No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAUGUST 23, 2005 AGENDACITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At -Large VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside -District 4 HARR YE. DIEZEL Kempsville - District 2 ROBERT M DYER, Centerville - District I REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3 RICHARD A. MADDOX, Beach - District 6 JIM REEVE, Princess Anne - District 7 PETER W. SCHMIDT, At -Large RONA. VILLANUEVA, At -Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At -Large JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 CITYMANAGER - JAMES K. SPORE CITY ATTORNEY- LESLIEL. LILLEY CITY CLERK - R UTH HODGES SMITH, MMC CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 23 AUGUST 2005 CITYHALL BUILDING 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE: (757) 427-4303 FAX (757) 426-5669 E-MAIL: Ctycncl@vbgovcom I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - A. WORKFORCE HOUSING PROGRAMS Andrew Friedman — Director - Housing and Neighborhood Preservation B. HISTORIC SITES GOVERNANCE PLAN Lynn Clements — Director - Museums and Cultural Arts II. COUNCIL COMMENTS III. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 1:30PM I 3:30PM I V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:001'M A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend J. Douglas Streit Apostolic Church of Tidewater 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 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. MAYOR'S PRESENTATION 1. KING NEPTUNE XXXII and HIS COURT Nancy A. Creech -President, Neptune Festival 2. ACHIEVEMENT for EXCELLENCE in FINANCIAL REPORTING Government Finance Officers Association Patricia A. Phillips — Director - Finance I. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. SOUTHEASTERN PARKWAY and GREENBELT 2. TOWN CENTER PHASE III J. CONSENT AGENDA August 9, 2005 K. ORDINANCES/ RESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinance to ESTABLISH the annual salaries of the Mayor and Council Members at $30,000 and $28,000, respectively, effective July 1, 2006 (City Code § 15.2-1414.6) 2. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition of property in fee simple re right-of-way for Rosement Road/Virginia Beach Boulevard right turn lane at Virginia Beach Boulevard and the acquisition of temporary and permanent easements, either by agreement or condemnation. 3. Resolutions to APPROVE the design and Public Hearing: a. Indian River Road Phase VII b. Elbow Road Extended Phase II 4. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments into a portion of City property, known as "The Cove" of the Eastern Branch of the Lynnhaven River, by LINDA R. and RICHARD J. SERPE at 3145 Adam Keeling Road re a fixed pier, boat lift, covered boat lift shelter, aluminum ramp and floating dock. 5. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $200,000 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the Fire Department's FY 2005-2006 Operating Budget re a deployment related to Hurricane Dennis. 6. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $11,340 from the Friends of the Virginia Beach Public Library to the FY 2005-2006 Public Libraries' Operating Budget re the purchase of library books. L. PLANNING 1. Variance to §4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) for SALLIE MARIE I EES at 1421 Maharis Road. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 2. Application of ALLTELL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. for a Conditional Use Permit re a communications tower at 1033 Little Neck Road near the Lynnhaven United Methodist Church. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 3. Application of BUDGET RENT -A -CAR. for a Conditional Use Permit re automobile rentals at 5193 Shore Drive, Unit 114. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 4. Application of CH&B ASSOCIATES, LLP for a Change of Zoning District Classification from Conditional P-1 Preservation District with a PD-H2 Overlay to Conditional A-12 Apartment District and Conditional P-1 Preservation District with a PD-112 Overlay re apartments at South Plaza Trail and Prestige Way. (DISTRICT 2— KEMPSVILLE) RECOMMENDATION: 5. Application of MUNDEN LAND, LLC for a Change ofZoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional PD-112 Planned Unit Development re single-family residences at Princess Anne and Sandbridge Roads. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) R 7 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Application of BRIAN K. CALLAHAN for expansion of a Nonconforming Use at 2222 Bayberry Street (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Applications of the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of portions of: a. Jefferson Avenue b. Monroe Avenue north of Virginia Beach Boulevard C. Monroe Avenue south of 19th Street d. Parks Avenue e. Washington Avenue north of 19`h Street f. Washington Avenue south of 19th Street g. Norfolk Place h. Alley east of Parks Avenue i. Alley west of Parks Avenue (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) RECOMMENDATION: DEFER to September 27, 2005 M. APPOINTMENTS AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMISSION BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EASTERN VIRGINIA HEALTH SYSTEMS AGENCY HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE — PPEA PARKS and RECREATION COMMISSION PERSONNEL BOARD (Alternates) PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD REVIEW AND ALLOCATION COMMITTEE (COG) WETLANDS BOARD 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 4274303 Hearing impaired, call: Virginia Relay Center at 1-800-828-1120 xir**x4c*aF irx* Agenda 8/23/05 SB www.vbgov.com o � l �$J �wv�f ti CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Set the Annual Salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers at $30,000 and $28,000, Respectively, Effective July 1, 2006 MEETING DATE: August 23, 2005 ■ Background: The current annual salaries of the Mayor and the members of City Council ($20,000 and $18,000, respectively) were established on July 1, 1989. The salaries are below the salaries paid for the Mayor and City Councilmembers in Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Hampton and Newport News. ■ Considerations: The Code of Virginia at § 15.2-1414.6, provides that cities with a population of 260,000 or more may set the annual salaries of their mayors and councilmembers up to $30,000 and $28,000, respectively. This section further provides that "[n]o increase in salary of a member of the council shall take effect until July 1 after the next regularly scheduled general election of council members." Therefore, any increase could not go into effect until July 1, 2006, and the ordinance so provides. ■ Public Information: This ordinance will be advertised in the same manner as other Council agenda items. ■ Recommendations: Adopt ■ Attachments: Ordinance Comparison of salaries for counterparts in the Tidewater Area Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: City Council City Manager: 1 AN ORDINANCE TO SET THE ANNUAL SALARIES OF 2 THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS AT $30,000 AND 3 $28,000, RESPECTIVELY, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 4 2006 5 6 7 WHEREAS, Code of Virginia 15.2-1414.6 provides that 8 cities with a population of 260,000 or more may set the annual 9 salaries of their mayor and councilmembers at $30,000 and 10 $28,000, respectively; 11 WHEREAS, this section further provides that "[n]o increase 12 in the salary of a member of council shall take effect until 13 July 1 after the next regularly scheduled general election of 14 council members," such that any increase in councilmembers, 15 salaries would not be effective until July 1, 2006. 16 WHEREAS, the current annual salaries of the Mayor and 17 members of Council, which became effective July 1, 1989, are 18 $20,000 and $18,000 respectively, and are below the salaries 19 paid for the Mayors and City Councilmembers in Chesapeake, 20 Norfolk, Portsmouth, Hampton and Newport News; and 21 WHEREAS, it is the opinion of City Council that the 22 annual salaries of the Mayor and members of Council should be 23 increased, effective July 1, 2006, to $30,000 and $28,000, 24 respectively. 25 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 26 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 27 1. That, in accordance with Code of Virginia § 15,2- 28 1414.6, and except as provided in Paragraph 3, the annual 29 salaries of the Mayor and members of City Council are hereby 30 set, effective July 1, 2006, at $30,000 and $28,000, 31 respectively; 32 2. That the City Manager is hereby directed to include in 33 the FY 2007 Operating Budget adequate funding for these salary 34 increases; and 35 3. That Ordinance 2711F, adopted on July 2, 2002, which 36 established the salary of the City Councilmember representing 37 the Beach District at Zero Dollars ($0.00), shall be unaffected 38 by this Ordinance. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2005. CA-8143 H:\P&A\GG\Ord&Res\Proposed\Salaryord.doc R-4 July 7, 2005 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFF IENCY: City Attorney's Office Ii CITY COUNCIL SALARY COMPARISONS AS OF JULY 7, 2005 Number of Meetings Salaries Population Members Per Month Mayor Members Virginia Beach 435,026 11 3 $ 20,000 $18,000 Chesapeake 209,700 9 3 $ 25,000 $ 23,000 Norfolk 233,800 7 4 $ 27,000 $ 25,000 Portsmouth 97,800 7 2 $ 21,000 $ 18,900 Suffolk 75,500 7 2 $18,000 $15,000 Hampton 142,800 7 2 $ 24,308 $ 21,748 Newport News 182,400 7 2 $ 28,000 $ 25,000 �j g:l 4�rA.r CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Ordinance authorizing acquisition of real property in fee simple for right of way for the Rosemont Road/Virginia Beach Boulevard Right Turn Lane Project on the southeast corner of Virginia Beach Boulevard (CIP 2-285.102) and temporary and permanent easements either by agreement or condemnation. MEETING DATE: August 23, 2005 ■ Background: The Rosemont Road/Virginia Beach Boulevard Right Turn Lane project (the "Project") will add a right -turn lane from northbound Rosemont Road onto Virginia Beach Boulevard. The Project will improve traffic flow from Rosemont Road north of I-264 onto Virginia Beach Boulevard. In order to construct this Project, the City of Virginia Beach must acquire property and easements either by agreement or condemnation. The property and easements needed for the Project will be acquired from one parcel of property. The Project is currently programmed and funded in the City's Traffic Safety Improvement Program, CIP 2- 285.102. Design is approximately 90% complete. ■ Considerations: This $440,000 project is approved to receive federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program funds in the amount of $325,000. The CMAQ program in Virginia is administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). A CMAQ funding agreement was signed by VDOT and the City in March 2001, which specified funding for this Project. VDOT will release the funding available through the CMAQ program after City Council adopts an ordinance authorizing the acquisition of the property and easements needed for the Project. ■ Public Information: A Public Information Meeting was held on March 16, 2005. This acquisition ordinance was advertised with the Council's agenda. The affected property owner's comments and concerns were solicited and have been incorporated into the Project's design. ■ Alternatives: (1)Authorize acquisition of the property and easements needed to construct the Project; or (2) Do not construct the Project. ■ Recommendations: The staff recommends that City Council approve the attached acquisition ordinance, which authorizes the acquisition of the needed property and easements by agreement, or if necessary by condemnation. ■ Attachments: 1) Acquisition Ordinance 2) Location Map Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Age cy: Public Works City Managersz::::� -a-8 OvhL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IN FEE SIMPLE FOR RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROSEMONT ROAD/VIRGIIVIA BEACH BOULEVARD RIGHT TURN LANE PROJECT (C.I.P. 2-285.102) AND THE ACQUISITION OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EASEMENTS, EITHER BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, a public necessity exists for the construction of this important roadway project to reduce traffic congestion and improve transportation within the City and for other related public purposes for the preservation of the safety, health, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and for the welfare of the people in the City of Virginia Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: Section 1. That the City Council authorizes the acquisition by purchase or condemnation pursuant to Sections 15.2-1901, et se ., Sections 33.1-89, et M., and Title 25.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, of all that certain real property in fee simple, including temporary and permanent easements (the "Property"), as shown on the plans entitled "ROSEMONT ROADNIRGINIA BEACH BLVD RIGHT TURN LANE C.I.P. 2-285.102," (the "Project") and more specifically described on the acquisition plats for the Project (plats and plans collectively referred to as the "Plans"), the Plans being on filein the Engineering Division, Department of Public Works, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to make or cause to be made on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, to the extent that funds are available, a reasonable offer to the owners or persons having an interest in said Property. If refused, the City Attorney is hereby authorized to institute proceedings to condemn said Property. i 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 2005. CA- 9650 PREPARED: 05/19/05 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Q"' C. NATURE DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM F:\Data\ATY\OID\REAL ESTATE\Acquisitions\WORKING - COND\Acquisition Ordinances\ca%50.0rdinance.doc 4bL a'4 6L4 � CITY ATTORNEY day of MALug IBU PAL z \1 , crc,,�;D EACH BLVD• V�RGINIA B O w )LK &SOUTHERN RR R/ BONNEY RD. PERMANENT RIGHT - OF- WAY TO BE ACQUIRED APPROX.2,600 S.F. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TO BE ACQUIRED GW�A BEp'CH ORF� �PRESSWA- LOCATION MAP ROSEMONT ROAD /VIRGINIA BEACH BLVD. RIGHT TURN LANE PROJECT CIP 2.285.102 SCALE: 1" = 200' ROSEMONT VA BEACH BLVD.DGN M.J.S. PREPARED BY PM/ ENG. CADD DEPT. JUNE 1, 2005 � f CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Resolution to Approve the Major Design for Indian River Road Phase VII (CIP 2-256). MEETING DATE: August 23, 2005 ■ Background: The project is a First Cities (Urban Construction Initiative) project. The purpose of this project is to design and construct a newly aligned four -lane divided roadway from Lynnhaven Parkway to Elbow Road. The recommended alignment from the Corridor Study was adopted by City Council (March 2000) and the Commonwealth Transportation Board. ■ Considerations: Funding for right-of-way acquisition is allocated for summer 2005, and a resolution must be approved by City Council for the major design features so that Federal funds for acquisition may be allocated. ■ Public Information: A Design Public Hearing was held on January 13, 2005, to update citizens on the traffic and environmental studies and to receive comments on the major design features of the roadway. There were approximately 152 citizens in attendance. A total of 15 written and oral comments were received. Of those who responded, a majority were in favor of the project. A variety of concerns were expressed. The concern most mentioned was the increased traffic and 45 mph speed limits adjacent to neighborhoods. The proposed roadway is in accordance with the Master Transportation Plan, and addresses the traffic problems and safety issues of the existing roadway and the surrounding developments by constructing a new four -lane divided roadway on an established corridor which includes multi -use paths for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. The use of soundwalls and berms have been incorporated to address the issue of increased noise from the traffic. The landscaping buffer area has been increased between the curb and right-of-way by using a narrower pavement section with 11 foot lanes. Specific areas of concern will be reviewed for traffic and pedestrian safety, and revised if warranted. The 45 mph speed limit is appropriate for the four -lane major arterial. ■ Alternatives: If the resolution is denied, the right-of-way acquisition phase of the project will not begin and the project will be delayed. ■ Recommendations: Approve the major design features. ■ Attachments: Resolution, Location Map Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Engineering*'- City Manag � 1 A RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE 2 DESIGN AND THE DESIGN PUBLIC HEARING 3 FOR INDIAN RIVER ROAD PHASE VII (CIP 4 2-256) 5 WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Council of the City of Virginia 6 Beach, Virginia, a public necessity exists for the construction of 7 this important roadway project to improve transportation within the 8 City and for other related public purposes for the preservation of 9 the safety, health, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and 10 for the welfare of the people in the City of Virginia Beach; 11 WHERAS, a Design Public Hearing was conducted on January 13, 12 2005, ("Public Hearing") in the City of Virginia Beach by 13 representatives of the City of Virginia Beach after due and proper 14 notice for the purposes of considering the proposed design of 15 Indian River Road Phase VII CIP 2-256 (VDOT Project U000-134-147, 16 PE101, RW201, C501), (the "Project"), in the City of Virginia 17 Beach, at which time drawings and other pertinent information were 18 made available for public inspection in accordance with state and 19 federal requirements; 20 WHEREAS, all persons and parties in attendance were afforded 21 full opportunity to participate in said Public Hearing; 22 WHEREAS, representatives of the City of Virginia Beach were 23 present and participated in said Public Hearing; and 24 WHEREAS, the Project is included in the First Cities (Urban 25 Construction Initiative) program. 26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 27 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 28 1. The major design features of the Project as presented at 29 the Public Hearing conducted on January 13, 2005, and which are set 30 forth on the Location Map attached hereto, are hereby approved. 31 2. The City of Virginia Beach will acquire all rights of way 32 necessary for the Project and certify same to the Virginia 33 Department of Transportation at the appropriate time. 34 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 35 Virginia, on the day of , 2005. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Department of Public Works CA9724 H/P&A/OrdRes/Indian River Road August 10, 2005 R-2 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY //I. Do '.. AI/,/ City Attorney' s Office to I c L v C/7yOF �-o C/ F CAE /q BEgC �� Sq -9 LOCATION MAP FO ° 0 INDIAN RIVER ROAD PHASE VII (CIP 2-256) SCALE:1" = 1600' INDIAN RIVER VII.DGN M.J.S. PREPARED BY P/W ENG. CADD DEPT. MARCH 15, 2005 r�a�tNH� � y1 :GVy�r� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Resolution to Approve the Major Design Features for Elbow Road Extended, Phase II (CIP 2-152). MEETING DATE: Auqust 23, 2005 ■ Background: The project is a First Cities (Urban Construction Initiative) project. The purpose of this project is to design and construct a newly aligned four -lane divided roadway from Indian River Road to Dam Neck Road. The existing bridge west of Salem Road crossing the North Landing River will be replaced by a 1,200 foot bridge spanning the entire floodplain. The recommended alignment from the Corridor Study was adopted by City Council (March 2000) and the Commonwealth Transportation Board. ■ Considerations: Funding for right-of-way acquisition is allocated for summer 2005, and a resolution must be approved by City Council for the major design features. ■ Public Information: A Design Public Hearing was held on January 13, 2005, to update citizens on the traffic and environmental studies and to receive comments on the major design features of the roadway. There were approximately 152 citizens in attendance. A total of 33 written and oral comments were received. Of those who responded, a majority were in favor of the project. A variety of concerns were expressed. The concern most mentioned was regarding the noise barriers, particularly the finish on the back (homeowner side) of the barriers. Since the project has federal funds, a noise analysis was performed as a requirement by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The potential noise barrier locations and heights are determined by the results of this analysis. The impacted property owners will select by a majority. vote the pattern to be used on the back side. In addition, the noise barrier will be located along the edge of the right-of-way, so a homeowner will be able to plant landscaping, if desired, on the homeowner's side to mitigate the view. ■ Alternatives: If the resolution is denied, the right-of-way acquisition phase of the project will not begin and the project will be delayed. ■ Recommendations: Approve the major design features. ■ Attachments: Resolution, Location Map Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/EngineerinA0 City Manager: "Z:Z�Vrl 1 A RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE 2 DESIGN AND THE DESIGN PUBLIC HEARING 3 FOR ELBOW ROAD EXTENDED PHASE II 4 (CIP 2-152) 5 WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Council of the City of Virginia 6 Beach, Virginia, a public necessity exists for the construction of 7 this important roadway project to improve transportation within the 8 City and for other related public purposes for the preservation of 9 the safety, health, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and 10 for the welfare of the people in the City of Virginia Beach; 11 WHEREAS, a Design Public Hearing was conducted on January 13, 12 2005, ("Public Hearing") in the City of Virginia Beach by 13 representatives of the City of Virginia Beach after due and proper 14 notice for the purposes of considering the proposed design of Elbow 15 Road Extended Phase II CIP 2-152 (VDOT Project U000-134-146, PE101, 16 RW201, C501), (the "Project"), in the City of Virginia Beach, at 17 which hearing aerial photographs, drawings, and other pertinent 18 information were made available for public inspection in accordance 19 with state and federal requirements; 20 WHEREAS, all persons and parties in attendance were afforded 21 full opportunity to participate in said Public Hearing; 22 WHEREAS, representatives of the City of Virginia Beach were 23 present and participated in said Public Hearing; and, 24 WHEREAS, the project is included in the First Cities (Urban 25 Construction Initiative) program. 26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 27 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 28 1. The major design features of the Project as presented at 29 the Public Hearing conducted on January 13, 2005, and which are set 30 forth on the Location Map attached hereto, are hereby approved. 31 2. The City of Virginia Beach will acquire all rights of way 32 necessary for the Project and certify same to the Virginia 33 Department of Transportation at the appropriate time. 34 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 35 Virginia, on the day of , 2005. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT 1K.Z1,47 Department of Public Works CA9725 H/P&A/OrdRes/Elbow Road RES.doc August 10, 2005 R-2 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY City Attorneys Office ELBOW RD.DGN M.J.S. PREPARED BY P/W ENG. CADD DEPT. MARCH 15, 2005 QS w 9 (fit 12 4t``�uJ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Encroachments requested into and upon a portion of City property known as the Cove of Eastern Branch Lynnhaven River, at the rear of 3145 Adam Keeling Road by the adjacent property owners, Linda R. Serpe and Richard J. Serpe, Co - Trustees. MEETING DATE: August 23, 2005 ■ Background: Linda R. Serpe and Richard J. Serpe, Co -Trustees Under The Linda R. Serpe Declaration Of Trust, Dated April 27, 2004, request permission to construct and maintain temporary encroachments for a proposed fixed pier, boat lift, covered boat lift shelter, aluminum ramp and floating dock located at the rear of their property at 3145 Adam Keeling Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia. ■ Considerations: City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the agreement. There are similar encroachments in Cove of Eastern Branch Lynnhaven River. IN Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda ■ Alternatives: Approve the encroachments as presented, deny the encroachments, or add conditions as desired by Council. ■ Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. ■ Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map, Agreement, Plat and Pictures. Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance. Submitting Department/Age cy: Public Works/real Estate City Manager. k � trX:\Projects\Encroachpplicants\Serpe, L a, et al - Eastern Branch Lynnhaven River RB\Agenda.Frm.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO AND UPON A PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE COVE OF EASTERN BRANCH LYNNHAVEN RIVER BY LINDA R. SERPE AND RICHARD J. SERPE, CO -TRUSTEES UNDER THE LINDA R. SERPE DECLARATION OF TRUST, DATED APRIL 27, 2004, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, Linda R. Serpe and Richard J. Serpe, Co -Trustees Under The Linda R. Serpe Declaration Of Trust, Dated April 27, 2004, desire to construct and maintain a proposed fixed pier, boat lift, covered boat lift shelter, aluminum ramp and floating dock, into and upon a portion of City property known as the Cove of Eastern Branch Lynnhaven River. WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments into and upon a portion of the City's property subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 15.2- 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Linda R. Serpe and Richard J. Serpe, Co -Trustees Under The Linda R. Serpe Declaration Of Trust, Dated April 27, 2004, their heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct and maintain temporary encroachments for a proposed fixed pier, boat lift, covered boat lift shelter, aluminum ramp and floating dock, into and upon a portion of the City's property as shown on the map marked Exhibit "A" attached hereto and entitled: "ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT PLAT PARCEL 2, M.B. 118 PG. 8 GPIN 1499-16- 29 1739 FOR LINDA SERPE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA," a copy of which is on file in 30 the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular 31 description; and 32 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly 33 subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the 34 City of Virginia Beach and Linda R. Serpe and Richard J. Serpe, Co -Trustees Under 35 The Linda R. Serpe Declaration Of Trust, Dated April 27, 2004, (the "Agreement"), 36 which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and 37 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee 38 is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and 39 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such 40 time as , Linda R. Serpe and Richard J. Serpe, Co -Trustees Under The Linda R. Serpe 41 Declaration Of Trust, Dated April 27, 2004, and the City Manager or his authorized 42 designee execute the Agreement. 43 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 44 day of 2005. 