Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOVEMBER 22 2005 AGENDACITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME CITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At -Large VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside -District 4 HARRY E. DIEZEL Kempsville - District 1 ROBERT M DYER, Centerville - District I REBA S. MCCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3 RICHARD A. MADDOX, Beach - District 6 JIM REEVE, Princess Anne -District 7 PETER W. SCHMIDT, At -Large RONA. VILLANUEVA, At -Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At -Large JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITYMANAGER - JAMES K. SPORE CITY ATTORNEY- LESLIEL. LILLEY CITY CLERK - RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMC I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS 22 November 2005 - Conference Room - CITYHALL BUILDING 2401 COURTHOUSEDRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE: (757) 427-4303 FAX (757) 426-5669 E-MAIL: Ctycncl@vbgov.com A. MAGNA CARTA EXHIBIT Mark A. Reed, Historic Resources Coordinator Department of Museums and Cultural Arts Timothy Guy, Director, Aukett Brockliss Guy (ABG), Joint Venture Communications and Design Consultancy B. HISTORIC KEMPSVILLE PLAN Clay Bernick, Environmental Management Program Administrator Department of Planning C. TOWING REGULATIONS Louie Ochave — Chairman, Towing Advisory Board II. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS III. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS 1:00 P.M. IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 2:30 P.M. A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 P.M. A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend J. Scott Griffin Lynnhaven Presbyterian Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS November 8, 2005 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. FARMER'S MARKET LEASE — FLS Corporation T/A The Nesting Box 2. EXCESS CITY PROPERTY — Fire Station near Seatack Elementary School 3. TAXI CAB INCREASE I. CONSENT AGENDA RE SOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES Resolution PROVIDING for the issuance and sale of General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, heretofore authorized, in the maximum amount of $80,000,000 for various public facilities and general improvements. 2. Resolution to ADOPT the findings in the Formal Needs Assessment Report and AUTHORIZE the City Manager to issue a Request for Formal Renewal Proposal to Cox Communications of Hampton Roads, LLC for their cable television franchise. 3. Ordinances to AMEND City Code: a. §§ 7-1, 7-65, 7-66, 7-67 and 7-68 re regulation of golf carts and utility vehicles b. § 6-114 re restrictions launching, landing, parking or stationing recreational vessels in certain areas C. Deferred Compensation Plan (i.) AMEND §§ 2-121, 2-122 and 1-123 re the Deferred Compensation Plan and Board Membership (ii) Resolution to provide a Deferred Compensation Investment Policy 4. Ordinance re EXCESS PROPERTY adjacent to the Fire Training Center: a. DECLARE City -owned land at rear of Seatack Elementary School as excess property b. AUTHORIZE the purchase of 9.3 acres by: (i) Exchange of a one (1) acre parcel (ii) Purchase 8.3 acre parcel Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to renew leased Spaces Nos. 1 and 2 at the Farmer's Market to FLS Corporation, t/a The Nesting Box. 6. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE a temporary encroachments into portions of City property: a. Rouse Drive by ROUSE I, LLC to install and maintain PVC conduit for telephone and computer lines b. Diamond Springs Road by R. M. CLARKE, L.L.C. to install and maintain conduit for network cables 7. Ordinance to ADD one full-time employee position to the City Attorney's Office and TRANSFER $44,134 from the Contingency Fund to the City Attorney's FY2005-06 Operating Budget. 8. Ordinances to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE: a. $2,500 from the Virginia Office of the Attorney General TRIAD Crime Prevention for Senior's Grant and $1,000 from the Wal-Mart Foundation to the Police Department's FY2005-06 Operating Budget repurchase of Project Lifesaver equipment b. $605,866 from the Virginia Compensation Board to the Clerk of Circuit Court's FY 2005-06 Technology Trust Fund as reimbursement for technology expense K. PLANNING 1. Application of K & SONS, INC. for the Modification of the Indian Lakes Land Use Plan to allow a gasoline station in conjunction with a convenience store at 1196 Indian Lakes Boulevard (Deferred by City Council on October 11 and November 8, 2005). (DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE ) DEFERRED: November 8, 2005 RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL 2. Application of DONALD G. PRATT for a Modification ofProf ers from the Conditional Change of Zoning granted by the City Council on April 11, 2000, re an additional office building at 2244 General Booth. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 3. Petition for a Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO), Subdivision for WILLIAM L. PAGE, to vacate an existing property line of two adjacent properties, remove an existing single family home and resubdivide creating two new lots of equal size at 1544 West Little Neck Road. (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 4. Application of BLUE HORSESHOE TATTOO V, Ltd. for a Conditional Use Permit re a tattoo and body piercing establishment at 71-125 South Witchduck Road. (DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL on 7 Application of SPRINTCOM, INC. for a Conditional Use Permit re development of a communication tower and maintenance cabinets at 1000 North Great Neck Road. (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Application of STEVEN KREVER for a Change of Zoning District Classification from 0-2 Office District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District at 3712 South Plaza Trail re a delicatessen. (Deferred by City Council on October 11, 2005) (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL) DEFERRED: RECOMMENDATION: October 11, 2005 APPROVAL AMENDMENTS to REORDAIN and REPEAL the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) a. § 221.1 re specific standards for conditional uses within certain Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ); and, ADD Article 18, §§1800 — 1807 re discretionary development applications and sound attenuation requirements in buildings and structures in certain AICUZ b. Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance (Appendix 1) re sound attenuation requirements in certain buildings, structures and required disclosures in residential real estate transactions C. Official zoning map by designation and incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area d. Comprehensive Plan by the incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area Map e. Comprehensive Plan, Chapters 1 (Introduction and General Strategy), 2 (Strategic Growth), 3 (Primary Residential Areas), 5 (Princess Anne/Transition Area) and 9 (Natural Resources and Environmental Quality Plan), Appendix of the Policy Document and Princess Anne Corridor Plan to incorporate provisions of AICUZ, the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study and AICUZ Overlay Ordinance DEFERRED: RECOMMENDATION: October 25, 2005 Defer to December 20, 2005 L. APPOINTMENTS BEACHES and WATERWAYS COMMISSION BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA BOARD COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR HISTORIC SITES HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE — PPEA PERSONNEL BOARD (Alternates) PLANNING COMMISSION RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (RAC) SENIOR SERVICES OF SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA (SEVAMP) VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORAITON (VBCDC) WETLANDS BOARD (Alternates) M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS 1. ABSTRACT OF VOTES — GENERAL ELECTION — November 8, 2005 O. ADJOURNMENT If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303 Hearing impaired, call: VIRGINIA RELAY at 1-800-828-1120 *********** Agenda 11/22/2005gw www.vbgov.com I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 1:00 P.M. A. MAGNA CARTA EXHIBIT Mark A. Reed, Historic Resources Coordinator Department of Museums and Cultural Arts Timothy Guy, Director, Aukett Brockliss Guy (ABG), Joint Venture Communications and Design Consultancy B. HISTORIC KEMPSVILLE PLAN Clay Bernick, Environmental Management Program Administrator Department of Planning C. TOWING REGULATIONS Louie Ochave — Chairman, Towing Advisory Board H. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS III. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 2:30 P.M. A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION I V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 P.M. A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend J. Scott Griffin Lynnhaven Presbyterian Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS November 8, 2005 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION MP 9ip�F, Xr. Ai TO-] - I CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies;_ and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. FARMER'S MARKET LEASE — FLS Corporation T/A The Nesting Box 2. EXCESS CITY PROPERTY — Fire Station near Seatack Elementary School 3. TAXI CAB INCREASE NOTICEPUBLIC ■� •rif The Virginia Beach City council will hold a PUBLIC HEAR. ING at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 in the City Council Chamber regarding the proposed lease agree- ment of City -owned property located at the Virginia Beach Farmers Market, as defined below: Spaces #1 & #2 FLS Corporation T/A The Nesting Box; Fred & Linda Jordan The purpose of this public hearing will be to obtain public comment on this lease of City property. Any questions con- cerning these matters should be directed to Janel Leather- man, Farmers Market Manager, by calling (757) 427-4395. Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303; Hearing impaired, call VIRGINIA RELAY at 800-828-1120. Beacon Nov. 13, 2005 14204177 The Virginia Beach City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEAR- ING on the disposition and sale of 1± acre of property located adjacent to and at the rear (northern boundary) of Seatack Elementary School and being a part of GPIN 2416-75-0198, Tuesday, November 22, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the City Hall Building (Build- ing #1) at the Virginia Beach Municipal Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia. The purpose of this hearing will be to obtain public input to determine whether this property should be declared "Excess of the City's needs". If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303; Hearing impaired, call T®O only 427-4305 (TDD - Telephone Device for the Deaf). Any questions concerning this matter should be directed to the Office of Real Estate, Building #2; Room 392, at the Vir- ginia Beach Municipal Center, The Real Estate Office tele- phone number is (757) 427-4161. Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk Beacon Nov. 13, 2005 14204265 INCREASE METER DROP FEES FROM 0 The Virginia Beach City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING in the Council Chamber, second floor of the City Hall Building, on November ' 22, 2005 at 6:00 PM on a proposed amendment to City Code § W-172 authorizing taxi cab companies to collect $2.50 for the first 1/8th of a mile. For every minute of waiting time, the taxi cab companies would be allowed to collect $.25 per minute. This rate increase is proposed due to increased gasoline prices and cost of living increases. Interested residents of the City of Virginia Beach may appear at the above -mentioned time and place to present their views. Interested residents unable to attend may submit comments via email to budget@vib ov.corn Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk Beacon Nov. 13, 2005 14214054 J. RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES Resolution PROVIDING for the issuance and sale of General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, heretofore authorized, in the maximum amount of $80,000,000 for various public facilities and general improvements. 2. Resolution to ADOPT the findings in the Formal Needs Assessment Report and AUTHORIZE the City Manager to issue a Request for Formal Renewal Proposal to Cox Communications of Hampton Roads, LLC for their cable television franchise. Ordinances to AMEND City Code: a. §§ 7-1, 7-65, 7-66, 7-67 and 7-68 re regulation of golf carts and utility vehicles b. § 6-114 re restrictions launching, landing, parking or stationing recreational vessels in certain areas Deferred Compensation Plan (i) AMEND §§ 2-121, 2-122 and 1-123 re the Deferred Compensation Plan and Board Membership (ii) Resolution to provide a Deferred Compensation Investment Policy 4. Ordinance re EXCESS PROPERTY adjacent to the Fire Training Center: a. DECLARE City -owned land at rear of Seatack Elementary School as excess property b. AUTHORIZE the purchase of 9.3 acres by: (i) Exchange of a one (1) acre parcel (ii) Purchase 8.3 acre parcel Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to renew leased Spaces Nos. 1 and 2 at the Farmer's Market to FLS Corporation, t/a The Nesting Box. 6. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE a temporary encroachments into portions of City property: a. Rouse Drive by ROUSE I, LLC to install and maintain PVC conduit for telephone and computer lines b. Diamond Springs Road by R. M. CLARKE, L.L.C. to install and maintain conduit for network cables 7. Ordinance to ADD one full-time employee position to the City Attorney's Office and TRANSFER $44,134 from the Contingency Fund to the City Attorney's FY2005-06 Operating Budget. 8. Ordinances to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE: a. $2,500 from the Virginia Office of the Attorney General TRIAD Crime Prevention for Senior's Grant and $1,000 from the Wal-Mart Foundation to the Police Department's FY2005-06 Operating Budget re purchase of Project Lifesaver equipment b. $605,866 from the Virginia Compensation Board to the Clerk of Circuit Court's FY 2005-06 Technology Trust Fund as reimbursement for technology expense A;t�s J CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $80,000,000 General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 2005 MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: Based on a review of capital project expenditures and future CIP needs, the Department of Finance has begun preparations for a general obligation bond sale in the amount of $80 million. The Bond sale is composed of portions of 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 Charter Bond Authorizations previously approved by Council. A portion of the bond proceeds from the proposed sale will be reimbursing previous expenditures, and the remainder of the funds will be for future planned expenditures. ■ Considerations: This sale represents the City's annual general obligation bond sale. The City's bond counsel, Troutman Sanders, has prepared the enclosed resolution authorizing the issuance and sale. The bonds will be sold by competitive bid with the actions of the City Manager being conclusive provided, however, that the bonds shall have a true interest cost not to exceed 5.5 percent. The proposed bond structure takes into consideration the FY 2006 and FY 2007 debt service budgets. The bond sale is scheduled for pricing on December 7, 2005. As an accommodation to bidders, the City will employ an electronic bidding system in accordance with the Official Notice of Sale. After today's Council action no further vote of the City Council will be necessary. The final terms of the bond sale will be provided to City Council. ■ Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. The original Charter authorizations were a part of the public information process for the Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program. In addition, a Notice of Sale will be placed in The Bond Buyer. ■ Alternatives: There are no alternative funding sources at this time. This request follows previously approved CIPs. ■ Recommendations: The enclosed resolution providing for the sale of the bonds is recommended for City Council approval. ■ Attachments: Resolution Authorizing the bond sale Draft of the Preliminary Official Statement with: Draft of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement — (Appendix C) Draft of the Official Notice of Sale — (Appendix E) Recommended Action: Approval of Reso Submitting Department/Agency: Finance 716Um� City Manager: m RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2005, HERETOFORE AUTHORIZED, OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $80,000,000, AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM, DETAILS AND PAYMENT THEREOF The issuance of $49,700,000 of bonds of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City") was authorized by an ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City Council") on May 9, 2000, without being submitted to the qualified voters of the City, to finance various public improvements, including schools, roadways, coastal projects, economic and tourism projects, building and parks and recreation projects, $38,896,170 of which bonds have been issued and sold. The issuance of $59,300,000 of bonds of the City was authorized by an ordinance adopted by the City Council on May 14, 2002, without being submitted to the qualified voters of the City, to finance various public improvements, including schools, roadways, coastal projects, economic and tourism projects, building and parks and recreation projects, $37,000,000 of which bonds have been issued and sold. The issuance of $61,900,000 of bonds of the City was authorized by an ordinance adopted by the City Council on May 13, 2003, without being submitted to the qualified voters of the City, to finance various public improvements, including schools, roadways, coastal projects, economic and tourism projects, building and parks and recreation projects, $18,601,237 of which bonds have been issued and sold. The issuance of $61,000,000 of bonds of the City was authorized by an ordinance adopted by the City Council on May 11, 2004, without being submitted to the qualified voters of the City, to finance various public improvements, including schools, roadways, coastal projects, economic and tourism projects, building and parks and recreation projects, none of which bonds have been issued and sold. The issuance of $55,200,000 of bonds of the City was authorized by an ordinance adopted by the City Council on May 10, 2005, without being submitted to the qualified voters of the City, to finance various public improvements, including schools, roadways, coastal projects, economic and tourism projects, building and parks and recreation projects, none of which bonds have been issued and sold. It has been recommended to the City Council by representatives of Government Finance Associates, Inc. and ARD Government Finance Group (the "Financial Advisors") that the City issue and sell a series of general obligation public improvement bonds in the maximum principal amount of $80,000,000. The City Council has determined it is in the City's best interest to issue and sell $10,803,830 of the bonds authorized on May 9, 2000; $22,300,000 of the bonds authorized on May 14, 2002; $43,298,763 of the bonds authorized on May 13, 2003; $3,597,407 of the bonds authorized on May 11, 2004; and none of the bonds authorized on May 10, 2005. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. Issuance of Bonds. There shall be issued, pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the City Charter (Chapter 147 of the Acts of the General Assembly of 1962, as amended) and the Public Finance Act of 1991 (Chapter 26, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended), general obligation public improvement bonds of the City in the maximum principal amount of $80,000,000 (the "Bonds"). The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to provide funds to finance, in part, the costs of various public, school, road and highway, coastal, economic and tourism, building and parks and recreation improvements, as more fully described in the ordinances authorizing the Bonds adopted on May 9, 2000, May 14, 2002, May 13, 2003, and May 11, 2004 (collectively, the "Project"), and the costs incurred in connection with issuing the Bonds. 