admirable Mrs. Spnnger that you came and asked for an apphcation or asked for thas w~thout hawng been forced to by the C~ty. And, I thank you for that. I want to ask you two thangs. How much do these dogs bark? Rachael Springer: Very little. Dorothy Wood: I know a lot of little dogs bark a lot. Rachael Springer: R~ght. Yes. But these dogs and ~fyou see the book they're just real companion dogs. And, my barks an the house because he plays with the Rotweiller but other than that they're not mppy httle dogs lake the poodles are. Dorothy Wood: One other question. I know since you're goang to have lots of dogs, are you doang thas to breed the dog? Rachael Spnnger: No. Dorothy Wood: So they will be spayed or neutered. Rachael Springer: I don't know af they will be spayed or not. The little boy that I have as a year old and he's been an a show before. And, as long as I use ham for show I cannot have ham fixed. But, my g~rls that I have are fixed. L~ke I sald, I've got a Rotweiller maxed and I have a cocker spaniel that's rune years old. She's also rescued And, she's fixed. But, I have put my name on a hst at the SPCA ff anyone comes up w~th one of these dogs that I would lake to rescue it and that's why I've asked for seven. Because, hke I said, I have three dogs at home now and they come ~n four colors So by rights, I would only have three more dogs. Dorothy Wood: Thank you ma'am Ronald Ripley: Any other questmns? Okay, thank you. William Din: Ron~ Ronald Ripley: Yes? Wflham D~n: You say you have a Rotwefller also9 Item #3 Rachael Spnnger Page 3 Rachael Spnnger: She's a Rotweiller Lab m~x. Wflham Din: Okay. So, that's in addition to these dogs that we see right? Rachael Spnnger: Yes. I only have three dogs at home. I have the Rotwefller Lab m~x that came from the ammal control. And, I have a Cocker Spamel that someone had asked me ~fI would take and she's been ~n four homes and I smd I would take her. So, we've had her about e~ght years. Wflham Dm: So your desire as to get four more dogs. What k~nd? Rachael Spnnger: It's called a Cavalier Kmg Charles. They're a httle blt smaller than a Cocker Spaniel but they basmally look like a Cocker Spamel. Dorothy Wood: Very pretty dogs. Ronald Rapley: Bob Miller has a question also. Robert Miller: Have you read the conchtions? Rachael Spnnger: Yes I have. Robert Miller: And do you understand them? Rachael Spnnger Yes I do. In fact, my husband has already started on the ditch in the backyard. Robert Miller: So you're agreeable to the concht~ons as they're worded? Rachael Spnnger: Yes. Ronald Rlpley: Well, there's opposition? Robert Miller: I have no s~gnatures. Nobody signed up. Ronald Ripley: I thought we had opposlt~on. Rachael Spnnger: Ashby had gnven me two that had called in papers. Ronald R~pley: Okay. We had several letters. Okay. Any other questions? Yes, Kathy Kats~as. Kathy Katslas: I thought we were going to add a condition. Rachael Spnnger: Yes. Item #3 Rachael Springer Page 4 Kathy Katsias: An annual review? Rachael Spnnger: And that will be fine. Kathy Katslas: Okay. Rachael Spnnger: That's not a problem. It will give me a chance to show off my dogs. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Any other comments? Questions of the applicant? Thank you Ms. Spnnger. Rachael Springer: Thank you. Ronald Rlpley: Okay. I'll open it up for d~scussaon. Robert Mailer: I think since the dogs are going to therapy I can make a motion for support. I make a motion that we approve ~tem #3. Dorothy Wood: I'll second your motion Mr. Miller. Ronald 1L~pley: Does that include adchng the new con&t~on? Robert Miller: With the addition of the annual review. Yes. Ronald Pdpley: We have a motion by Mr. Miller and a second by Dot Wood. Gene? Eugene Crabtree: May I make one comment before we vote? Ronald R~pley: Sure. Eugene Crabtree: I'm a httle uneasy with setting a precedent for seven dogs an a household in a resxdential area. I cannot sit here and rest comfortable that I would want seven dogs m my neighborhood in a residential neighborhood even ffthey spent a minimum tune outside and all of that. There ~s considerable and I've owned dogs all my hfe of all sizes everything from a Chihuahua to a German Shepard. I'm afraid we're going to set a precedence that we're going to have to live w~th at a later date. Therefore, I can't support this apphcanon. Ronald Rapley: Thank you Gene. Any other comments? Wall Din. William D~n: I think, as much as I love dogs also, I don't know if I'm gmng to be able to support this either My objection also is seven dogs ~s quite a few dogs especmlly ~fthey are m the house. I th~nk at Intends to be a httle blt too much from a precedent standpoint also. I agree with Gene. I probably won't be able to support. Item #3 Rachael Spnnger Page 5 Ronald Pdpley: Does anybody else w~sh to comment anything? Chaflie. Charhe Salle': I just make the comment that I'm going to support the motion and that I th~nk what makes the difference for me is that we have the annual review and I think ff there is going to be a problem we will discover and be able to deal with it at that point. Ronald Pdpley: Okay. Joe Strange. Joseph Strange: Yeah. I flunk ~f I was going to support an apphcation like th~s that tbas m~ght be one of them but I'm going to have to vote w~th Will and Gene here because I just seen too many tmaes when we get into discussion of these tbangs that we always go back and have we done this before? And, that always plays and has a big beanng on what we do in the future. So, even though I read what I read in the book. They seem hke nme temperament dogs and a lot of cases the neighbors might not even know they were there. But, I'll be voting against ~t. Ronald Ripley: Okay. I want to make a comment too. The application that ~s referred to in here, the previous apphcation that happened over in the Great Neck area, I was opposed to that when it came up for the reasons that I flunk I'm heanng here. But, then I'm heanng tbas morning that we've never had any real problems with that and they do admlmstrat~ve reviews on lt. I flunk by adding that one condition ~s about the only reason why I can support ~t. It's kind &half-hearted but I'm going to vote for lt. Any other comments? Kathy Kats~as' I concur w~th you. With the annual review, I feel comfortable ~n support this apphcanon. Ronald Rlpley: Let's call for the question? AYE 6 NAY 4 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE NAY DIN NAY HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT NAY MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE NAY WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald Rlpley' We have a vote of 6-4 and the motion cames. %'o ~ ~ C~) ~ o C~ ~ ? ?0 IlllI I ` I /--' ; v v..d / , i ~71111 iI1[ ~ L. k,/I~ t,. /VI I~U, 1fi7 I'. L In reference to #C07-211-CUP..2003 To Plavnlng Commission, We are strongly opposed to a kennel being allowed at the Raohael Springer property, Our properties are boarding one another and the lots are very small. We feel that housing animals in ~ kennel will create not only possible health issues but also a severe disturbance to the peace of the neighborhood. This is a residential are aud we strongly oppose such permit being granted. Sincerely, Todd & Christine Covington 5557 Princess Anne Rd. Ashby Moss - ref. application #C07-211-CUP-2003 :rom: To: Date: Subject: Sridahran Sangaran <ssangran@wrsystems.com> "'planadm@vbgov.com'" <planadm@vbgov.com> 5/13/2003 2:42 PM ref. application #C07-2:[1-CUP-2003 In reference to the nobce ! reoeved from the Department of Planning. Rachael A. Spnnger (#C07-211-CUP-2003) An Ordinance upon Apphcabon of Rachael A Spnnger for a Condibonal Use Permit for a re~denbal kennel on property located at 5544 Hatteras Road. in volong my op~mon on this matter, ! am strongly against th~s acbon. The amount of noise and odor associated w~th a kennel ~s something ! would not hke to deal w~th on a dady bas~s ~n my home. The no~se level ~n the front of my home created by Pnncess Anne Road ~s enough to deal w~th. regards, Sn Sangann Map I-7 Mop Not to Scole Va Beach Marble Co. 398 O© Coin 1497-50-7590 - 1720 ZONING HISTORY This area was established as an Industrial park in the late 1970's. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Mose Mast- Virginia Beach Marble Co. - Conditional Use Permit 506 Viking Drive MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Mose Mast- VIrginia Beach Marble Co. for a Conditional Use Permit for a bulk storage yard on property located at 506 Viking Dnve (GPIN 1497507390). DISTRICT 6- BEACH The purpose of this request ~s to establish a bulk storage yard to store raw materials as well as finished marble products Considerations: The site ~s part of an industrial park known as Oceana West Corporate Park developed in the late 1970's. Prior to that, the site was zoned for agricultural use. There have been no other Conditional Use Permits requested ~n the surrounding area for bulk storage. There is a declaration of restrictive covenants recorded on this site between the owner and the Virginia Beach Development Authority. Based on the restricbve covenant, the applicant was required to obtain permission from the Development Authority for the outside storage. The VBDA staff has approved the bulk storage yard as shown on the site plan submitted with this Conditional Use Permit application. The applicant is requesting approval for an outside fenced storage area approximately 10,000 square feet in size to be located at the rear of the building. The storage area will not be visible from Viking Drive The site will be surrounded by a six-foot fence The site plan shows this fence as chain link; however, a sol~d fence is required by the zoning ordinance to screen bulk storage yards A condition has been added at the end of this report to require a solid fence in lieu of the chain link fence shown on the s~te plan. The Planning Commission placed th~s ~tem on the consent agenda because it ~s compatible with the surrounding uses. Staff recommended approval There was no opposibon to the proposal Mose Mast Page 2 of 2 · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. A solid fence at least six feet ~n height and Category VI landscaping shall be provided along the entire perimeter of the bulk storage area, except for necessary ingress/egress 2. The location of the access gate for the storage area shall be shown on the final site plan. . Construction of the bulk storage yard shall be completed within 90 days of Cond~bonal Use Permit approval. The semi-trailers currently stored in the parking area on the site shall be removed within 30 days of complehon of the bulk storage yard. · Attachments: Staff Rewew D~sclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Locabon Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning CommIssion recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~-/~lj/~:~_~ City Manager~'f~~ '~°Y~ May 14, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: REQUEST: ADDRESS: 107-212-CUP-2003 Conditional Use Permit for a bulk storage yard 506 Viking Dnve ~ M..~ ~-7 Va Beach Marble Co. G~n 1497-50-7390 - 1720 GPIN: 14975073901720 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 MOSE MAST - VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15 Page 1 ELECTION DISTRICT: 6 - BEACH SITE SIZE. 1.684 acres STAFF PLANNER: Barbara Duke PURPOSE: To establish a bulk storage yard to store raw materials as well as finished marble products As requested by the applicant, who could not attend the hearing, the Planning Commission at the April 9, 2003 public hearing deferred this item. Major Issues: Degree to which the proposal ~s compatible with the surrounding area. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning There is a one story 9,500 square foot brick and frame building with paved parking on the site and the s~te is zoned I-1 Industrial District. Surroundinq Land Use and Zonin,q North: South: East: West: · Industrial buildings /I-1 Industrial District · Industrial buildings /I-1 Industrial District · 300 foot wide canal, on east side of canal are industrial buildings /I-1 Industrial District · Post Office /I-1 Industnal District Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 MOSE MAST - VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15 Page 2 Zonin.q History The site is part of an ~ndustrial park known as Oceana West Corporate Park developed in the late 1970's. Prior to that, the site was zoned for agricultural use. There have been no other Cond~bonal Use Permits requested in the surrounding area for bulk storage. There is a declaration of restrictive covenants recorded on this site between the owner and the Virginia Beach Development Authority Based on the restrictive covenant, the applicant was required to obtain permission from the Development Authority for the outside storage. The VBDA staff has approved the bulk storage yard as shown on the site plan submitted w~th this Conditional Use Permit application. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The s~te ~s in an AICUZ of greater than 75dB Ldn and is in Accident Potential Zone II surrounding NAS Oceana. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer City water and sewer currently serve the building on the site. Transportation No traffic ~mpact beyond what exists is anticipated with the proposed Conditional Use Permit. Public Safety Police: Not reviewed Fire and Rescue: Adequate- no further comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recogmzes th~s area as a planned industrial/office park. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 MOSE MAST- VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# '15 Page 3 Summary of Proposal Proposal The applicant is requesting approval for an outside fenced storage area approximately 10,000 square feet in size to be located at the rear of the building. The storage area will not be wsible from V~king Drive. The storage area will be used to store raw materials as well as finished marble products. The subject site is located w~thin the Oceana West Industrial Park, and as such, is governed by restricbve covenants enforced by the Virginia Beach Development Authority (VBDA). The applicant has obtained approval from VBDA staff for this storage area. The storage area ~s located within a large drainage easement adjacent to Canal #2. The applicant was required to obtain an encroachment agreement from the City for the storage yard and fenced area within the easement. The applicant has received approval from City Councd for the encroachment. The canal to the east of the site is considered a water feature under the protection of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. The storage yard is encroaching into the landward 50 feet of the required 100 foot buffer adjacent to the canal. Th~s encroachment does not need approval from the CBPA Board, but the applicant will be required to meet CBPA ordinance requirements for this encroachment during detailed site plan review. Site Design · The site plan shows a 10,000 square foot, gravel storage area at the rear of the building. The site will be surrounded by a six-foot fence The site plan shows this fence as chain I~nk; however, a solid fence ~s required by the zoning ordinance to screen bulk storage yards. A condition has been added at the end of this report to require a solid fence ~n I~eu of the chain link fence shown on the s~te plan Vehicular and Pedestrian Access Currently, the applicant ~s stonng ~tems in semi-trailers within the parking lot on the subject site. The storage yard will provide an area to store items so that the parking lot can be used for its intended purpose. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 MOSE MAST - VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15 Page 4 · It is not clear on the s~te plan how access to the storage area will be provided. A condition addressing this has been added at the end of this report. Landscape and Open Space · The site plan shows a 10 foot landscape buffer w~th Category One plantings on the south side of the storage area, adjacent to the parking area. The zoning ordinance requires the entire perimeter of the storage area to be planted. A condition addressing this has been added at the end of this report. Evaluation of Request The request for a bulk storage yard is acceptable. However, the site plan submitted is deficient in required screening and landscaping. The staff has recommended conditions to address this In addition, the applicant is currently using sem~-traders to store materials in the parking lot on this site. The applicant has been notified that this is in violation of the City Zoning Ordinance. Outside storage requires a Conditional Use Permit and the area is not screened and is impeding required parking areas. It is recommended that the Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage be approved w~th the following conditions. Conditions I , . o A solid fence at least s~x feet in height and Category Vi landscaping shall be prowded along the entire perimeter of the bulk storage area, except for necessary ingress/egress. The location of the access gate for the storage area shall be shown on the final site plan Construction of the bulk storage yard shall be completed w~th~n 90 days of Conditional Use Permit approval. The semi-trailers currently stored in the parking area on the site shall be removed within 30 days of completion of the bulk storage yard. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 MOSE MAST- VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15 Page 5 NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 MOSE MAST- VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15 Page 6 J ,2- (M/'d ,09) -.,=AI~C/ ON[NIA Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 MOSE MAST - VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15 Page 7 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 MOSE MAST- VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15 Page 8 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT List Ail Curt, hr P~orgwrr O~ DrSCLOSta~ If the prol:~rty owr~r ~ a CO~~ON. ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~~ ~o~ (~ l~t ~~) If ~he property owner ~s z PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or otlwr UNINCOR~~D ORGANIZATION, hst all member~ or partn~ in the organizatton below. (Auach l~ ~fnecessary) ~k here if the ptope~y ownex is NOT a corporatmn, pa~tnershrp, finn, or other unincorporated orgamzalJon. ~ the apptm~ i~ nat the em'r~ o~e' of ttle propmT, ~ompZet¢ the A~phe, aat DJ, cloture APPLICANT DISCLOSUR~ ff the ~aplxcant ~s a CORPORATION, hst all officers of th~ C. orpo~on below: fAttach the al~phcant ~s a PARTNERS[flIP, FIRM, or othe~ IJN~CO~R~T~D ORGA.lqlZ&~ON, hst all raembets or pamr~ m the orgam~'a~on t~low. (Attach l~t dnevessary) Check here if the agphcant ts NOT a cra*potation, parmr, rslup, firm, or other unmcorporat~ organu~auon CER'rIHC&TIO~ I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. S~g~ure Pnnt Nam, iii i i i I I I' I 13~f~lllf~l Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 MOSE MAST- VIRGINIA BEACH MARBLE COMPANY/# 15 Page 9 .p I L~ Item # 15 Mose Mast - V~rg~ma Beach Marble Condmonal Use Permit 506 Viking Drive D~stnct 6 Beach May 14, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood. The next ~tem is Item #15, Mose Mast - V~rgima Beach Marble Company. It's an orchnance upon apphcat~on of Mose Mast - V~rgania Beach Marble Company for a Use Permit for bulk storage yard on property located at 506 Vflong Drive and there are three conditions. Mose Mast: I'm Mose Mast. I'm representing V~rg~ma Beach Marble and I agree with the conditions as set forth. Dorothy Wood: Have you read the three conchtions? Mose Mast: Yes I have. Dorothy Wood: The new one that you just got today? Mose Mast: Yes I have. Dorothy Wood. And you do agree? Mose Mast: Yes. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any opposition to Item #15, Mose Mast- Vlrgima Beach Marble, an apphcat~on for bulk-storage? Heanng none, Mr. Kmght? Barry Knight: I don't think that was mine Ronald Pdpley: I'll take ~t. Dorothy Wood: Okay. Ronald Pdpley: Th~s was an ~tem that has been on the agenda a couple of months. I tl'nnk we had continued ~t one time. I ttunk the sign wasn't there or something hke that and basically it's just an outside storage ~s not contained and I th~nk that's essentially the purpose of th~s Use Permit, so ~t's very sxmple and strmght forward. The apphcant has agreed to the con&t~ons to contmn ~t and surround ~t w~th fencing and landscaping, etc, so, ~ts pretty routine and that's the nature of ~t Item #15 Mose Mast- Virginia Beach Marble Page 2 Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. R~pley. Thank you Mr. Mast. Mr. Pdpley, I would move that we approve th~s item on the consent agenda, Item #15 w~th three conditions. Ronald Ripley: So a motion to approve th~s item that was just read by Dot Wood. Do I have a second? Seconded by Gene Crabtree. Are there any comments? We're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald Pdpley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. Ma~ C,-~ Grand Slam USA Mo No~, to Scole Gpin 1487-54--9708 ZONING HISTORY I 11-27-01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (motor vehicle rental)- Granted 2 1-11-88 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (auto sales & service)- Granted 3. 11-10-86 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (auto sales & service) - Granted 4 6-10-85- CHANGE OF ZONING (I-2 Industnal District to B-2 Community Business District) - Granted 5. 7-2-84 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (day care) - Granted CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Grand Slam USA- Conditional Use Permit (Commercial Recreation) 3636 Virginia Beach Boulevard (Suite 107) MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Grand Slam USA for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreational facility other than those of an outdoor nature (baseball/softball) on property located at 3636 V~rginia Beach Boulevard, Suite 107 (GPIN 1487549708). DISTRICT 5-LYNNHAVEN The purpose of this request ~s to operate three (3) ~ndoor batbng cages, instructional and pracbce facil~bes, glove repair and a retail business related to the games of softball and baseball w~thin an existing shopping center. Considerations: There ~s an existing shopping center and an asphalt parking lot on the site. The s~te is totally impervious. The applicant is proposing to occupy 7,000 square feet of the building for ~ndoor batting cages, instructional and practice facilities, glove repair and retail sales related to the games of softball and baseball within an existing shopping center. The retail, restroom and office space will comprise approximately 4,800 square feet of the unit. According to the applicabon, the retail component accounts for approximately 8.5 percent of the revenue generated by the business. There ~s adequate parking available w~thin the existing parking lot to accommodate this proposed use Although the applicant planned no structural modifications to the ~nterior of the building, further review by the Fire Department and Permits and Inspections may necessitate alterations in order to comply with applicable fire and handicap requirements and the Unrform Statew~de Building Code. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the use is compabble with the surrounding area. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposibon to the proposal. Grand Slam Page 2 of 2 · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions 1. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Budding Official before the issuance of any business license or building permit associated with the request. 2. No storage or repair of recreational equipment shall be permitted outside the building. 3. No additional site hghting shall be installed beyond that needed for site security, all of which shall be shielded away from all adjoining properties. · Attachments: Staff Review D~sclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Ag,ency: Planmng City Manager:~~.., ~~Department~~'~ GRAND SLAM USA/# 7 May 14, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: REQUEST: ADDRESS: G07-215-CUP-2003 Conditional Use Permit for a recreational facility of an indoor nature. 3636 Virginia Beach Boulevard, State 107 MapG-7 Grand Slam USA No~ ~o Scelo Gpm 1487-54-9708 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: 14875497080000 5 - LYNNHAVEN Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GRAND SLAM USA / # 7 Page 1 SITE SIZE STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Shopping center- 2.991 acres - specific unit of shopping center subject to this request is 7,000 square feet Carolyn A K Smith To operate three (3) ~ndoor batting cages, instructional and practice facilities, glove repair and a retail business related to the games of softball and baseball within an existing shopping center. Major Issues: · Degree to which the proposal is compatible with the existing businesses within the shopping center as well as the surrounding area. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The existing two (2) story shopping center is on a 2.992 acre site and is zoned B-2 Community Business District. There is also a one (1) story brick building on the s~te. Uses within the shopping center include furmture sales and rental, a restaurant, and two (2) retail businesses. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: · Malibu Palms Drive · Mulb-family dwellings / A-24 Apartment District · Restaurants and Virginia Beach Boulevard / B-2 Community Business DIstrict · Funeral home / B -2 Commumty Business District Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GRAND SLAM USA I # 7 Page 2 West: North Rosemont Road Auto rental, multi-family dwellings / B-2 Community Business D~strict, A-24 Apartment District Zoning History Several Conditional Use Permits have been granted in the vicinity, and with the exception of a day care facility, all have been auto related. A Change of Zoning was approved by City Councd ~n 1985 on a parcel to the south, across Virginia Beach Boulevard. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The s~te is ~n an AICUZ of less than 65Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer City water and sewer currently serve the building on the site; however, sewer pump analysis may need to be submitted to ensure that flows can be accommodated. Transportation Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Ex,sting Land Use z_ 1,233 ADT V~rg~ma Beach Boulevard 57,000 ADT ~ 34,940 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3_ 285 ADT Average Dady Trips as defined by general retail as defined by specialty "retad" V~rginia Beach Boulevard in the vicinity of th~s site is an eight (8) lane d~vided urban artenal and is designated on the Master Transportation Plan as such. There are no plans to upgrade this facihty at thIs time. Public Safety Police: Adequate Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GRAND SLAM USA I # 7 Page 3 Fire and Rescue: Adequate - Further review by the Fire Department and PermIts and Inspections may necessitate alterations to the interior of the building ~n order to comply w~th applicable fire and handicap requirements and the Uniform Statewide Building Code Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan policies for the Little Neck Planning Area generally support commercial uses that are appropriately located and do not disrupt or adversely affect adjacent neighborhoods. This proposed indoor recreation and retail use, ~n an existing commercial building, ~s compatible with the adjacent commercIal uses. Summary of Proposal Proposal · There is an existing shopping center and an asphalt parking lot on the s~te. The site is totally ~mpervious. The applicant is proposing to occupy 7,000 square feet of the building for indoor batting cages, instrucbonal and practice facihties, glove repair and retail sales related to the games of softball and baseball within an existing shopping center No alterations to the existing structure are planned Hanging nets are proposed to '~fleld" balls within the three (3) batting cages. The instructional and pracbce component of the facility prowdes an area for youths and adults to practice their hitt,ng, pitching and catching skills. The retail, restroom and office space wdl comprise approximately 4,800 square feet of the unit. According to the applicabon, the retail component accounts for approximately 8 ~ percent of the revenue generated by the business. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GRAND SLAM USA / # 7 Page 4 Evaluation of Request The applicant ~s proposing to occupy 7,000 square feet of the budding for indoor batting cages, instrucbonal and practice facilities, glove repair and retail sales related to the games of softball and baseball within an existing shopping center. The retail, office and restroom facilities will occupy 4,800 square feet There is adequate parking available within the exisbng parking lot to accommodate this proposed use The applicant indicates that no structural changes to the budding are needed for the operation. Further review, however, by the Fire Department and Permits and Inspecbons may necessitate alterations in order to comply with applicable fire and handicap requirements and the Uniform Statewide Building Code. The request for a Conditional Use Permit for a recreabonal facility of an indoor nature is recommended for approval subject to the cond,tions I~sted below. Conditions 1. A Certrficate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Official before the ~ssuance of any business license or building permit associated with the request. 2. No storage or repair of recreational equipment shall be permitted outside the building. 