45 PROVED AS TO CONTENTS 46 7l S 0, O� t1Sf►� 47 610NATURE p y 49 DEPARTMENT 50 51 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL 52 S I ENCY AND FO M 53 54 ClATTOR EY 55 CA- 624 56 PREPARED:6/15/05 57 F:IDataIATYIOrdinINONCODEIPW ORDINICA9624 Serpe.doc PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(c) (3) 14 THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of �—, 2005, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and LINDA R. SERPE AND RICHARD J. SERPE, CO -TRUSTEES UNDER THE LINDA R. SERPE DECLARATION OF TRUST, DATED APRIL 27, 2004, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WITNESSETH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "PARCEL "2"" and shown on that plat entitled: SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF GEORGE E. & ELIZABETH C. LANGLEY" (MB 108, PG 118A) and being further designated and described as 3145 Adam Keeling Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454-1003; WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a proposed fixed pier, boat lift, covered boat lift shelter, aluminum ramp and floating dock, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into and upon a portion of City property known as the Cove of Eastern Branch Lynnhaven River "The Encroachment Area"; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachment Area. GPIN: 1499-16-1739 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 AGREEMENT PLAT PARCEL 2, M.B. 118 PG. 8 GPIN 1499- 16-1739 FOR LINDA SERPE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. ON It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Office of Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit for review and approval, a survey of The Encroachment Area, certified by a registered. professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachment 3 sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Linda R. Serpe and Richard J. Serpe, Co -Trustees Under The Linda R. Serpe Declaration Of Trust, Dated April 27, 2004, the said Grantee has caused this Agreement to be executed by their signature. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. (THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) 1.9 (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager Lida - a R. Serpe, C-o-14ustee c d Seje, Co -Trustee The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2005, by , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2005, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA 8.1 W.,T*04 My Commission Expires: Notary Public 5 STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF kor�//G , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this &day of � !� , 2005, by Linda R. Serpe and Richard J. Serpe, Co -Trustees Under The Linda R. Serpe Declaration Of Trust, Dated April 27, 2004. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 8-3/O b APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS SIGNATURE PID 44 Cc5-rau. DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\Serpe, Linda, et al - Eastern Branch Lynnhaven River RB\Agreement Encroachment.Frin.doc 0 I\ EXHIBIT "A" GPIN 1499-1 , J645 DRAINAGE EASE. M.B. 118 PG. 8 m O _ 6 ; n p \ 15 PRIVATE CHANNEL < USACOE PERMIT m �\ #95-0087-08 ZO \\ Z rn , m m z - . 6 - -090 �e >>8 A� 8 TOP OF BANK MHW MLW #3145 2 STY BRICK/FRM RESIDENCE k 2 PROP. FIXED PIER j 00 PROP. COVERED LIFT ; LTER 00 N ..............._._... ...... PROP. ALUMINUM RAMP 11' PROP. FLOATING DOCK Ln PIER, BOATLIFT AND N �5 DREDGING APPROVED 0) # VB04-259-NW \ TOP OF BANK MHW MLW cP \ TO No. a 11138 411 NAL GPIN 1499-1 6-3754 GPIN 1499-16-6945 �pj TH OF � DATE: 06/01 /05 DESIGNED: - DRAWN: WAL SCALE: 1 " - 40' PROD. #: 2004-015 00 c� 0_ 00 m 0 z w w 30' DRAINAGE & Q NAVIGATION EASE. I Q M. B. 1 18 PG. 8 I Q 2'0' DRAINAGE EASE.- B. 1 18 PG. 8 S30°35' 15"E1 GPIN 1499-1 6-5164 ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT PLAT PARCEL 2, M.B. 118 PG. 8 GPIN 1499-16-1739 FOR LINDA SERPE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 309 Lynnhaven Parkway Viro nia Beach, VA 23452 PH: (757) 4634306 FAX: (757) 463-3563 LONG CREEK 0 i Q:� LOCATION MAP ENCROACHMENT REQUEST FOR A PIER AND BOATLIFT LINDA R. SERPE AND RICHARD J. SERPE, � CO -TRUSTEES GPIN 1499-16-1739 SCALE:1" = 200' ADAM KEELING.DGN M.J.S. PREPARED BY PNV ENG. CADD DEPT. JUNE 2, 2005 �S�`N� BFy yl rd CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate $200,000 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the Fire Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget for a Deployment Related to Hurricane Dennis. MEETING DATE: August 23, 2005 ■ Background: The City of Virginia Beach is the sponsoring agency for Virginia Task Force 2, Urban Search and Rescue Team ("VA-TF2"). The Fire Department serves as the administrator of VA-TF2. VA-TF2 was activated and deployed on July 10, 2005, to provide search and rescue support in the wake of Hurricane Dennis. The team was en route to Florida when they were demobilized and returned home in the early hours of July 11, 2005. Damage assessments indicated support of this magnitude would not be required. Upon any activation and deployment, even if it is cancelled, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, ("FEMA") provides funding to reimburse participants for equipment, supplies and overtime to support the event. ■ Considerations: As the sponsoring agency, the City of Virginia Beach is responsible for administrative and fiscal management of the team and its assets. Consistent with previous deployments, FEMA had authorized the reimbursement of all eligible expenses related to activation, mobilization, deployment and demobilization of the Team. The costs associated with this deployment were $200,000. ■ Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal process. ■ Alternatives: The City's designation as Sponsoring Agency for FEMA VA-TF2 is a pre -arranged relationship and obligation between the City of Virginia Beach and FEMA. ■ Recommendations: Accept and appropriate $200,000 to cover expenses of VA- TF2 for Hurricane Dennis deployment. ■ Attachments: Ordinance FEMA Assistance Award Documents (3) Recommended Action: Approve and appropriate $200,000. Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department b,-p & — City Manager: 3 )( V11 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE 2 $200,000 FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY 3 MANAGEMENT AGENCY TO THE FIRE 4 DEPARTMENT'S FY 2005-06 OPERATING BUDGET 5 FOR A DEPLOYMENT RELATED TO HURRICANE 6 DENNIS 7 8 WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 9 issued an alert order for members of the FEMA Urban Search and 10 Rescue Virginia Task -Force 2 for deployment related to Hurricane 11 Dennis and has approved $200,000 in reimbursement costs for 12 expenses related to the Hurricane Dennis deployment. 13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 14 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 15 That $200,000 in federal funds is hereby accepted from the 16 Federal Emergency Management Agency and appropriated to the Fire 17 Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget, for costs associated 18 with the deployment of members of the urban search and rescue 19 team, with federal revenue increased accordingly. 20 Accepted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 21 Virginia on the day of Approved as to Content �Manageneentfservices 2005. Approved as to Legal Sufficiency City Attorney's Office CA9718 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\FEMA Hurricane Dennis ORD R-2 August 11, 2005 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472 0�4A/'—\d,� FEMA 4 qND SQ Mr. Mark Piland Battalion Chief Virginia Beach Fire Department Special Operations, Municipal Center 2408 Courthouse Drive, Building #21 Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9065 Re: EMW-2003-CA-0111 - M012, M013, & M014 Dear Chief Piland: JUL 13 2005 Enclosed are three copies of Amendments M012, M013, and M014 for Cooperative Agreement EMW-2003-CA-0111 in the amounts of $20,000.00, $28,000.00, and $700,000.00 for review and signature. If, acceptable, please sign three (3) copies of the award amendment documents and send two copies as soon as possible to my attention at the following address: Department of Homeland Security EP&R/FEMA Grants Management Branch 500 C Street, S.W., Room 334 Washington, D. C. 20472 Attention: Sylvia A. Carroll The third copy is yours to retain as your fully executed copy. Please feel free to contact me at (202) 646-3503, if you have any questions. Sincerely, 1 4- . ce'� Sylvia A. Carroll Grants Management Specialist Enclosures 42 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 0 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ❑ GRANT 3, INSTRUMENT NUMBER 4. AMENDMENT NUMBER EMW-2003-CA-0111 M014 7. RECIPIENT NAME AND ADDRESS Virginia Beach Fire Department Attn: Mark Piland Battalion Chief Special Operations, Municipal Center 2408 Courthouse Drive, Building #21 Virginia Beach VA 23456-9065 9. RECIPIENT PROJECT MANAGER Mark Piland 757-219-2020 11. ASSISTANCE ARRANGEMENT 12. PAYMENT METHOD 0 COST REIMBURSEMENT TREASURY CHECK ❑ COST SHARING REIMBURSEMENT ❑ FIXED PRICE ❑ ADVANCE CHECK ❑ OTHER ❑ LETTER OF CREDIT 14. ASSISTANCE AMOUNT PREVIOUS AMOUNT $1, 858, 857.53 AMOUNT THIS ACTION TOTAL AMOUNT 16. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT $700,000.00 $2,558,857.53 2. TYPE OF ACTION ❑ AWARD 0 AMENDMENT 5. EFFECTIVE DATE 6. CONTROL NUMBER See Block 21 1 WN01075Y2005T 8. ISSUING/ADMINISTRATION OFFICE Federal Emergency Management Agency Fi nancial & Acquisition Management Div Grants Management Branch 500 C Street, S.W., Room 350 Washington DC 20472 Specialist: Sylvia A. Carroll 202-646-3503 10. FEMA PROJECT OFFICER Wanda Casey, 202-646-4013 13. PAYMENT OFFICE Federal Emergency Management Agency Accounting Services Division Disbursement & Receivables Branch 500 C Street, S.W., Room 723 Washington DC 20472 15. ACCOUNTING & APPROPRIATION DATA See Continuation Page This amendment, M014, provides funding for support to the Hurricane Dennis response effort. The total amount obligated under this agreement is hereby increased by $700,000.00 from $1,858,857.53 to $2,558,857.53.. All other terms and conditions remain in effect. .. END OF AMENDMENT M014 17. RECIPIENT REQUIREMENT Q RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO SIGN AND RETURN THREE (3) COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT TO THE ISSUING/ADMIN OFFICE IN BLOCK 8. ❑ RECIPIENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT. 18. RECIPIENT (Type name and title) 19. ASSISTANCE OFFICER (Type name and title) Richard Goodman Gregory B . Cade, F " re Chief Assistance Officer 20. SIGN . E OF RECIPI DA 9- 21. St ATURE O ASSISSTTTANCE OFFICER DAT FEMA Fo -21. AP REPLACES EDITION OF JUL 84, WHICH IS OBSOLETV. ---a FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ASSISTANCE AWARD/AMENDMENT 1. ASSISTANCE INSTRUMENT 2. TYPE OF ACTION 0 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ❑ GRANT ❑ AWARD 0 AMENDMENT 3. INSTRUMENT NUMBER 4. AMENDMENT NUMBER 5. EFFECTIVE DATE 6. CONTROL NUMBER EMW-2003-CA-0111 M012 See Block 21 WN01033Y2005T 7. RECIPIENT NAME AND ADDRESS 8. ISSUING/ADMINISTRATION OFFICE Virginia Beach Fire Department Attn: Mark Piland Battalion Chief Special Operations, Municipal Center 2408 Courthouse Drive, Building #21 Virginia Beach VA 23456-9065 9. RECIPIENT PROJECT MANAGER Mark Piland 752-427-0693 11. ASSISTANCE ARRANGEMENT 12. PAYMENT METHOD Q COST REIMBURSEMENT El TREASURY CHECK ❑ COST SHARING REIMBURSEMENT ❑ FIXED PRICE ❑ ADVANCE CHECK ❑ OTHER ❑ LETTER OF CREDIT 14. ASSISTANCE AMOUNT PREVIOUS AMOUNT AMOUNT THIS ACTION $1,810,857.53 $20,000.00 TOTAL AMOUNT $1, 830, 857 .53 16. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Federal Emergency Management Agency Financial & Acquisition Management Div Grants Management Branch 500 C Street, S.W., Room 350 Washington DC 20472 Specialist: Sylvia A. Carroll 202-646-3503 10. FEMA PR JECT OFFICER Wanda Casey, 202-646-4013 Federal Emergency Management Agency Accounting Services Division Disbursement & Receivables Branch 500 C Street, S.W., Room 723 Washington DC 20472 15. ACCOUNTING & APPROPRIATION DATA See Continuation Page This amendment, M012, provides funding for support to the Hurricane Dennis response effort. The total amount obligated under this agreement is hereby increased by $20,000.00 from $1,810,857.53 to $1,830,857.53. All other terms and 'conditions remain in effect. END OF AMENDMENT M012 17. RECIPIENT REQUIREMENT RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO SIGN AND RETURN THREE (3) COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT TO THE ISSUING/ADMIN OFFICE IN BLOCK 8. ❑ RECIPIENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT. 18. RECIPIENT (Type name and title) 119. ASSISTANCE OFFICER (Type name and title) Gregory B. Cade, Fire Chief 20. SI URE 7j;:: p ?l DAT: FEMA m 40 , AP BS / - r EPLACES E' Richard Goodman Assistance Officer OF JUL 84, WHICH IS U L 13 2005 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ASSISTANCE AWARD/AMENDMENT 1. ASSISTANCE INSTRUMENT E COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ❑ GRANT 3. INSTRUMENT NUMBER 4. AMENDMENT NUMBER EMW-2003-CA-0111 I M013 7. RECIPIENT NAME AND ADDRESS Virginia Beach Fire Department Attn: Mark Piland Battalion Chief Special Operations, Municipal Center 2408 Courthouse Drive, Building #21 Virginia Beach VA 23456-9065 9. RECIPIENT PROJECT MANAGER Mark Piland 752-427-0693 11. ASSISTANCE ARRANGEMENT 12. PAYMENT METHOD Q COST REIMBURSEMENT 0 TREASURY CHECK ❑ COST SHARING REIMBURSEMENT ❑ FIXED PRICE ❑ ADVANCE CHECK ❑ OTHER ❑ LETTER OF CREDIT 14. ASSISTANCE AMOUNT PREVIOUS AMOUNT $1, 830, 857.53 AMOUNT THIS ACTION *28,000.00 TOTAL AMOUNT $1,858,857.53 16. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 2. TYPE OF ACTION 0 ❑ AWARD AMENDMENT 5, EFFECTIVE DATE 6. CONTROL NUMBER See Block 21 1 WN01032Y2005T 8. ISSUING/ADMINISTRATION OFFICE Federal Emergency Management Agency Financial & Acquisition Management Div Grants Management Branch 500 C Street, S.W., Room 350 Washington DC 20472 Specialist: Sylvia A. Carroll 202-646-3503 10. FEMA PROJECT OFFICER Wanda Casey, 202-646-4013 13. PAYMENT OFFICE Federal Emergency Management Agency Accounting Services Division Disbursement & Receivables Branch 500 C Street, S.W., Room 723 Washington DC 20472 15. ACCOUNTING & APPROPRIATION DATA See Continuation Page This amendment, M012, provides funding for support to the Hurricane Dennis response effort. The total amount obligated under this agreement is hereby increased by $28,000.00 from $1,830,857.53 to $1,856,857.53. All other terms and conditions remain in effect. END OF AMENDMENT M013 17. RECIPIENT REQUIREMENT Q RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO SIGN AND RETURN THREE (3) COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT TO THE ISSUING/ADMIN OFFICE IN BLOCK 8. ❑ RECIPIENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT. 18. RECIPIENT (Type name and title) 19. ASSISTANCE OFFICER (Type name and title) Richard Goodman Gregory B. Cade, Fire Chief Assistance Officer 20. SIG RE OF RE IP T DATF 2 SI ATURE 0 SSISTANCE OFFICER DATE -i JUL 1 20� F MA o. t 85 OLE E:' E 40 2 A REPLACES EDITION OF JUL 84, WHICH S 0 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate $11,340 from the Friends of the Virginia Beach Public Library to the FY 2005-06 Department of Public Libraries Operating Budget for the Purchase of Library Books MEETING DATE: August 23, 2005 ■ Background: The Friends of the Virginia Beach Public Library held two fund raising events called "Love Your Library" during February of 2004 and 2005. They raised a total of $11,340 from donations at these events. As part of their fund raising efforts, they asked the donors for suggestions on what they would like to see purchased with their donations. The Friends of the Library seek to donate to the Library Department the total amount raised during these events, along with a "wish list" of items that the donors would like to see purchased with their donations. ■ Considerations: The Virginia Beach Department of Public Libraries would like to allocate the donation to the purchase of best sellers, audio books and reference books that were on the "wish list." ■ Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council Agenda notification process. ■ Alternatives: No alternative funding is available. ■ Recommendations: It is recommended that the City Council accept and appropriate the $11,340 to the Library Department so that the materials can be purchased. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approve Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Virginia Beach Department bVPublic Libraries City Manage . 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE $11,340 2 FROM THE FRIENDS OF THE VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC 3 LIBRARY TO THE FY 2005-06 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 4 LIBRARIES OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE PURCHASE OF 5 LIBRARY BOOKS 6 7 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 8 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 9 That $11,340 in additional gift fund revenue from the 10 Friends of the Virginia Beach Public Library is hereby accepted and 11 appropriated from fund balance in the Virginia Beach Library Gift 12 Fund to the FY 2005-06 Department of Public Libraries budget for 13 the purchase of library books. 14 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 15 Virginia, on the day of , 2005. 16 Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of City 17 Council. Approved As to Content: S zMan-ageAent Services Approved As To Legal Sufficiency: City Attorney's Office CA9727 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Friends of the Library Donation Ord R-2 August 11, 2005 4 0 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Sallie Marie Kees — Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: August 23, 2005 ■ Background: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Sallie Marie Kees. Property is located at 1421 Maharis Road (GPIN 14790120430000). DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE ■ Considerations: The existing lot is 2.58 acres and has 137 feet of frontage along Maharis Road. It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide the R-40 property into two (2) parcels, Lot A with 1.14 acres and Lot B with 1.55 acres. The existing single family dwelling on Lot B will remain. It is the intent of the applicant to offer Lot A for sale. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because they felt that this request is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. This R- 40 zoned parcel is an unusual size, depth and shape. Both proposed lots, while not meeting the lot width standard of 125 feet, will exceed the minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet for parcels in the R-40 district - Lot A will have 43,748 square feet and Lot B will have 69,673 square feet; affording each lot ample area for dwellings and accessory structures. A review of the zoning history of this area revealed that a subdivision variance was granted in the 1970s for a parcel in the vicinity of this site with similar characteristics. It should be noted, however, a request was denied in this neighborhood in1995, as that proposed parcel would have been deficient in both lot area and lot width. These proposed lots will be configured similarly to other existing irregularly shaped lots abutting Lake Smith. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following condition: The subdivision of the property and the final subdivision plat shall substantially adhere to the submitted plan entitled "Exhibit Plat of Property of J.H. Briton and Mildred Jewart for Marie Kees," prepared by Dennis J. Gerwitz, P.C., dated April 6, 2005. Said plan has been exhibited to the Sallie Marie Kees Page 2 of 2 City of Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. J Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: ��rt SALLI E MARI E KEES Agenda Item # 9 July 14, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith REQUEST: V S : 44b fth n'�P t CP Sallie Marie M N 5 I r o o EKE SMITH Subdivision ariance to ection . ( ) o e Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 1421 Maharis Road. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14790120430000 4 — BAYSIDE 2.58 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST Existing Lot: The existing lot is 2.58 acres and has 137 feet of frontage along Maharis Road. Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide the R-40 property into two (2) parcels, Lot A with 1.14 acres and Lot B with 1.55 acres. The existing single family dwelling on Lot B will remain. It is the intent of the applicant to offer Lot A for sale. Item RenuW LQLA LOLB Lot Width in feet 125 117" 20' Lot Area in square feet 40,000 43,748 69,673 "Variance required LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: There is an existing single family dwelling on this 2.58 acre site. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single family dwellings / R-40 Residential District USE AND ZONING: South: • Single family dwellings / R-40 Residential District East: Maharis Road, single family dwellings / R-40 Residential District West: . Lake Smith / R-40 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is heavily wooded and boarders Lake Smith to the west and CULTURAL FEATURES: north. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Maharis Road is a two (2) lane local street with no planned improvements identified within the CIP. WATER: This site must connect to City water. SEWER: This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a Primary COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Residential Area. The Plan's policies for this area emphasize the strong need to preserve, protect, and enhance the overall character, economic value, and aesthetic quality of surrounding neighborhoods. The policies generally support development proposals that fulfill a legitimate public need for compatible neighborhood support uses and activities. Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. B. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. C. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. D. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by SALL the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self- inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with conditions. This R-40 zoned parcel is an unusual size, depth and shape. Both proposed lots, while not meeting the lot width standard of 125 feet, will exceed the minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet for parcels in the R-40 district - Lot A will have 43,748 square feet and Lot B will have 69,673 square feet; affording each lot ample area for dwellings and accessory structures. A review of the zoning history of this area revealed that a subdivision variance was granted in the 1970s for a parcel in the vicinity of this site with similar characteristics. It should be noted, however, a request was denied in this neighborhood inl995, as that proposed parcel would have been deficient in both lot area and lot width. These proposed lots will be configured similarly to other existing irregularly shaped lots abutting Lake Smith. The recommended condition is provided below. CONDITIONS The subdivision of the property and the final subdivision plat shall substantially adhere to the submitted plan entitled "Exhibit Plat of Property of J.H. Briton and Mildred Jewart for Marie Kees," prepared by Dennis J. Gerwitz, P.C., dated April 6, 2005. Said plan has been exhibited to the City of Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. AERIAL OF SITE LOCATII SA t5.4' 1 STORY BRICK AND FRAME HOUSE PIN' (F)�r` iF� i�jJ� f cr # 1421 a koQ� �� 0 w rLOT a 1 SQ.FT. *59E73 \ o o, 30.4' , o m� ACi ES.41 '3S \ s N o�•o 22.6' .c, 111 p;� DETAIL 1 "=25' o $ si PIN (F) 9tF + v PIN (F) SHED r H PIN (F) \—PROPOSED LOT LINE PIN (F)PROPOSED LOT LINE N/F a N/F J.N. BRITON J.P. LAMBERT 44 o t: 0 80 � p � PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED R40 V) of � 2 DE PIN F 117.00' PIN F No. S 25"48'00' E 137-00- 282.4' TO 1500 SHELL ROAD MAHARIS ROAD tam su*4 (30' R/W) Map D-4 LAKE SMITH cn»;o Alr"vo pro, PIMA I•� s, I • � Varianre R 1 07/11/95 SUBDIVISION VARIANCE (lot width & lot size Denied 2 11/06/78 SUBDIVISION VARIANCE lot width Granted DISCLOSURE STATEMENT' APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc, below: (Attach list if necessary) 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated businessentity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) O Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property ovine; is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the, property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary,) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. & 2 See next page for footnotes S.'y,1M2im Variance Anr4cat,on r;e,is„?c:: cii1i?:v?i DISCLOSURE STA SALL IN DISC�t7SURE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or'businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal services: (Attach list it necessary) "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. z "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (ili) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities, there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities" See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: t certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, i am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions in this package. iYate sum 5n. tIt' -P ry-aker IZ s Applicant's Signature Print Name __.......... .... ...... _..... Property Owner's Signature (if ,afferent than applicant) Print Name v btl . zki , Vi1,,,rse App6ratlor: pew 11 of it revised 9110ool DISCLOSURE STA' Item #9 Sallie Marie Kees Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in Regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance 1421 Maharis Road District 4 Bayside July 13, 2005 CONSENT William Din: The next item I have is Item #9 Sallie Marie Kees. This is an Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance for Sallie Marie Kees. This property is located on 1421 Maharis Road in the Bayside District. Welcome sir. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Mr. Vice Chair, for the record, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney and I have the pleasure of representing Ms. Kees, who is here today. We appreciate being placed on the consent agenda. I did want to point out, and I will hang on to these for City Council, we have petitions of support from the adjoining neighbors, and the civic league. Thank you placing this on the consent agenda. William Din: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Is there any opposition to placing this on consent? If not, Mr. Knight, again, please? Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Din. This is, of course agenda Item #9 Sallie Marie Kees. This is a subdivision variance that they're asking for to Section 4.4. The Subdivision Ordinance requires all newly created lots to meet all the requirements. Well, th;;y do meet the acreage requirements, they just don't meet the frontage requirements. The existing lot is over 21/z-acres, and has 137 feet on Maharis Road. One lot is going to be 1.14 acres, and one lot is going to be a little over an acre and a half. One house sits in the very back of the property, and they want to put one house -in the front of the property. It is certainly in keeping with the character of this particular neighborhood, and they do have the support of most of the neighbors around there. We thought it was a good candidate to be put on the consent agenda as property land use. So, we recommend approval. William Din: Thank you Barry. I would like to make a motion to approve the following consent agenda item, Item #9 Sallie Marie Kees. This is an Appeal to certain elements of the subdivision ordinance. The property is located at 1421 Maharis Road in the Bayside District with one condition. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Do I hear a second? Mr. Knight. We have a motion by Mr. Din and a second by Mr. Knight. Item #9 Sallie Marie Kees Page 2 AYE 11 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved Item #9 for consent. Map D-4 .Sallie Marie lees N 03 0a3 4 r /v 5 LAKE SMlTN 00 / /� o� Subdivision Variance 0 � jos1 �8d (u a� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Alltel Communications, Inc. — Conditional Use Permit (communication tower) MEETING DATE: August 23, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Alltel Communications, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower on property located at 1033 Little Neck Road (GPIN 14887486900000). DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN ■ Considerations: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow development of a 120- foot tall monopole communications tower with concealed antennas on a 35' x 35' lease parcel on the southwest side of the Lynnhaven United Methodist Church auxiliary parking lot. The diameter of the tower is 24". This is a co -location facility and will accommodate a total of two wireless service providers. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The stealth design of the tower is consistent with the direction provided to staff in 2001 after a study of communication towers in the city. Council directed that towers in residential areas be 'stealth' in design rather than the traditional tower with antenna arrays. This proposal is consistent with that direction. The applicant has also met the criteria for tower location contained in section 232 of the zoning ordinance. The applicant has submitted documentation and propagation maps that show that there is a need for this new tower to provide reliable wireless service to the surrounding community. In 2003, two new communication towers were approved by City Council and installed at the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club, southeast of this site. With the approval of these two towers, it was acknowledged that they would support the majority, but not all, of the wireless providers operating within the City. This proposed tower has been located in close proximity to the two new communication towers installed at the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club, southeast of this site. The tower will accommodate one additional wireless provider. The applicant has provided a visual impact study that shows that the new tower will not heavily impact the views from the property because of the surrounding tree cover. The applicant met with several civic leagues in the area to discuss this proposal in detail and used their input in the design. The applicant has submitted the necessary Alltel Communications, Inc. Page 2of3 technical specifications for the tower structure and radio frequency emissions. Based on these factors, staff feels that this tower is compatible with the surrounding residential areas and that the enhancement to wireless services will be a benefit for the community. There was opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The tower shall be limited in height to 120 feet. 2. The tower shall be constructed substantially in adherence to the site plan entitled "Alltel, North Little Neck Site" dated March 18, 2005 and prepared by Timmons Group. This site plan has been exhibited to City Council and is on file with the Department of Planning. 3. The tower shall be constructed to accommodate equipment for at least one additional wireless provider. 4. The proposed communication antennae must be mounted "inside light pole" as depicted on the submitted plans. 5. Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emissions study (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will not interfere with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities, shall be provided prior to site plan approval for the tower and all subsequent users. 6. In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference. 7. Should the antennae cease to be used for a period of more than one (1) year, the applicant shall remove the antennae and their supporting tower and related equipment. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Alltel Communications, Inc. Page 3 of 3 Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: V vn, ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Agenda Item # 17 July 13, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Barbara Duke REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower Map G5 Alltel s R-30 �� � � _ R [❑ / d� tra Q� G �w� R —a poi �O R-40 12 1 E ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 1033 Little Neck Road GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14887486900000 5-LYNNHAVEN 2.67 acres The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow SUMMARY OF REQUEST development of a 120-foot tall monopole communications tower with concealed antennas on a 35' x 35' lease parcel on the southwest side of the Lynnhaven United Methodist Church auxiliary parking lot. The diameter of the tower is 24". This is a co -location facility and will accommodate a total of two wireless service providers. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Parking Lot for Lynnhaven United Methodist Church SURROUNDING LAND North: . Little Neck Road USE AND ZONING: South: • Single-family homes/ R-20 Residential District East: . Single-family homes/ R-20 Residential District West: . Lynnhaven United Methodist Church / R-20 Residential District ALLTEL COMMUN NATURAL RESOURCE AND The majority of the site is a parking lot. The lot is adjacent to a creek CULTURAL FEATURES: that is part of the Lynnhaven River watershed and is subject to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area regulations. The Chesapeake Bay Board approved this project on June 27, 2005 with the following conditions: 1. A pre -construction meeting shall be convened with Civil Inspections prior to any land disturbance, inclusive of demolition. 2. A wire re -enforced silt fence shall be installed prior to any land disturbance and shall remain in place until such time as vegetative cover is established. 3. A heavy duty construction fence, acceptable to Civil Inspections, shall be installed along the aforementioned E & S controls and shall be maintained during all phases of construction. 4. Permanent or temporary soil stabilization shall be applied to all disturbed / denuded area(s) prior to a final building inspection or certificate of occupancy. 5. Construction limits shall lie a maximum of 5' seaward of improvements. 6. The construction access way shall be noted on the site plan, as well as the stockpile staging area. 7. All stormwater from proposed impervious cover shall be conveyed to a structural stormwater management facility. 8. As offered by the applicant, payment shall be made to the Lynnhaven Oyster Heritage Program prior to or concurrent with site plan approval. Payment shall be in the amount of $210.00 and is based on 25% of the proposed impervious cover. Said payment shall provide for the equivalent of an approximate 229 sq. ft., 12-inch deep oyster shell plant within the Lynnhaven River Basin. 9. All areas outside limits of construction shall be left in a natural state to include the forest floor (leaf litter) left intact. Said condition shall be so noted on the site plan. 10. Tree compensation shall be as shown on the site plan dated March 18, 2005, with a revision date of 6-2-05, sheet L1, prepared by Timmons Group (twenty-five trees). 11. The proposed gravel pad constructed of #57 washed aggregate at a minimum depth of 6 inches. 12. Perimeter fill shall be limited to the area above the top -of -bank on the 35' by 35' leased parcel. No perimeter fill shall be located seaward of said limits. 13. The conditions and approval associated with this variance are based on the site plan dated March 18, 2005, with a revision date of 6-2-05, prepared by Timmons Group. 14. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning, Development Services Center for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within the Primary Residential Area. Land use planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. Recognizing the need for this service throughout the City, a comprehensive study of communications towers was conducted by staff in 2001. The goal with this issue has always been to facilitate the development of the best possible telecommunications system for our residents and businesses without compromising community aesthetics and character. The study contends that towers less than 120 feet in height can be considered adjacent to residential neighborhoods if they are of a low impact design. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions listed below. The recommended conditions are provided below. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The stealth design of the tower is consistent with the direction provided to staff in 2001 after a study of communication towers in the city. Council directed that towers in residential areas be `stealth' in design rather than the traditional tower with antenna arrays. This proposal is consistent with that direction. The applicant has also met the criteria for tower location contained in section 232 of the zoning ordinance. The applicant has submitted documentation and propagation maps that show that there is a need for this new tower to provide reliable wireless service to the surrounding community. In 2003, two new communication towers were approved by City Council and installed at the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club, southeast of this site. With the approval of these two towers, it was acknowledged that they would support the majority, but not all, of the wireless providers operating within the City. This proposed tower has been located in close proximity to the two new communication towers installed at the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club, southeast of this site. The tower will accommodate one additional wireless provider. The applicant has provided a visual impact study that shows that the new tower will not heavily impact the views from the property because of the surrounding tree cover. The applicant met with several civic leagues in the area to discuss this proposal in detail and used their input in the design. The applicant has submitted the necessary technical specifications for the tower structure and radio frequency emissions. Based on these factors, staff feels that this tower is compatible with the surrounding residential areas and that the enhancement to wireless services will be a benefit for the community. CONDITIONS 1. The tower shall be limited in height to 120 feet. 2. The tower shall be constructed substantially in adherence to the site plan entitled "Alltel, North Little Neck Site" dated March 18, 2005 and prepared by Timmons Group. This site plan has been exhibited to City Council and is on file with the Department of Planning. 3. The tower shall be constructed to accommodate equipment for at least one additional wireless provider. 4. The proposed communication antennae must be mounted "inside light pole" as depicted on the submitted plans. 5. Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emissions study (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will not interfere with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities, shall be provided prior to site plan approval for the tower and all subsequent users. 6. In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference. 7. Should the antennae cease to be used for a period of more than one (1) year, the applicant shall remove the antennae and their supporting tower and related equipment. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. ALLTEL COMMUN AERIAL OF SITE ALLTEL COMMUN 1 l m� C► t *, ! t 1 J 11 �y x c co rn !al k o iv o Ab A CD CD rq oz p r �Il� ✓,y s/%� ' D cn , e ' M.. tk `, <40 P Chi PROPOSED SITE PLAN r ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AgendaItem17 Page 6 n PROPOSED 118* ..1d-I.0 g7 f IC K- MVfY.O E° ('GAL VANIZE`D MI,SH) IM M M" 9 r-% iT-/^ T . ' K 1 e+rh. PROPOSED TOWER CONFIGURATION. ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Agenda Item # 17 Page 7 1 01/23/89 SUBDIVISION VARIANCE GRANTED 2 05/28/91 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED (CHURCH ADDITION) 06/27/95 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED CHURCH ADDITION 03/28/97 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DENIED COMMUNICATION TOWER 10/14/97 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED (COMMUNICATION TOWER) FOLLOWING COURT ACTION 3 02/23/99 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED CHURCH PARKING 4 06/08/04 REZONING FROM R-40 RESIDENTIAL GRANTED TO CONDITIONAL R-30 RESIDENTIAL ZONING HI ALLTEL COMMUN ls, nNc. am #.17 Pale 8 ISURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) ALLTEL Communications, Inc. - Kevin L. Beebe, Group President; Scott T. Ford, President & CEO; Francis X. Frantz, Exec. VP & Sec; Scott Settelmyer, Treasurer; Jeffrey R. Gardner, SVP & CFO 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary or affiliated business entityz relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) E]Check here if the applicant is NOT corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followers by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners; etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Brim Fierro, Trustee - Lynnhaven United Methodist Church. 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entityz relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) FICheck here if the property owner is N©Ta corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. ----------------- z see next page for footnotes Conditional Use Permit Application Page 9 of !o Revised 911?2404 ALLTEL COMMUN DISCLOSURE ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) ins Group; Tremblay & Smith, LLP; Stokes Environmental Assoc., Ltd.; Huff, and Mahoney. ' "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation," See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2.3101. z "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities, Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing lac cording to the instructions in this package. Applicant's Signatur f �— Print Name, Propa r ure (if different than applicant) --- Print Name— W m Canditionai use Permit Application Page 10 of 10 Revised 91112004 ALLTEL COMMUN TIONS, INC. da Item # 17 Page 10 Item #17 Alltel Communications, Inc. Conditional Use Permit 1033 Little Neck Road District 5 Lynnhaven July 13, 2005 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next application is Item #17 Alltel Communications, Inc. An Ordinance upon Application of Alltel Communications, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower on property located at 1033 Little Neck Road, District 5, Lynnhaven with seven conditions. Dorothy Wood: Is there anyone here representing Alltel? Dick Gibson: Madame Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Dick Gibson. I'm the attorney representing Alltel. Thank you for hearing our application this afternoon. Alltel is one of two wireless providers that does not have antennas on Little Neck at the present time. The City Council approved, with your recommendation two towers at the swim and racquet club, which accommodate for a couple of wireless carriers. So, we're essentially here to be able to provide an improved wireless service to the residents of Little Neck. The problem is now that we just can't provide coverage from the other sites that we have in the area. There is no tall structure so we need to propose a tall structure for those antennas. We are, obviously very aware of the sensitivity of the area. It's a lovely area. Fortunately, it is a heavily wooded area so that helps to be able to conceal what we are proposing to you this afternoon. We are proposing a 120 foot gray slick stick. A "slick stick" is a monopole that has the antennas concealed inside. It is similar to what's been erected at the racquet club. We are proposing it right next to the Lynnhaven United Methodist Church parking lot in a heavily wooded area. There are photo simulations. Dorothy Wood: We saw those this morning sir. Dick Gibson: Okay. But essentially the facility will not be visible. We're going to add to the screening. We're going to plant some Leyland Cypress on a berm that is right at the entrance to the parking lot so people coming out of Harris Road, that's photo simulation number one, you can see the pole through the trees. We're going to put Leyland Cypress up in front of that so they will eventually obscure the view from that angle. It will be very tastefully done. There will be a brick facade and a pitched roof on the equipment building, which will also be landscaped. And of course, the facility will not be lit. It will be visited a couple of times a month by the technical people just to make sure that the equipment is working properly. It is a multiple carrier facility. It will accommodate Alltel's antennas and Sprint's antennas as well. We also had visual impact Item # 17 Alltel Communications, Inc. Page 2 studies done to determine the extent of visibility through the area, and essentially that is it. Beyond that, that's the head on view from the parking lot but there you can see that is the closest residence on Kings Landing Circle. You can barely see the top of it through the notch in the trees there. There it is from Sir George Circle. You have to look for it in order to see it. And then there is one other from Little Neck Road. Again, you have to look for it in order to see it. So we think we've done a pretty good job concealing it. Before we filed the application we met with the civic leagues. We met with eight civic leagues from January through March and we were guests at the meetings of the civic leagues. I made a fairly detailed presentation with the photo simulations and so forth, and the application was well received. People said that they still needed improved coverage on Little Neck, and they said for heaven sake, please make sure you make the tower tall enough. Don't chop the top of them off like they did at the swim and racquet club. We think 120 feet is going to be able to accomplish the objective, which is to provide coverage to the end of the peninsula. We're a little bit northwest of the swim and racquet club so we're more into the heart of the peninsula. We do think that we will be able to get this signal out to everybody. But it was well received. There are a few people who are opposed. Primarily on health concerns but we vented that pretty well. We had an RF Engineer calculate what the power density of the base of the tower would be and it is less than I percent of the amount, which is allowed under the guidelines. Actually, it is 15,000 times less than the maximum exposure level. So, we are well within the guidelines. We do have approval form the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Board. We got that approval within the last couple of weeks. We have planning staff s recommendation of approval with the conditions that are acceptable. The church had a congregation meeting and the church has approved it as well. So, we've been green lighted pretty well all the way. The growth of wireless has increased dramatically as you all can appreciate. What was once considered to be a luxury is now considered to be a necessity. And, people want to be able to use their phones when they are on the road. They want to be able to use them once they get to their homes. They want to be able to use them inside their homes. That is the challenge for the industry is to be able to have that service provided where the customers want it. And, the growth figures have just been astonishing. In the year ending 2004, wireless subscribership increased by 141/2 percent to more than 170 million customers in the US. And during that same period of time, the usage the wireless minutes increased by 35 percent, which to me is just phenomenal. You got more than a 1/3`d increase in the use of wireless minutes in a one-year period. I think we all understand what the benefits are. They're personal. They're business. They're very helpful in emergency disaster efforts because sometimes the landline phones are gone. They still have use of their cell phones. So, I think it is a tremendous benefit to the citizens. I think it is a benefit to the community. I understand that we do have some opposition here, which I'll address after they speak. We would appreciate your support of this application. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you all have. Dorothy Wood: Are there any questions? Do we opposition? Thank you. Item # 17 Alltel Communications, Inc. Page 3 William Din: I have one question. There was one comment that another color other than the gray could be used. Is that possible? Dick Gibson: Yes. Absolutely. I discussed that with Barbara Duke. Some of the people when we had the neighborhood meeting said could you make it the color of the trees. Make it brown. The problem with that is the part that sticks out above the top becomes more visible. She said you all tried that with one monopole in the City and it was more visible than gray. The board provides for a gray so that is why we put the gray down. It seems to blend in better. Once those trees fill in the front, you will be standing there and you won't even notice it. Ronald Ripley: What's the closest distance to a residential structure? Dick Gibson: 300 feet, which is twice the setback requirement of the ordinance. Ronald Ripley: Which one would that be? Dick Gibson: That would be the one that Sir George Circle that the photo simulation is sort of red color house that the photo simulation was taken from. That is actually 450 feet so that is three times the setback required by the ordinance. Ronald Ripley: And that is from the base of the structure to the residential. Dick Gibson: To the residential structure. And, also Brian Fierro is a representative of the Lynnhaven United Methodist Church. He is the Chairman of the Board for the Trustees. If he may speak next that would be helpful. Dorothy Wood: We have six people that are supporting it. But we thought maybe we could have a couple of them and the rest of them could stand up to show their support if that is okay with you? Dick Gibson: Yes. Dorothy Wood: I know that you all are very uncomfortable this afternoon. Dick Gibson: How many people do we have in opposition? Dorothy Wood: We have a few sir but they'll speak. I'm sure of it. Dick Gibson: Yeah, if Brian could speak from the church's perspective overall and then a couple of other folks. Dorothy Wood: Then we'll have the minister speak, and then that's it. Okay. Thank you. Item # 17 Alltel Communications, Inc. Page 4 Dick Gibson: Thank you. Brian Fierro: Good afternoon. I'm Brian Fierro. I live at 921 King's Cross right here at the beach in the Little Neck area. I am Chairman of the Trustees for Lynnhaven United Methodist Church. I'll try to keep this very short because Mr. Gibson really hit all the bullet items. We were approached last summer for this proposal. After sitting on it and thinking about it, our two key issues were location of the tower on the property, and community receptiveness to the tower. The location on the auxiliary parking lot of the church is advantageous because of the trees. They would blend in. It wouldn't be sticking out in open view. The second part, which we thought was more important, was what our neighbors would think, and through Alltel we put together a plan to contact all the civic league associations, attend meetings. Church representatives were at each of the meetings as well as Alltel. The results were very little opposition overall. And, from that, civic associations meeting then we decided to move forward with Alltel. It wasn't until we polled the community until we were going to make a final decision to go into negotiations with Alltel. So that happened. We moved forward based on those civic association meetings. Basically our church is a 700-member church, which are residents of Little Neck. They have approved the lease to be signed that we have with Alltel. And, from that, I think you can tell the 700 members of Little Neck Peninsula are for this. It is a pretty good population group in that area. We're just excited about the proceeds of the lease being able to put them into local charities and outreach programs, which is what we're directing this money toward. We presently contribute to charities both on the local, national, and international level. We're going to be able to now increase that and go into different areas as time goes on. Ed Weeden: You have 45 seconds. Please wrap up. Brian Fierro: Okay. Thank you. So, that is where we stand with that. We would like your approval on this, and the church is very supportive of this proposal. Thank you for your time. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Joseph Strange: Was there anyone else who wanted to speak in support or just be recognized? Brian Fierro: The Pastor is here. There are some other people that are from the Little Neck area. So they can just be recognized just to expedite things. Dorothy Wood: Okay. Thank you. Brian Fierro: Thank you. Joseph Strange: The first person speaking in opposition is Kirk Johnson. Item # 17 Alltel Communications, Inc. Page 5 Kirk Johnson: Good afternoon. My name is Kirk Johnson. I'm a resident at 924 King's Landing Circle. I appreciate being able to speak to you and express my opposition to this cell tower. I recently moved to the area, and just moved into this property within the last year. I didn't know about the meeting that they had at the church with Alltel to talk to the community about the project. And, if I had gone, I would have expressed very serious opposition to it. As there are no pictures depicting this. You go out to the back of my house you will see right through the clearing over the little marshy area, and through trees, the parking lot and Lynnhaven United Methodist Church. And, I'll be looking at the cell tower. And, I don't want too. To me there are issues. I know I have no expertise on zoning but if you have a change in zoning for this, I'm concerned about the changing the aesthetics, the character of the neighborhood, property values. I also have concerns about the relationship between health and increased health risks, which I don't know if the Commission has received the research paperwork that Dr. Elsayed, who is one of my neighbors had sent to the Commission. However, this is not a health professional, and I'm not an electrical engineer but these are concerns from me because my daughter, my wife, and I sleep and live right next to this cell tower. I think Alltel needs to recheck its figures because we are closer than 450 feet to the cell tower. I would say it is more in the neighborhood of 250 — 300 feet. In the back of our property is within a 100 feet of it. So, these are some reasons why I'm opposed to it, and I can't go into any more detail with respect to the three -minute limit. Once again, I appreciate you listening to my point of view and hopefully you will consider disapproving this cell tower construction. Dorothy Wood: We appreciate you coming down. Would you please answer questions from Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: Would you show us with the pointer where you house is? Kirk Johnson: This is my property here. As I understand it that is the cell tower site right here. Dorothy Wood: Thanks. Mr. Crabtree, do you have anything? Eugene Crabtree: I was going to ask the same question. Dorothy Wood: Does anyone else have any questions? Thank you sir. Kirk Johnson: Thank you. Joseph Strange: The next person speaking in opposition is Tim Schlitt. Tim Schlitt: Schlitt, like the beer. Good afternoon everyone. My name is Tim Schlitt. I am the neighbor. I have been there since 1989. This is the second time that this church has requested a cell tower to be built. Let me state that the opposition the first time was very, very strong. In fact, my wife, my self and a group of concerned neighbors went out Item # 17 Alltel Communications, Inc. Page 6 and got petitions and we got over 500 petitions at that time against the cell tower. Now since then, cell towers have been applied for. Once again, my wife has spent hours, months, etc, as far as the rod and gun club, where they did built two towers at the time. There is opposition and we take as strong view as possible. This time, and I'll explain that at the end of this course. Property values? When they built the rod and gun club, we had people who sold their house prior to the construction of the tower, very strong opposition. I'm limiting half of my market value to people who oppose cell towers, and I try to sell my house then I'm going to hit prime sale. There is a lot stronger opposition than they led you to believe. I attended one of the meetings. I was not informed of any of the other meetings. My house is right there. I'm right across from theirs. That would be our view right out of the back window would be the cell tower. Previous promise, when those telecommunications companies came in and they proposed, first our church, and then second of all they proposed a rod and gun club. These will be all the towers that we need. We opposed both cases. They decide to build at the rod and gun club. We were told by the communication people that was going to be it. This would last. Alltel did not have their act together then. Why should I suffer for not having their act together now? There are other problems also. There are other methods available. 