2. Bond Details. The Bonds shall be designated "General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 2005," or such other designation as may be determined by the City Manager, shall be in registered form, shall be dated such date as may be determined by the City Manager, shall be in denominations of $5,000 and integral multiples thereof and shall be numbered R-1 upward. Subject to Section 8, the issuance and sale of the Bonds are authorized on terms as shall be satisfactory to the City Manager; provided, however, that the Bonds (a) shall have a "true" or "Canadian" interest cost not to exceed 5.50% (taking into account any original issue discount or premium), (b) shall be sold to the purchaser thereof at a price not less than 99.0% of the principal amount thereof (excluding any original issue discount), (c) shall be subject to optional redemption no later than January 15, 2016 at an optional redemption price of no more than 102% of the principal amount to be redeemed plus accrued interest to the optional redemption date, and (d) shall mature or be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemptions in annual installments beginning no later than January 15, 2007, and ending no later than January 15, 2026. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable annually on dates determined by the City Manager. Each Bond shall bear interest at such rate as shall be determined at the time of sale, calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months, and payable semiannually on dates determined by the City Manager. Principal shall be payable to the registered owners upon surrender of Bonds as they become due at the office of the Registrar (as hereinafter defined). Interest shall be payable by check or draft mailed to the registered owners at their addresses as they appear on the registration books kept by the Registrar on a date prior to each interest payment date that shall be determined by the City Manager (the "Record Date"). Principal, premium, if any, and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Initially, one Bond certificate for each maturity of the Bonds shall be issued to and registered in the name of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"), or its nominee. The City has heretofore entered into a Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations relating to a book -entry system to be maintained by DTC with respect to the Bonds. "Securities Depository" shall mean DTC or any other securities depository for the Bonds appointed pursuant to this Section 2. -2- In the event that (a) the Securities Depository determines not to continue to act as the securities depository for the Bonds by giving notice to the Registrar, and the City discharges its responsibilities hereunder, or (b) the City, in its sole discretion, determines (i) that beneficial owners of Bonds shall be able to obtain certificated Bonds or (ii) to select a new Securities Depository, then the City's Director of Finance shall, at the direction of the City, attempt to locate another qualified securities depository to serve as Securities Depository and authenticate and deliver certificated Bonds to the new Securities Depository or its nominee, or authenticate and deliver certificated Bonds to the beneficial owners or to the Securities Depository participants on behalf of beneficial owners substantially in the form provided for in Section 5; provided, that such form shall provide for interest on the Bonds to be payable (A) from the date of the Bonds if they are authenticated prior to the first interest payment date, or (B) from the interest payment date that is or immediately precedes the date on which the Bonds are authenticated (unless payment of interest thereon is in default, in which case interest on such Bonds shall be payable from the date to which interest has been paid). In delivering certificated Bonds, the City's Director of Finance shall be entitled to rely on the records of the Securities Depository as to the beneficial owners or the records of the Securities Depository participants acting on behalf of beneficial owners. Such certificated Bonds will then be registrable, transferable and exchangeable as set forth in Section 7. So long as there is a Securities Depository for the Bonds, (1) it or its nominee shall be the registered owner of the Bonds, (2) notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Resolution, determinations of persons entitled to payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest, transfers of ownership and exchanges, and receipt of notices shall be the responsibility of the Securities Depository and shall be effected pursuant to rules and procedures established by such Securities Depository, (3) the Registrar and the City shall not be responsible or liable for maintaining, supervising or reviewing the records maintained by the Securities Depository, its participants or persons acting through such participants, (4) references in this Resolution to registered owners of the Bonds shall mean such Securities Depository or its nominee and shall not mean the beneficial owners of the Bonds, and (5) in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Resolution and the provisions of the above -referenced Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations, such provisions of the Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations, except to the extent set forth in this paragraph and the next preceding paragraph, shall control. 3. Redemption Provisions. (a) Optional Redemption. The Bonds may be subject to redemption prior to maturity at the option of the City, in whole or in part, at any time on or after dates, if any, determined by the City Manager, but no later than January 15, 2016, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed, together with any interest accrued to the date fixed for redemption, plus a redemption premium not to exceed 2% of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed, such redemption premium to be determined by the City Manager. (b) Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption. Any term bonds may be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption upon terms determined by the City Manager. If so determined by the City Manager, the Bonds may provide that the City may take a credit against the mandatory sinking fund redemption obligation of any maturity of term Bonds in -3- the amount of Bonds of the same maturity that have been optionally redeemed or surrendered for cancellation and have not been applied previously as such a credit. If the City wishes to take such a credit, on or before the 70th day next preceding any such mandatory sinking fund redemption date, the City's Director of Finance may instruct the Registrar to apply a credit against the City's mandatory sinking fund redemption obligation for any Bonds of the applicable maturity that have been optionally redeemed or surrendered for cancellation by the City and have not been previously applied as a credit against any mandatory sinking fund redemption obligation for that maturity of the Bonds. Each Bond so previously optionally redeemed or surrendered shall be credited at 100% of the principal amount thereof against the principal amount of such maturity of the Bonds required to be redeemed on such mandatory sinking fund redemption date or dates for such maturity as may be selected by the Director of Finance. (c) Selection of Bonds for Redemption. If less than all of the Bonds are called for optional redemption, the maturities of the Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by the City's Director of Finance in such manner as may be determined to be in the best interest of the City. If less than all of a particular maturity of the Bonds are called for redemption, the Bonds within such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by the Securities Depository pursuant to its rules and procedures or, if the book -entry system is discontinued, shall be selected by the Registrar by lot in such manner as the Registrar in its discretion may determine. In either case, (a) the portion of any Bond to be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of $5,000 or some integral multiple thereof and (b) in selecting Bonds for redemption, each Bond shall be considered as representing that number of Bonds that is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such Bond by $5,000. (d) Redemption Notices. The City shall cause notice of the call for redemption identifying the Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed to be sent by facsimile transmission, registered or certified mail or overnight express delivery, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the redemption date, to the registered owner of the Bonds. The City shall not be responsible for mailing notice of redemption to anyone other than DTC or another qualified Securities Depository or its nominee unless no qualified Securities Depository is the registered owner of the Bonds. If no qualified Securities Depository is the registered owner of the Bonds, notice of redemption shall be mailed to the registered owners of the Bonds. If a portion of a Bond is called for redemption, a new Bond in principal amount equal to the unredeemed portion thereof will be issued to the registered owner upon the surrender thereof. 4. Execution and Authentication. The Bonds shall be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of the Mayor or Vice -Mayor, shall be countersigned by the manual or facsimile signature of the City Clerk or Deputy Clerk, and the City's seal shall be affixed thereto or a facsimile thereof printed thereon; provided, that if both of such signatures are facsimiles, no Bond shall be valid until it has been authenticated by the manual signature of the City Treasurer as Registrar or an authorized officer or employee of any bank or trust company serving as successor Registrar and the date of authentication noted thereon. 5. Bond Form. The Bonds shall be in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as may be approved by the officers signing the Bonds, whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Bonds. in 6. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. Unless other funds are lawfully available and appropriated for timely payment of the Bonds, the City Council shall levy and collect an annual ad valorem tax, over and above all other taxes authorized or limited by law and without limitation as to rate or amount, on all locally taxable property in the City sufficient to pay when due the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. 