3. No additional site lighting shall be ~nstalled beyond that needed for site security, all of which shall be shielded away from all adjoimng properties NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of appficable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GRAND SLAM USA / # 7 Page 5 2-STORY DRfVE Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GRAND SLAM USA / # 7 Page 6 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GRAND SLAM USA / # 7 Page 7 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GRAND SLAM USA I # 7 Page 8 Applicant's Name: ' I I ' 11 III · II List AIl Current Property Owners: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, I~t all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) ,.,~'~'~ ~ ~,/~/~/~E'y -- ~)E~_./~-~,~5: ~-- If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below. (Attach list if necessary) r'! .Check hem if the apphcant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. ff the applicant is not the cu~ent owner of the properly, complete the Property Owner Disclosure section below: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporat;on below (Attach/,st ff necessa__~) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners ~n the orgamzation below: (Attach list if necessary) i"1 Check here if the property owner ~s NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. _ /~ Sit,tare - ~' ,/ P~'int Name , ,., ...... .. ,,,. Conditional Use Permit Apphcabon Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 GRAND SLAM USA / # 7 Page 9 Item #7 Grand Slam USA Conditional Use Permit 3636 V~rgnnia Beach Boulevard, State 107 D~stnct 5 Lynnhaven May 14, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next ~tem ~s Item #7, Grand Slam USA. It's an ordinance upon application of Grand Slam USA for a Conditional Use Penmt for a commermal recreational facihty other than those of an outdoor nature. This ~s on Virg~ma Beach Boulevard in the Lynnhaven District and ~t has three conditions. Yes s~r? Joe Ramsey: Joe Ramsey, President of Grand Slam and we agree w~th the conditions. Dorothy Wood: Is there any opposition to Item #7, Grand Slam USA for a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational facility? Heanng none, Barry would you please comment on number seven? Barry Kmght: Yes. It looks hke the purpose of th~s ~s to operate three ~ndoor batting cages in a shopping center. And we evaluated the request. It looks lake the applicant wanted to occupy 7,000 square foot of indoor batting cages and instructional practice facilities. There's also adequate parking avmlable m the ex~stmg parkang lot to accommodate tl~s. And ~t looks hke ~t will be a compatible use. The Commission feels thxs ~s an adequate use of the property so we recommended approval. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Mr. Rlpley, I would move that we approve tlus ~tem on the consent agenda, Item #7 with three conditions. Ronald R~pley: So a motion to approve th~s ~tem that was just read by Dot Wood. Do I have a second? Seconded by Gene Crabtree. Are there any comments? We're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE ABSENT Item #7 Grand Slam USA Page 2 STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Rlpley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust - Conditional Use Permit (bulk storage) 1149 Nimmo Parkway MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust for a Cond~bonal Use Permit for a bulk storage facdity on property located at 1149 Nimmo Parkway (GPIN # 2414-25-6765). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE The purpose of th~s request ~s to obtain a conditional use permIt for bulk storage of pallets and recyclable cardboard materials, and for several seasonal sales areas. Considerations: The site is developed with the Red Mill Commons Shopping Center, which contains a variety of retail and restaurant uses. The site ~s zoned B-2 Community Business D~strict. The site is currently developed with a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The submitted site plan depicts three specific areas proposed for the seasonal sales areas. The seasonal sales areas are proposed in the following locations' In an area of 3,600 square feet on the east side of the building. The area currently is occupied by 19 parking spaces, In an area of 2,800 square feet located between the ex~sting Garden Center and the eastern entrance to the bu~ld~ng; and In an area of 550 square feet d~rectly adjacent to the Tire and Lube Express The site plan depicts the pallet and recyclable cardboard storage area on the western side of the building. It ~s proposed to be screened w~th an eight-foot wall of the same building materials as the store. Seasonal sales includes items such as plants, pabo furniture, grills, recreational ~tems and chddren play ~tems like sw~ng sets and jungle gyms. The applicant has agreed to screen the proposed areas with materials that are complementary to the surrounding development Variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals will Wal-Mart Page 2 of 2 be required for certain aspects of the screening. This is detailed in Conditions 3 and 4, recommended below. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the proposal. · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to approve this request w~th the following conditions: . The seasonal sales areas and the pallet and recyclable cardboard storage area shall be located on the site as depicted on the submitted site plan titled "WAL-MART SUPERCENTER, RED MILL COMMONS, SITE LAYOUT", dated 02125103, and prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates The seasonal sales areas shall be delineated by a decorative wrought iron fence, not less than six (6) foot in height, with Category I shrubs planted on the outside of the fence. The applicant shall obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the use of this in lieu of the Category VI fencing requirement . The palette and recyclable cardboard storage area shall be screened as depicted on the submitted site plan titled "WAL-MART SUPERCENTER, RED MILL COMMONS, SITE LAYOUT", dated 02/25/03, and prepared by Kimley- Horn and Associates. The apphcant shall obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the use of this in lieu of the Category VI screening requirement. The applicant shall delineate on s~te a crosswalk from the building / garden center area to the seasonal sales areas. Staff will assist the applicant with the adequate width and locations · Attachments: Staff Rewew D~sclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Locabon Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval /I to' Submitting Department/Agency: Planmng Department~r~l/~r~/~ City Manage~ ~-' May 14, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: REQUEST: ADDRESS: K12-211-CUP-2002 Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage 1149 Nimmo Parkway, the south side of Nimmo Parkway, 800 feet east of Newstead Drive Mg~ K-12 No.~ ~o S~o~. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust 8-2 / 2414-25-6765 GPIN: 24142567650000 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18 Page 1 ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: APPLICATION HISTORY: #7 - PRINCESS ANNE 18 508 acres Faith Christie To obtain a conditional use permit for bulk storage of pallets and recyclable cardboard matenals, and for several seasonal sales areas This request was deferred at the April 9 hearing at the request of the applicant. Major Issues: · Compliance with the City Zoning Ordinance. · Compatibility with the surrounding commercial and residenbal areas. · Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the Courthouse / Sandbridge Planmng Area. · Consistency with the Retail Design Guidelines Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zoninq The site is developed with the Red Mill Commons Shopping Center, which contains a variety of retail and restaurant uses. The site is zoned B-2 Community Business D~stnct. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18 Page 2 Surroundina Land Use and Zonin,q North: South: East: West: · Several out-parcels of the Red Mill Commons Shopping Center / B-2 Community Business District · Nimmo Parkway · Across Nimmo Parkway ~s the Red Mill Farms subdivision / R-7.5 Residential District · Undeveloped parcel/B-2 Community Business District · Princess Anne Road and Elson Green Avenue · Undeveloped parcel/B-2 Community Bus~ness District (Rezoning to Condlbonal A-18 Apartment District pending) · Newstead Drive · Across Newstead Drive is the Red Mill Farms subdivision and a Church / R-20 Residential District Zoninq History The s~te is part of a larger tract of land that was rezoned from Residence Suburban, Agricultural, Limited Commercial and General Commercial to Limited Commercial in November 1963. In January 1964, a Conditional Use Permit was approved on the s~te for a NASCAR racetrack similar to the Charlotte Speedway in North Carolina. Development of the site began in 2000 with the construction of the Wal-Mart Supercenter. ^ Conditional Use Permit for an automotive service establishment for the Wal-Mart (Tire Lube Express) was approved in November 2000. The following condibons were attached: 1. No outside storage of parts or repair of vehicles is permitted 2. No outside display or storage of bres is permitted. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The s~te is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST I # 18 Page 3 Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer City water and sewer are avadable to the s~te. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Nimmo Parkway in front of this site is a four-lane major collector road. It is depicted on the MTP as a 100 foot wide divided right-of-way Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity The proposed use should not N~mmo Parkway 17,300ADT ~ 6,600 ADT ~ result ~n any add~bonal trips Average Dady Trips Permits and Inspections There are a number of containerized cargo containers along the rear of the site used for storage. The C~ty Zoning Ordinance, under Section 203 (d), prohibits the use of semi- tra~lers for commercial or industrial storage except on bona fide construction sites The Zoning Administrator determined that the cargo containers were semi-trailers thus falling under the provisions of Secbon 203 (d) of the zoning ordinance. The applicant was notified of the Zoning Administrator's determination. The applicant appealed that determination to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals heard the applicant's appeal on May 7, 2003. The Board determined that the containers are not semi-traders, and are not a violation of Secbon 203(d) of the City Zoning Ordinance. Thus, they are not subiect to this use permit. This ~nformation regarding the cargo containers is provided for ~nformabon only The Permits and Inspections D~vision of the Department of Planning, however, has required a building permit for the nineteen (19) shipping containers, as allowed ~n Section 3104 (Temporary Structures)of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. The requirements noted below under Fire would also have to be addressed for any type of storage container allowed under the C~ty Zoning Ordinance. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18 Page 4 Public Safety. Police: Fire and Rescue: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Cnme Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this s~te Any type of storage container allowed under the City Zoning Ordinance and used for storing hazardous, flammable or combustible materials shall be marked according to NFPA 704 Hazardous materials shall be segregated and incompatible materials shall not be stored in the same storage container. Any type of storage container allowed under the City Zoning Ordinance and its contents shall be inspected during the routine annual fire inspection to verify proper storage and markings of any hazardous materials regulated by the V~rginia Statewide Fire Prevenbon Code. Any type of storage container allowed under the C~ty Zoning OrdInance and used for storage shall be spaced no less than five (5) feet apart to prevent the transfer of fire from one storage container to another The Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code, F-2103.3, requires that outside storage of items shall not be closer than fifteen (15) feet to any lot hne and any other building on the site Pnvate fire hydrants shall be maintained annually as identified in N.F.P.A. 25 Comprehensive Plan · The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as suitable for retail, service, office and other compatible uses w~thin commercial centers serving the surrounding neighborhoods and communities. Th~s s~te ~s identified in the Comprehensive Plan as Opportunity S~te 1 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18 Page 5 Summary of Proposal Proposal The applicant proposes to use certain designated areas on the site for the display and storage of seasonal items, for storage of pallets, and for the storage of recyclable cardboard materials. Site Design The site is currently developed w~th a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The submitted site plan depicts three specific areas proposed for the seasonal sales areas. The seasonal sales areas are proposed in the following locations: o In an area of 3,600 square feet on the east s~de of the building The area currently is occupied by 19 parking spaces; o In an area of 2,800 square feet located between the exisbng Garden Center and the eastern entrance to the building; and o In an area of 550 square feet directly adjacent to the Tire and Lube Express. The site plan depicts the pallet and recyclable cardboard storage area on the western side of the building. It is proposed to be screened with an eight-foot wall of the same building materials as the store. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · Existing vehicle circulabon and pedestrian access will be affected by the proposal. Architectural Desiqn · There are no building additions proposed with the application; however, screening walls are depicted on the site plan. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18 Page 6 Landscape and Open Space Desi,qn Sufficient landscaping and open space exists within the shopping center. · The screening proposed around the seasonal sales areas ~s deficient Evaluation of Request The request for a Conditional Use Permit for Bulk Storage ~s acceptable with respect to the proposed seasonal sales areas and the pallet and recyclable cardboard storage area, subject to the condibons I~sted below. Seasonal sales includes ~tems such as plants, patio furniture, grills, recreabonal items and children play items like swing sets and jungle gyms. The applicant has agreed to screen the proposed areas with materials that are complementary to the surrounding development. Variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals will be required for certain aspects of the screening. This is detailed in Conditions 3 and 4, recommended below. The Conditional Use Permit request for seasonal sales areas and a pallet and recyclable cardboard storage area is acceptable subject to the following conditions. Conditions . . The seasonal sales areas and the pallet and recyclable cardboard storage area shall be located on the s~te as depicted on the submitted s~te plan titled "WAL- MART SUPERCENTER, RED MILL COMMONS, SITE LAYOUT", dated 02/25/03, and prepared by Kimley-Hom and Associates. The seasonal sales areas shall be delineated by a decorabve wrought iron fence, not less than s~x (6) foot in height, with Category I shrubs planted on the outside of the fence. The applicant shall obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the use of th~s in lieu of the Category VI fencing requirement. The palette and recyclable cardboard storage area shall be screened as depicted on the submitted site plan btled '~/VAL-MART SUPERCENTER, RED MILL COMMONS, SITE LAYOUT", dated 02/25/03, and prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates. The applicant shall obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the use of this in lieu of the Category VI screening requirement. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST I # 18 Page 7 The applicant shall delineate on site a crosswalk from the building / garden center area to the seasonal sales areas Staff will assist the applicant with the adequate width and locations. NO TE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. III Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST I # 18 Page 8 AND RECYCLEABLE t Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18 Page 9 IIIlilItUHIItlIU]Iflll I~II,,,,~,,,.,, ,,,,.,,,,,,,~ Ol I"'"'""'""""' ' I :::::::::::::::::::::::::: Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18 Page 10 Applieant'~ Nm-ne: List Ail C~,rent Property Owaers: APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 4 CONDITIONAL USE,PERMIT ~ OF VIKGtNIA BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PROPERTY OWNER DlSCLOStrRE Ii'the property ovmer l~ a CORPORATION, itst all offi~rs of th~ Carpor~ion lz:low: (Attach If the ~ ow~r is a PARTNRRSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, fist ail rr~mbers or parmer~ ia Check h~e :ft~ prop~rt~ owner is NOT a cot~r'.tica, ;m'tneta~. firm, or other APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If thc apphcant ~s a CORPORATION, list all officers of~e Corp~ralaon below'. ~4aac~ hst ifnecea~oy) . If the agplicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGAI~IZ~TION, list ~I1 Check bert tt't,~e apphcam I$ NOT a ¢c~porat:on, pa~ersMp, fim~. or other uniaaccrporated orgzmizagon. l { CERTI~CATION: I certify that ~e information contained herein i~ true and accurate. Pnnt~'l~ara¢ Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST I it 18 Page 11 Exh/bit A Officer list Wa-Mart Real Estate Business Trust Lee Scott-- Sole Managing Trustee ? Paul Carter-- President , Jay Fitzsimmons -- Senior Vice President and Treasurer James W. Walker, Jr. Senior Vice President Eric Zorn Senior Vice President Robert K. Rhoads -- Secretary David Bullington- Vice President-- Tax Anthony Fuller-- Vice President Martin Gilbert-- Vice President & Assistant Secretary A/lison Garrett Vice President & Asmstant Secretary Eric Zorn-- Vice President Don Bthefidge -- Controller Robert Bo:lard -- Assistant Vice President & Assistant Secretary Jim Bennett -- Assistant Vice President J. Robert Bray -- Assistant Vice President & Assistant Secretary Kimberly K. Lane Assistant Vice President & Assistant Secretary S. Richard Levln Assistant Vice president & Assistant Secretary Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18 Page 12 Barry Shannahan Assistant Vice President & Assistant Secretary George Bacso - Assistant Secretary Angela Beehler-- Assistant Secretary Debbie Cawood Assistant Secreta~' Ann Elliot Assistant Secretary Anthony George Assistant Secretary. Chris Glass Assistant Secretary Scott Greear -- Assistant Secretary Wanda Hams Assistant Secretary Jim Harris Assistant Secretary Sonnie I-lilg er Assistant Secretary Greg Higson- Assistant Secretary Michael Kersting - Assistant Secretary Adele Lucas- Assistant Secretary Carl Muller Assistant Secretary Karen Roberts -- Assistant Secretary Brandt Rydell Assistant Secretary Kim Saylors-- Assistant Secretary John Thompson -- Assistant Secretary. Michael Tomlin-- Assistant Secretary Pcrloc~4'2S'2 re~sed ?17101 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18 Page 13 Latriece Watldns Assist. ant Secretary Elizabeth Branigan -- Assistant Treasurer Michael Cook-- Assistant Treasurer Pedoes#4.~282 r~;~sed 3~7,'0J Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST / # 18 Page 14 2404-54-7746 ZONING HISTORY 1. 2-26-90- REZONING (AG-2 Agricultural to R-10 Residential) Granted 2a.8-11-92- SUBDIVISION VARIANCE (Lillipond Lane) Granted 2b. 8-11-92 - SUBDIVISION VARIANCE (Huckleberry Trail) Denied 3. 6-25-90- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (church) Granted 3-28-88- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (church) Denied 3-10-86- REZONING (AG-2 Agricultural to R-3 Residential) Granted 4. 8-10-99- REZONING (AG-I&2 Agricultural and R-20 Residential to conditional R-10 Residential) Granted 8-10-99 - SUBDIVISION VARIANCE - Granted 5. 6-9-80 - REZONING (AG-I&2 Agricultural to R-5 Residential) Granted ITEM: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM Joseph G. Piper- Change of Zoning District Classification and Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Joseph G. Piper for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-2 Agricultural D~strict to R-15 Residential District on property located at 2332 Seaboard Road (GPIN 2404547746). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Joseph G. Piper. Property is located at 2332 Seaboard Road (GPIN 2404547746). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE The purpose of the requests is to subdivide the existing lot into three lots, two of which would be flag lots. The existing house and accessory structures are proposed to remain Considerations: The property is currently developed with one s~ngle-family dwelling constructed in 1960 and is zoned AG-2 Agricultural District. The applicant proposes to subdiwde the area of the ex~sting parcel located around the exisbng house by creating a new lot in front of and behind the ex~sting house. The front parcel would conform to the Subdivision Ordinance regulations, but the middle (ex~sting house) and rear lots would be flag lots The preliminary plat shows a total of three lots stacked behind each other The m~ddle and rear lots are flag lots w~th a stem of 15 feet providing frontage on Seaboard Road. The existing detached garage is 1,200 square feet, which is well over the 500 square foot size limit for detached structures in the R-15 Residential Zoning District. Therefore, unless the garage is removed or attached to the house, th~s structure wdl become nonconforming. Joseph Piper Page 2 of 3 There is really no undue hardship created by applying the rules of the Subdivision Ordinance that would justify support of a subdivision variance. The property ~s not an unusual shape, nor does ~t contain any natural or physical features that create any kind of hardship. Th~s ~s not a unique situation. There are other properties on the west side of Seaboard, not to mention throughout the entire C~ty, that have a large amount of area but a limited amount of street frontage, and as a result, cannot be subdivided to the maximum density. This lot was created just 13 years ago with the intent to reorient smaller lots to Huckleberry Trail and create larger lots on Seaboard Road. Another factor to be considered is that with Seaboard Road about to undergo a major w~dening, the farther the houses can be from the road, the better. The existing lot and building configuration accomplishes this. Finally, ~f approved, the proposal will have a detrimental ~mpact on the ne~ghbonng properties, particularly the neighboring property to the north. Staff recommended denial. There was opposition to the proposals. · Recommendations: The Planmng CommissIon passed a mobon by a recorded vote of 10-0 to deny the requests. Since the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant has submitted a request to the Planning Department regarding the disposition of these two requests. The applicant desires the following: 1. Withdrawal of the Subdivision Variance, and . Referral of the Change of Zoning request back to the Planmng Commission. The applicant notes that the plan is being revised to reflect a subd~wsion that wdl conform to R-10 zoning. Such a change justifies the need to refer the Change of Zomng to the Planning Commission for additional review. · Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission M~nutes Locabon Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends w~thdrawal of the SubdivIsIon Variance as requested by the apphcant and referral of the Change of Zomng to the Planmng Commission Submitting Department/Agency: ~ Planmng Department~ ~ City Manager: ~:$ IL, ,'~~ Page 1 of 1 Stephen White - Rezoning and Subdivision Variance I I I'~' Ill Il"Il ' I ' '~'~'~,':.:--'- ............... ': ............... ~'~'~"'-'-' ...... ~ ........ I From: To: Date: Subject: CC: <JoeyJina@aol.com> <amoss@vbgov com> 5/21/2003 11:54 PM Rezon~ng and Subdivision Variance <JoeyJ~na(~aol.com>, <rfnnk@vbgov com> Ashby, After further rewew of the subject application, please w~thdrawal the subdlws~on variance and defer the rezomng The plan ~s being rewsed to reflect a subd~ws~on of lot 5 ~nto 2 lots The lots w~ll conform to R10 zomng, no flag lots Also, a proffer agreement and title certificate are being prepared for a conditional rezomng Th~s w~ll include an ~ncrease ~n the front yard setback to more than double of that required If you have any questions or comments, please contact me Thank You for Your T~me and Attention, Joseph G P~per 2332 Seaboard Rd Property Owner Mobile # 681-2246 Home & Fax # 563-9018 Current E-ma~l Address joeyjlna@aol com JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2 May 14, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION J12 - 210 - REZ- 2003 NUMBER: J12- 210- SVR- 2003 REQUEST: I Chanqe of Zoninq District Classification from AG-2 Agricultural D~strict to R-15 Resldenbal D~stnct; Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance ADDRESS: 2332 Seaboard Road ~'~ Not 'co Stole Conclll'lonol Glnn 2404-5,1-77~6 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOSEPH G. PIPER I # 1 & 2 Page 1 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 24045477460000 7- PRINCESS ANNE I 58 acres Ashby Moss To subdivide the existing lot into three lots, two of which would be flag lots. The existing house and accessory structures are proposed to remain. Major Issues: · Compatibility of density with surrounding residenbal development. · Creation of a nonconforming structure with the change of zoning. · Presence of a hardship jusbfying the variances to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. · Maintaining an orderly development pattern during changes ~n Seaboard Road. Land Use, Zoning, and Site C h aracte ri stics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property is currently developed with one single-famdy dwelling constructed ~n 1960 and is zoned AG-2 Agricultural D~strict Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq North: South: · Single-family dwelling built in 1993 / AG-2 Agricultural District · Four single-family dwellings fronbng Huckleberry Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOSEPH G. PIPER I # 1 & 2 Page 2 East: West: Trad (part of Southgate neighborhood) / R-10 Residential District · Single-famdy dwellings (part of Southgate neighborhood)/R-10 Residenbal D~strict · Across Seaboard Road, church / R-20 Residential Distnct; · Large lot single-family homes fronting Seaboard Road / AG-2 Agncultural District Zoninq and Land Use Statistics With Existing One singe family home and other permitted agncultural Zoning: uses. With Proposed Zoning: Three s~ngle-famlly homes. Zoninq History The Southgate neighborhood east of the subject site was rezoned from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to R-5 Res,denbal (now R-10)~n 1980. The subject property was part of a group of parcels that were resubdivided in 1990. The group of parcels included the subject site, the four lots immediately south of the subject s~te, and the adjacent property just north of the subject site. Previously, four parcels fronted Seaboard Road in a similar fashion to the rema~mng parcels on the east side of Seaboard north and south of th~s area A larger parcel was situated behind (east of) the four Seaboard lots and fronted on Huckleberry Trail Just pnor to the resubdiwsion in 1990, ,2 NORTH 1990 Subdlwslon of Subject and Surrounding Parcels Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2 Page 3 the area of the four smaller lots fronting Huckleberry Trail was approved for a rezoning from AG-2 Agricultural to R-10 Residential on February 26, 1990. A Subdivision Variance request to not install s~dewalks in two areas south of the subject site was acted upon on August 11, 1992. The developer was required to install s~dewalks on Huckleberry Trail, but was not required to ~nstall a sidewalk on L~lhpond Lane leading to the neighborhood park. The most recent zoning acbvity in the area occurred in 1999 with the rezon~ng of the Pnncess Anne Woods property. The zoning for this property, located on the west side of Seaboard Road, was changed from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to R-10 Residential. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The s~te ~s in an AICUZ of 65-70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is a 12-inch water ma~n and an 8-inch gravity sanitary sewer in Seaboard Road. The lots must connect to City water and sewer. Plans and bonds are required for extension of a water line and for construction of an extension of the sewer system. A sewer and pump station analysis for Station 612 is required to ensure the proposed flows can be accommodated. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) I Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Seaboard Road in the vicinity of this application is a two-lane undivided residential dead end street. The MTP designates the section of Seaboard Road between Nimmo (formerly Ferrell) Parkway and Princess Anne Road as a 125-foot right-of- way. The plan also states that connecbon to Nimmo Parkway will alleviate demand on Princess Anne Road and help reduce traffic through the City's Historic District. CIP Project #2-107 includes plans to improve this section of Seaboard Road to a three-lane undivided facility and connect it to Nimmo Parkway. Construcbon is currently estimated to begin in 2006 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2 Page 4 Traffic Calculations: Street Present V~lume Present Generated Traffic Name Capacity 240 ADT ~ (b/w northern end of Ex~shng Land Us~ ~- 10 Seabaord street and Chddenc Road) 6,200 ADT ADT Level of Road 1,500 ADT (b/w Ch~ldenc Road and Pnncess Anne Road) Service C Proposed Land Use 3_ 30 ADT Average Dady Trips 2 as defined by one single-family home 3 as defined by three smgle-famdy homes Public Safety Police: No comments. Fire and Rescue: The residential structures must be w~th~n 200 feet of an all weather road surface for emergency vehicle access. The road width must be at least 18 feet, and a cul-de-sac or hammerhead must be prowded to facilitate maneuvering large vehicles. A fire hydrant must be within 500 feet of any residenbal structure. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehenswe Plan recommends Iow-density s~ngle-family residential land use with a density of 3 5 dwelhng units per acre or less. Site Plan I Preliminary Plat: Existing Lot: The existing lot is rectangular ~n shape and contains I 58 acres. The lot was part of a resubdivision that took place ,n 1990. The properties to the north and south of the subject lot were also part of that resubdiv~s~on. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2 Page 5 ~'~ "-- o.95' r~ t...,==,~ - s -~' , I[ III 'r~c~: c~al I ~ a ~ pm~/a'r~ naa,u,~a¢ i::A~I:UFNT At nkl~ ANn An ~u~.F~ Tt~THF RFAR AND SlOE PROPERTY LINES OF Ex~sting Site Survey Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2 Page 6 Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide the property into three lots, two of whIch would be flag lots Item Required Lot 5A Lot 5B Lot 5C Lot W~dth in feet (for proposed R- 15 District) 100 152 15* 15* Lot Area in square feet (for proposed R-15 Distnct) 15,000 20,064 23,272 25,277 ~1~% · i Vanance required ' l LOT 1,,t,, LOT 5A J SEABDARD RDAD (VAR, R/W) Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2 Page 7 Summary of Proposal Proposal · The applicant proposes to subdivide the area of the existing parcel located around the existing house by creating a new lot in front of and behind the house. The front parcel would conform to the Subdivision Ordinance regulations, but the mIddle and rear lots would be flag lots Site Desiqn · The preliminary plat shows a total of three lots stacked behind each other. The middle and rear lots are flag lots with a stem of 15 feet providing frontage on Seaboard Road. The ex~sting detached garage is 1,200 square feet, which is well over the 500 square foot s~ze limit for detached structures ~n the R-15 Residenbal Zoning District Therefore, unless the garage is removed or attached to the house, this structure will become nonconforming. Because right-of-way was dedicated when this property was resubd~vided in 1990, no additional right-of-way ~s necessary from the subject property for the current design of the Seaboard Road improvements. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access All three lots would be required to share a single driveway. The Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works has commented that no additional access points can be approved for Seaboard Road. Once Seaboard Road becomes a collector facility, access management must be exercised to preserve the capacity of th~s roadway as a collector and to provide for traffic safety by minimizing the number of confhct points presented by entrances The Fire Department has expressed concern with providing access for emergency vehicles to the structures Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2 Page 8 A dnveway with a minimum width of 18 feet or more is necessary, along with an adequately sized turnaround area. The driveway must be constructed of an all weather surface Architectural Design · The existing house is a one-story ranch style house with a large, detached two-car garage. · The preliminary plat ~ndicates the new houses would be two-story dwellings with 2,500 square feet and a brick face. Landscape and Open Space · Approximately the rear quarter of the site is heawly wooded and m a natural state. Evaluation of Request The applicant's requests for a Change of Zoning from AG-2 Agricultural to R-15 Residential and a Subdivision Variance are not acceptable. While the proposed density is compatible w~th the adjacent Southgate neighborhood, the proposed flag lot orientabon will set a standard for d~sorderly development along Seaboard Road. Staff evaluabon of a Subdivision Variance ~s based on several factors, including the degree of compliance with C~ty ordinances and regulations, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and adherence to good accepted land use and development practices and theory. Personal hardship does not enter into the Staff's evaluation. Above all, Staff's evaluation is based on Section 9 3 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which addresses variances to the ordinance. Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: A Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Bo The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood wdl not be adversely affected. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2 Page 9 Co D. Eo The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary s~tuation or condibon of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a vanance. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertaIns to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. The applicant's proposal fails to meet the criteria represented in ~tems A through E above. There is really no undue hardship created by applying the rules of the Subdivision Ordinance. The property is not an unusual shape, nor does it contain any natural or physical features that create any kind of hardship Th~s is not a unique situation. There are other properbes on the west s~de of Seaboard, not to mention throughout the entire City, that have a large amount of area but a hmited amount of street frontage, and as a result, cannot be subdivided to the maximum density. This lot was created just 13 years ago with the intent to reorient smaller lots to Huckleberry Trail and create larger lots on Seaboard Road. Another factor to be considered is that with Seaboard Road about to undergo a major widening, the farther the houses can be from the road, the better. The existing lot and building configuration accomplishes this. F~nally, if approved, the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the neighboring properties, particularly the neighbonng property to the north. Based on the reasons stated above, Staff recommends denial of the apphcant's requests. If, however, the applications are approved, the following condibons are recommended for the Subdiwsion Variance. Conditions 1. Only one access point shall be permitted on Seaboard Road. A one-foot no ~ngress/egress easement ~s required along the frontage of the parcel except at the one permitted entrance. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOSEPH G. PIPER I # 1 & 2 Page 10 , A private road shall be constructed to serve all three lots. The road shall be a mimmum of 18-feet w~de and shall be constructed of an all weather surface approved by the Fire Marshall. A turnaround area shall be provIded to accommodate large emergency vehicles. Private reciprocal cross access easements shall be provided to accommodate the shared driveway. A maintenance agreement shall also be provided for the shared private driveway. 3. No variances to m~nimum required setbacks shall be permitted. 4. The existing garage shall either be razed or connected to the primary dwelhng. 5. The shed in the rear yard shall be removed or moved so that it is at least ten feet from the rear and s~de yards. NO TE: ·ii Upon granting of a Subdivision Variance, a final subdivision plat must be submitted to the Development Services Center for approval and recordation. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable Cit~ Ordinances. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2 Page 11 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2 Page 12 Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below:. (Attach list if necessary) !~. heck 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) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the orgamzation below: (Attach list if necessary) i[~'~heck here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnemhip, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: ! certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. ~ ,..~i~lna, t~re ~ .// ,,,, ....... ,,, Print Name Rezoning Apphcatlon Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOSEPH G. PIPER / # 1 & 2 Page 13 DISCLOSU~ STATEMENT Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: ~~?~ ~. ~ APPUCANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below' (Attach list if nece'ssary) [~]~Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. ff the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Property Owner Disclosure section below: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below:. (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list ff necessary) ~Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partne~hip, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIRCATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Sig Print Name Subd~sion Vanance Apphcation Page 9 of 13 Modified I 016 2002 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 JOSEPH G. PIPER I # 1 & 2 Page 14 Item #1 & 2 Joseph G. P~per Change of Zomng Classfficatlon and Dems~ons of Admna~stratlve Officers ~n regard to certmn elements of the Subdivision Ordinance 2332 Seaboard Road D~stnct 7 Pnncess Anne May 14, 2003 REGULAR Ronald R~pley: This takes us to the regular agenda. These are items that are to be heard and there's opposition, as we understand ~t for each one of these ~tems so we need to formally hear these items. So, Mr. Miller would you call the first ~tem. Robert M~ller. The first ~tems are Items #1 & 2, Joseph G. Piper. Joseph P~per: Good aftemoon. Ronald Pdpley: Good af~emoon. Joseph P~per: Joseph G P~per. You are all famihar with the property as it lays out. I would hke to first start off'by saying that onganally when I first started lookxng at this property, we're looking at subdividing ~t nato four lots w~th a City approved roadway with a cul-de-sac. I approached my next-door neighbor on Lot 6 who ~s not walling to put our lots together to do the cul-de-sac. So, looking nato ~t further found that the fourth lot was basically not going to cover the construction cost and engmeenng cost to put m a road and subdivide the lot. That's why I backed off to the three lots that you see now that have the flag lots, two non-confonmng lots w~th the one confonmng in front. The two non-conforming lots would have 15 foot road frontage which tallong with the C~ty Planmng Department request that be a one common drive which I do not have a problem w~th. I have talked to a neighbor who has requested that be a certain chstance from the property hne whmh I do not have a problem w~th offsetting that 5-10 foot, whatever you all would deem necessary to put that in. The lots are requesting to rezone to R- 15, which ~s 15,000 square foot, much greater than the 10,000 square foot of adjoining lots from South Gate. When we looked at tins we d~d not want to try to ~ncrease the density in that area and not try to take away any value from the existnag houses and properties adjacent. The lots will actually have 20,000 square foot approxmaately some greater than 20,000 square foot. Which probably exceeds the R-15 square footage and we think that we're definitely keep the houses further away from the lots to help decrease any loss of value to surrounding properties. The concerns and I know there ~s opposition and some concerns from neighbors about safety and road w~dth, which has been addressed ~n the con&t~ons. I beheve it ~s number two. We are to add a 15-foot w~de driveway that would lend ~tself to the fire trucks and that as the w~dth. I really do not have a problem w~th the depth or the s~ze of that road construction. It does concern me as to how much that would cost and along with that the tumaround that may be reqmred. How wide that would need to be? Other than that, we would defimtely try to make it as safe as possible and defimtely withan the dastance of any fire hydrants or anytinng that the Caty ordinance reqmres. I thank the only other concems, which I beheve maybe the most beanng would be the precedence for other dav~s~on of property an the area. That asn't true. There are some other area lots ~n that area that have saze and could be d~v~ded and may create precedence. However, I thank the R-15 condition could be applied to those to not devalue thear adjacent property as at done an tins d~v~s~on. That would ehminate others from trying to congest thear propertaes even more or further. I thank those were some of the opposmons that I heard to date. I think that as basmally the only thing that is in opposat~on to. Anythang else I looked at is the lots themselves. They are defimtely w~de enough that we can adjust or move a house locataon anywhere on that property that would lend atselfto any concerns that the neighbors would have. And, I beheve that is all I have at this t~me. Any questaons? Ronald Pdpley: Do we have any questaons? Dot Wood has a question. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Piper, what do you consader your hardshap? I notice that the staff does not see a hardship sance it's a rectangular lot. Joseph Piper: Pdght, rectangular ~n shape. Dorothy Wood: And you owned it for 13 years? Is that correct? Joseph Paper: I've owned at. I bought at an December 96, so that would be seven years. At the t~me that I bought at and thank you for bnngmg that up, I forgot to mentaon, at was not our ~ntent to subdivide the lot. And, we were not aware of the connections to Nammo Parkway or the wademng of Seaboard Road. Those are, I know not really recognized an the ordanance as a hardship but to me ~t was basically a hardslup now that I wanted to build a new house and wanted to subdivide the lot to conform to the adjacent propemes of South Gate. So, the only hardship as really from when I purchased at, I was not aware of the ex~stang conditions. The lot ~n ats shape I did not have any preconceived notions at the t~me to subdavide at an the future. So, that was not of my concern. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Joseph P~per: I guess that's ~t. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Ronald R~pley: Mr. Din, did you have a question? Wilham Din: No. Ronald R~pley: I thought I saw someone? Charhe? Charhe Salle': I had the same questaon that Dot asked. Ronald R~pley: I have a question. Do you know of any other flag lots on tins road? Joseph Piper: There ~s a flag lot right across the street. Ronald Rapley: What ~s the required frontage of that? Joseph Piper: I'm sorry. Ronald Rapley: Am I loolang at that right? Joseph Piper: I have to go back to the plan. Ronald Pdpley: It's a flag shaped lot. Joseph Piper: Right. Ronald Pdpley: That's more than enough frontage in size. Dorothy Wood: It does have frontage. Ronald Pdpley: The variance that you're looking for is a variance on the front footage of the lot. Joseph P~per: Right. Correct. Ronald Rlpley: And the lot that you're refemng to, I believe ~f I'm loolang at ~t correctly is a large pmce of land that's kind of flag in shape but it has more than the frontage on you have on your property. Joseph P~per: I was refemng to the one that is directly across the street from Huckleberry Trail. But there is a special condition w~th that. It was not City owned approved. I think there was a condition that granted them access to get back to that lot. Ronald Pdpley: Any other questions? Yes. Kathy Katslas. Kathy Katsias: Mr. Piper, do you live on Lot 5B? Joseph P~per: Yes. I currently reside. Kathy Katslas: And the two lots that you're planning on subdividing, are those going to be for sale or are you planning to do the building yourself?. Joseph Piper: Well, I was planmng on building them and selling. Kathy Kats~as: Are you planning to reconstruct then your house? Joseph Piper: That is correct. I was going to do 5A & 5C first and then either demolish or move the existing dwelling and then build there. Kathy Katslas: I understand the garage has to be moved down here in order for you to use lt. Correct? Joseph P~per: Right. Kathy Katslas: Does someone reside in the garage? Joseph Piper: Oh, I heard at the 9:00 o'clock meeting. No. No one does reside in there. Every so often a cat spends the mght in there but other than that, no one stays in the garage. It's pretty full to if you would like to come by and take a look at lt. Somebody wouldn't want to live an there. Ronald Rapley: Any other questions? Thank you We would lake to see if there as any opposmon and they wash to come up. Is there anybody else to speak In favor of it? Robert Miller: I have opposition. Robert Grandfield. Robert Grandfield: Good aftemoon. My name as Robert Grandfield. I hve at 2412 Huckleberry Trail. So, that I am a direct abutter to the third of Mr. Paper's proposed new houses. I thought Ms. Moss gave a very excellent summary flus morning, which supplements the written materials that she submitted to the Planning Commission. And, being mindful of the admomshlng to be brief, I shall not go through those any of those again. I would simply ask you to incorporate an your flunking all of the objections that she raised. Basically, what this comes down to m the view of all the abutting neighbors IS an attempt to force fit a so called flag lot into a spot where it doesn't make any sense for either the City or the existing neighborhoods. The neighbors on three sides of Mr. Paper all object to this proposed development. I therefore ask you to vote that this be turned down. I would like to submit to flus Committee a petition with eleven signatures representing seven adj omIng households asking that you vote no on ttus proposal. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Grandfield. Thank you Robert Miller: And also speaking as Larry, IS it "Stalecup"? Larry Stalcup: Stalcup. Wilham Din: Mr. Miller, can I ask ham to point out. Mr Grandfield, can you point out the houses that object to this~ Robert Grandfield: Yes sir. I have to orient myself. I have to put my bi-focals on. Okay. This house objects and this house objects And, I believe they will be speaking today. My house is right there. This house objects and here as my house. Th~s house objects and ttns house objects. And, Mr. Stalcup, if I understand correctly ~s I think ~s in this house lot right here Mr. Stalcup? Robert Miller. We'll ask him that when he gets up here. Robert Grandfield: Does that answer your question s~r? William Din: Yes. Thank you. Ronald thpley: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Robert Grandfield: Thank you. Robert Miller: Mr. Stalcup. Larry Stalcup: Hi. My name is Larry Stalcup. I hve in the lot, I guess it's number six. Ronald Rlpley: There's a pointer right there. Do you see that little laser thing? You kind of just push the button. Larry Stalcup: That's my house right there. So, I have the most footage of border on this property and I feel I have the most to lose or gmn from this. And, I don't think builchng a home m the front yard and backyard is a good character of the neighborhood. And, it will hurt the value. My biggest concern ~s that road, that 18 foot road that's going to go all along the s~de of my property, that combined with what the City is going to take away of front for ~mproving Seaboard, I'm going to have traffic all around me. And, I don't flunk it's going to be good for my property value where the quality of life for my kids or even the neighborhood. But that's my mmn beef is that road right there. And, we do have a lot of problems with drainage back there. If it rains heavy, there's going to be a lot of water an there. We don't have C~ty drmnage. We got d~tches and I know that woods in the back is heavily wooded the t~mbers are going to have to be brought down. I got a lot of concern about all of the tracks going right beside my house. In one of those p~cmres I saw, there was a great p~cture showing the distance between my garage and garage and it's not that much. If that road will be going within feet of my garage and I'm agmnst that. Th~s is my house here. There's a garage right here. And ttus road is going to go right through there. And, it will be w~thln feet of my garage and that's what I'm womed about. That's my main objections Ronald Rapley: Okay. Any questions of the Commission? Robert Miller: Next speaker ~s Sara Yelsler. Ronald R~pley. Thank you very much. Sara Yelsler: Hello. I'm speaking for myself, and the Cokers. We are directly behind the lot. The Cokers have the greater part about 100 feet about 30 feet of Mr Piper's yard is across the back of my property and for my husband as well. And, we come to oppose has petition. The first reason ~s a safety ~ssue. The proposal of the long drive to the last bmldmg on the property would pose an emergency mghtmare should vehicles be reqmred. And there ~s no area for them to reverse their d~rect~on. In an emergency, multiple vehicles w~th multiple vehicles and 18 feet would be ~nadequate space for a turnaround. The turnaround would also pose a danger to the adjacent properties ~n the event of an emergency. The second reason ~s the evaluation of adjacent properties. The proposed plan to bmld houses all facing Seaboard Road would place two of these houses facing the rear of the property ~n front of them. Bmlchng s~zable expensive houses on these lots with flus configuration, these houses m~ght have to devalued to be able to sell them as other homes of the same value would have d~rect frontage. This devaluation would affect the homes adjacent to Mr. P~per's property and possibly a s~zeable area around them. The last reason ~s the precedence thas really m~ght have ~n the future. If this type of variance ~s granted, ~t could open up the opporttmity for other simdar petitions. This type of configuratmn ~s not in keeping w~th the layout of subd~ws~ons and would destroy the continmty of the orderly way subd~ws~ons are constructed. Thank you. Ronald R~pley: Thank you very much. Any questions? Thank you. Sara Ye~sler: Thanks. Ronald Rapley: Anybody else speaking for or agatnst? Mr. P~per, if you would lflce to come up You can address items that have been rinsed. It's an opporttmity to rebut. Joseph P~per: I'll just take a couple ofmanutes. The concerns, I guess the adjacent neighbor on Lot 6, Larry Stalcup's property. The existing driveway of has ~s approximately eight foot from the property as ~t stands now. And, a few years back, he went ~nto a variance for has garage to be put within five feet of the property line, which was approved w~thout opposition. And, the proposal for the driveway now would not be any closer they are. The ex~st~ng dwelhngs, I don't feel will be devalmng the houses ~n any way In with their size, I don't thank ~t's going to be a problem as far as the value and may probably ~ncrease the value of the lots around lt. The other issue is with the fire trucks being able to mm around I kand of addressed that earher. With a cul-de-sac, ff that needs to be put ~n, what s~ze that would be and what pavement thickness. That k~nd of concerns me just because of the cost may go up greatly and ~t may take away from the value of the lots themselves. The only thing that I have concerns w~th ~s that pavement thackness and the lot that drive. It almost seems hke ff it needs to go to 18-foot w~dth and a certmn depth ~t needs to have a turnaround. We're basically talkang about a cul-de-sac And, there needs to be a cul-de-sac put m. It may behoove me to go back and put m the four lots a City approved roadway somethmg that I may consider, ~f the Planning Department ~s not recommending that and may look ~nto defemng that. I don't know what that pavement thackness ~s or what the turnaround width would be to account for that fire department. But, the concerns, I thank for the devalulng, I don't see any problems w~th the devalue of the houses. My property value for my lot has increased even having the R-1 O's right next to it over the last seven years. Ronald Rlpley: Okay. Joseph Piper: And, one other tbang to consider ~s the rezomng from the AG2. Ronald Rapley: You need to wrap it up. You're out of time. Joseph Piper: Oh, I'm sorry, just real quick. Ronald Rlpley: Go ahead. Joseph P~per: The positive tbang is that I would be eltrnmating AG2 to the residential zoning in which it would more conform to that area. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Anybody else to speak in for or against this item? Alright then, I'I1 open it up for discussion amongst the Planning Commassion. Dot, do you have a comment? Dorothy Wood: Thanks Mr. Rapley. I cannot support the apphcatlon because of the neighborhood opposition. And, also I really don't tlunk he has a hardshap so I wall be voting against the apphcat~on. Ronald Pdpley: Thank you very much. Any other comments? Yes, Jan. Janlce Anderson: Thank you. I'm going to be agreeable with Dot ~n not supporting that application. I don't ttunk ~t has comparabihty wath the neighborhood. The development you're proposing is a stacked looked. It's not a normal natural development of property. And, as noted in the staff report, ~t's not a umque at all. You got road frontage but you have a lot of extra land in the back and what you're going to do as develop it to the max and that ~s standard throughout the Caty. It's not a unique hardstup. Ronald Ripley: Any other comments? Charhe. Charhe Salle': I agree wath Dot and I'm not going to support th~s apphcat~on and having hstened to the applicant, I haven't heard any ~nformat~on and to me demonstrate a hardship that is required by the ordinance which ~s unique to this property and also we have information from the Navy where they consider that the application be incompatible wath NAS Oceana operations. Ronald R~pley: Okay. Does somebody wash to make a motaon? Dorothy Wood: I'd lake to make a motaon that we deny the apphcation. Ronald Rlpley: Motmn to deny by Dot Wood. Do I have a second? Jan Anderson seconded it. We're ready to vote AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald lhpley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. Next ~tem. Triton PCS/SunCom E2~ D-H Cron 1485-39-5034 ZONING HISTORY 1. 3-11-65- Green Run REZONING to PD-H1 -HI ITEM: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM Triton PCS/SunCom- Modification to the Green Run Land Use Plan S. Independence Boulevard, south of Nesbitt Drive MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Triton PCS/SunCom for a Modification to the Green Run Land Use Plan for a wireless communication tower on property located on the east side of Independence Boulevard, approximately 700 feet southeast of Nesbitt Dnve within an existing Virginia Power substation (GPIN 1485395034). DISTRICT 3-ROSE HALL The purpose of this request ~s to construct a 90-foot communicabon tower within a Dominion Virginia Power substation area. Considerations: The applicant proposes to erect a 90-foot tall steel monopole tower for wireless communications. The antennae on the tower will be flush-mounted The proposed tower is located within a Dominion Virginia Power substation area Several concrete power poles ranging in height from 70 feet to 90 feet already exist in this area; however, the applicant is unable to co-locate on the existing poles because the concrete poles are not structurally adequate for mounting antennae The power substation ~s located east of Independence Boulevard, adjacent to an apartment complex The proposed tower location ~s 180 feet from Independence Boulevard and 200 feet from the closest apartment building This meets the minimum requirement for d~stance from a residential structure in Section 232(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. The tower and equipment structures also meet all other setback requirements. The exisbng substation ~s enclosed by a ten-foot metal fence The applicant proposes to attach a matching fence on the northern corner of the ex~shng fenced area to contain the tower and associated equipment A row of wax myrtles will be provided around the added secbon of fence, with the excepbon of the s~de used for ~ngress and egress. The applicant has met the Iocabon criteria required by the City Zoning Ordinance by Iocabng the tower w~thm a power substation area ~n which power transmission Triton PCS / Suncom Page 2 of 3 towers are already present The new communication tower and associated equipment will be unobtrusive amongst the existing towers and equipment at the substation. The tower will be equipped to accommodate one additional user should the height and location su~t another user's needs. This wdl potentially eliminate the need for additional towers in the immediate wcinity. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the use is not intrusive and may ehminate the need for additional towers. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposibon to the request. · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: . The tower and equipment shelter shall be constructed as depicted on the submitted s~te plan entitled "Triton PCS Raw Land Substation, S. Independence Blvd., Virginia Beach, VA 23455," prepared by 02 Wireless, Inc., dated 11/15/02 However, the tower shall be designed to accommodate one additional user. A copy of the plan has been presented to City Council and is on file ~n the Planning Department. . The tower structure design shall be modified to accommodate at least two antenna loads at different heights in order to provide for future co-locabon opportun~bes. A revised structural report certifying that the tower is capable of handling additional antenna load at a specified height shall be provided with the detailed site plan. . Landscaping shall be ~nstalled as depicted on sheet Z8 of the submitted site plan idenbfied in Condition 1 above. The fence securing the equipment shelter and tower shall match the existing fence at the substation No barbed wire, razor wire, or electriflcabon shall be permitted. 