120-foot towers are not the only methods where you can get telecommunications towers. Ed Weeden: Mr. Schlitt, your have 45 seconds. Tim Schlitt: Yes. Cancer concerns. The reason why my wife and I have not done as much this year is because both my wife and I have had since the construction of the towers cancer. I've gone through surgery. My wife has had chemotherapy. Can we link it to the towers at the gun club? No. I'm not trying to but if you look at the research that has been provided and previous research provided by European countries that is a concern on the European countries. Finally, you hear about the local goods, and local international efforts that have been done by the church. Dorothy Wood: Sir, I'm sorry that you both have been sick. It is the swim and racquet rather than gun. I don't think we have a gun club in Little Neck. Tim Schlitt: I'm sorry. Dorothy Wood: That is alright. Are there any questions? Kathy Katsias: Do you have a cell phone and who is your carrier? Tim Schlitt: I have a cell phone that I got here within the last half year. My carrier is? I don't remember but I do get coverage. But I really don't use it. I bought it simply after my wife had her car break down in the outskirts someplace between D.C. and Fredericksburg and she needed to be able to get a hold of people. So, it's emergency use - only cell phone. I do not use it. Item # 17 Alltel Communications, Inc. Page 7 Kathy Katsias: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Speaking in opposition is Johnny Johnson. Dorothy Wood: Welcome sir. Johnny Johnson: Good afternoon everyone. My name is Johnny Johnson and I live at 981 Little Neck Road and I'll point that out for you. I live right there. I am well within 450 feet of this property. I haven't measured it out because I didn't know that number would come up. But I'm way less than 450 feet. I bought the property about three years ago because of the natural beauty looking out over the wetlands there. I simply don't want to look out my back door and see a communications antenna. The key point that I would make is there has been a lot of talk about eight civic leagues that have approved this. For those of us who live in the immediate vicinity we don't have a civic league. So we didn't get together as a civic league and approve this. I think it is somewhat irrelevant to go to civic leagues in King's Grant or further down Little Neck Road to get their approval because they are not the ones who are going look out their back door at it. The other issue is there have been some pictures that have been shown. But I think those pictures are somewhat of a Trojan horse, and that they show a view of the antenna from 300 — 500 yards away over the tops of trees. That is not the view that I will have looking out my back door. Dorothy Wood: Are there any questions? Thank you sir. We did receive your letter. Johnny Johnson: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Joseph Strange: That is all that we have in opposition today. Mr. Gibson. Dick Gibson: I would ask that the people who came in support please stand up and be recognized by the Planning Commission. Dorothy Wood: We're happy to have you here. Thank you for coming down. Dick Gibson: I guess the opposition focuses on two items. One is aesthetics, and the other is health concerns. The health concerns I will deal with quickly because it is easy. We did commission an engineer as I mentioned before, and Alltel is not going to put something out there that is not going to be healthy or is going to be a detriment to people's health. It is regulated by the Federal Communication Commission, in terms of your signal strength, and what the measure power density is at the base of the tower. We are well within the guidelines of that. Significantly, under the 96 Telecommunications — Act, as Mr. Macali will tell you municipalities cannot regulate the placement of cell towers based on perceived health concerns. So that is something that you all legally can't Item #17 Alltel Communications, Inc. Page 8 even consider a factor. As far as the aesthetics are concerned if you look at this overview, the aerial view you see how densely treed that is, and actually the closer you are to the facility the less likely you will be able to see it because your looking in the trees and not looking over the tops of trees. So, for those residents that are living fairly close to the facility, they're going to be looking into trees. The pictures that we took we didn't go into people's yard obviously but the further back you are from the tree coverage the more likely it is you are going to see the top of the tower, so the closer you are the more you are going to be looking right into the trees and not seeing the top of the tower. I think we have done a very good job in making this facility essentially invisible. It will be less visible than the towers that are at the swim and racquet club, and it is not as close to residences as the towers that are at the swim and racquet club. If you go back into the swim and racquet club and you look you can literally see into people's kitchens from those towers. You won't be able to see in people's kitchens from this facility, and they won't see it. I submit that it is actually a better application than the swim and racquet club. Also, it is in conformity with the 2001 guidelines that were approved in terms of stealth tower application in residential neighborhoods. Obviously, you're going to be in somebody's back yard in a residential neighborhood. We had complied with those guidelines by making this a stealth facility and I thank you for your time. We'll appreciate your support. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir for coming down. Dick Gibson: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: I have a question. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Gibson. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Gibson is the height of this tower the same as the one at the swim and racquet club? Dick Gibson: Yes. It is, maybe within a foot or two. It is actually 118 feet but then you got a two foot one inch lightening rod on top of that so the physical structure itself is 118 feet. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Comments? Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: I would have to be in agreement with Mr. Gibson in the overall view. When you take the two together I think this is a better application than the swim and racquet club that we looked at earlier. I think the main opposition is on the Little Neck area. I know the residents there elected to put towers in that area. As we all have discussed before, I think we recognize the need for cell coverage for those residents in the Item # 17 Alltel Communications, Inc. Page 9 Little Neck area. If we were looking for it at the swim and racquet club, the church site came up as viable and alternative. At that time, it probably would have been a good alternative to place those towers there but I would go ahead with my recommendation to approve this. At the health concerns, I know that concerns everybody and I just don't know if they are well founded. The towers are in other residential areas. There have been studies on the health concerns and I just don't think well of those concerns that people may have on that. That is my opinion on this for recommendation for the use. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there a second? I'm sorry, I thought that was a motion? Janice Anderson: No. I'm sorry. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: When we did the swim and racquet club, I don't remember that being stated that this was the end of any possibilities that these were just the applicants involved in that particular project. I just want to make sure. Barbara Duke: When we did the swim and racquet it was stated that was not the ultimate solution. In other words, they would handle the majority of the carriers but not all of them. Robert Miller: And we did two towers there right? And that is handling four carriers. Barbara Duke: Yes. Robert Miller: Who is it handling? Do you know? Just curiosity. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Gibson probably knows. Dick Gibson: It is handling Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, and Ntelos. Dorothy Wood: Okay. Thank you. Robert Miller: That was it. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: I sympathize with the neighbors. These are the folks that it really has an immediate impact to. And that was the same case in the swim and racquet club. For the most part, I know there was some other opposition from the area but all in all, it was the immediate neighbors. This application and that was really a tough application and we all 6 sat here a long time working through it. This application appears to be a better application in my opinion. I think it is sited a lot better than the one at the swim and Item # 17 Alltel Communications, Inc. Page 10 racquet club. That was sitting down in an open area. It does sit back from the road but I think the back of it has been sited back into the trees a little better. Even though I'm sure there is going to be somebody's house around it. One of the neighbors that is in here today that is going to look at it and not like it for a long time. But we're looking at and I can recall in that hearing we got talking about the necessity of utilities and telephone pole lines that run all the way through the Little Neck area and all over the city is a necessity. You don't see it because you all get your electricity. It is unfortunate or it's the state of times that the cell phone business has gotten to where it is, and the need for coverage is essential. So this is like another utility. That is the way it has become. So, I'm going to support the application also. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any other comments? Is that in the form of a motion then? Ronald Ripley: Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve. Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Dorothy Wood: A motion by Ron and seconded by Mr. Crabtree to approve. AYE 11 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0 the Board has approved the application of Alltel Communications. Dorothy Wood: Thank you all for coming down. You know this will go to City Council. ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. NORTH LITTLE NECK SITE LYNNHAVEN UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 1033 LITTLE NECK ROAD, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA GPIN: 1488-74-8690 SYNOPSIS OF CIVIC LEAGUE AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS Representatives of ALLTEL and the Lynnhaven United Methodist Church made a presentation lasting approximately one-half hour to each of the civic leagues below. The presentation included details about the project, photo simulations, a visual impact analysis, cellular coverage propagation maps for Little Neck, options considered by ALLTEL and information about the Church. After each presentation, the civic league members were given the opportunity to ask questions and voice comments, suggestions, support and opposition. The following is a synopsis of the results of these meetings. Little Neck Swim & Racquet Club - January 17, 2005 • This was a Board meeting with approximately 10 people present. • There was no opposition. • A reporter from The Beacon was present. • The Board explained ALLTEL could not add a third tower on the site due both to space limitations and inability to meet set back distance from residential structures. • The Board explained ALLTEL could not raise the height of one of the towers because the two towers were reduced from an originally proposed taller height as a compromise with the neighbors. Lynnwood Civic Association - February 7, 2005 This was a Board meeting with approximately 10 people present. A man from Staceywood Court (not part of this civic league) was the only person to speak directly against the proposal. He acknowledged he would not be able to see the tower from his property, it would not affect him and it would not be a factor for anyone buying his house. He, in essence, said that he was there on behalf of unidentified other people who may be able to see it. A few people said they felt that the Racquet Club solution should have taken care of all wireless carriers. Middle Plantation and Bishonseate Civic Association - Combined Meeting - February 8, 2005 • This was a membership meeting and approximately 75 members attended, and most were supportive of the project. Only 3 people spoke in opposition, one of whom was the same man from Staceywood Court who spoke at the Lynwood meeting. • The other 2 people who spoke in opposition were a couple who said they both had cancer and were concerned for their safety as they would be living near the tower. I explained that the tower did not pose a safety threat relative to RF emissions and that antennas at this height were categorically excluded from further study by the FCC because there was no safety threat. • Some members suggested a color other than gray such as a mottled green/brown to blend in with the trees. • One person suggested that we consider the City Park near Sea Breeze. (See Applicant's Statement for ALLTEL's consideration of other sites.) • Several people said they had thought the Swim Club towers were going to be objectionable and they had vehemently opposed them, but the finished product was not objectionable, and they thus had no opposition to our project. • Some noted that the tower on the Church property would be less visible than those at the Racquet Club. • Some members questioned why ALLTEL was not proposing a third tower at the Swim & Racquet Club and a member of the Swim & Racquet Club explained that the Club could not accommodate any proposal for a third tower. • Several people said they supported the project because better cellular coverage was needed in Little Neck. Sea Breeze Farm Civic Association - February 22, 2005 • 15 members were present. They were all supportive and not one member spoke in opposition. • Members stated that they do not notice the Racquet Club towers and will not notice one at the Church nor will a tower at the Church be as visible as existing utility poles. • One person said he was glad the Church would be getting income from the project and this made him even more supportive. Redwood Farms Civic Association - February 24, 2005 • Six people from Redwood Farms attended the meeting. • All those present support the ALLTEL proposal but wanted assurance the tower will be tall enough to ensure good coverage. • They complimented ALLTEL's "public relations" approach. Little Neck Cove Civic League - March 14, 2005 • Approximately 40 members were present. • The civic league President asked for a showing of hands of those in favor of and those opposed to the project. Only three people indicated they were opposed. After the meeting two of the opponents withdrew their opposition because they said, based on the presentation, the project was not objectionable to them. • One person was opposed because she continues to think a third tower should be built at the Racquet Club. • One person asked if the tower could be taller than the height proposed to insure good coverage. • Several people suggested the tower be painted brown to blend with the trees. Kings Grant Civic Association - March 17 2005 • 15 members were present and none were opposed to the project. • One person suggested raising the height of ALLTEL's Shore Drive and Virginia Beach Boulevard (Little Neck) sites to cover the Little Neck Peninsula, and the Applicant explained this had been considered, but maximum coverage from these sites was already being achieved. One person offered a few stories about opponent comments from the previous application for the Church site, and said he could not understand the basis for the opposition. • Some members want to be sure the tower is high enough to provide good coverage. • Some proposed the tower be painted brown. Lynnhaven United Methodist Church Congregation and Nearby Neighbors - March 29 2005. • This synopsis will be supplemented after the meeting on March 29, 2005. 28\C:\MyFiles\DATA\Alltel\North Little Neck\C.A. synopsis 02.wpd ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. NORTH LITTLE NECK SITE LYNNHAVEN UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 1033 LITTLE NECK ROAD, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA GPIN: 1488-74-8690 SUPPLEMENT TO SYNOPSIS OF CIVIC LEAGUE AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS Lynnhaven United Methodist Church Congregation and Nearby Neighbors - March 29 2005. • Members of the LUMC congregation, all residents on Staceywood Court and all property owners abutting the LUMC property were notified of the meeting and invited to attend to learn about the project. • The meeting was not well attended. Two people were present at the beginning, one arrived in the middle and two arrived at the end. No one from Staceywood Court was present. • An adjoining neighbor spoke against the project based on alleged health concerns from RF emissions on his children. • A couple expressed opposition because, in their opinion, Little Neck is the most desirable residential area in Virginia Beach and they think the tower would be detrimental. • The other two attendees expressed neither support nor opposition. 28\C:\MyFiles\DATA\Alltel\North Little Neck\C.A. synopsis 02 supplement.wpd Page I of 2 Karen Lasley - Re: Fw: Message status - undeliverable From: Jeannette Smith To: Franks, Michael Date: 6/9/2005 8:06 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Message status - undeliverable CC: Duke, Barbara; Lasley, Karen M,ri Franks, By copy and reply with your message below, I am forwarding to Barbara Duke and Karen Lasley of Current Planning,who oversee cell tower applications for Virginia Beach. One of the two of them will reply with a response to you. Jeannette Smith Jeannette Smith, Executive Assistant Planning Direet0es Office Municipal Center,. O,uilding #2 Virginia Beach, Vk; 3456 jmsmithC&vbgov.cc PHONE: (757) 426- boj FAX: (757) 563-N2 >>> "Michael Franks" <fr6nks244@cox.net> 06/08/05 05:21PM >>> Mr. Smith, This email came back undeliverable. I hope that you are the right person to direct it in the right direction. Thanks Mike Franks ----- Original Message ----- From: <Mailer-Daemon@SMTPGW.VBGOV.COM> To: <franks244@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 10:25 PM Subject: Message status - undeliverable > The message that you sent was undeliverable to the following: > planadmin@vbgov.com (user not found) > Possibly truncated original message follows: The purpose of this email is to voice my opposition to the placement of a cell communication tower on the United Methodist Church property. I make this objection for a number of reasons. I hope you are aware that our community objected to this same initiative about five years ago. At that time the City disapproved the request but it was over -ruled by a Federal Judge and the towers were erected. The City in turn appealed the Judges' decision and the towers were ordered to be taken down. file://C:\WINNT\Temp\GW } 00005.HTM 6/9/2005 Page 2 of 2 The towers in this area simply do not go with the landscape of this neighborhood. When the last towers were erected they were totally out of place and an eye sore. The area where I live in Kings Grant Landing East backs right up to the Church and this will undoubtedly have an impact on the value of our properties. I have lived here for over 20 years, and bought here due to the beauty and tranquility of the area. To take this way from the citizenry is an abomination. I am further concerned about the health risks that a tower in such close proximity 24/7 might impose on our health. While I realize that some might adamantly argue against this concern, I would venture to guess it is someone that is not impacted as my neighbors or me. I fail to see the need for such a tower in this proposed area as there is one located nearby (less than a mile) at the Swim and Racket Club. This is at least a location where the tower does not look as much out of place. Five years ago the Church was to make $60K a year to place the towers on their property. This is simply about money in their pockets. I am a devout Christian so I am not making this complaint because I am opposed to the Church. This situation was properly argued five years ago and I think it un-Christianly of the Church to put us though this again. It caused great turmoil last time and is doing so again. I would hope that the Virginia Beach Planning Commission might take the steps necessary to deny this proposal and close the issue once and for all. Thank you for your consideration. Mike Franks 917 Kings Landing Circle Virginia Beach, VA 23452 Ph 340-3063 file://C:\WINNT\Temp\GW) 00005.HTM 6/9/2005 4111A; 2 s 2005 Virginia Beach Planning Commission M e�? er,) pAd n 24i`t`h Roodl ` 1 Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 May 25, 2005 Virginia Beach, VA Subject: Protest of proposed Alltel Communications cell tower at Lynnhaven United Methodist Church, 1033 Little Neck Road My name is Kirk Johnson, and I am a property owner at 924 King's Landing Circle. I oppose the construction of a cell tower across from my back yard at Lynnhaven Methodist Church. I have expressed as much and my reasons to both Alltel and Lynnhaven Methodist, as you will see in the attached copy of the letter that I have sent to them. As I understand there will be a public Hearing on the issue June 8th, I am registering my protest with you based on: 1. cell towers are eyesores 2. it will negatively impact my property resale value 3. it may present serious health risks to residents surrounding the site, my family being one of the most immediately affected I trust you will file this letter with the materials for the public hearing and advise the Planning Commissioners that I in no uncertain terms oppose this tower's construction. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Kirk Johnsoif 924 King's Landing Circle Virginia Beach, VA 23452 CUC UGr I Ms. Barbara Duke Planning Department City of Virginia Beach Municipal Center Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Regarding: Application of Lynnhaven United Methodist to Section 106 Dear Ms. Duke: I refer to your letter dated May 18, 2005 on the public h,earil Planning Commission to be held on Wednesday, June 8, 201 recent research publications on the health hazards of moduli similar to what the residents adjacent to LUMC will be expc phone tower is built. I have brought this information to the 1 would like to request that this information be brought to the informed decision can be made. Sincerely, Hani E. Elsayed-Ali 932 Kings Landing Circle Virginia Beach, VA 23452 Phone 463-8260 (LUMC) for Variance before the Virginia Beach . I am faxing several ed microwave radiation A to, if this proposed cell stor of the LUMC. I ablic hearing so that an DR. la.10 E. ELSAYED-ALI Professor and Eminent Scbolar DEPARTMENT OF ,LECTR1ULAND COMPUTER ENGWERL\G OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY 231 J Kaufman, Hall, Norfolk, VA 23529 (757) 683-3748 (office) (757) 683-3220 (fax) helsayed®odu.edu ­_ ice,1J r1jrUo001_4u C.l,t Ltl'I l'atbol Bio) 2002; 50 : 369-73 0 2002 Bditions scientifiques et rnediealos Elsevier SAS. Tous droita reserves S0369-8114(02)0031 t-5/FLA (English translation) Study of the health of people living In the vicinity of mobile phone 1. Influences of distance and sex It, Santini-, F. Santini, J.M. Danze, P. Le Ruz, M. Selgne Instltut national des sciences gppliguies — laborato ire de avenue Albert Einstein, 69621 Villeurbanne, France Summary A survey study using a questionnaire was conducted on 630 people (270 men, 21 cellular phone base stations, on 18 Non Specific Health Symptoms. Comparls, SQUARE test with Yates correction) in relation to the distance from bassAtallat increase as compered to people liv(n > 300 m or not exposed to base stations, for heada sl a disruption d�mfo etc-,100 metc.,100 n for irritability, depressloi decrease, etc, Women s gn cantly more often than men (p_�Z=) comp a —e s ae ru tion, dopreess�lonn, discomfort and visual disruptlone. This first atudl n living s vicinity of ah _se statlons s ours a , Wi —vi6WV milloorotectlon, the of r phone base stations should not be < 300 m. ® 2002 Editions eclentlllques et n base station i bloefreefs / cellular phone 1. INTRODUCTION Chronic exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields or microwaves bri fatigue, and sleep and memory disruptions 11, 2). These biological effects, associated etc.) constitute what is known in English as "Non Specific Health Symptoms" (NSHS) tl Cellular mobile phone technology uses hyperftequencies (frequencies of 900 or 1800 (frequencies < 900 Hertz) [4). Even though the biological effects resulting from mobi bring to mind those described In radiofrequency sickness [5, 6), to our knowledge no the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. We ate reporting here the results pertaining to 530 people living in Franc relation to the distances from these stations and to the sex of the study participi 2. MATERIALS AND 2.1. Questionnaire employed: A questionnaire similar to that developed for the study on mobile phone users (6 the study. General questions pertained to age, sex, estimated distance from base station 100 to 200 m, 200 to 300 in, more than 300 in) and their location in relation to the an, case of antennas placed on rooftops). The exposure conditions wort defined by the lengtl stations, (less than I. year through more than 5 years), the number of days per weel hour through 16-24 hours per day). Participants were asked to indicate the presence or not of electrical transfort tension electric power lines (at less that 100 m) and radio and television transmitters sought information on computer use (more than 2 hours per day) and portable teleph The level of complaints for the studied symptoms was expressedbythestt sometimes, 2 = often, 3 = very often. Of 570 questionnaires received, 40 were not used from the base stations or on the level of the complaints experienced. For the 530 qu (average age + or - variation; 45 years + or - 20) end 260 from females (47 years + 4 were the subject of the questionnaire, one of which, premature menopause, eoneei ^The results presented in this study do not involve iNSA in Lyon, INSA is the French Fov correspondence or reprints - E-mail: fsaotiniRinaa-Ivon.fr (R. Santini). FAUL U2 stations: - bailment Louis Pasteur, 20, ) women) living or not In the vicinity of ns of complaint frequencies (CHI- w sl nlficant (p <0.05) ID through 300 m r re ness, 200 m loss of rvmemory, dizziness, libido if headache, nausea; loss of —app-05, on symptoms ixperlence y people inimal distance of people from cellular Wloalss Elsevier SAS a on bioeffects in man such as headache&, h others (skin problems, nausea, irritability, characterize radiofrequency sickness. [31 1z) pulsed with extremely low tl equencies phone use are relatively well known and idy exists on the health of people living in in the vicinity or not, of base stations, in was sent to people wishing topatdcilpate in (leas than 10 in, 10 to 50 in, 50 to 100 in, suns (facing, beside, behind, beneath in the of time living in the neighborhood of base and the number ofhoutsper day ( lea than I TO (at less that 10 m), high or very high t less than 4 km). The questionnaire also is use (more than 20 minutes per day). [ participants using a scale of 0=never, I is to lack of information on the distance tionnaires studied, 270 came frrom males .19). 