7. Registration, Transfer and Owners of Bonds. The City Treasurer is appointed paying agent and registrar for the Bonds (the "Registrar"). The City may appoint a qualified bank or trust company as successor paying agent and registrar of the Bonds. The Registrar shall maintain registration books for the registration and registration of transfers of the Bonds. Upon presentation and surrender of any Bonds at the office of the Registrar, or at its designated corporate trust office if the Registrar is a bank or trust company, together with an assignment duly executed by the registered owner or his duly authorized attorney or legal representative in such form as shall be satisfactory to the Registrar, the City shall execute, and the Registrar shall authenticate, if required by Section 4, and shall deliver in exchange, a new Bond or Bonds having an equal aggregate principal amount, in authorized denominations, of the same form and maturity, bearing interest at the same rate and registered in the name as requested by the then registered owner thereof or its duly authorized attorney or legal representative. Any such transfer or exchange shall be at the expense of the City, except that the Registrar may charge the person requesting such transfer or exchange the amount of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect thereto. The Registrar shall treat the registered owner as the person or entity exclusively entitled to payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest and the exercise of all other rights and powers of the owner, except that interest payments shall be made to the person or entity shown as owner on the registration books as of the Record Date. 8. Sale of Bonds. The City Council approves the following terms of the sale of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be sold by competitive bid in a principal amount to be determined by the City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisors, and subject to the limitations set forth in Section 1, and the City Manager shall receive bids for the Bonds and award the Bonds to the bidder providing the lowest "true" or "Canadian" interest cost, subject to the limitations set forth in Section 2. Following the sale of the Bonds, the City Manager shall file a certificate with the City Clerk setting forth the final terms of the Bonds. The actions of the City Manager in selling the Bonds shall be conclusive, and no further action with respect to the sale and issuance of the Bonds shall be necessary on the part of the City Council. 9. Notice of Sale; Bid Form. The City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisors, is authorized and directed to take all proper steps to advertise the Bonds for sale substantially in accordance with the forms of the Official Notice of Sale and the Official Bid Form, which forms are attached as an Appendix to the draft of the Preliminary Official Statement described in Section 10 below, and which forms are approved; provided, that the City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisors, may make such changes in the Official Notice of Sale -5- and the Official Bid Form not inconsistent with this Resolution as he may consider to be in the best interest of the City. 10. Official Statement. A draft of a Preliminary Official Statement describing the Bonds, a copy of which has been provided or made available to each member of the City Council, is approved as the form of the Preliminary Official Statement by which the Bonds will be offered for sale, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as the City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisors, may consider appropriate. After the Bonds have been sold, the City Manager, in collaboration with the Financial Advisors, shall make such completions, omissions, insertions and changes in the Preliminary Official Statement not inconsistent with this Resolution as are necessary or desirable to complete it as a final Official Statement, execution thereof by the City Manager to constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes. The City shall arrange for the delivery to the purchaser of the Bonds of a reasonable number of copies of the final Official Statement by the earlier of seven business days after the Bonds have been sold or the date of issuance of the Bonds, for delivery to each potential investor requesting a copy of the Official Statement and for delivery to each person to whom such purchaser initially sells Bonds. 11. Official Statement Deemed Final. The City Manager is authorized, on behalf of the City, to deem the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement in final form, each to be final as of its date within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 ("Rule 15c2-12") of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), except for the omission in the Preliminary Official Statement of certain pricing and other information permitted to be omitted pursuant to Rule 15c2- 12. The distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement in final form shall be conclusive evidence that each has been deemed final as of its date by the City, except for the omission in the Preliminary Official Statement of such pricing and other information permitted to be omitted pursuant to Rule 15c2-12. 12. Preparation and Delivery of Bonds. After bids have been received and the Bonds have been awarded to the winning bidder, the officers of the City are authorized and directed to take all proper steps to have the Bonds prepared and executed in accordance with their terms and to deliver the Bonds to the purchaser thereof upon payment therefor. 13. Arbitrage Covenants. The City covenants that it shall not take or omit to take any action the taking or omission of which will cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations issued pursuant thereto (the "Code"), or otherwise cause interest on the Bonds to be includable in the gross income of the registered owners thereof under existing laws. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the City shall comply with any provision of law that may require the City at any time to rebate to the United States any part of the earnings derived from the investment of the gross proceeds of the Bonds, unless the City receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that such compliance is not required to prevent interest on the Bonds from being includable in the gross income of the registered owners thereof under existing law. The City shall pay any such required rebate from its legally available funds. 0 14. Non -Arbitrage Certificate and Elections. Such officers of the City as may be requested are authorized and directed to execute an appropriate certificate setting forth the reasonably expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds in order to show that such reasonably expected use and investment will not violate the provisions of Section 148 of the Code, and any elections such officers deem desirable regarding rebate of earnings to the United States, for purposes of complying with Section 148 of the Code. Such certificate and elections shall be in such form as may be requested by bond counsel for the City. 15. Limitation on Private Use. The City covenants that it shall not permit the proceeds of the Bonds or the facilities financed with the proceeds of the Bonds to be used in any manner that would result in (a) 5% or more of such proceeds or of the facilities financed with such proceeds being used in a trade or business carried on by any person other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(b) of the Code, (b) 5% or more of such proceeds or the facilities being financed with such proceeds being used with respect to any output facility (other than a facility for the furnishing of water), within the meaning of Section 141(b)(4) of the Code, or (c) 5% or more of such proceeds being used directly or indirectly to make or finance loans to any person other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(c) of the Code; provided, that if the City receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that any such covenants need not be complied with to prevent the interest on the Bonds from being includable in the gross income for federal income tax purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law, the City need not comply with such covenants. 16. Investment Authorization. The City Council hereby authorizes the Director of Finance to direct the City Treasurer to utilize either or both of the State Non -Arbitrage Program of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("SNAP") and the Virginia Arbitrage & Investment Management Program ("AIM") in connection with the investment of the proceeds of the Bonds, if the City Manager and the Director of Finance determine that the utilization of either SNAP or AIM is in the best interest of the City. The City Council acknowledges that the Treasury Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia is not, and shall not be, in any way liable to the City in connection with SNAP, except as otherwise provided in the SNAP Contract. 17. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Mayor, the City Manager and such officer or officers of the City as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a continuing disclosure agreement setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the City and containing such covenants as may be necessary to assist the purchaser of the Bonds in complying with the provisions of Rule 15c2-12. Such continuing disclosure agreement shall be substantially in the form attached as an Appendix to the draft of the Preliminary Official Statement described in Section 10 above, which form is approved with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes that are not inconsistent with this Resolution. 18. Other Actions. All other actions of officers of the City and of the City Council in conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of the issuance and sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. The officers of the City are authorized and directed to execute and deliver all certificates and instruments and to take all such further action as may be considered necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds. -7- 19. Repeal of ConflictinLy Resolutions. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed. 20. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. Exhibit A — Form of Bonds IM Exhibit A — Form of Bonds Unless this certificate is presented by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company, a New York corporation ("DTC"), to the issuer or its agent for registration of transfer, exchange or payment, and this certificate is registered in the name of Cede & Co., or in such other name as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC (and any payment is made to Cede & Co. or to such other entity as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC), ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE, OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR VALUE OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL inasmuch as the registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein. REGISTERED REGISTERED No. R-_ $ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH General Obligation Public Improvement Bond Series 2005 INTEREST RATE MATURITY DATE DATED DATE CUSIP January 15, 20_ December _, 2005 927734 REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: DOLLARS The City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City"), for value received, promises to pay, upon surrender hereof to the registered owner hereof, or registered assigns or legal representative, the Principal Amount stated above on the Maturity Date stated above, subject to prior redemption as hereinafter provided, and promises to pay interest hereon from the Dated Date stated above on each January 15 and July 15, beginning July 15, 2006, at the annual Interest Rate stated above, calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. Principal, premium, if any, and interest are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by the City Treasurer, who has been appointed Registrar (the "Registrar"). The City may appoint a qualified bank as successor paying agent and registrar for the bonds. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, this bond is subject to a book -entry system maintained by The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), and the payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest, the providing of notices and other matters shall be made as described in the City's Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations to DTC. This bond is one of an issue of $80,000,000 General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 2005 (the "Bonds"), of like date and tenor, except as to number, denomination, rate of interest, privilege of redemption and maturity, and is issued pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the City Charter and the Public Finance Act of 1991. The Bonds have been authorized by ordinances adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach (the "City Council") on May 9, 2000, May 14, 2002, May 13, 2003, and May 11, 2004, and are being issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on November 22, 2005 (the "Bond Resolution"), to finance various public, school, road and highway, coastal, economic and tourism, building and parks and recreation improvements and to pay costs of issuance of the Bonds. The Bonds maturing on or before January 15, 20_, are not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. The Bonds maturing on or after January 15, 20, are subject to redemption prior to maturity at the option of the City on or after January 15, 20_, in whole or in part at any time (in any multiple of $5,000), upon payment of the following redemption prices (expressed as a percentage of principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) plus interest accrued and unpaid to the date fixed for redemption: Period During Which Redeemed Redemption (Both Dates Inclusive) Price The Bonds maturing on January 15, 20_, are required to be redeemed in part before maturity by the City on January 15 in the years and amounts set forth below, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed, plus interest accrued and unpaid to the date fixed for redemption: Year . Amount Year Amount The Bond Resolution provides for a credit against the mandatory sinking fund redemption of the Bonds maturing on January 15, 20_ in the amount of Bonds of the same maturity that have been optionally redeemed or surrendered for cancellation and have not been applied previously as such a credit. If less than all of the Bonds are called for optional redemption, the maturities of the Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by the City's Director of Finance in such manner as may be determined to be in the best interest of the City. If less than all the Bonds of a particular maturity are called for redemption, the Bonds within such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by DTC or any successor securities depository pursuant to its rules and procedures or, if the book entry system is discontinued, shall be selected by the Registrar by lot in such manner as the Registrar in its discretion may determine. In either case, (a) the portion of any Bond to be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of $5,000 or some integral multiple thereof and (b) in selecting Bonds for redemption, each Bond shall be considered as representing that number of Bonds that is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such Bond by $5,000. A-2 The City shall cause notice of the call for redemption identifying the Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed to be sent by facsimile transmission, registered or certified mail or overnight express delivery, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the redemption date, to DTC or its nominee as the registered owner hereof. If a portion of this bond is called for redemption, a new Bond in the principal amount of the unredeemed portion hereof will be issued to the registered owner upon surrender hereof. The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on this bond. Unless other funds are lawfully available and appropriated for timely payment of this bond, the City Council shall levy and collect an annual ad valorem tax, over and above all other taxes authorized or limited by law and without limitation as to rate or amount, on all taxable property within the City sufficient to pay when due the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on this bond. The Registrar shall treat the registered owner of this bond as the person or entity exclusively entitled to payment of principal of and interest on this bond and the exercise of all other rights and powers of the owner, except that interest payments shall be made to the person or entity shown as the owner on the registration books on the first day of the month preceding each interest payment date. In the event a date for the payment of principal, redemption price, or interest on this bond is not a business day, then payment of principal, redemption price, and interest on, this bond shall be made on the next succeeding day which is a business day, and if made on such next succeeding business day, no additional interest shall accrue for the period after such payment or redemption date. All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this bond have happened, exist and have been performed, and the issue of Bonds of which this bond is one, together with all other indebtedness of the City, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, has caused this bond to be signed by its Mayor, to be countersigned by its Clerk, its seal to be affixed hereto, and this bond to be dated the Dated Date stated above. COUNTERSIGNED: (SEAL) Clerk, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Mayor, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia A-3 ASSIGNMENT FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned sell(s), assign(s) and transfer(s) unto: (Please print or type name and address, including postal zip code, of Transferee) PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF TRANSFEREE: the within bond and all rights thereunder, hereby irrevocably constituting and appointing , Attorney, to transfer said bond on the books kept for the registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Signature Guaranteed: NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an Eligible Guarantor Institution such as a Commercial Bank, Trust Company, Securities Broker/Dealer, Credit Union or Savings Association who is a member of a medallion program approved by The Securities Transfer Association, Inc. #1404350v4 205182.000118 (Signature of Registered Owner) NOTICE: The signature above must correspond with the name of the registered owner as it appears on the front of this bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever. A-4 Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of the City Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, this 22nd day of November, 2005. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: 1 mane Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney's Office CERTIFICATE The undersigned Clerk of the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City Council"), certifies that: 1. A meeting of the City Council was held on November 22, 2005, at the time and place established and noticed by the City Council, at which the members of the City Council were present or absent as noted below. The foregoing Resolution was adopted by a majority of the members of the City Council, by a roll call vote, the ayes and nays being recorded in the minutes of the meeting as shown below: PRESENT/ABSENT: VOTE: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor / Louis R. Jones, Vice Mayor / Harry E. Diezel / Robert M. Dyer / Richard Maddox / Reba S. McClanan / J. M. Reeve / Peter W. Schmidt / Ronald John A. Villanueva / Rosemary Wilson / James L. Wood / 2. The foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of such Resolution as adopted on November 22, 2005. The foregoing Resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended and is in full force and effect on the date hereof. WITNESS my signature and the seal of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, this day of November, 2005. Clerk, City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (SEAL) 1404350v4 205182.000118 ,! nth1A BEgrZ y! 7. Y) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution Adopting the Findings Set Forth in the Needs Assessment Report and Authorizing the City Manager to Issue a Request for Formal Renewal Proposal to Cox Communications of Hampton Roads, LLC MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: The City's cable franchise agreement with Cox Communications