5. The tower and antennae shall not exceed 90 feet ~n height. The commumcation tower shall be a standard gray color. In the event that the Federal Aviation Administration or other hcensmg entity requires that the tower be painted another color, the height of the tower shall be reduced to a level that will eliminate the requirement that it be painted. Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emissions study (RF Study), conducted Triton PCS / Suncom Page 3 of 3 by a qualified engineer I~censed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will not interfere with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facdibes, shall be prowded 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 ~mmed~ately cease operabon to the extent necessary to stop the interference. . Should the antennae cease to be used for a period of more than one (1) year, the applicant shall remove the antennae and their supporting towers and related equipment. · Attachments: Staff Review D~sclosure Statement Planning Commission M~nutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning CommIssion recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~l.J..~ City Ma nager:~~'~L~//__. TRITON PCS / SUNCOM / # 8 May 14, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: G09 - 210 - CUP - 2002 REQUEST: Modification to the Green Run Land Use Plan to add a wireless communication tower. ADDRESS: East side of Independence Boulevard, approximately 700 feet southeast of Nesb~tt Drive Triton PCS/SunCom 'D-HI Crpm 1485-39-5034 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: 14853950340000 3 - ROSE HALL Planning Commission Agenda May 14. 2003 TRITON PCS I SUNCOM / # 8 Page 1 SITE SIZE. STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 0.977 acre Ashby Moss To construct a 90-foot communicabon tower within a Dominion Virginia Power substation area. Major Issues: · Mitigation of tower ws~bility while providing a service location. · Visibility and screening of associated equipment building. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zoning The proposed tower is located within a Dominion Virginia Power substation area. Several concrete power poles ranging in height from 70 feet to 90 feet already exist in this area. The applicant is unable to coqocate on the exisbng poles because the concrete poles are not structurally adequate for mounting antennae. The substabon is located on a 0.977-acre parcel owned by Dominion Power The property is in the Green Run Planned Development and ~s zoned PD-H1 Planned Unit Development District Communication towers are permitted ~n th~s d~strict as long as they are identified in the Land Use Plan. Therefore, the apphcant is requesbng to modify the Green Run Land Use Plan to add the communicabon tower at this location. Surrounding Land Use and Zonin.q North: · Canal within 180-foot w~de drainage and utihty easement / PD-H1 Planned Unit Development Planning Commission Agenda May 14. 2003 TRITON PCS I SUNCOM / # 8 Page 2 South & West: East: District 66-foot power easement / PD-H1 Planned Unit Development District · Vacant parcel adjacent to Independence Blvd. / PD-H1 Planned Unit Development D~strict · Apartment complex / PD-H1 Planned Unit Development District Zoninq History The subject property ~s located in Green Run and is zoned PD-H1 Planned Unit Development D~strict. The Green Run Land Use Plan was approved March 11, 1965. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site ~s in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as a planned community: an area planned for a variety of cohesive, interdependent uses including a range of residential units, employment, commercial, institutional, cultural, educational, open space, and public uses. Site Plan / Conformance with Section 232 Proposal The applicant proposes to erect a 90-foot tall steel monopole tower for wireless communications. Since the surrounding electric towers are made of concrete, they are unable to support additional commun~cabon equipment. Site Plan The power substation is located west of Independence Boulevard, adjacent to an apartment complex. The existing substation is enclosed by a ten-foot metal fence. The applicant proposes to attach a matching fence on the northern corner of the ex~sting fenced area to contain the tower and associated equipment Planning Commission Agenda May 14. 2003 TRITON PCS / SUNCOM / # 8 Page 3 The proposed tower location is 180 feet from Independence Boulevard and 200 feet from the closest apartment building. Th~s meets the minimum requirement for distance from a residential structure in Section 232(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. The tower and equipment structures also meet all other setback requirements. · The antennae on the tower will be flush-mounted. · A row of wax myrtles will be provided around the added section of fence, with the exception of the side used for ingress and egress. Conformance with Section 232 · A structural engineering report and a report addressing NIER (non-ionizing electromagnebc radiation) requirements have been submitted. · A fence and landscaping are proposed to screen the base of the tower and the equipment shelter. · Although th~s is not a standard co-location request, the site is suitable for a communication tower since the power substation contains similar structures. Although the relatively Iow height of the 90-foot tower I~m~ts the potential number of future co-locators, the tower will be designed to accommodate one additional user in the future should the need arise. Evaluation of Request The request for a modiflcabon of the Green Run Land Use Plan for a 90-foot tall communicabon tower is acceptable. The applicant has met the Iocabon criteria required by the City Zoning Ordinance by locating the tower within a power substation area in which power transmission towers are already present. The new communicabon tower and associated equipment will be unobtrusive amongst the towers and equipment at the substation. The tower w~ll be equipped to accommodate one additional user should the height and location suit another user's needs. This will potenbally eliminate the need for add~bonal towers m the ~mmediate vicinity. Therefore, this request is recommended for approval subject to the condibons hsted below. Planning Commission Agenda May 14. 2003 TRITON PCS I SUNCOM / # 8 Page 4 Conditions I , . . o , o o The tower and equipment shelter shall be constructed as depicted on the submitted site plan entitled "Triton PCS Raw Land Substation, S. Independence Blvd., V~rginia Beach, VA 23455," prepared by 02 Wireless, Inc., dated 11/15/02. However, the tower shall be designed to accommodate one additional user A copy of the plan has been presented to City Council and ~s on file m the Planning Department. The tower structure design shall be modified to accommodate at least two antenna loads at different heights in order to provide for future co-location opportunibes. A revised structural report certifying that the tower is capable of handling additional antenna load at a specified height shall be provided w~th the detaded site plan. Landscaping shall be installed as depicted on sheet Z8 of the submitted site plan identified in Condition I above The fence securing the equipment shelter and tower shall match the existing fence at the substation. No barbed wire, razor w~re, or electrification shall be permitted. The tower and antennae shall not exceed 90 feet in height. The communication tower shall be a standard gray color. In the event that the Federal Aviation Administration or other licensing enbty requires that the tower be painted another color, the height of the tower shall be reduced to a level that will ehminate the requirement that it be painted. Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emissions study (RF Study), conducted by a quahfied engineer hcensed to pracbce ~n the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will not interfere w~th any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facihties, 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 Planning Commission Agenda May 14. 2003 TRITON PCS / SUNCOM / # 8 Page 5 interference. , Should the antennae cease to be used for a period of more than one (1) year, the applicant shall remove the antennae and their supporting towers and related equipment. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda May 14. 2003 TRITON PCS / SUNCOM / # 8 Page 6 Planning Commission Agenda May 14. 2003 TRITON PCS / SUNCOM / # 8 Page 7 Planning Commission Agenda May 14. 2003 TRITON PCS / SUNCOM I # 8 Page 8 PLANTING LIST OF MATERIALS Idy~,te corJfe~-o 5' Planning Commission Agenda May 14. 2003 TRITON PCS / SUNCOM / # 8 Page 9 NEW TRITON PCS ANTENNAS (TYP ! PER SECTOR) NEW TRITON PCS GALVANIZED STEEL MONOPOLE f-NEW GALVANIZED STEEL / ICE BRIDGE AND SUPPORTS / I , , / / NEW TRITON PCS 1 1 '-6"x 16' EOUIPMENT SHELTER FENCE TO MATCH ~-~ EXISTING FENCE · AT SUBSTATION TOWER ELEVATION MONOPOLE FOUNDATION NOT -o sc~ (BY OTHERS) Planning Commission Agenda May 14. 2003 TRITON PCS i SUNCOM / # 8 Page 10 Apphcant's Name: List Ail C~trrent Property Owners: APPLICATION v~ PdGE 4 OF 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE lf~he properv~ o'~m' ~s a CORPORATION, hst all officers of the Corpora~on belo~ (Attach l~st tfneaessa~.) If the propert~ owner ~s a PAR'fNERSH1P, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, hst all members or partners in the orgamza~on below (dttach tJst tfnecessa?) '~ Check here ffthe property o~cr is NOT a co~mfio~ p~er~p, fi~, or other unmc~md o~zatio~ If the ~plic~t ~ not the cu~t owner ~the prope~, compile APPLICANT DI~LOS~ If ~e apN~c~ ~s a CO~TION. hsr all offic~ of the Co~mtmn ~low (Jttach l~t ~nece~a~,) If thc apphcant ~s a PARTNERSHIP. FIRM, or other L3N'INCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, hst all members or partners m the orgamzat~on below. (Attach it. vt tfnecgvsary) Check here if the appheant ss NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other umncorporated orgarazat~on. CERTIFICATION I certify that the information contained heretn is true and accurate. Prim Name Planning Commission Agenda May 14. 2003 TRITON PCS / SUNCOM I # 8 Page 11 T rtonPCS About Triton PCS · ~vestor Relations ~ Shareholder Services [ About Triton PCS ] Officers Michael E. KalQgris Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Steveq. S_kin_ner President and Chief Operating Officer David D. Clark Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Daniel E. Hopkins Senior Vice President of Fmance and Treasurer Stephen 3. M_c__N_ulty Senior Vice Pre, dent of Sales and PlarkeOng, and President of SunCom GJ_e_o .~._Robinson Senior Vice president of Technology William A,. Robinson Senior Vice President of Opera~ions Michael E. Kalogris Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Nhchael E. Kalogns is Chawman ~nd Chief Executive Officer of Triton PCS. A founder of Triton PCS, Mr. Kalogris has led the company's development, establishing Triton PCS as the first member of the AT&T W~reless Services Inc. network of affiliates as well as one of the leading wireless serwces careers m the Southeast. Under his leadership, Tnton PCS has set industry-leading s~andards for network performance, customer service and customer retenbon, leading to consistent strong growth m subscribers and revenue, and earning a reputation as one of the fastest-growing and best- managed w~retess compames m the country Kalogns has cons4stenUy d~stingu~shed h~mself as a leader mn the highly competmtmve w~reless industry, and ms now ~n hms third CEO role since 1988. He previously was the Chawman of M~chael E. Kz ChalrmaR al'It Execut3ve Steven SI President an~ OI)eratqng [ Directors ] Michael E. Kalogris Chairman and Chief Executrve Officer Stoven R. Skinner Pre, dent and Chief Opera,rig Officer Robert Stokes Sr. V.P., Acqu~tfons and Development, AT&T Wweless Serwces, Inc. Scott 3;. Anderson Pnnc~pal, Cedar Grove Partner~, LLC and Cedar Grove ~nvestrnents, LLC .1obit D. Betetic Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, WebUnA Wweless, ~nc Planning Commission Agenda May 14. 2003 TRITON PCS I SUNCOM I # 8 Page 12 Officers Dominion Resources, Inc. Officer Thos. E. Oapps Thomas N Chewnmg Thomas F Farrell, I1 Jay L. Johnson Duane C Radtke Mary C Doswell Eva S. Hardy G. Scott Hetzer James L Sandertin W~tllam C. Hall, Jr Simon C. Hodges Karen E Hunter Steven A. Rogers James F. Stutts Patncia A Wdkerson Title Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Executive V~ce President and Chief Financial Officer Executive Vice President Execubve Vice President Executive Vice Prescient Senior Vice President and Chief Adm~mstrative Officer Senior Vice President-External Affairs & Corporate Communicat~ons Senior V~ce President and Treasurer Senior V~ce President - Law Vice President - External Affairs and Corporate Communications Vice President - Financial Planning V~ce President - Tax Vice President and Controller Vice President and General Counsel Vice President and Corporate Secretary Virginia Electric and Power Company Officer Paul D Koonce Thomas F Fan'ell, !i Jay L. Johnson Mark F. McGettnck Gary L Sypolt M Stuart Bolton, Jr David A Christian G. Scott Hetzer E Paul Hdton Thomas A. Hyman, Jr William R Matthews Margaret E McDermid Edward J R~vas J~mmy D. Staton Kenneth D. Barker Malcolm G Deacon, Jr Pamela F Faggert Eugene S Grecheck Leslie N Hartz Kevin T Howell Karen E Hunter Craig S Ivey Steven A Rogers James F Stutts Patncia A Wiikerson R~chard H Biount, il David A Heacock Chief Execut~e Officer- Transmission President and Chief Executive Officer President and Chief Executive Officer President and Chief Executive Officer- Generation President - Transmission Senior Vice President - Financial Management Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations and Chief Nuclear Officer Semor Vice President and Treasurer Semor V~ce President Semor Vice President - Gas D~dbut~on and Customer Services Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations Sr. Vice President-lnformabon Technology &Chtef Information Officer Semor Vice President - Fossil and Hydro Semor Vice President - Electric D~stdbubon Vice President - Distribution Planning and Analysis Vice President - Fossil & Hydro - Chief Environmental Officer -Nuciear Support Services - Nuclear Engmeenng V~ce President Vice President Vice President V~ce President Vice President Vice President Vice President Wce President - Tax - Distribution Operations (Principal Accounting Officer) and General Counsel V~ce President and Corporate Secretary S~te Vice President - Surry Site V~ce President - North Anna Planning Commission Agenda May 14. 