18 sytnpwtns refeaenced in the "NSBS" ed only females. Institute of Applied Sciences. --1 « 1 __11 i ce. — (� r uua')tLu tl,t L)Lr I F'AUE 03 INCREASED INCIDENCE OF CANCE NEAR A CELL - PHONE TRANSMITTER STA. TION. RONNI WOLF MD' DANNY WOLF MD' From: The Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Recb the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel -Aviv University, The Pediatric Outpatient Clinic, Hasharon Region, K Running title: Cancer near a cell -phone transmitter Address for correspondence: Ronni Wolf, MD, Den Medical Center, Rechovot 76100, ISRAEL. Fax 972-9-9560978. E-mail-. wolf_r@netvision.net.il International Journal of Cancer Prevention VOLUME i, NUMBER 2, APRIL 2004 Increased Incidence of Cancer near a Cell -Phone Transmitter by Ronai Wolf and Danny Wolf , and Aviv, ISRAEL. Hollm, ISRAEL. n. Unit, Kaplan V 1 LJf LUuJ LU. L-) f J f OOJJLLCI tl,t Vtr I PAGE 64 2 Abstract Significant concern has been raised about possible health I radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields, especially aft mobile telecommunications systems. Parents are especiall possibility that children might develop cancer after expose from mobile telephone base stations erected in or near scb epidemiologic studies that did report on cafter incidence have generally presented negative or inconsistent results, need for more studies that should investigate cohorts with changes in cancer incidence. The aim of this study is to in an increased cancer incidence in populations, living in a s; RF radiation from a cell -phone transmitter station. This is an epidemiologic assessment, to determine whethe cases among individuals exposed to a cell -phone transmits that expected in Israel, in Netanya, or as compared to peol area. Participants are people (n=622) living in the area nee station for 3-7 years who were patients of one health cl.inii began I year before the start of the study when the station second cohort of individuals (n=1222) who get their medi located nearby with very closely matched, environment, v characteristics was used for comparison. from exposure to the rapid introduction of concerned with the to the RF emissions rls. The few relation to RF radiation d thus emphasize the lgh RF exposure for whether there is area, and exposed to the incidence of cancer r station is different from e who lived in a nearby a cell -phone transmitter (of DV). The exposure came into service. A services in a clinic and occupational In the area of exposure (area A) eight cases of different kinds of cancer were diagnosed in a period of only one year. This rate of cancers was compared both with the rate of 31 cases per 10,000 per year in the general popidation and the 2/1222 rate recorded in the nearby clinic (area B). Relative cancer rates for females were 10.5 for area A, 0.6 for area B and 1 for the whole town of Netany , Cancer incidence of women in area A was thus significantly higher (p<0.0001) compared with that of area B and the whole city. A comparison of the relative risk revealed that there were 4.15 tunes more cases in area A, than in the entire population. CJJ/ LJ/ 4urizi 10. 1J !Olbd.Jd22U ECE DEPT 9 (on which adequate data could be gathered) did not suffer frorr, uncommon genetic conditions, nor did they receive carcinogenic medications. Differences in diagnosis and registration of cancer cases. Although we cannot altogether exclude the possibility that higher awareness of the physician responsible for area A led to an artificial increase in cancer cases in this area, this possibility seems to us very unlikely, since both are qualified family physicians. Several findings are of particular interest: ' The measured level of RF radiation (power density) in the area was low; far below the current guidelines based on the thermal effects of RF exposure. We suggest, therefore, that the current guidelines be re-evaluated. The enormous short latency period; less than 2 years, indicates that if there is a real causal association between RF radiation emitted from the cell -phone base station and the cancer cases (which we strongly believe there is), then the radiation should have a very strong promoting effect on cancer at very low. radi tion! Although the possibility remains that this clustering of cancer cases in one year was a chance event, the unusual sex pattern of these cases, the 6 diff rent cancer kinds, and the fact that only one patient smoked make this possibility very improbable and remote. It should be noted that 7 out of 8 cancer cases were women, like in the work of Maskarinec (25) who found 6 out of 7 leukemia cases in proximity to radio towers to occur in girls. Such unusual appearances of cancer cases due to one accused factor on two completely different occasions is alarming. We are aware of at least 2 areas in which a drastic increase in I he incidence of cancer cases occurred near a cell -phone antenna, however, the setup v ras not suitable for a well design study of those cases. In one of them (which also g t publication in the daily newspapers) there were 6 out of 7 cancer cases in women working in a store in close proximity to a cell -phone antenna. r lusion,the results of this study showed that there was a significantly greater ce of cancers of all kinds within the vicinity of a cell -phone transmitter station. PAGE 05 CJ:1J L:Jj LU U:I 1 O. 1J (D f uool344U tVt Dtr'' I FJAGE 06 Health Aspects of Wireless Como Blood -Brain Barrier, Cancer, and Cell James C. Lin line eecs.Pic- edu University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, , U.S.A. An important announcement was made on May 22, 2001. A five-year study, by the U.S. National Toxi- cology Program QM), located at Research Triangle Park. N.C., will focus on wbether microwave radia- tion from cellular mobile telephones causes cancer. 'With over one billion cell phones In use worldwide, it is critical to obtain scientifically rigorous laboratory studies of the potential for health effects from lomg- tam use of these products;' said Kenneth Olden, hand of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sei. ences (NMHS) and director of the NTP. NISHS is an arm of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), based in Washington, D.C. The NTP will be doing the studies at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has asked for these studies in 1999. The cost is esti- mated to be approximately $10 million, but most of the funding will be derived from the cellular telephone industry. It will be a major animal study on cell -phone radiation. A aeries of recent epidemiological studies has pro- vided some optimism, in that they imply that the use of cellular mobile telephones does not cause brain tu- mom in the short term D. 21. It is also recognized that these investigations do not measure risks, in the. long run, for cancers such as brain tumors with longer latency periods of induction, or for slow -growing tu- wmom that could take decades for symptoms to emerge in humans. Therefore, life -span long research, using animal models, is crucial.. The scientific evidence on cellular telephone safety or harm re inains inconclusive. Many users and nonusers alilce are somewhat waxy because an effect femme wireless radiation, even small, could have a con- side mble impact on the total population in terms of Public health. Indeed, the FDA has offered advice to people who are worried about their all phones but don't want to give them up, including keeping convex sadoas short and switching to models with headsets, rather than using hand-held devices. Radiation extremely low evel of microwave exposure (below 1.6 W/kg) has c iptured increasing attention. The blood-br Lin barrier is an anatomic/physiologic complex assoch ted with the cerebral vascular aystetn. It is composed f a network of astrocytic pseudopo- dia, which env dopes the tight junctions of the vas- cular endotheli un. It is a natural defense system, which mainWr a the physiochemical environment of the brain wilbl certain narrow limits that are essen- tial for life. It functions as a differential filter that permits the set ve passage of biological substances from blood to t rain. For instance, amino acids, anes- thetics and gl one may gain access to brain cells, while carbohyd L al,163, proteins, and most microorgan- isms and antibiotics are excluded from brain tissues -by the BBB. This seleetiv passage is a mixed blessing because, while it prohi ha inful toxins from infiltrating the brain, agents d drugs that are effective in ttEaring eliaoasea in oth parts of the body may not b4 able to gain entree i to the brain to combat infection. On the other hand, tentional opening of the 113B' may subject the con nervous systan to assault from ex- traneous ganisms. Also, the ability to selec- tively open the BB suggests the possibility of using., microwave regi mal tw,yperthermia to combat infection, or to facilitate c hemodwrapy for brain tumors. Since the fir it rgxuf from Ukraine [61, many in- vestigaters hav reported studies on the cffczt of mi- crowave r on the BBB of experimental ani- tnals with veui results. While cancer - in particular, central nervous sys. tem cancers - continues to occupy the focal spot of research interest in linlang exposure of human cells to cell phones, a series of xeports from Swe- dea citeret3,ref4,ref5 on the microwave induced blood -brain barrier (BBB) permeability changes at an Mobile Camyuting and Corr nunkatimae Reerlema, Valume 5, Number 7b date, the vestigations on BBB permcabi include (a) vise sodium fluores dionctive traces and electron tr min. The visual u eluded from the of brain tissue penetration inu dye markers, ii tracer methods breaching of th e are approximately 30 reported in - the effect of microwave radiation on ity [71- The assay methods employed ial dye markors, such as Evans blue, rein, and rhodamine-ferdtin; (b) ta- q (e) horse radish peroxidaso (iiRP) icroscopy; and (d) endogenous; albu- rrlaer, Evans blue dye, is normally ex - brain and is very easy to use. Staining Provides a clear indication of any dye the brain. However, like other visual is a qualitative method. Radioactive offer it quantitative analysis to assess BBB. 5 rJ_'/ZJ/Zur1J 10: 10 t0/bbJJI1ZU ECE DEPT PAGE 07 !r ELSEVIER Neuroeciancs Letters 333 (2002) 175-178 Responses of neurons to an amplitude m stimulus Abstract Neuroscience Letters www.alsovier.com/lecote/nioulet lated microwave Robert C. Beason ,*, Peter Sens z Department of Biology, State University of New York, Gsnssso, NY 15454, USA Received 30 April 2002; received in revised form a August 2002, acc�ptsd 7 August 2002 In this study we investigated the effects of a pulsed radio frequency signal sii system for mobile communication telephones 1900 MHz carrier, modulated at 21, found that such stimulation resulted in changes in the amount of neural activityb� (76%) of the responding cells Increased their rates of firing by an average 3.5-fold, decrease in their rates of spontaneous activity Such responses indicate potenti cel I lar_jhoness. ® 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Kevivordo Cellular telephone; Magnetic field; Health risk; Avian; Central nervous system nilar to the signal produced by global 'Hz) on neurons of the avian brain. We more than half of the brain cells. Most The other responding cells exhibited a 0 effects on humans using hand-held The postulated biological effects of electromagnetic system for inobile communication (GSM) telephone system. fields are highly diverse, ranging :from use of natural fields The calculated avei 196 specific absorption rate (SAR) of this by animals for navigation to thermal cooking that occurs stimulus for the tot subjects was 0.05 W/Kg, based on the with strong fields such as those produced by microwave equations in Dum iy and coworkers [8]. The test subjects ovens [7]. It has been shown that even the weak fluctuations ware 34 adultzebra Inches (Taengpygla gutrata), anesthetized of Earth -strength magnetic fields influence the electrical with amixtute ofke maine (0.05 mg/g) andxylazine (0.01 mg/ activity of neurons and pineal cells and the synthesis of g) injected i.m. into he pectoralis major. The anesthetized bird melawnin in birds and mammals (1,9,10], including humans was mounted in a n nconducting plastic holder. The bird and (6]. Athermal effects have been the most difficult to explain the holder were pl cad inside a timed RF cavity (23.5 cm because the mechanism by which they affect biological diameter, 100.5 c long) made of perforated metal. We tissue is usually unknown. 'Abe question arises as to whether used a resmnme ca ity (length = 3A) because the resulting there is a particular sensitivity of the neural tissues of the electrical field wa a standing wave and, therefore, was brain to high frequency electromagnetic fields such as is uniformly distribu within the cavity and was measured produced by broadcast transmitters. accurately at the modulating stub. The resonant cavity We tested the effects of electromagnetic radio frequency was fitted with two tuned RF stubs (each 16.5 cm [A/2] from (RI) signals having a carrier frequency of 900 MHz, umno- opposite ends): one for emitting the signal and one for moini- dulated and pulse modulated at 217 Hz with a duty cycle of toting the frequency and power of the signal within the cavity. 12.5% and a peak power densityof 0.1 mW/cma. This stimulus This arrangement resulted in the two stubs being 2k from each was selected because it is similar to that used by the global other causing the signal at the demodulation stub to be synchronized in phase and intensity to the emitted signal. Corresponding author. Department of Biology, University of The entire bird was within the cavity and positioned such Louisiana at Monroe, 700 University Avenue, Monroe, LA 71209 that the bird's head was at the center of the cavity. This posi- USA. Tel.: +1.318-342-1790; fax: +1-318-342-3312 tion put the bird's h E-mail address: beasonQulm.edu (R.C. Beason). cad exactly Ili from the emitting stub and the demodulating i ' Department of Biology, University of Louisiana at Monroe, tub. Consequently, the signal the bird's head received was e 700 University Avenue, Monroe, LA 71209 USA. Address at 7 st KaCtly the signal atboth ofthose locations. December 2002: USDA/APHIS/WS/WRC, 6100 Columbus Ave., To record from new ns in the brain of the bird, a small hole (4 Sandusky, ON 44870, USA n►rn diameter) was made 2 Department Zoology, through the skull. A glass microclec- of J. W. Goethe University, Slesmayer- trode (tip diameter straese 70, 60054 Frankfurt a.M., Germany —2 µm) filled with a conducting solution 0304.3940/02/$ - see front matter ® 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0304-3940(02)00903-5 b!)/ Zn/ 2UUb 1b: IJ tb t bli33220 ECE DEPT PAGE 68 Available online at www.sclencedirect.com !ff •citrtcaCdDtwoor• ELSE?VIER Diochimiea et Biophysica Acts 1668 (2095) 126-137 In vitro increase of the fluid -phase enc by pulsed radiofrequency electromagnetic the electric field compor nm" MICA ¢r BIONY91CA AL M BB3 http://www.alsevier,convlocatelbba lcytosis induced importance of Nawel Mahroura, Roxana Pologea-Morarub'1, Mihaela G. M lse6CU,,b, St6phane Orlowski°, Philippe Levequed, Lluis M. Mi "laboralolre de Yeelorologle el Pawfert de Ganes UMR 8121 CNRS, instirut Gustave-Rouuy, 39 rui Camille Desntoulins, 9480J lrgejuif Codex, France BDepa►dnent of Biophysics, University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Cam/ D4 ivild; Bucharest, Romania °SBFMIDBJC, CEA and URA 2096 CNRS, Centre d'Etudm de Saciay, 911 1 Gif sur Yvettq France d1wiflut de Recherche en Communications Optigues et Micro-ondes, UMR 661 S CNRS, Vnh smilk do Limoges, 87060 Limoges, France Received 26 September 2003, received In revised form 23 November 2004; a�cepted 24 November 2004 Available online 8 December 2004 ,Abstract Nowadays, due to the wide use of mobile phones, the possible biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) become a public health general concern. Despite intensive research, there are no widely accepted theories about the i mteractions. between EMFs and living cells, and the experinwntal data axe often controversial. We examined the effects of mobile phones EMF (envelope fi-equency of 217 Hz, carrier frequency of 900 MHz and pulse duration of 580 µs) or its pure, low -frequency pulsed elect 'c field component on fluid-pbase endoeytosis. In both cases, with exposures exceeding 10 min, an increase of the fluid -phase endocytosis re to was observed (-1.5-fold), on three different cell typal. This increase is an all-oK nothing type of response that is occurring for threshold values comprised between 1.3 and 2.6 W/kg for the delivered EW powers and between 1.1 and 1.5 V/cm for• the electric fields intensities depending upon the cell typo. The electric component of these F.1NFs is shown to be responsible for the observed increase. Variations of frequency or pulse duration of the electric Pulses are shown to be without effect. Thus, LNff, via their electrical component, can perbirb one of the most f tadarnental physiological functions of the cells—eadocytosis. 2004 Elsevier B.Y. A rtg to reserved .Keywords; Fluid -phase cadocytosis; Eleeoromagnotic field; Electric field 1. Introductlon other electrical do vices might affect biological functions [3,4] and health [5] in umans is longstanding but conclusions are Since epidemiological studies linked electromagnetic often controve"i al. The interpretation of the biological fields (EMF) to increased cancer risks, particularly leukemia effects resulting m cells or animals exposure to EMFs [11 and brain cancer [21, the scientific intent in how EMFs remains difficult due to the dispersion of the biological generated by mobile phones, high -voltage power lines and models, the nonst mdardized EMFs exposure, the uncertainty of biologically eaningful exposure metrics and the difficulties in rigorously performing the required controls Abbreviations; EMF, electromagnetic field; LY, Lucifbr Yellow; FD, [6,7]. F1TC-Dextran; OSM, Global System for Mobile communications; CW, Among the v 'e of biolo ical res o es induced by continuous wave; SAR, specific absorption rate " Corresponding author- Tel.: +33 1 42J 14792; tax: +33 1 4211 5276. Elgs an a ec fields, from DC to the GHz range, that E-mail address: lu;saur@jzr.fr (L.M. Mir). have been report sine erattons in cell roll [8]&___O* Deceased during the revision of the manuscript, which the authors and cell cycle [9 , pe a ons to C ] :and "— dedicate to her memory. adhesion (111, c1romoaome damage [121 and interactions 0001-2736/S - see front matter ® 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi' 10.1016/j.bbamem,2004,11,015 I#1 Conditional Zoning - Recorded Proffers CUP for Communication Tower CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Budget Rent A Car — Conditional Use Permit (motor vehicle rentals) MEETING DATE: August 23, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Budget Rent A Car for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle rentals on property located at 5193 Shore Drive Unit 114 (GPIN 14699777200000). DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE ■ Considerations: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow motor vehicle rentals for up to six (6) cars on the site, available for local or long distance rental. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because it is a low impact use and appropriate for this site. Car rental is a low traffic generator, and this application is conditioned below that no more than 10 vehicles be permitted for rental at a time (the applicant requested only six (6) vehicles). As such, the operation is not expected to impact the existing businesses within the shopping center nor adversely impact the surrounding residential properties. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. No more than ten (10) rental motor vehicles shall be allowed on the site at any time. 2. This Conditional Use Permit is for the rental of small trucks, automobiles and sport utility vehicles only. Rental of larger trucks is not permitted. 3. The sale of any motor vehicles shall not be permitted on the site. 4. Washing, detailing, or maintenance of any motor vehicles, if performed on this site, shall only be permitted within the parking lot located in the rear of the building. Budget Rent A Car Page 2of2 ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: L-- •' BUDGET RENT A CAR Agenda Item # 8 July 13, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle rentals. Ma,x off' Budget Rent A Car i STA o i �ti��A�- S qCJor° oR UA s, � ;I �,: ['�° fit'•, � ;� ii �, CUP Motor Vehicle Mental ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 5193 Shore Drive, Unit #114 GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14699777200000 4 - BAYSIDE 1,400 square feet (unit size) The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow SUMMARY OF REQUEST motor vehicle rentals for up to six (6) cars on the site, available for local or long distance rental. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: The site is developed with a retail shopping center. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Bank, restaurants / B-2 Community Business District USE AND ZONING: South: . Single family dwellings / R-10 Residential District East: Mini warehouse, hotel / B-2 Community Business District West: . Apartments / A-18 Apartment District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The majority of the site is impervious as it is developed with a shopping CULTURAL FEATURES: center and parking lot. The parcel is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, however, there are no significant features on the property. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Shore Drive in the vicinity of this application is considered a four (4) lane divided suburban arterial facility. The Master Transportation Plan proposes a six (6) lane divided facility with a 150 foot right of way. There are no Capital Improvement Projects slated for this area. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Shore Drive 21,162 ADT 28,200 ADT 1 (Level of Existing Land Use — Service "C") 1,806 ADT Proposed Land Use 3- 1,806 ADT Average Daily Trips z as defined by existing shopping center 3 no change expected in ADTs WATER & SEWER: This site is already connected to both City water and sewer. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within COMPREHENSIVE PLAN the Primary Residential Area. The Plan's policies for this area emphasize the strong need to preserve, protect, and enhance the overall character, economic value, and aesthetic quality of surrounding neighborhoods. The policies generally support development proposals that fulfill a legitimate public need for compatible neighborhood support uses and activities. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request the conditions listed below. This use is a low traffic generator, and is conditioned below that no more than 10 vehicles be permitted for rental at a time (the applicant requested only six (6) vehicles). As such, the operation is not expected to impact the existing businesses within the shopping center nor adversely impact the surrounding residential properties. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area and Staff is recommending approval. CONDITIONS 1. No more than ten (10) rental motor vehicles shall be allowed on the site at any time. 2. This Conditional Use Permit is for the rental of small trucks, automobiles and sport utility vehicles only. Rental of larger trucks is not permitted. 3. The sale of any motor vehicles shall not be permitted on the site. 4. Washing, detailing, or maintenance of any motor vehicles, if performed on this site, shall only be permitted within the parking lot located in the rear of the building. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. BUDGET RENT A CAR AERIAL OF SITE BUDGET RENT A CAR I 1 04/02/02 Conditional Use Permit auto rental Granted 2 04/09/96 Conditional Use Permit auto sales Denied 3 09/28/87 04/22/85 09/26/83 Change of Zoning (R-3 to A-2) Change of Zoning (R-3 to A-2) Change of Zoning R-3 to A-3 Granted Granted Denied 4 02/23/87 Change of Zoning B-2 to A-2 Granted 5 12/10/84 Change of Zoning B-2 to H-1 Granted 6 06/26/83 Change of Zoning (B-2 to A-3) Denied 7 05/09/83 Conditional Use Permit (mini warehouse Granted ZONING HISTORY BUDGET RENT A CAR # STATEMENTRE E APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach fist itnecessary) George Ray Bunch and Derinda Bunch 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business enbty2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if r; ssary) N/A rl Check here if the applicant is MOT a corporation, partnership„ farm, business„ or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different filial applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1, List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below. (Attach list ifnecessary) Crystal Shores Inc. Page Johnson 11, Vice President Mark Garcea, President 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity' relationship with the applicant: (Attach Fist if necessary) nCheck here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization_ See next page for footnote's paga n of 10 rr AM DISCLOSURE STA BUDGET RENT A CAR DISCLOSURE STA' BUDGET RENT A CAR Item #8 Budget Rent-A-Car Conditional Use Permit 5193 Shore Drive District 4 Bayside July 13, 2005 CONSENT William Din: The next item is Item #8. This is Budget Rent-A-Car. This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle rentals on property located at 5193 Shore Drive, Unit 114 in the Bayside District. There are four conditions associated with this item. Bill Gambrell: Mr. Bill Gambrell representing the applicant. All the conditions are acceptable. W illiam Din: Thank you Mr. Gambrell. Is there any opposition to placing this item on consent? If not, Mr. Knight will also explain this item. Barry Knight: This is agenda Item #8, which is Budget Rent-A-Car, which is located on Shore Drive in the Bayside District. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow motor vehicle rentals for up to six cars on the site for local or long distance rental. The evaluation is that this Use is a low traffic generator. And no more than 10 vehicles will be permitted even though they only asked for six. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan so we think that it is a low impact user. It fits within the Comprehensive Plan, and it is a good use. So therefore, we put it on the consent agenda. William Din: Thank you Barry. I would like to make a motion to approve the following consent agenda item, Item #8 Budget Rent-A-Car for a Conditional Use Permit request for motor vehicle rentals on property located at 5193 Shore Drive, Unit 114 in the Bayside District with four conditions. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Do I hear a second? Mr. Knight. We have a motion by Mr. Din and a second by Mr. Knight. ANDERSON CRABTREE DIN HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE 11 NAY 0 AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Item #8 Budget Rent-A-Car Page 2 KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved Item #8 for consent. CUP Motor Vehicle Rental �s��yar ssas�`♦ d' q �ru N` CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: CH&B Associates, L.L.P. — Change of Zoning District Classification MEETING DATE: August 23, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of CH&B Associates, L.L.P. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from Conditional P-1 Preservation District with a PD-H2 Overlay to Conditional A-12 Apartment District with a PD-H2 Overlay and Conditional P-1 Preservation District with a PD-H2 Overlay on property located on the southeast corner of South Plaza Trail and Prestige Way (GPIN 14767258070000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being part of the Primary Residential Area, suitable for appropriately located suburban residential and non-residential uses consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this zoning change is to develop the site with 48 multi -family dwellings. DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE ■ Considerations: The five -acre site that is the subject of this request is part of a larger master planned community that was approved by City Council on 09/09/03. The Conceptual Development Plan shows five distinct parcels, identified as: • Parcel A (2-story townhomes) • Parcel B (3-story townhomes) • Parcel C (3-story carriage homes) • Luxury Multi -Family Parcel • Open Space Parcel The five acre site that is the subject of this request is currently part of the Open Space Parcel and is zoned P-1 Preservation District. The proffered Conceptual Development Plan contains a note that states that this five -acre parcel shall be used for "Optional recreational and other amenities for use only by the Luxury Multi -family". The applicant desires to change the zoning on the five -acre site in order to develop 48 multi -family age -restricted (age 55 and over) units on a 2.62-acre portion. The remaining 2.38-acre portion will continue to be used as open space for the master planned community. CH&B Associates, L.L.P. Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because they felt that the proposed use is appropriate for the site. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area and the proposal is compatible with the master planned community. The addition of an age -restricted community in this location fits in well with the proposed residential community on the east side of South Plaza Trail as well as the medical office complex and other commercial areas that are under development on the western side of South Plaza Trail. With the additional 48 units proposed, the density in the overall residential component of the master planned community increases from 7.6 units/acre to 8.3 units/acre. This increase in density is not expected to significantly impact the surrounding area as the future residents of the age -restricted units will be able to live, work and obtain services within the confines of the master planned community. The proposed density is still under the 12 units/acre the underlying zoning of A-12 Apartment District allows. Although the open space will be reduced by 2.62 acres, the remaining open space of 15.25 acres exceeds the minimum amount of open space that is required in PD-H2 planned developments by 1 acre. The buildings will overlook a 5-acre lake that is planned for stormwater management and have been set back more than 100 feet from South Plaza Trail. The building elevations will match those already approved for the Luxury Multi -Family Parcel. These factors ensure that the proposed new buildings will maintain the high level of quality that the master planned community has already established. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve the request, as proffered. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager. CH&B ASSOCIATES, LLP Agenda Item # 1 July 13, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Barbara Duke Mep £-9 CH&B Associates 0-2 �/ \ [67 � / u-rz� D-2 D-2�� [6] F [61 / �D-HI PD-H2 fA-12 j \ PD-HI Pro osed A-12 ) Proposed P-1 / P0-H2 / J B-2 / (A-121 (41 / �/ (3) PD-H2 ixt c�..baMyz y ...bt nw.E� Cnndi-1 Zoning Ch n from P-t/PDH2 to AT2 PDNZand PI -POW REQUEST: Change of zoning classification from Conditional P-1 Preservation District with a PD-H2 Overlay to Conditional A-12 Apartment District with a PD-H2 Overlay and Conditional P-1 Preservation District with a PD-H2 Overlay ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located on the southeast corner of South Plaza Trail and Prestige Way GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14762580700000 2 — KEMPSVILLE 5.0 Acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST The five -acre site that is the subject of this request is part of a larger master planned community that was approved by City Council on 09/09/03. The planned community consists of large tracts of land located on the east and west sides of South Plaza Trail between South Independence Boulevard and Princess Anne Road. The master planned community contains 27.6 acres of commercial and 39.7 acres of office property on the west side of South Plaza Trial and 93.8 acres of residential on the east side of South Plaza Trail. The Conceptual Development Plan referenced in the recorded proffer agreement governs the 93.8-acre residential parcel on the east side of South Plaza Trail. The Conceptual Development Plan shows five distinct parcels, identified as: • Parcel A (2-story townhomes) • Parcel B (3-story townhomes) • Parcel C (3-story carriage homes) • Luxury Multi -Family Parcel • Open Space Parcel The five acre site that is the subject of this request is currently part of the Open Space Parcel and is zoned P-1 Preservation District. The proffered Conceptual Development Plan contains a note that states that this five acre parcel shall be used for "Optional recreational and other amenities for use only by the Luxury Multi -family'. CH&B A The applicant desires to change the zoning on the five -acre site in order to develop 48 multi -family age - restricted units on a 2.62-acre portion. The remaining 2.38-acre portion will continue to be used as open space for the master planned community. The Open Space Parcel as it exists today totals 17.87 acres (excluding 12.2 acres of stormwater lakes). If the 2.62-acre parcel proposed for 48 age -restricted units is rezoned to A-12, the Open Space Parcel will be reduced to 15.25 acres (excluding 12.2 acres of stormwater lakes). LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped, wooded parcel SURROUNDING LAND North: . Prestige Way USE AND ZONING: South: 0 Planned 2-story Townhomes/ A-12 Apartment District with PD- H2 Overlay East: • 5 acre lake built for Stormwater Management/ P-1 Preservation District with PD-H2 Overlay West: . South Plaza Trail NATURAL RESOURCE AND The subject five -acre parcel is the only wooded parcel remaining within CULTURAL FEATURES: the 93.8 acre master planned residential community. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): South Plaza Trail in the vicinity of this application has been widened to a four lane roadway from South Independence Boulevard to Princess Anne Road as part of the infrastructure improvements for the master planned community. There are no current projects in the Capital Improvement Program to upgrade this road further. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic South Plaza Trail 10,578 ADT 28,200 ADT 1 (Level of Existing Land Use — 0 Service "C") ADT Proposed Land Use 3- 192 ADT Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by preservation zoning s as defined by 48 multi -family units WATER AND SEWER: This site must connect to City water and sanitary sewer. SCHOOLS: The proposed development will be restricted to adults age 55 and over, therefore, there will be no impact on schools from the 48 additional units. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as being within COMPREHENSIVE PLAN the Primary Residential Area. General planning principles in this area include preserving the quality of surburban neighborhoods, creating and protecting open spaces and optimizing suburban mobility. When "planned developments" are appropriately located and designed to include a mixture of residential and non-residential uses, this will reduce the number of vehicle trips on the surrounding roadways and thus improve overall mobility. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the proffers submitted by the applicant. The proffers are provided below. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area and the proposal is compatible with the master planned community. The addition of an age -restricted community in this location fits in well with the proposed residential community on the east side of South Plaza Trail as well as the medical office complex and other commercial areas that are under development on the western side of South Plaza Trail. With the additional 48 units proposed, the density in the overall residential component of the master planned community increases from 7.6 units/acre to 8.3 units/acre. This increase in density is not expected to significantly impact the surrounding area as the future residents of the age -restricted units will be able to live, work and obtain services within the confines of the master planned community. The proposed density is still under the 12 units/acre the underlying zoning of A-12 Apartment District allows. Although the open space will be reduced by 2.62 acres, the remaining open space of 15.25 acres exceeds the minimum amount of open space that is required in PD-H2 planned developments by 1 acre. The buildings will overlook a 5-acre lake that is planned for stormwater management and have been set back more than 100 feet from South Plaza Trail. The building elevations will match those already approved for the Luxury Multi -Family Parcel. These factors ensure that the proposed new buildings will maintain the high level of quality that the master planned community has already established. PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve CH&B as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: When developed, the apartment buildings, garages and related amenities and improvements to be constructed on the Property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the conceptual site plan titled "Proposed Age -Restricted Luxury Multi -Family", dated March 31, 2005, prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (the "Conceptual Plan"), which is on file with the Department of Planning and has been exhibited to the City Council of Virginia Beach. PROFFER 2: When developed, all structures shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be architecturally compatible with the Luxury Multi -Family units developed pursuant to the "Proposed Zoning Plan" dated July 18, 2003 and the multi -page document titled "Brenneman Farm Development Manual", dated July 18, 2003, exhibited to and approved by the City council of Virginia Beach as part of the Land Use Plan of Brenneman Farm on September 9, 2003. The Planning Director shall review the architectural design of the structures to be constructed upon the Property prior to construction. PROFFER 3: The total number of multi -family dwelling units constructed on the Property shall not exceed 48. PROFFER 4: When developed, the multi -family dwelling units shall be designed for occupancy by persons fifty-five (55) years of age and older in accordance with the laws and regulations related to "housing for older persons", as the term is defined in the Virginia Fair Housing Law (VA. Code 36-96.1 et seq.), the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3620 et seq)., and the accompanying state and federal regulations referenced therein. PROFFER 5: Existing trees in the portion of the Property zoned P-1 shall remain undisturbed by Grantor's development. PROFFER 6: Further conditions lawfully imposed by applicable development ordinances may be required by the Grantee during detailed site plan and/or subdivision review of the applicable City Codes by all authorized City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated March 31, 2005 and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. CH&B AERIAL OF SITE CH&B 0 PROPOSED BUILDING LA CH&B LN 4 y, tTT ■.n 1 aa' I/ /•mclue Ilk• • _ 1REZONING FROMPDH TO'D '` MIFIIAJK�� PD-Hl LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT 991-CY-1101111:01 Mff@Tl-�- PD-Hl LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT 1• 1• / REZONING FROM'DTO ` CONDITIONAL B-2 & 0-2 (WEST SIDE OF .TRAIL) AND CONDITIONAL ' 'D OVERLAY (SOUTHOF ' TRAIL) 17 SCLOSURE STATEMENT 7.:. .............. . ... APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc, below: (Attach list if necessary) CH&B Associates, L.L.P. Lawrence Fleder, Agent for Trustee of the Fleder Family Trust 1976 James M. Caplan, Agent for Trusteeof the Caplan Family Trust 1976 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner Is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Same as Applicant 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. & ' See next page for footnotes Conditional Rezoning Application Page 11 of 12 Revised 9/112004 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT,'' DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) Troutman Sanders LLP - legal services Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. - engineering services c1 'Parent -subsidiary relationship„ means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and LocalGovernment Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (ill) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be' considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." .See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va, Code § 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certifythat the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been C> scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public heaving caccordiri to the instructions In th" a. j'@ Lawreace Fleder, Agent for -f'�.Ymm Trustee of the �`leder Family. Faintly e Trust 1976 lie:ant's Signatur��-n. Print Name TrusJames e Caplan,thplant for Trustee of the Capp Family. Pro dy Owner's Sign re (if different than applicant) Print Name Tru s C> Conditional Rezoning Application Page 12 of 12 Revised 9i1J2004 DISCLOSURE STA' CH&B Item #1 CH&B Associates, L.L.P. Change of Zoning District Classification Southeast corner of South Plaza Trail and Prestige Way District 2 Kempsville July 13, 2005 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: Our next order business will be the consent items. The Vice Chair will handle this portion of the agenda. William Din: Thank you Ms. Wood. Today we have six items for inclusion on the consent agenda. As I call each of the items, the representative or the applicant should come up to the podium, please state your name, your relationship to the item or the application, and then state whether or not you've read the conditions, if there are conditions associated with that item. Again, as stated previously, these are items that we felt were unopposed and have been placed on consent agenda. We will be voting on these in block. So, if you have an objection when I call the item, please state it at that time. The first item I have is Item #1 CH&B Associates, L.L.P. This is a Change of Zoning District Classification from Conditional P-1 Preservation District with a PD-1-12 Overlay to Conditional A-12 Apartment District with PD-H2 Overlay and Conditional P-1 Preservation District with a PD-1-12 Overlay on property located on the southeast corner of South Plaza Trail and Prestige Way in the Kempsville Section. R.J. Nutter: Thank you very much Mr. Din. Madame Chairman, for the record, my name is R.J. Nutter. I represent the applicant CH&B Associates. The conditions are accep�able. As you know, this is a proffered application. I did attend the early session when the issue of the compliance with the fire code regulations was discussed. I will tell you that we're happy to work with your staff about adding sprinkler systems in the hallways in conjunction with the code. The condition we talked about and we will be working with Karen's staff between now and Council to affect that change. In fact, there is a good chance of already doing it. We just can't give you that guarantee at this moment in time. So, we have it worked out for you by the time we get to Council. Thank you very much. William Din: Is there any opposition to placing this item on consent agenda? If not, thank you Mr. Nutter. Mr. Horsley will explain why we have placed this on consent. Donald Horsley: Okay. Thank you Will. This proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area. The addition of an age restricted community in this location fits well with the proposed residential community on the east side of South Plaza Trail as well as the medical office complex and other commercial areas that are under development on the west side of South Plaza Trail. The increase in Item # 1 CH&B Associates, L.L.P. Page 2 density is not expected to significantly impact the surrounding area as the future residents of the age restricted community will be able to live, work, and obtain services within the confines of the master planned community. We11, Mr. Nutter has addressed the fire suppression system. That was our main concern this morning, and we think that would adequately be taken care of before Council. There was no objection. We think the application is properly proffered so that was the reason for putting it on the consent agenda. William Din: Thank you Don. I would like to make a motion to approve the following consent agenda item. Item #1, CH&B Associates, L.L.P. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from Conditional P-1 Preservation District with a PD-1-12 Overlay and Conditional P-I Preservation District with a PD-112 Overlay on property located on the south east corner of South Plaza Trail and Prestige Way. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Do I hear a second? Mr. Knight. We have a motion by Mr. Din and a second by Mr. Knight. AYE 11 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By a vote of I 1-0, the Board has approved Item #1 for consent. NiAy j00, BON SECOURS HAMPTON ROADS WBon Secours Health System DePaul Medical Center (�e`��► Maryview Medical Center Mary Immaculate Hospital May 23, 2005 Planning Department City of Virginia Beach 2405 Courthouse Drive Building 2, Room 115 Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9013 Re: 48 age restricted (55 and over) apartments on South Plaza Trail, Virginia Beach, VA Ladies and Gentlemen: Bon Secours Health System on South Plaza Trail would be pleased to have 48 units of luxury age restricted (55 and over) apartments located across the street. This augmentation to the Belmont Apartment complex would be a fine addition to the various mixed uses at the Brenneman Farm development. Thank you. Sincerely, r Liz . Namara Vice President Strategic Business Development cc: Richard A. Hanson Chief Executive Officer 5818A Harbour View Boulevard, Suite Al, Suffolk, Virginia 23435 757/673-5928 fax 757/673-5932 JUN 09 2005 2:57 PM FR TROUTMANSANDERS TO 94265667 P.03iO3 06/09/2005 10:01 7576222753 SUN Od -d1?05 12:Z6 FR L N SANDLER - SONS 757 463 3359 TO 5EZ2753 SD0S, 11PH SHOM PRUIPIT Way 26, 200S Plaasting oepac>ment CW ofVitginix Reath 240E Caurtlwv.se Drive Building 2, Room 115 Virginia Reach, VA, 23456-9013 Re: Age restricted apart -dents at the Bte neaman Farm, V irgittia Beach, VA Dear Members of the Plarmiag Cmn 189ion and City Council: PAGE 02/02 The Bre=eman Farm on South Plaza Trail is the lecati= of one of oar newer residential coz171Z1unidma in Virginia Beach. Adjacart to our home sites is the Belmolit Apartment co117 lox cwTen,tly under coAS't>uction. P-02 M •'r We undwstand lbat the owners are applying to add fusty-ei&t (48) age restricted apartment units that will serve applicants that are age SS and older• Wo feel tba�t this is a category of housiDg product that would be wonderful to bane at tbfg location. We have head this eottoept . mdotsed, at civic !eague meetings and we, too, eneomge your approval of this apartment rezoning. .r� Tbnk you for your attent an, r 'Welty truly yo=, , Steve andler Fregtdent •, 4d8 VmNa DKnrg, SUITE 220, YIRcrNtA 13I9ACM, VIRGINIA 2'452 MAiuK0 ADDRCSSa Pasr Opplce ekox B790, ViaCINIt, BEhCFI. ViRctNlA 23450 TE4EPnoNa!: r57-c63 59ati ! Te�rsFwX: y57-4b3-33Sg TOTRL PReE.02 N<k Map F-9 r"FrOR Accn,4"tvc jai►,, � �Fya� �~t4j�i� J /id►�j Sw1����v �" '1 NO 1 E, 1 1#1 Conditional Zoning- Recorded Proffers Conditional Zoning Change from P-1/PDH2 to Al2 - PDH2 and P7 - PDH2 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Munden Land, L.L.C. — Change of Zoning District Classification MEETING DATE: August 23, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Munden Land, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional PD-1-12 Planned Unit Development District (R-10 Residential and P-1 Preservation) on property located on the east side of Princess Anne Road, approximately 1350 feet south of Sandbridge Road (GPIN 24142007960000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being part of Princess Anne (Transition Area). The purpose of this zoning change is to develop 71 single- family homes. DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE ■ Considerations: The applicant proposes to rezone the existing AG-1 and AG-2 agricultural property to a Conditional R-10 Residential District and P-1 Preservation District with a PD-1-12 Overlay. The applicant proposes to develop the site as a 71 lot residential development with over 50% open space in keeping with the Transition Guidelines. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The proposed building elevations reflect high quality materials and a detailed architectural style. The layout of the site will create a development that will complement the residential neighborhood under construction to the east and buffer the ARP property to the south. The proposal includes meandering trails, a large central open space area as well as extensive landscaping and berming. The Transition Area "Matrix" was used to evaluate the proposal's consistency with land use and design goals for the Transition Area. The result was a score of 0.99 dwelling units per acre. This score translates to a total of 71 units for this 71.68-acre site. Staff concludes this proposal is consistent with the recommendations contained within the TATAC report and as recommended in the Transition Area Design Guidelines. There was opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: Munden Land, L.L.C. Page 2of2 The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 with 1 abstention to approve this request as proffered. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager. C- -7zVWL - MUNDEN LAND, L.L.C. Agenda Item # 3 July 13, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: M°'„"z,;' Not tcele Munden Land LLC Me AG-2 f Q Ar-Ij�f a�¢Qp a0 S !tom )) � � - A AC-2 � F r� R-2G �s� rAG-2 AG-1 C57 Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-10 Residential District and P-1 Preservation District with a PD-1-12 Overlay. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located on the east side of Princess Anne Road approximately 1400 feet south of Sandbridge Road. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 24142066720000 7 — PRINCESS ANNE 71.68 acres The applicant proposes to rezone the existing AG-1 and AG-2 SUMMARY OF REQUEST agricultural property to a Conditional R-10 Residential District and P-1 Preservation District with a PD-1-12 Overlay. The applicant proposes to develop the site as a 71 lot residential development with over 50 % open space in keeping with the Transition Guidelines. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Cultivated farm field SURROUNDING LAND North: 0 Cultivated farm field / AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District USE AND ZONING: South: . ARP - Cultivated farm field / AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District East: . Heritage Park single family residential development / R-10 Residential District West: . Across Princess Anne Road Farm agricultural land and borrow pit / AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District MUND NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The majority of the site is a cultivated farm field. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Princess Anne Road in the vicinity of this application is a two lane minor arterial road. As indicated on the Master Transportation Plan, the proposed right-of-way in this vicinity is identified as Princess Anne Area Buffered Roadway at 100 feet. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Princess Anne 32,869 ADT 26,300 ADT 1 (Level of Existing Land Use — 50 Road Service "C") - 48,200 ADT ADT ' (Level of Service "E") Proposed Land Use 3- 760 ADT ' Average Daily Trips s as defined by agricultural zoning s as defined by single family homes As a result of the proposed development, the applicant will be required to construct a left turn lane into the site on Princess Anne Road. WATER: Water does not front the property, but may be extended for connection purposes provided hydraulic analysis supports the potential demand. SEWER: City sanitary sewer is not available to this site. Engineer must explore options for providing sanitary sewer service. Plans and bonds are required for construction of a new pump station and sanitary sewer system. SCHOOLS: School Membership 9/2003 Capacity 10/2003 , Generation 2 Change Red Mill Elementa 880 782 21.6 20 Princess Anne Middle 1552 1468 12.1 11 Kellam High 2410 1839 16.9 16 ' "generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school 2 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). 3 This new development will be assigned to the Three Oaks Elementary when it opens in September 2005. MUND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within Princess Anne / Transition Area. The land use planning policies and principles focus strongly on promoting this area as a well —planned, low density, fiscally sound and desirable destination for people to live, work and play. Within the Transition area, developers are encouraged to cluster housing and employ the most creative planning and development techniques. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the proffers submitted by the applicant with the rezoning. The proffers are provided below. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The proposed building elevations reflect high quality materials and a detailed architectural style. The layout of the site will create a development that will complement the residential neighborhood under construction to the east and buffer the ARP property to the south. The proposal includes meandering trails, a large central open space area as well as extensive landscaping and berming. The Transition Area "Matrix" was used to evaluate the proposal's consistency with land use and design goals for the Transition Area. The result was a score of 0.99 dwelling units per acre. This score translates to a total of 71 units for this 71.68-acre site. Staff concludes this proposal is consistent with the recommendations contained within the TATAC report and as recommended in the Transition Area Design Guidelines. PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFERII: When the development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more than seventy-one (71) building lots substantially in conformance with the exhibit entitled "Conceptual Land Use Plan of MUNDEN FARMS, Princess Anne Road Virginia Beach, VA" dated 03/31/05 (Revision A), prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (Land Use Plan). PROFFER 2: When the property is developed, the "150' TRANSITION AREA BUFFER" as depicted on the Land Use Plan shall be dedicated to the Grantee for future improvement and public use as a bicycle trail and / or horse trail and Landscaped Open Space consistent with the Grantee's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MUND PROFFER 3: When the property is developed, approximately 42.6 acres of landscaped and vegetated open space, and lakes as depicted on the Land Use Plan shall be zoned P-1 Preservation District. All of the Open Space except the"150' TRANSITION AREA BUFFER" shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Property Owners Association. PROFFER 4: When the Property is developed, the trails which are depicted on the Land Use Plan shall be created consistent with the "WOODLAND TRAIL" detail on the exhibit "Detail Sheet Plan of Munden Farms, Princess Anne Rd., Virginia Beach, Va.", dated 03/31/05, Revision A. prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Detail Sheet"). PROFFER 5: The community entrance and the proposed street sections of the roads within the community shall be constructed and installed substantially in conformance with the plans depicted on the Detail Sheet. When the Property is subdivided any required additional right of way along the Property's frontage on Princess Anne Road shall be dedicated by the Grantor to the Grantee and a left turn lane from Princess Anne Road shall be constructed by the Grantor. PROFFER 6: When the Property is subdivided, the residential building lots shall have a minimum of 12,000 square feet and they shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a Property Owners Association, to which membership is mandatory. The Property Owners Association shall be responsible for maintaining all Open Space areas, Commons Areas, trails, easements and the entrance feature. The Deed Restrictions shall mandate that all fencing be uniform, black ornamental aluminum, no more than fifty percent (50%) opaque, no greater than 48 inches in height, similar in style with the fencing shown in the photograph labeled "Entrance Treatment Character into Munden Farms" on the Land Use Plan. PROFFER 7: All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows and doors, which is no less than seventy-five percent (75%) brick. The architectural features and exterior appearance of the dwellings shall be substantially in keeping with the appearance of the homes depicted in the photographs entitled "MUNDEN FARMS — HOMES" dated March 30, 2005 which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevations"). Those portions of the visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows and doors, which are not brick shall be a Hardi-Plank or similar high quality material. Any one-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2400 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2600 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area. The front yards of all homes shall be sodded. The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two (2) care garage. The required minimum setbacks for front yards and side yards adjacent to streets shall vary from 35 feet to 40 feet as specified for each individual lot in the table on the Land Use Plan. PROFFER 8: A detailed landscaping plan for all open space areas shall be submitted to the Director of the Department of Planning, or his designee, for review and approval prior to subdivision approval. PROFFER 9: The Grantors recognize that the subject site is located within the Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted on December 2, 2003. In addition to integrating significant open space with a low density, high quality, housing component as specified in the Comprehensive Plan, the party of the first part agrees to contribute the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($750.00) per lot to Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee to acquire land for open space preservation pursuant to Grantee's Outdoor Plan. If funds proffered by the party of the first part in this paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. The party of the first part agrees to make payment for each residential lot shown on any subdivision plat prior to recordation of that plat. PROFFER 10: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and / or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-10 and P-1 Zoning Districts and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. PROFFER 11: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are acceptable as they dictate the level of quality of the project. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated March 31, 2005, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. MUND AERIAL OF SITE WL1101�7 PROPOSED I►dI1►1�7 144 bz- } i/ ri iidd� I yy 'r EX} i >� iiiiii 1f[y oti 3 �C N%cw .>�.3.'AfI1sJa� PROPOSED D MUND PROPOSED BUILDING ELEV MUND {ONS %ND L L.C. Ja-Item # 3 Page 11 1 08/12/03 Rezoning from AG-1 & AG-2 to Conditional R-20 & P-1 Conditional Use Permit for open space Granted 2 04/23/02 Conditional Use Permit (borrow pit reconsideration) Denied 3 03/26/02 Conditional Use Permit borrow it Withdrawn 4 05/25/99 Rezoning from AG-2 to Conditional B-2 Granted 5 04/27/99 Conditional Use Permit (fraternal organization) Granted 6 03/26/96 Conditional Use Permit church Granted 7 08/28/93 Conditional Use Permit (church) Granted 8 10/23/90 Conditional Use Permit (borrow pit expansion) Granted 9 06/11/90 Rezoning from AG-2 to Conditional B-2 Denied ZONING HISTORY A5111041�7 F L.C. #3 12 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 11 APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Munden Land, L.L.C. Wayne F. Munden, Managing Member; William C. Munden, Member; Thomas E. Munden, Member; Richard L. Munden, Member 2_ List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization_ PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below. (Attach list if necessary) 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. 8 See next page for footnotes Conditia! Rezoning AppItatbon Page 11 of 12 Revised gl11200d INSCL©SURE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal t services: (Attach list if necessary) MSA, P.C. Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C. (fit. Edward Bourdon,Jr,, Esq,) t "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation" See State and Leal Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code,§ 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (I) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity. (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets, the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of interests Act, Va. Code § 2,2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, i am responsible for obtaining and posting the required ' sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions in this package. Munden L nd, L L_C. By: ne F. Munden, Managing Member Applicant's Signature Print Name Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name conditional Rezoning Application Page 12 of 12r. Revised W1;7,004 DISCLOSURE MAl ` ti vvAz AoR 'S FA"TUN UCE ANA 75(7 i0M(",AT PGu �_wARF', VlRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA 23460 2168 ; IN REPLY RFFFR -fp. Ser 3 3 295 May 13, 2005 Ms. Karen Prochi to City o` Virginia Beach Depa:-_tm.enr of Planning 2405 Courthouse Drive, Build_ng 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 �ajs_ Dear Ms. Prochilo: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Conditional Rezoning Application by Munden Land, LLC. After careful evaluation and deliberation, we would like to make the following statements for the record. Munden Farms would be located approximately six miles southeast of Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana in close proximity to the southeastern departure corridor, bearing 175 magnetic from NAS Oceana, and would place residents in the 65-70 and less than 65 decibel (dB) day -night average (DNL) noise zones. High performance fighter aircraft from NAS Oceana will potentially fly in the vicinity of the development, subjecting residents to high decibel single event noise levels at any time. The Navy's Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Program views residential development as not compatible and discourages this use in the 65-70 dB DNL. If this rezoning request is approved, we recommend sound attenuation measures be implemented. Interior sound level reduction and noise zone disclosure ensure a level of protection for prospective residents and NAS Oceana. The noise reduction efforts will reduce noise effects on the quality of life while indoors for the residents. Additionally, we recommend an in-depth disclosure of NAS Oceana operational impacts on Munden Farms at contract signing vice closing to potential home buyers. If you have any questions, contact my Community Planning Liaison Officer, Mr. Ray Firenze, at (757) 433-3158. Sincerely and very respectfully, T.7KEEECaU. . Navy Cog Officer Copy to: COMNAVREG MIDLANT Mayor Meyera Oberndorf Virginia Beach City Council Virginia Beach Planning Commission Item #3 Munden Land, L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification East side of Princess Anne Road District 7 Princess Anne July 13, 2005 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #3, Munden Land, L.L.C. An Ordinance upon Application of Munden Land, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District (R-10 Residential and P-1 Preservation) on property located on the east side of Princess Anne Road approximately 1350 feet south of Sandbridge Road, District 7, Princess Anne with eleven proffers. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Secretary and Madame Chair, for the record, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicants. A couple of the brothers are here today. We have worked extensively with the staff on the development plan for this 71'h-acre parcel of land that has been in the Munden family for well over a century. The property is located almost at the northern boundary of what was once called Transition Area Three, now it is all just one -transition area. It is just to the south of the Food Lion shopping center, the Gateway Bank on the corner, and just to the north of that is the Red Mill Commons shopping area. The property adjoining us on the north is also owned by the owners of that commercial development on the corner, which now characterizes the southeast corner of Sandbridge Road and Princess Anne Road. Recently, a plan for a daycare center was approved on a portion of that property fronting on Sandbridge Road. I'm aware of the fact with consultations with the owners that they also have plans in the works to come forward to develop that property. You all may recall a few years ago, I stood before you representing the owners of that property seeking a borrow pit, which clearly is not in keeping with what we now are looking for in the transition area, and the TATAC recommendations, and with the development exists, my clients have come forward with this application. To the east of this property, this is an older aerial photo the Heritage Park Development is under construction. To the southeast of this property, the Ashville Park Development will be taking place over the course the next number of years. We have provided a main entrance from Princess Anne Road. We will be providing turn lanes within Princess Anne Road to the right-of-way within the area that we will be providing to the City. We have provided the required 150 feet buffer on our property along Princess Anne Road, in this area, but in addition to that we provided buffer that goes all the way back to over 300 feet to the nearest property line, well over 300 feet to the nearest home from Princess Anne Road. All this area you see here will be extensively bermed and landscaped. We proffered all of that. We have also provided, in addition to sidewalk in the street, we provided trails that totally encompass the entirety of the site. We have over 71 acres. We have 42.6 acres of the property in Item #3 Munden Land, L.L.C. Page 2 open space, well over a 50 percent threshold. Unfortunately, it (the photo) was cut off here but we also are showing a pedestrian multipurpose bridge that we will be putting in. There is a major drainage way here. I am hesitant to call it a ditch. It is a very large ditch but we will be providing a pedestrian connection from our trails to the trails within Heritage Park to our east. To the south, we adjoin a piece of property that is in the ARP Program. To my knowledge, it is the only piece of property in the Transition Area to date other than John Cromwell's farm, which is down at the far southeastern corner of the Transition Area Three, where the true transition occurs into the agricultural area. This property to our south has been in the ARP for a number of years but it is the "lone wolf' and I think it will remain the only property in ARP this far north in the Transition Area. That is an option that everyone has but it is not a requirement and this is not in the area below the Blue Line at Indian River Road and Pungo. But we have provided an evergreen buffer along here that is heavily landscaped. We had originally talked about doing a berm in here but for drainage reasons the City felt it was best, and we concur that we not berm this but we just doing a very, very heavy evergreen landscape buffer. It is correct that in this area here and here, we are less than 50 feet from the property line with the boundaries for the lots. The area in here is all open space all maintained by Homeowners Association. I believe we are able to move these and shift these to the north so that we can provide a 50-foot evergreen buffer along this southern boundary, and we are certainly willing to do that and accommodate that. Along our southern boundary is a ditch about 31/z feet rough deep that runs the entire boundary, which provides some incentive for people to trespass. We certainly, with this hedgerow that we will put in is going to be grown up to the point where it will be very difficult to get through. The trails are inside of this and not on the outside. The TATAC Committee and everything that is in there talks about openness. Our fencing, which these lots will be fenced, are open fences. We don't want any privacy fence. This is all open style fencing because we want to have that open feel. We do not believe it is necessary to place a fence along the boundary in addition to all this landscaping and the ditch. Frankly, the berm would be better than the fencing because it gives an open feel rather than trying to put a fence up. We will abide by the wishes of City Council if they believe there is a necessity for putting a fence here we could that but we don't think that is consistent with our recommendations are under the Comprehensive Plan. We proffered some beautiful homes. I will mention and Mr. Waller will appreciate this, the homes that are shown in those pictures are a little larger than what will occur on these lots. I just want to make sure that everyone is clear. That represents the architectural style of the homes. They are 75 percent brick. They will clearly far exceed the minimum threshold for value homes that we are inspiring to in the Transition Area. I don't think there is any doubt about that. We've provided future access to the north. We expect there will be actually a ring road that will come in off of Sandbridge Road near the daycare center that will loop around and possibly connect here, and then come out here. But that is not definite at this point. The ring road may come up in this area. We don't know. It all depends on what they decide to do to the property to the north. We provided that opportunity if it becomes one that is makes sense and is viable. We have offered proffered money for open space acquisition elsewhere in the City, which is one of the proffers, which I have all my clients put in their agreements in Item #3 Munden Land, L.L.C. Page 3 the Transition Area from the get go. I believe we have an excellent application and I think that your staff concurred with that with their recommendation for approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions that any of you may have. Dorothy Wood: Are there any questions? Ron and Will. Ronald Ripley: You mentioned a bridge. Is that a timber bridge that you're proposing to put in across the drainage area? Eddie Bourdon: The precise nature of the construction, I can't speak to whether it will be. More than likely it will be Mr. Ripley but it is going to depend on the engineering that is going to take place at the time, and the City would have to approve whether are comfortable with it being a timber bridge or some other structure. Ronald Ripley: You mentioned that the lots closest to the southern property that you will try to find a way to move them a little bit so that you will have about 50 feet of an area to buffer. Eddie Bourdon: We have well over 50 feet for the vast majority of that area, and the only places that we are inside of that is here, and here. Ronald Ripley: So you're going to make a slight revision to your plan, and change it for Council? Eddie Bourdon: To shift those north but it won't change anything about it except just to move some lines, and changing some angles. Ronald Ripley: I couldn't quite tell the make of the path itself. Is it a multipurpose path? Is it a hard surface? Eddie Bourdon: It is mulched type hard unit. It is not asphalt. It is not going to be an asphalt surface. You can do multipurpose things on it but it will not be an asphalt trail. You can walk and jog. Bikes can go on it. It might be a little difficult for someone pushing a stroller. Ronald Ripley: Horses? Eddie Bourdon: Oh, absolutely. Yes sir. There will be 150 feet along Princess Anne Road that will be dedicated to the City. Everything else will be owned and maintained by the mandatory membership Homeowners Association. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Will. Item #3 Munden Land, L.L.C. Page 4 William Din: Eddie, you are going through a lot of trouble to landscape all around this site except the site that are on Princess Anne Road there. You got these two white blotches or cut outs of this property. To me, it sort of just sits out like a sore thumb that you haven't got landscaping that blends in to the rest of the development. Was there any consideration given to how that actually looks from Princess Anne Road, and the type of landscaping that might improve that view also. Eddie Bourdon: It actually has been Mr. Din and I appreciate the question. I should have addressed this earlier. The two existing parcels, which are not a part of this property, they are subdivided, and have been subdivided out of this property. This home was built back in the late 50s. It is owned by one of the brothers who reside there. And it is landscaped as it is today. We certainly expect both of these, and this is also by one of the brothers, as well as his house is 25 years old. We have extensive landscaping all around this one. We haven't done as much here because this property is fairly well landscaped. But we don't have any aversion of incorporating landscaping around these homes. We think they add to the character of the area, and the appearance of the drive down Princess Anne Road. We do anticipate that we may very well, and we provided for it here change the entrances to these homes off of Princess Anne Road, and have them come into this road with a new driveway so to eliminate the existing driveways on Princess Anne Road. But in terms and we have not considered that these homes were in any way detrimental to the character of the area, in terms of their appearance that they needed to be extensively screened. If the City, and ARP to the south, and there won't be a trail going further south of the ARP property, I don't believe but if there is an effort to put a trail up through there that is something that is certainly may be accommodated with the two homes that are existing there. But, no one has expressed to us the desire that we put in any type of major screening in front of these homes, and I'm not really sure exactly what you would be looking for but they are owned by members of the family, and certainly are willing to work with the staff enhance the appearance of what they expect to be a excellent project. William Din: My concern, I guess is that you got the entrance of this development right there between these two, and you got a well landscaped area. You want this development to be attractive as you go into this thing also. I'm not saying that the houses on the site are not. I would like to see it more blended in to the development of the neighborhood rather than just sitting there, as an isolated area. Eddie Bourdon: And certainly when you look at a picture like this that just shows lots on a map, you don't really have the ability to see what they look like or what the existing landscaping around those properties are. William Din: We do have some pictures of the frontage of this area. That is one of the houses. The other house is on the other side? Eddie Bourdon: That is where we have the extensive landscaping around. When you look at that and you try to put your mind's eye see all the landscaping that we will be placing Item #3 Munden Land, L.L.C. Page 5 will be, in the case to the house to the south, which this is the house to the north, all the way up towards Princess Anne Road. Our development is well beyond where these homes are. William Din: But this is the view from Princess Anne Road that people will see, plus the entrance? Eddie Bourdon: Exactly, when it is developed Mr. Din and everything is placed in there this view will be tremendously buried from what you see today. You have nothing there today. If you look at the plans we have landscaping all the way back down the road. William Din: I would just hope to consider those houses. Take a look at that entrance and if you could use a computer generated scenes. Eddie Bourdon: It is to our advantage and I couldn't agree with you more. It is to our advantage to make sure that the entrance to this development is as a high quality as what we have shown you, and we certainly don't want to have our own homes detract them. William Din: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Thanks Eddie. If you would let the opposition speak and then we will be more than happy to welcome you back. Joseph Strange: Speaking in opposition we have Nancy Williamson. Nancy Williamson: Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Williamson. I am the property owner immediately south on this proposed development. There are two clarifications that I would like to make for the attorney for Munden Corporation. I am the "lone wolf' who is in the ARP. I don't mind that status. I would like to clarify that the other people v.to are in the same region have had the same opportunity that I have. It is an opportunity that is there for them even today. So,, if they would pursue it like as I did, they may not be making this proposal. The comment that there is nothing there today, but what you're looking at is not representing the proposal but there is nothing there today. I disagree with that statement. There is farmland being cultivated there, and there is a priority in my mind. There needs to be priority for that as much as for housing. You all saw a slide presentation this morning concerning affordable housing in the City. I do not view half a million dollar homes as being considered affordable housing schemes. So that is another consideration that I think the Planning Commission needs to recognize. Another clarification to the attorney's comments are this property has been in the Munden family for over a century. That is not actually accurate. It was actually in the Land family for over a century, which I'm also a member of that same family. This land came to the Munden family by way of their mother, who was my aunt. My sister and I had half of the land farm, and the Munden Brothers ended up with the other half by way of their mother. So this started out by being a 150-acres of farm land, prime farm land. It is on the Pungo Item #3 Munden Land, L.L.C. Page 6 Ridge. It is some of the best farm land in that area. To take it out of agricultural possibility, it is detrimental to the agricultural community in Princess Anne in Virginia Beach. A couple of the items that I would like to bring to your attention as to why I'm opposed to this application. Dorothy Wood: Ma'am, you have about 45 seconds. Nancy Williamson: Thank you. The over development of Ashville Park and Heritage Park. The over development of this area. The traffic. The congestion. There is already a traffic problem on Princess Anne Road. There are issues of dust from borrow pits as well as the farming activity. I have some requests that I put into my correspondence to you concerning some conditions. I am very interested in fencing. The ditch is very easily transversal. ATV's are very popular. Ed Weeden: Ma'am, your time is up. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ms. Williamson. We appreciate you coming down today. Eddie, would like to reply quickly? Barry Knight: Dot, can I ask Ms. Williamson some questions? Dorothy Wood: Yes. Ms. Williamson would you please answer Barry's questions. I'm sorry. I think the heat must have gotten to me. Barry Knight: Ms. Williamson, I hear your concerns and read your letter. You are more concerned about the over development of this property or is one of your concerns having your farm land and the viability of keeping your farm land a viable farm next to this development? Nancy Williamson: I don't live on the property but I do rent the property to the family that is on it. I have a sister who lives south of me. She is raising her children there. Some of my concerns are related to the impact on the area as a result of this development. There are 680 homes, I believe from Ashville and Heritage. That is congestion enough. This is another 71. To me, it feels were going to fast. Doing too much, too fast. I don't think the City has really felt the repercussions of Ashville and Heritage yet. And if you approve another 71 single-family homes in the same facility, you could be in a position of saying, "oops, we should have not went so fast." Barry Knight: I understand that part of your opposition. I was wondering if that was the main part or did you have a tremendous concern about having these houses to the next to the farming operation. I know that Robert White farms. If it is just the development we'll go towards that issue but if is towards protecting the viability of the farming, we may be able to help with that a little bit if you like. What I propose with the concurrence of the applicant is when you build homes down a rural service area, which is a little Item #3 Munden Land, L.L.C. Page 7 further south than you are, you have something called an Agricultural Disclosure Form. I think they would be agreeable from Lots 5 to Lots 25, which is on the southern boundary. When they sell a lot they could have an Agricultural Disclosure Clause which states that you're moving next to an agricultural district but yours is always going to be because you sold your rights in perpetuity that you have to be cognizant of the fact that you have sights, sounds, smells, and practices of the agricultural community. And, I believe if this was passed today, and if they would agree and you would agree to put this verbage in there, it may give you a little better commonwealth. Nancy Williamson: Yes sir, it would. The other concern is trespassing. That is a concern. The trees don't quite do it. They take a long time to grow. The berm definitely doesn't do it because an ATV goes over a berm very easily. The ditch doesn't stop anybody. I can travel that ditch myself today. Barry Knight: As far as the trespassing part, I like the idea of the landscaping when you can't see through that and it grows, do you think if, it wouldn't be a detriment to the farming operation if they even and put more angle on the ditches. Nancy Williamson: I don't think the ditch would prohibit the ever popular ATVs. That is a main concern. Barry Knight: I think it does. I own a fairly amount of farmland. Mr. Horsley does a lot of farming and there are certain ditches that you can go across with your ATV and there are certain ditches that you're not going to go across. Nancy Williamson: Okay. So, if there was a condition placed on the development that they place a ditch of the caliber of which were speaking then I can go there. I had in my comments, and I guess I resorted to a fence, something that would stop the person from traveling. That is what I went too but I know that the canal in the back is of adequate size, and usually full of water that would deter someone from trying to cross it. But the existing ditch way between my property and the Munden property is not adequate to deter. It has something to be placed there. If it is not wrought iron fence of adequate height to prevent someone from climbing over it, then it has to be adequate depth in ground to keep them from traveling that. Barry Knight: Mr. Horsley knows that if we have enough grade to go back to the large ditch in the back, and that is a very, very large ditch. I'm very familiar with it. If you have enough slope or what they call a one to one grade with a little deeper, Mr. White is going to like that because it is going to facilitate the drainage on the farm also. Nancy Williamson: Okay. The low area in the back of my property, they have always called the low land. I understand what you're saying. That would have to be a condition of the applicant to put that ditch there and to maintain that ditch. Item #3 Munden Land, L.L.C. Page 8 Barry Knight: Well, we'll ask him. Nancy Williamson: Okay. That would be something that I would come back with and ask if that could be done. Thank you Mr. Knight. Eugene Crabtree: I have one question. Dorothy Wood: Yes, Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: You're addressing the ATVs. Do you have a problem with them in the current moment? Are they going across your property now? Are they inhibiting the agricultural operation that is on your property currently? Nancy Williamson: You don't have the occupancy level there right now. It is all vacant land. Eugene Crabtree: I realize that. Fancy Williamson: What I'm commenting on is homes that are going to be totally occupied by juveniles and teenagers that is in that ever popular sport. There is a lot of open land there and it is very enticing. That is what I would see young teenagers going to. They don't have to have a license. It is just freewheeling. Like I said, I don't live on the property so I can't tell you if someone is doing that currently. But it is always a concern of the farmers if there is trespassing through their crop. Eugene Crabtree: Maybe if we don't suggest that they use ATV's maybe they won't have them. Nancy Williamson: Well, just as you say if two cars lodge on a house, you have to realize there is probably going to be more than two vehicles at that home because you got teenagers that drive, and the traffic. Something you can put on paper but the reality we all know that a two car garage family is probably going to be three and maybe four cars. Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions for Ms. Williamson? Thank you so much for coming down today. Nancy Williamson: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Eddie, do you have a few words? Eddie Bourdon: Given the heat, I will certainly keep it to a few words. First of all, with regard to ATVs, we will very gladly place a restriction against the open spaces being used by ATVs. Item #3 Munden Land, L.L.C. Page 9 Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: I'm fairly certain the same is true with regard to Heritage Park. I can't speak to Ashville Park. The last thing that these homeowners in this area buying these houses are going to be subjecting themselves to, and on their land, which is what all this open space is. They own it and maintain it as an Association is ATVs. So, the deed restrictions for the community will prohibit the use of ATVs in any of the open space area. But in addition to that, we will certainly, as long as the drainage and all works deepen that ditch that is along the southern boundary. That is easily done, and we certainly have no problem re -grading and deepening that ditch. The Agricultural Disclosure Provision in the contract, we will be happy to put it in all the contracts. It is simple enough to do. We don't have an aversion or problem with that. I would point out one other thing. The borrow pits that are located across Princess Anne Road to the west of the site, both the EV Williams pit and the existing Baillio pit, and then the Gunther Pit, which is on Seaboard Road, and as the crow flies is not that far away. All of those pits within the next couple of years are going to be no longer be borrow pits. I understand Mr. Baillio is seeking to expand and dig a little bit more south of where he currently is but just to make sure that everyone is aware of that, and I actually have an application that is being filed with regard to the Williams and the existing Baillio pit, which will be coming forward in a few months. Long before these homes were built on this property those borrow pits will no longer be borrow pits. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Are there any comments? Questions? Motion? Yes sir. Barry Knight: I know that Ms. Williamson has come along way today and I appreciate it. Mr. Horsley and I would like to preserve agriculture as much as we can and we are glad that she is ARP Program. I would like to make a motion to approve this application with a modification of proffers between here and Council that the lots in the Munden, L.L.C. has a disclosure clause on their deed, and that they expand the ditch on the southern boundary. Dorothy Wood: Thanks Barry. Do I have a second? Donald Horsley: I'll second it. Dorothy Wood: A second by Mr. Horsley. A motion by Barry Knight. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: I need to abstain from this vote. My firm is working on the project. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Mr. Ripley. Item #3 Munden Land, L.L.C. Page 10 Ronald Ripley: I think the solution is a good solution. I would have been opposed to a fence. I think the contrary the blending of the agricultural use and to the transition use. I think it is a very good solution. Dorothy Wood: Are there any other comments? AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER ABS RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, with one abstention, the application of Munden Land, L.L.C. has been approved with the modification. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. 17 Winslow Court Annapolis, MD 21403 July 7, 2005 Ms. Dorothy L. Wood 3809 Thaila Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23452 Dear Planning Commission Chair: On Wednesday, July 13, 2005, the Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the application for zoning reclassification submitted by Munden Land L.L.C. The application includes the development of 71 single-family homes on Princess Anne Road, just south of Sandbridge Road, in Transition Zone III. I need to share with you my strong opposition to this application. I am the property owner of the 39-acre farmland that is immediately south of the Munden parcel. My property was accepted in the Agricultural Reserve Program in 2001 and continues to be cultivated by a local farmer. My objections to the proposed development include: • Development of single-family homes is not compatible with the general agricultural nature of this corridor of Princess Anne Road; the rest of the property fronting Princess Anne Road from Sandbridge Road to Flanagan's Lane is currently either being farmed or is in the Open Space Program; • Even though approximately 680 single-family homes are being built in the Heritage Park and Ashville Park developments, building more homes in this area will contribute to what is now commonly viewed as over -development; • The number of vehicles resulting from 71 homes with double -car garages could potentially add approximately 150 vehicles to an area that is already experiencing congestion; • The three sand pits that are currently operating along the stretch of Princess Anne Road from Flanagan's Lane to Sandbridge Road create a high volume of trucks hauling sand; these trucks create hazards from the dust they generate, the speed they travel and the well-known disregard the truck drivers seem to have for other vehicles; an increase in the number of vehicles from this proposed development will only accelerate this existing problem; • There is a potential negative impact from the Munden development on the drainage of my property and the canal ditch that runs along the back of my property and the Munden property; I am not yet aware of any environmental studies that have been conducted on this issue; Even though I object to the project in its entirety, I understand the Planning Commission and the City Council have many concerns to balance when making decisions in these types of cases. If the Planning Commission concludes the rezoning is in the best interest of the city and recommends approval of the application, I must request the following conditions be placed on the project: 1. Increase the tree line buffer on the south side of the Munden property to minimize the impact of dust that is a natural by-product of a farming operation; 2. Shift the entire development design northward to allow more distance between the back property lines of lots 5, 6,7, 13 through 18, and 24, 25 and 26. (I question whether the approximate 30' from the back of lots 5 and 6 to the development property line meets the minimum city requirements); the repositioning northward of the entire development will further minimize the occasions for complaints related to the noise and dust from tractors and other farming activities; 3. Construct a fence of at least 10' in height along the entire southern property line from Princess Anne Road to the canal ditch at the back of the development. The fence should be constructed of a material substantial enough (possibly wrought iron) to restrict both pedestrian and vehicular trespassing and also, would not be easily subject to vandalism. Please do not view these conditions as an automatic concession from me. I remain strongly opposed to the entire application. I believe if this development is approved, then the city will have lost an opportunity to maintain a balance between the demands for housing and the demands for agriculture. There are other areas in Virginia Beach where housing can be developed, but the number of agricultural sites is fast declining. Once the farmland is gone, you can never get it back. I believe both the short- term and the long-term future of Virginia Beach would be more enhanced by preserving as much agricultural property as possible. Thank you for your kind attention and consideration of my views. Sincerely, Nancy E. Williamson Conditional Zoning Change from AG1/AG2 to PDH-2 With R-10 and P-1 -Preservation district 'A CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution Authorizing The Enlargement Of A Nonconforming Use On Property Located At 2222 Bayberry Street, In The Lynnhaven District MEETING DATE: August 23, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Brian K. Callahan for the Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use on property located at 2222 Bayberry Street (GPIN 15905087030000). DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN ■ Considerations: The subject site is located within the Cape Story by the Sea neighborhood. This area was rezoned on October 11, 1965 from R-D2 Residence Duplex to R-S4 Residence Suburban District. When this zoning was approved the existing duplexes became nonconforming. This subject site zoned R-7.5 Residential District is one of those nonconforming duplexes, measuring only 6,900 square feet in size. The duplex meets the setbacks required in the R-7.5 District. Any change to the duplex requires City Council approval pursuant to Section 105(d) of the City Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is requesting approval for modifications and additions to the duplex as follows: 1. Add a new covered porch extending 8.7 feet in depth from the existing west wall (front). 2. Create a new covered porch extending from the front door of the front unit to the addition and extend the south wall of the existing rear duplex. 3. Create a two story addition to the rear duplex unit. ■ Recommendations: Section 105(d) of the City Zoning Ordinance states that no nonconforming use or structure shall be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered unless the City Council finds that the proposed use will be "equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than is the existing nonconformity." The existing duplex is a one story brick structure built in 1965. The duplex is divided so that equal sized units are located at the front and rear of the building. The applicant proposes to add a front porch to the front single story unit and a side covered entry to both the front and rear entry. The applicant also proposes approximately 350 SF of first floor space to the rear unit and an estimated 1100 SF second story to the rear duplex unit with a second story deck. The proposed modifications to the rear of the existing duplex do not extend beyond the setbacks already established. The lot coverage for the existing structure is below the 35% allowed in the R-7.5 District. The new enlargement will not exceed the 35% lot coverage. The proposed enlargement to the rear unit of the duplex has been designed to ensure a well -composed fagade. From the street the appropriate massing of the addition does not overpower the site nor detract from the neighborhood. The rear duplex addition is within R-7.5 zoning setback requirements for conforming structures. Part of the expansion is a porch that would extend 8.7 feet from the existing front duplex. This extension is within the thirty-foot front yard setback of the R-7.5 zoning. This setback is evident throughout the street where a majority of homes are in line with the existing duplex's front setback. It is staff's position that the porch should not be included as it expands the footprint and encroaches into the 30 front yard setback required for conforming structures in this zoning district. Staff finds the proposed structure minus the front porch equally appropriate to the zoning district. Staff recommends approval of this request with the recommended conditions below. 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the physical survey minus the front porch addition titled "Physical Survey of Lot 117 Plat of Cape Story by the Sea Section One Virginia Beach, Virginia for Brian K. Callahan & Ruth A. Callahan" prepared by Hoggard/Eure Associates which has been exhibited to City Council and on file in the Department of Planning. 2. The duplex shall be developed in substantial conformance with the elevations minus the front porch addition titled "Additions and Renovations for Mr. & Mrs. Brian Callahan" prepared by D.W. Chase Architect. ■ Attachments: Resolution Staff Review Disclosure Statement Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval with conditions. Submitting Department/Agenc : Planning Department 9, City Manager: BRIAN K. CALLAHAN August 23, 2005 City Council Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Enlargement to a Nonconforming Use for an addition to a duplex. Map :� 12 _ Brian K. Callahan �au No:soh is z z z�4 , c7 = R-7.i (°j bE � 1� _ (z �s Non-Conlorming Use ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 2222 Bayberry Street. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 15905087030000 5 - LYNNHAVEN 6,900 square feet SUMMARY OF REQUEST The subject site is located within the Cape Story by the Sea neighborhood. This area was rezoned on October 11, 1965 from R-D2 Residence Duplex to R-S4 Residence Suburban District. When this change in zoning was approved the existing duplexes became nonconforming. This subject site zoned R-7.5 Residential District is one of those nonconforming duplexes, measuring only 6,900 square feet in size. The duplex meets setbacks required in the R-7.5 District. Any change to the duplex requires City Council approval pursuant to Section 105(d) of the City Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is requesting approval for modifications and additions to the duplex on the site as follows: 1. Add a new covered porch extending 8.7 feet in depth from the existing west wall (front). 2. Create a new covered porch extending from the front door of front unit to the addition and extend the south wall of the existing rear duplex. 3. Create a two story addition to the rear duplex unit. BRIAN K. CALLAHAN Page 1 LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Residential duplex developed on site. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single family / R-7.5 Residential District USE AND ZONING: South: . Duplex / R-7.5 Residential District East: . Single family and Duplexes / R-7.5 District West: . Across Bayberry, Single family and Duplexes / R-7.5 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The property is currently developed with a one-story duplex and a CULTURAL FEATURES: concrete parking pad in front. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Bayberry Street is a two lane local street and is not designated on the MTP map. Shore Drive in the vicinity of this application is a major four lane urban arterial. The MTP map currently designates Shore Drive in this vicinity as 100' divided right-of-way with a bikeway. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Bayberry Street Not available. Not available. Unchanged WATER: This site is already connected to City water. SEWER: This site already connected to City sanitary sewer. SCHOOLS: No comments. BRIAN K. CALLAHAN Page 2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within the Primary Residential Area. The land use planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area provides a framework designed to protect and stabilize the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. In general, the established type, size and relationship of land use, both residential and non-residential, located in and around neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Section 105(d) of the City Zoning Ordinance states that no nonconforming use or structure shall be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered unless the City Council finds that the proposed use will be "equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than is the existing nonconformity." The existing duplex is a one story brick structure built in 1965. The duplex is divided so that equal sized units are located at the front and rear of the building. The applicant proposes to add a front porch to the front single story unit and a side covered entry to both the front and rear entry. The applicant also proposes approximately 350 SF of first floor space to the rear unit and an estimated 1100 SF second story to the rear duplex unit with a second story deck. The proposed modifications to the rear of the existing duplex do not extend beyond the setbacks already established. The lot coverage for the existing structure is below the 35% allowed in the R-7.5 District. The new enlargment will not exceed the 35% lot coverage. The proposed enlargement to the rear unit of the duplex has been designed to ensure a well -composed facade. From the street the appropriate massing of the addition does not overpower the site nor detract from the neighborhood. The rear duplex addition is within R-7.5 zoning setback requirements for conforming structures. Part of the expansion is a porch that would extend 8.7 feet from the existing front duplex. This extension is within the thirty-foot front yard setback of the R-7.5 zoning. This setback is evident throughout the street where a majority of homes are in line with the existing duplex's front setback. It is staff's position that the porch should not be included as it expands the footprint and encroaches into the 30 front yard setback required for conforming structures in this zoning district. Staff finds the proposed structure minus the front porch equally appropriate to the zoning district Staff recommends approval of this request with the recommended conditions below. BRIAN K. CALLAHAN Page 3 CONDITIONS 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the physical survey minus the front porch addition titled "Physical Survey of Lot 117 Plat of Cape Story by the Sea Section One Virginia Beach, Virginia for Brian K. Callahan & Ruth A. Callahan" prepared by Hoggard / Eure Associates which has been exhibited to City Council and on file in the Department of Planning. 2. The duplex shall be developed in substantial conformance with the elevations minus the front porch addition titled "Additions and Renovations for Mr. & Mrs. Brian Callahan" prepared by D.W. Chase Architect. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. BRIAN K. CALLAHAN Page 4 N � arest St. 'W eke � r s /� ra i CD Y �0 O L J p Sayber St. L .r t d 13 THE TITLE TH,S IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON OCTOBER 21, 7994 1 SURVEYED THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON THIS PUT AND STRICTLY WITHIN THE TIAND TLE LINES AND THERE LS OF THE LARE NO ENCROACHMENTS OR-OTHERT BUILDINGS I`EXCEPTDINGS ARE AS SHOWN ON THIS PLA. THE BUDINGSSASNSHOWN. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON APPEARS TO BE LOCATED INSIDE ZONE A3 AS SHOWN ON THE F.E.M.A. (ELEV. - 7.0) FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR THE CITY OF �IRGIN9A BEACH, 1A, COIAMUNITY - PANEL No. 515531-0008C �pj,TH opEFF. DATE: 10-3-70 REV, DATE; 1-17-85 Gr� NO C RZOO EURE z A FIVE FOOT EASEMENT EXISTS ALONG AND AD✓AC£Nr To ALL 1421 SIDE AND REAR LOT LINES FOR ORk)VAGE AND UALITIES. - 1-1)" ��-, � - 9N� SURVEyO 67 48* WIRE F<NC£ NAIL(F) °'' �"�' 50.00' - 117 0 1 12 3' ae 116 0 0 1-STORY SR, DUPLEX 2e Iq A I RAVE .9, AmTjIpN 118 �.-- N1=W �C1S.�t (CoV6RED� 0 1 o,I ✓�� _ PR!(FJ 60-00' P/N(S) �r BAYBERRY STREET 50' R W PHYS/CAL SUR✓FY OF BSc LOT 117 1s,%. So �7J3 our Z' PL A T OF CAPE STORY BY THE SEA Z 2 2 �c JL SEC Tlt lv ONE `3 N V/RG/N/A BEACH, V/RGiN/A FOR 8R/AN K. CAL LAHAN & RUTH A. CAL LAHAN REFM,a3 27 PS 13 Jo. s " HOGGARD/EURE ASSOCIATES SCALE, 1'- as Fr, 0 Surveyors/Planners/Engineers TN/S 5vRVCN PERFORMED &`06 CHURCMLAND BL`N/PO BOX 6398/(804)484-9670 .Portsmouth, Virginia 23703 K97NOUr BENEFIT OF A CURR£Nr 1-17L£ R£PORr PHYS,94101198.D9'o Fd. Jd9, PG. 45 94-10-1198 PROPOSED SITE PLAN BRIAN K. CALLAHAN Page 6 zo 0-- 2 z 2 'z of -� , W 00 cn , U3 z0 Ix 0 a -j 3: -Z O no < dwo 6 u- w LLJ z LLJ Ui x 0 z U) a. w w w z w L.1 I LE i 2710 tit, V z 0 F- c: . 3 w W UJ F - z 0 LL PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION BRIAN K. CALLAHAN Page 7 PROPOSED RENDERING BRIAN K. CALLAHAN Page 8 Non -Conforming Use 1 05/28/02 Enlargement of a Non -conforming Granted 2 04/14/98 Enlargement of a Non -conforming Granted 3 11/22/94 Conditional Rezoning (B-2 Business District to R-7.5 Residential District) Granted 04/08/85 Conditional Use Permit gas station Withdrawn 4 10/11/65 Rezoning by City of Virginia Beach (R-D2 Residential Duplex District to R-S4 Residential Suburban District) Granted ZONING HISTORY BRIAN K. CALLAHAN Page 9 IF- DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) /,/,,4- 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE i Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) N '1A i 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. ' & 2 See next page for footnotes Non -Conforming Use Application Page 8 of 9 Revised 911,12004 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT BRIAN K. CALLAHAN Page 10 11 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) k4� C f1lt5G� rffiGN 1'r t"�. 1 "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. O F111NOW111 V 0=4 CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and7been 1 understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application scheduled for public hearing, i am responsible for obtaining and posting thesign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hO according to the instructions in this package. - � k1-- -C_4 a k �<._� fart IA10 & C4, ­gH4J App icant's Signature Print Name s Signature (if different than applicant) sJJ= OA Print Name �' l p + Non -Conforming Use Ap 6 auo _. r� , Page 9 of 9 Revised 91,2004 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT BRIAN K. CALLAHAN Page 11 1 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ENLARGEMENT OF 2 A NONCONFORMING USE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 2222 BAYBERRY STREET, IN THE LYNNHAVEN 4 DISTRICT 5 6 WHEREAS, Brian K. Callahan (hereinafter the "Applicant"), 7 has made application to the City Council for authorization to 8 enlarge a nonconforming duplex situated on a certain lot or 9 parcel of land having the address of 2222 Bayberry Street, in 10 the R-7.5 Residential District; and 11 WHEREAS, the said duplex is nonconforming in that duplexes 12 are not allowed in the R-7.5 Residential Zoning District, but 13 were allowed in that Zoning District when the duplex was 14 originally built; and 15 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 105 of the City Zoning 16 Ordinance, the enlargement of a nonconforming use is unlawful. in 17 the absence of a resolution of the City Council authorizing such 18 action upon a finding that the proposed use, as enlarged, will 19 be equally appropriate or more appropriate to the zoning 20 district than is the existing use; 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 22 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 23 That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed use, 24 as enlarged, will be equally appropriate to the district as is 25 the existing use. 26 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 27 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 28 That the proposed enlargement of the Applicant's use of the 29 parcel are hereby authorized, upon the following conditions: 30 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance 31 with the physical survey minus the front porch addition titled 32 "Physical Survey of Lot 117 Plat of Cape Story by the Sea 33 Section One Virginia Beach, Virginia for Brian K. Callahan & 34 Ruth A. Callahan" prepared by Hoggard/Eure Associates which has 35 been exhibited to City Council and on file in the Department of 36 Planning. 37 2. The duplex shall be developed in substantial 38 conformance with the elevations minus the front porch addition 39 titled "Additions and Renovations for Mr. & Mrs. Brian Callahan" .m 41 prepared By D.W. Chase Architect. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on the 42 day of August, 2005. CA-9728 OID\Ordres\nonconforming-callahan.doc R-1 August 12, 2005 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: 'ea-e-� x5;�� Pi nning Depart ent APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: XA44� City Attorney's Office E �fM Hyy'L�� y s•y rf 1' CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — Street Closures MEETING DATE: August 23, 2005 ■ Background: The following applications have been made by the City of Virginia Beach for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of various streets: A portion of an alley beginning on the west side of Parks Avenue and extending approximately 312.29 feet in a westerly direction. A portion of Washington Avenue beginning on the north side of 19t" Street and extending 255.21 feet in a northeasterly direction. A portion of an alley beginning on the east side of Parks Avenue and extending approximately 249.66 feet in an easterly direction. A portion of Norfolk Place beginning on the east side of Washington Avenue and extending 195.22 feet in an easterly direction. A portion of Washington Avenue beginning on the south side of 19th Street and extending approximately 365.05 feet in a southerly direction. A portion of Parks Avenue beginning on the north side of 18t" Street and extending approximately 300.04 feet to the south sides of 19t" Street. A portion of Monroe Avenue beginning on the north side of Virginia Beach Boulevard and extending approximately 355.64 feet in a northerly direction. A portion of Monroe Avenue beginning on the south side of 19th Street and extending approximately 278.89 feet in a southerly direction. A portion of Jefferson Avenue beginning on the north side of Virginia Beach Boulevard and extending 320 feet in a northerly direction. DISTRICT 6 — BEACH ■ Considerations: ■ Public Information: ■ Alternatives: ■ Recommendations: These applications were advertised to be heard on August 23, 2005. However, it is recommended they be deferred until September 27, 2005, to allow time for additional review. ■ Attachments: Recommended Action: Deferral until September 27, 2005 Submitting Department/Agency•Plan ' g Department/City Attorney's Office City Manager: 14� •