Hampton Roads, LLC ("Cox") expires in May 2006. In July 2003, Cox requested renewal of its cable franchise agreement. The City subsequently prepared a Formal Needs Assessment Report ("Report"). In preparing the Report, staff conducted studies and surveys to determine the cable -related needs and interests of the City's cable subscribers. Staff also evaluated the existing cable system operated by Cox. The Report summarizes the needs and interests identified in the studies and surveys. Based upon the Report, staff identified and developed a list of renewal requirements. ■ Considerations: In an effort to obtain a favorable renewal agreement, staff recommends that the City proceed in its negotiations with Cox pursuant to the formal renewal process set forth in the Cable Act. Under the formal renewal process, the City will issue a Request for Formal Renewal Proposal ("Request") inviting Cox to submit to the City a cable franchise formal renewal proposal describing the cable -related facilities, equipment, and services it proposes to provide in the City during the franchise renewal term. As part of the request, the City will provide a proposed model franchise agreement that includes the City's cable needs and interests and is intended to serve as a model for the final franchise agreement. City Council will subsequently have the opportunity to approve or disapprove the proposal submitted by Cox. City Council can deny Cox's request for renewal if it finds, among other things, that the proposal does not reasonably satisfy the community's needs and interests or that Cox has failed to comply with the existing cable franchise agreement. This resolution 1) adopts the findings in the Report and confirms that the cable needs and interests identified in the Report are representative of the City's cable needs and interests; and 2) authorizes the City Manager to issue a Request for Formal Renewal Proposal to Cox. ■ Public Information: To be advertised in the same manner as other items on Council's agenda. ■ Alternatives: City staff could continue negotiations with Cox pursuant to the informal renewal process and not initiate the formal renewal process by issuing the Request. Given that the current franchise agreement expires in May 2006, the formal renewal process will allow discussions to occur in a prescribed timeframe. The City could also extend the current franchise agreement beyond May 2006; however, given the changes in the legal, financial, and technological environment over the fifteen years the franchise has been in place, City staff believe that it is critical to enter into a new franchise agreement. ■ Recommendation: Adoption of Resolution. ■ Attachments: Resolution Formal Needs Assessment Report Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution Submitting Department/Agency: Coml `'`` City Manager: ' "U W"7' 2 1 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINDINGS 2 SET FORTH IN THE FORMAL NEEDS 3 ASSESSMENT REPORT AND AUTHORIZING 4 THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE A 5 REQUEST FOR FORMAL RENEWAL 6 PROPOSAL TO COX COMMUNICATIONS OF 7 HAMPTON ROADS, LLC 8 WHEREAS, cable television service is provided to residents 9 of the City of Virginia Beach ("City") pursuant to a franchise 10 agreement between the City and Cox Communications Hampton Roads, 11 LLC ("Cox"); 12 WHEREAS, the City's cable television franchise agreement 13 with Cox expires in May 2006; 14 WHEREAS, in preparation for renewal negotiations, the City 15 prepared a Formal Needs Assessment Report ("Report"); 16 WHEREAS, the Report includes several studies identifying 17 the cable -related needs and interests of the City's cable 18 subscribers and evaluating the cable system operated by Cox; 19 WHEREAS, the Report was used by staff as the basis for 20 identifying the City's cable needs; 21 WHEREAS, in an effort to obtain a favorable renewal 22 franchise agreement, staff recommends that the City proceed in 23 its negotiations with Cox according to the formal renewal 24 process set forth in 47 U.S.C. §546 (a-g); 25 WHEREAS, under the formal renewal process, the City will 26 issue a Request for Formal Renewal Proposal ("Request") inviting 27 Cox to submit to the City a cable franchise formal renewal 28 proposal describing the cable -related facilities, equipment, and 29 services it proposes to provide in the City during the franchise 30 renewal term; and 31 WHEREAS, as part of the Request, the City will provide a 32 proposed Model Franchise that includes the City's cable needs 33 and interests, as identified in the Report, and is intended to 34 serve as a model for the final franchise agreement that will be 35 entered into by the City. 36 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 37 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 38 That City Council hereby: 39 1. Adopts the findings set forth in the Formal Needs 40 Assessment Report and confirms that the cable needs and 41 interests identified in the Report are representative of the 42 City's cable needs and interests; and 43 2. Authorizes the City Manager to issue a Request for 44 Formal Renewal Proposal to Cox. 45 Adopted by the City Council of Virginia Beach, Virginia on 46 this day of , 2005. APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: C o-MT T CA9801 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Cox res R-2 November 15, 2005 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney's bffice �tiN 9E�r+ n CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend Sections 7-1, 7-65, 7-66, 7-67 and 7-68 of the City Code Pertaining to Regulation of Golf Carts and Utility Vehicles. MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: Last year, City Council amended the City Code by adding comprehensive regulations regarding the operation of wheeled devices. Among other things, the regulations restrict the operation of golf carts on City streets. The regulations currently do not address utility vehicles. Recently, some have asserted that if a golf cart is not used for golfing, then it is a "utility vehicle," and thus not subject to the restrictions on golf cart operation. The Code of Virginia differentiates between golf carts and utility vehicles by defining the two vehicles in mutually exclusive terms. The City Code lacks a definition of the term "utility vehicle." Adding the definition of the term, as well as corresponding references to such vehicles, would avoid confusion and attempts to defeat the purpose of the restrictions on golf cart operation. ■ Considerations: This ordinance will incorporate the Code of Virginia's definition of "utility vehicle" and add references to such vehicles, thereby eliminating any confusion regarding the City's restrictions on golf cart and utility vehicle operation. ■ Public Information: To be advertised in the same manner as other items on Council's Agenda. ■ Recommendations: Approval of ordinance. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/A ency: Police City Manager:� 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 7-1, 7-65, 2 7-66, 7-67 AND 7-68 OF THE CITY CODE 3 PERTAINING TO REGULATION OF GOLF CARTS 4 AND UTILITY VEHICLES 5 6 SECTIONS AMENDED: §§ 7-1, 7-65 thr. 7-68 7 8 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 9 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 10 11 That Sections 7-1, 7-65, 7-66, 7-67 and 7-68 of the City 12 Code are hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows: 13 ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL 14 Sec. 7-1. Definitions. 15 For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall 16 have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, unless clearly 17 indicated to the contrary: 18 All -terrain vehicle: A three -wheeled or a four -wheeled motor 19 vehicle powered by a gasoline or diesel engine and generally 20 characterized by large, low -pressured tires, a seat designed to be 21 straddled by the operator, and handlebars for steering, that is 22 intended for off -road use by an individual rider on various types 23 of unpaved terrain. This term does not include four -wheeled 24 vehicles that have low centers of gravity and are typically used in 25 racing and on relatively level surfaces, commonly known as "go- 26 carts," nor does the term include any "farm utility vehicle" as 27 defined in section 46.2 of the Code of Virginia. Except as 28 otherwise provided in this chapter, for the purposes of this 29 chapter, all -terrain vehicles shall be deemed to be motorcycles. 30 Bicycle: A device propelled solely by human power, upon which a 55 electric seated scooters, electric -powered mini choppers, electric- ro V `'�C b%O T CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend Section 6-114 of the City Code, Deleting the Permit Requirement to Launch, Land, Park, or Station a sailboat on the North End Beach. MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: The requirement for sailboat permits was established many years ago to manage a proliferation of sailboats along the north end beach. The situation that once necessitated a permit program no longer exists. Hence, the community requested the program be eliminated. The program provides less than $1000.00 per year in revenue to the City. ■ Considerations: Amending this coded section will allow the use of sailboats between 42"d Street and Fort Story without a permit, which is consistent with current policy citywide (Resort Beach excluded). ■ Public Information: The Ordinance will be advertised in the standard City Council Agenda notice. ■ Alternatives: (1) No Change — Keep existing program for the North End Beach only. (2) Expand existing permit requirement to include all beaches. (3) Eliminate permit requirement as requested by the community. ■ Recommendations: Adoption ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager: Public Works/Office of Beach Manage 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 6-114 OF THE 2 CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO THE RESTRICTIONS ON 3 LAUNCHING, LANDING, PARKING OR STATIONING 4 RECREATIONAL VESSELS IN CERTAIN AREAS 5 6 Section Amended: City Code Section 6-114 7 8 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 9 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 10 11 That Section 6-114 of the City Code is hereby amended and 12 reordained, to read as follows: 13 Sec. 6-114. Restrictions on launching, landing, parking. or 14 stationing recreational vessels in certain areas. 