2003 TRITON PCS / SUNCOM / # 8 Page 13 Item #8 Triton PCS/Suncom Modfficat~on to the Green Run Land Use Plan East s~de of Independence Boulevard Dastnct 3 Rose Hall May 14, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: Next ~tem lS Item #8. It's Tnton PCS/Suncom. And, it's an ordinance upon apphcatmn of Tnton PCS/Suncom for a mochficatmn to the Green Run Land Use Plan for a w~reless commumcat~on tower on property located on the east s~de of Independence Boulevard w~tban an ex~stmg V~rglma Power substation. That ~s in the Rose Hall subchwsion and ~t has nine conditions. Dale F~nnocoba: Good afternoon. My name ~s Dale Fmnocohi and I'm here representing Suncom m tins matter. Dorothy Wood: You've read the conditions? Dale Finnocolu: Yes ma'am. Dorothy Wood: And do you agree? Dale Firmocolu: Yes ma'am. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any opposition to Item #8, Triton PCS/Suncom Conditional Use Penmt for a w~reless communication tower? Heanng none. Do you want to explmn that one Mr. Kmght? Barry Kraght: Okay I'd hke to try. The Planmng Commission evaluated th~s request. It's a request for a mochficatmn of Green Run Land Use Plan for a 90-foot commumcat~on tower. The apphcant has met locanon criteria. New commumcat~on tower and associated eqmpment will be unobtrusive amongst V~rgnma Power's towers and equipment ~n there. Th~s w~ll potentially ehminate the need for additmnal towers ~n tins area. Therefore, tins request is recommended for approval so we thank ~t's an appropriate use of the property. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Mr. Rapley, I would move that we approve th~s ~tem on the consent agenda, Item #8 w~th rune conditions. Ronald Rlpley: So a motion to approve th~s item that was just read by Dot Wood. Do I have a second? Seconded by Gene Crabtree. Are there any comments? We're ready to vote. Item #8 Tnton PCS/Suncom Page 2 AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald R~pley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. II CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach, Amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 Background' An Ordinance to amend Section 5 6 of the Subdivision Ordinance regarding the width of s~dewalks. Considerations: The Pubhc Works Specifications and Standards (PWS&S) require that the width of a s~dewalk be five feet (60 ~nches). A width of 60 inches is consistent with the requirements of the Amencans w~th D~sabilibes Act (ADA). The change ~s also consistent with the requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportabon (VDOT). However, a difference regarding s~dewalk width remains between the PWS&S and the Subdiws~on Ordinance, causing confusion for developers and staff Thus, th~s amendment ~s proposed in order to resolve the confusion The amendments require that the width of a sidewalk be consistent with the Department of Public Works Standards and Specifications. The affect of th~s requirement is to change the m~nimum sidewalk width as specified in the Subdiws~on Ordinance from 48 ~nches to 60 inches. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10 - 0 to approve this amendment Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance Planning Commission M~nutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Planning Department~~ Department/Agency: City Manager: ~'~, ~ ~ May 14, 2003 Background: Th~s amendment eliminates an existing conflict between this section of the Subdivision Ordinance and the Public Works Specifications and Standards. The amendments require that the w~dth of a sidewalk be consistent with the Department of Public Works Standards and Specifications. The affect of th~s requirement is to change the m~n~mum sidewalk width as specified in the Subdivision Ordinance from forty-eight (48)inches to sixty (60) ~nches. The Department of Public Works Standards and Specifications currently require a sixty (60) tach minimum sidewalk width (see next page). This request was last deferred by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2001. Proposed Amendments: An Ordinance to amend Section 5.6 of the Subdivision Ordinance regarding the width of s~dewalks In April 1999, the Public Works Specifications and Standards (PWS&S) were amended. Included in the amendments was a change in the requirement for s~dewalk w~dth from four (4) feet to five (5) feet. The width requirement was changed in order to bnng the City into compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The change is also consistent with the requirements of the V~rgin~a Department of Transportabon (VDOT) The difference between the PWS&S and the Subdivis~on Ordinance causes confusion for developers and staff, and thus an amendment was proposed in order to resolve the confusion. Evaluation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH -- SIDEWALK WIDTH ! 11 Page 1 Pubiic Works Specifications and Standm~ls 6.3 Curb and gutter will not be placed dn~cfly on clay silt or other uasmtable If the design CBR values in a subdivision are generally 10 or greater, but some of the CBRs are less than 10, then those areas less than I0 must have 4 roches ofag~gate placed under the curb If any areas are then found in the field to be sof~ or not suitable, oaggregate must be placed uader the curb as described in 6.2.1 (b) above. e) If the pavement design ~s of such a depth that the ag~egam base or subbase is below the bottom of the curb, then aggregate must be placed ander the curb as descn'bed in 6.2.1 (b) above, regardless of the CBR value of~e subgrade. Mountable curb VDOT CG-3 or CG-7 are to be used when highway design speeds are 45 mph or greater. Sidewalks and Bikeways, Bike Lanes, Bike Paths 6.3.1 General All sidewalks and concrete bike paths will be a minimmn of 4" thick, 5' wide for sidewalks and 10' wide for bike paths, and will be constructed according to the specifications provided in Section 504.02 (a, c, d, 0 and Section 504.03 of the Virginia ~ent of Tmn._ ~qportatio. n Road and Bridge Speeifieatitms, (1994 or applicable sections of the latest version), as well as the standard drawings included in Appendixes A and C of this manual. Variations from the standard location of sidewallcs and bike paths may be allowed or required by the Depamnent of Public Works due to topographical or other physzcal features. Although a minimum width of 10' ~s required for combination sidewalk/bike paths, a minimum width of 12' is mcommendeck A reduced width orS' for bike paths will be acceptable with approval by the Dn'ector of Pablic Works. 6.3.2 Construction of Bikeways Requirement This section covers all bikeways included on the Qty of V'nginia Beach Master Bikeway Plan. The purposes of this section are to provide guidelines for requiring fight-of-way and construction of bikeways during plan review. The term bikeway includes b~ge paths and b:ke lanes, and are used interchangeabty when refening to requirements m this m~, unless specific to the type of bikeway. Page 6 - 2 incidental Concrete Construction 2/02 Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH -- SIDEWALK WIDTH / 11 Page 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO SIDEWALKS SECTION AMENDED: ~ 5.6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 5.6 of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 5.6. Sidewalks. Where constructed, sidewalks shall be in ~ accordance with the specifications and standards of the department of public works, as approved by the council of the City of Virginia Beach and the standards established by the Americans With Disabilities Act. (a) Sidewalks forty-eight (40) inches zn widt~h or such additional widt~h as required by the dzrector of planning or designee =v match =~ot~ng zmprovement$ shall be constructed on both sides of arterial or collector streets. The director of planninq or his desiqnee may require additional sidewalk width to match existing improvements. ........ ~ shall be (b) Sidewalks forty-eight (40) ~ ~ ~ constructed on both sides of minor streets within subdivIsions proposed for multiple-family or commercial use and may be requmred on one (1) or both sides of minor streets in subdivisions proposed for industrial use, if the director of planning finds such requirement necessary in view of desirable continuity ,of flow of substantial pedestrian traffic. The dzrector of plannlnq or hzs 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 designee may require additional sidewalk width to match existing improvements. (c) Sidewalks~v~= .... y eight {48) ~nches An wi~ shall be constructed on one (1) side of each minor street within subdivisions proposed for one-family, two-family or townhouse residential use and where minimum lot width requirements as specified in the zoning ordinance are less than one hundred (100) feet. As an exception to this requirement, no sidewalk is required where not more than twenty-five (25) dwelling units could be constructed on property served by the street. This applies only if the street could not reasonably be extended to serve more dwelling units. The director of planninq or his deslqnee may require additional sidewalk width to match existlnq improvements. COMMENT These amendments will allow consistency between Public Works Specifications and Standards and the Subdivision Regulations. They will also allow conformity without having to reiterate each specific sidewalk width for certain areas. They will require compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2003. CA-8864 DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/subreg05.6ord.wpd R2 - April 28, 2003 APPROVED AS TO COI~TENTS: Plannif~g Department Department of Law Item #11 C~ty of Virginia Beach/Sidewalk Width An Ordinance to amend Section 5.6 of the Subd~vlslon Ordinance Regarding the width of s~dewalks May 14, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next ~tem is Item #11. It's the City of V~rgima Beach. It's an ordinance to amend Section 5.6 of the Subdivision Ordinance regarding the w~dth of sidewalks. Mr. Scott? Robert Scott: Yes. Tins is an application that I th~nk will bnng both our Subchv~s~on Ordinance and all of our standards m to compliance with one another. It has to do with the width of sidewalks in the City's right of way. It makes our standard basically speak with one voice. It wall say the same tinng no matter where in our standards you look. We tinnk this ~s something that ought to be approved. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Scott. Is there any oppos~tlon to Item #11, an ordinance to amend Section 5.6 of the Subd~ws~on Orchnance pertmmng to the width of s~dewalk. Heanng none. Mr. R~pley, I would move that we approve tlus ~tem on the consent agenda, Item #11. Ronald R~pley: So a motion to approve this ~tem that was just read by Dot Wood. Do I have a second? Seconded by Gene Crabtree. Are there any comments? We're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. M. APPOINTMENTS ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION BEACHES AND WATERWAYS COMMISSION HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION (HRPDC) PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PERFORMING ARTS THEATRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD SHORE DRIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TOWING ADVISORY BOARD YOUTH SERVICES COUNCIL Item V-I $ ORDIN/INCES 34- ITEM # 50732 Upon motton by Councdman Jones seconded by Councdman Schmtdt Ctty Councd 4DOPTED Resolutton EST~4BLISHING Ftrgtnta Beach Performing Arts Theatre Advtsory Committee Vottng 11-0 (By Consent) Counctl Members Vottng Aye Harry E Dtezel Margaret L Eure Vtce Mayor Louts R Jones Reba S McClanan Richard,4 Maddox Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf Jtm Reeve Peter W Schmtdt Ron ,4 Vtllanueva Rosemary Wilson and .lames L Wood Counctl Members Vottng Nay None Counctl Metnbers Absent None February 4 2003 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE VIRGINIA BEACH PERFORMING ARTS THEATRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND PROVIDING FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP, DUTIES AND DISSOLUTION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 WHEREAS, in the process of constructing a new Convention Center, it has become necessary to replace the existing Pavilion Theatre, WHEREAS, the City engaged a consultant, Theatre Projects Consultants, to assess the community's cultural needs and the requirements for a new tbeatre, and WHEREAS, the Town Center has been identified as the site for the performing arts theatre, and a steering committee ~s required to gzve further znput on the design, construction and financing of the new theatre NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 1 There zs hereby establIshed the V~rglnla Beach Performing Arts Theatre Advmsory Committee ("Commmttee") 2 The Commmttee shall consist of a broad-based group of up to thirty (30) persons appointed by the C~ty Council, zncludlng persons representing the interests of c~vmc, busIness, cultural and performing arts organizations 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 3 The purpose of the Committee shall be to serve as mechanism of engaging and involving local civic, business, cultural and performing arts organizations an the planning, design, and funding options for the proposed performing arts theatre 4 The charge of the Committee shall be to assist with the development of a theatre of approximately 1,200 seats at Town Center, with a C~ty ~nvestment of $35 million, lncludlng land and parking, wlthln the general parameters outlined ~n the 2002-2003 Capital Budget, CIP 9 3-2B3, "Pavilion Theatre Replacement Project" 5 The Committee's duties shall consist of meeting as necessary, conferring w~th City staff and consultants to review and comment on each phase of the proposed performlDg arts theatre, and preparing quarterly reports to the C~ty Council on the status of the pro3ect and the Committee's observations 6 The CommIttee shall have ~ts first meeting w~thln 21 days of C~ty Council's appointment of members and shall elect a chair and v~ce chair at this ~n~t~al meeting, the chair shall lead Committee meetings and present reports to the City Council 7 The Department of Museums and Caltural Arts shall provide staffing to the Committee 8 The Committee shall be temporary in nature, and shall stand d~ssolved w~thout further action by the C~ty Council after the theatre ~s completed and put into service 47 4~ Adopted by the Council of the City of V~rglnla Beach, VirginIa, on the 4th day of February _-, 2003 CA-8709 ORDIN\NONCODE\ ar~stheatreres wpd R-5 January 17, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Chkef F~nanc~al 0fflcer APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFI CIENC~, ~r~aYtment- of ;uaw N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 0. NEW BUSINESS P. ADJOURNMENT