15 16 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to launch or land a 17 sailboat, motorboat, motorized personal watercraft, canoe, rowboat, 18 flatboat, kayak, umiak, scull or any other similar recreational 19 vessel on the beach area north of Rudee Inlet to the center line of 20 42nd Street prolongated eastward, during the resort season between 21 the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00 a.m. and 22 6:00 p.m. weekends and holidays. The provisions of this subsection 23 shall not be applicable to any person who is awarded a contract, 24 based upon competitive procurement principles, to conduct an 25 operation for the rental of designated recreational vessel(s) or to 26 any person who rents a vessel from an authorized rental operator 27 provided the vessel(s) so rented is launched or landed within the 28 area designated in such contract. 29 (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to park or station a 30 sailboat, motorboat, motorized personal watercraft, canoe, rowboat, 31 flatboat, kayak, umiak, scull or other similar recreational vessel 32 on the beach area north of Rudee Inlet to the center line of 42nd 33 Street prolongated eastward, with the following exceptions: 34 (1) In an emergency; 35 (2) With an approved race or regatta permit; 36 (3) In the process of launching or landing a vessel 37 specified above in the areas and during the time periods 38 permitted in subsection (a) of this section; or 39 (4) Pursuant to a contract in accordance with the 40 provisions of subsection (a) of this section. 41 (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to launch, land, park 42 or station a motorboat or motorized personal watercraft on the 43 beach between the area north of the center line of 42nd Street 44 prolongated eastward and the southern boundary line of Fort Story, 45 except in an emergency or with an approved race or regatta permit. / .-7 ) T +- h l l b� l f, l � 4 6 ��� �-1-a=���.�-e ewe launeh, land, 47 e-r- st-ati-eTr-u--s-arlbv-cren the between the area nerth e�c 49 beundary line of Fei=t S-t-e itheut—a—peLaffiit i=eFft the ei ty FRanagE 50 wi}huhe fell_-cew,_-ng exeepti_enT 51 ; er 52 (2) With an appr-eved r-aee—eLa icegatta pe - 19cam= , b., the—eity sail b, -,ts 53 ( ) Perfftts will launeheel, landed, e,l faanagei= ez the be be+-..,ee,-, 54 te—be rkeel ez�t'-atie,-,ed en eh 55 the —area n e r h o f the— l' f 4 '�i� wee; r e l. g t e ,i cc rrcc�ri ire—e-r— z L r - J - 56 eastware „e' the seutlei=n ine—ef Few —Ste nd1Tthe 57 fe3lewing e-enEiitl6ns: 58 (1) The pert tie be issued en a f; Esceeffte first s_r� 59 basis subjeet te-subseeti-ens-(-') are' (;) eft- sseetien. -/ ��e- � e�-shall l'�rrt the riuibe�ef piirrc$ 61 to-feuic (4) saiibeatsper- Meek between t-he area-neith of 62 the-eenter line -e f 42rei St re et-p r-e le -�� atea-east-w-ar-el and 63 tbe-eenter- line -e f S V t h S m�ice t p r e l engate-east-wrd; 64 seven (-?) sallp ems -pew 1-e e k between -4c h e-area ne r— t h o f 65 the -e en-teic line ef5-7th Street prelengateei eastwre-tea 66 the eenter line -efZ71ch-Street p e l en gateeea s t wawa 67 twelve -(12) sailbeats peic-Meek been the area nei=thef 69 the th'e1r A'e Grda_r= -line ef Fe 70 (3) A sallbehavingt ---a valtel pc fftit-ginn Eier- thi-s 71 subseetien fflaye launehed,—landed, l9arleed -er-st-atiened 72 en the-beaeh area infi-ent ef any--b1eek- between n4Z Ei 73 Sti� eet and FeftS terms leers the x iffium b� . r , as 74 set-€ezth in (2) , b ego=e-i s-n-e t e m eeeded. if the 75 number as set ferth in (2) cab eve is em eee Ei e ,a tiien the 76 sallbeat that -lees net have -a-peifftit fer that p + ccriar 77 blee4,shall lee -in vielation ef-this seetien. 79 threugh the-ffte nt h e f G eteb e:E €e i-tbe year in whieh the 82 -(6) The annual perfftit—€ee shall be —th i r-lay—ele l l a r-s 85 to e stabs dates ef Issuanee fer sueh perfflits—€ems 87 -(7-) There -shall be ne—parking er sttrening efsailbeats 89 ewe- 91 fib. ,4 s unless appEeved by the dameetei—ef the. 92 dement ef publie wee —tee type, size and—ieeatien. 93 (9) N esallbeatsshall: be s ee u r-ed t o--lava f-ul: fi�Etur-e s e-r 97 (, ,) n e r,.. ; t , � erab 1-e . Tom,-Z-c�r�rc�—crime-�ie�rcz airs 98 (d)+f} It shall be unlawful for any person to launch or 99 land any motorboat, motorized personal water craft or any other 100 motorized recreational vessel on the beaches extending south of 101 Fleet Combat Training Center Dam Neck to the southern boundary of 102 Little Island Park, or on the beaches south of Rudee Inlet to the 103 northern boundary of Camp Pendleton Military Reservation, during 104 the season from 6:00 p.m. on the Friday before Memorial Day Weekend 105 through 6:00 p.m. on the Monday following Labor Day Weekend, 106 between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00 107 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. weekends 108 and holidays, except as hereafter provided: 109 (1) Watercraft may be launched or landed in an emergency 110 or for law enforcement purposes. ill (2) Commercial fishing boats operating from the beaches 112 by permission of the Virginia Division of Parks and 113 Recreation shall be exempt from the restrictions of this 114 article. 115 (e)4t+ It shall be unlawful for any person to launch, land, 116 park or station a sailboat, motorboat, motorized personal 117 watercraft, canoe, rowboat, flatboat, kayak, umiak, scull or any 118 other similar recreational vessel on the beach area between the 119 western end of the Lesner Bridge continuing southwest along the 120 shoreline of the Lynnhaven Turning Basin and then west to the 121 Lynnhaven Boat Ramp at Crab Creek with the following exceptions: 122 (1) In an emergency; or 123 (2) With an approved race or regatta permit. 124 (f) In addition to the other provisions of this section, 125 sailboats parked on the beach shall be subject to the following 126 restrictions: 127 (1) It shall be unlawful to park or station a sailboat 128 on any sand dune or in front of any access point or 129 street end. 130 (2) It shall be unlawful to drive any type of anchor 131 into the beach to secure a sailboat, unless approved by 132 the Director of the Department of Public Works as to 133 tvpe. size and location. 134 (3) It shall be unlawful to secure a sailboat to 135 fixtures or structures on the beach. 136 (g)4-h+ Any police officer of the City of Virginia Beach is 137 hereby authorized to remove and impound or have removed and 138 impounded any vessel which appears to be in violation of this 139 section or which is lost, stolen, abandoned or unclaimed. In 140 addition to the fine imposed for a violation of this section, such 141 vessel shall be removed and impounded at the owner's expense until 142 lawfully claimed or disposed of. 143 (h)+i} Any person who shall violate any of the provisions 144 of this section shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. 145 - ersen hel6ing a per—faitper-fait under this seeti-en h 146 - irerre eenyieti-ens, er findings of net inneee nt in th-& 147 ewe—ef a juvenile, of vielating this seetien-er seetien--6 115 148 within the perfait—p ewe e-the—e-i-ty fg e shall revel-Ee that 149 150 151 {-}r per —se per-sen whe—has six (66 ) e r ffte r e e e 3ivi e t i errs—e-r 15 2 fin digs--e f net inne e e n t in the —ease --e €-also=ems e o f v i e 1 ate 153 this sL et i en ei-s e etien6--115wwithin any twe- year-peri-eel shall t 154 be— issued -apermit -by the —ems =iuneieE this seetien feic tee 155 ne, E� twe (2) yea 156 157 COMMENT 158 159 This amendment will abolish the sailboat permit requirement at the North End from 42"d Street 160 to Fort Story. Additionally, former sections (e) (7), (e)(8) and (e)(9) that outline additional restrictions 161 applicable to sailboats parked on the beach, are relocated to sections (f)(1), (f)(2) and (f)(3). 162 163 164 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 165 Virginia, on the day of APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Police Department APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: i Public 0e,rks , 2005. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City for Office CA9785 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Proposed\6-114 Rec. Vehicles.ORD R-4 November 4, 2005 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend the City Code Regarding the Deferred Compensation Plan and Board Membership and a Resolution to Adopt a Deferred Compensation Investment Policy MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: The City Council established a Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Plan") for City employees in 1981. The plan originally included three (3) funds from which employees could choose to place contributions from their salaries. The record keeper at that time was Stanley Clarke & Associates. Since 1999, the record keeper has been Great West Retirement Services. The Plan has been modified to include the Sheriff's employees as well as School employees. The aggregate of the City, Sheriff, and School plans currently totals $113 million in assets and includes 17 fund choices. The Plan assets are held in trust in accordance with federal law. The City Code establishes a Deferred Compensation Board (the "Board") to supervise, administer, and implement the Plan. • Considerations: In accordance with current fiduciary responsibilities and practices, the Board has adopted a formal Investment Policy for the Plan currently offered to the City, Sheriff, and School employees. The Investment Policy adopted by the Board and recommended for adoption by City Council establishes performance standards based on financial composites and ratings, expands investment options to include major asset classes, and establishes a Fund Complex Corporate Rating. In addition, the Investment Policy empowers the Board to review and amend the Investment Policy when recommended by the record keeper or in accordance with state and federal laws. The City Council is currently required to approve all changes to the Plan as well as confirm City Manager appointments to the Board. The proposed revisions to the City Code require the City Council to adopt an Investment Policy and authorize the Board to make plan changes in accordance with state and federal law as well as the Investment Policy. In addition, the proposed ordinance appoints the Finance Director, Human Resources Director, Payroll Administrator, and Employee Relations Manager to the Deferred Compensation Board, and enables the City Manager to appoint up to three additional members. The proposed Investment Policy is attached. ■ Public Information: Provided as part of the normal City Council agenda process. ■ Alternatives: Make no City Code changes, but instead bring every plan adjustment to City Council as well as confirmation of each member of the Board whenever changes are made. ■ Recommendations: Adopt the attached Ordinance and Resolution. ■ Attachments: Ordinance, Resolution and Investment Policy Recommended Action: Approval of Ordinan, Submitting Department/Agency: Finance C uCI ( City Manager: S 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE 2 REGARDING THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION 3 PLAN AND BOARD MEMBERSHIP 4 SECTIONS AMENDED: §§ 2-121, 2-122, AND 2-123. 5 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 6 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 7 That Sections 2-121, 2-122, and 2-123 of the City Code are 8 hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows: 9 2-121. Plan Established. 10 Pursuant to the Government Employees Deferred Compensation 11 Act, section 51-111.67:14 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as 12 amended, the city hereby adopts and establishes a plan of deferred 13 compensation for its employees dated the twenty-third day of March, 14 1981. The purpose of the plan shall be to provide for the deferral 15 of compensation to the participants. The plan shall exist in 16 addition to all other retirement, pension or other benefit systems 17 available to the participants, and shall not supersede, make 18 inoperative or reduce any benefits provided by any other 19 retirement, pension or benefit program established by law. 20 On behalf of the employer, the city manager is hereby 21 authorized and directed to execute and deliver the plan to the plan 22 administrator. The plan shall contain such terms and amendments as 23 the city council may from time to time approve. The City Council 24 shall adopt a deferred compensation investment policy. The City 25 Council shall review the investment Policv no less than every two 1 26 years. 27 2-122. Board —Established. 28 There is hereby created a deferred compensation board, 29 consisting of city employees, 30 and } b ,� b t� , �e—serve —a�e� e�f,�r-x� e-e-�-ne � 31 L"r. The City Council hereby appoints the Director of 32 Finance, the Director of Human Resources, the Employee Relations 33 Manager, and the Payroll Administrator to the board. The City 34 Manager may appoint up to three (3) additional board members from 35 the deferred compensation plan participants. The board members 36 appointed by the City Manager shall serve terms of three years from 37 the date of appointment. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, all 38 members of the deferred compensation board shall serve at the 39 pleasure of the City Council. The terms of the members of the 40 deferred compensation board shall not be limited by the 41 restrictions of City Code § 2-3. 42 2-123. Same- Powers. 43 The deferred compensation board is hereby granted the power to 44 do all things by way of supervision, administration and 45 implementation of a plan of deferred compensation, including but 46 not limited to the power to contract with private corporations or 47 institutions for service in connection therewith; however, nothing 48 contained in this section shall be construed to authorize the 49 deferred compensation board to act beyond the limits of the plan. r 50 The deferred compensation board shall administer the 51 investment policy in accordance with the terms of the investment 52 policy and prudent fiduciary standards. The deferred compensation 53 board shall have the authority to add and delete funds from the 54 investment policy in accordance with the investment policy adopted 55 by City Council. 56 COMMENT 57 The ordinance provides that the City Council will adopt a deferred compensation investment 58 policy and will review the policy at least every two years. The ordinance also provides for the 59 appointment of four deferred compensation board members by title rather than by name and grants 60 the City Manager the authority to appoint up to three (3) additional board members. The ordinance 61 clarifies that members of this board are not subject to the term limits established by City Code § 2-3. 62 Finally, the ordinance requires the deferred compensation board to administer the investment policy 63 and gives the board the authority to add and delete funds in accordance with the investment policy 64 adopted by City Council. 65 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 66 Virginia, on this day of , 2005. APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Department of Finance City Attorne 's Office CA-9799 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Proposed\Deferred Comp ORD R-2 November 10, 2005 3 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A DEFERREED 2 COMPENSATION INVESTMENT POLICY 3 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach established a plan of 4 deferred compensation for its employees on March 23, 1981; and 5 WHEREAS, the purpose of the plan is to provide for the 6 deferral of compensation to the participants of the plan; and 7 WHEREAS, assets in the City's deferred compensation plan 8 total $113 million; and 9 WHEREAS, it is important that these assets be invested in 10 accordance with current fiduciary responsibilities and 11 practices; and 12 WHEREAS, the deferred compensation board has recommended 13 the adoption of a formal Investment Policy which establishes 14 performance standards based on financial composites and ratings, 15 expands investment options to include major asset classes, and 16 establishes a Fund Complex Corporate Rating. 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 18 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 19 That the accompanying City of Virginia Beach Deferred 20 Compensation Plan Investment Policy Statement is hereby adopted. 21 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 22 Virginia on the day of November, 2005. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: n Department of Financef City Attorney's Office CA9799 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Deferred Comp RES R-2 November 10, 2005 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT PURPOSE: This Investment Policy Statement ("Policy Statement") sets forth the goals and objectives of the investment options available under the City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Plan"). The purpose of this Policy Statement is to guide the Plan Board of Directors (the "Board") in effectively supervising, monitoring, and managing the investment options available under the Plan. This Policy Statement is designed to allow for sufficient flexibility in the management oversight process, while also setting forth reasonable parameters to promote the exercise of reasonable prudence and care with respect to the investment options available under the Plan. This Policy Statement provides a framework for the selection of investment options, a procedure for the ongoing evaluation of the investment options available under the Plan, and guidelines for terminating and replacing any available investment option(s). BACKGROUND: The Plan was established by City of Virginia Beach code Ord. No. 1156, §§ 1--3, adopted March 23, 1981, Division 2.5, §§ 2-121--2-123,* and is administered by the Board and is intended to qualify as a Section 457 defined contribution plan. The Plan is intended to provide eligible employees with a means to save monies on a tax -advantaged basis in order to assist the employee in reaching his/her retirement goals. The Plan allows each eligible employee to direct how contributions made to his or her Plan account are invested among a diverse menu of investment options selected by the Board. The Board shall choose which investment options shall be available under the Plan and shall monitor the investment options' compliance with this Policy Statement. The Board and the Recordkeeper do not provide investment advice to any participant or assist any participant in deciding how to allocate contributions to the participants' plan accounts. No fiduciary shall be responsible for any financial loss that may be incurred by any participant because of the participant's investment direction or because of any action taken in accordance with the participant's investment direction. INVESTMENT OPTION SELECTION: The Board recognizes that there is investment risk inherent in all investment options. Furthermore, the Board recognizes that individual participants each have their own level of risk tolerance. The Board shall, therefore, select a broad array of investment options providing different levels of risk and historical return. To this end, the Board shall select investment options based upon the following criteria: *Now found under Va. Code § 51.1-600 et seq. City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105 Original adoption: June 2, 1999 Revision: October 31, 2005 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT 1. Selected investment options shall represent the major asset classes. For purposes of this Policy Statement, the following major asset classes will be used, at a minimum, as defined by Morningstar® (an independent fund evaluation company): a. International: Foreign Stock; b. U.S. Small -Cap Equity; c. U.S. Mid -Cap Equity; d. U.S. Large -Cap Equity (active and passive management); e. Balanced/Asset allocation funds; and f. Fixed Income/Stable Value. g. Bond mutual fund — government or corporate, domestic or international, active or passive management. 2. From funds in the domestic equity asset classes identified above in l (b), l (c) and 1(d), the Board will attempt to choose investment options with contrasting stock selection styles. The Board will attempt to choose investment options that tend to purchase both "value" stocks (stocks that are purchased because the fund manager believes the stock is under valued) and/or "growth" stocks (stocks of companies who have shown accelerated earnings). 3. The Board shall select investment options based upon administrative, pricing, historical performance, management style, and other mutually agreeable criteria in cooperation with the Plan's recordkeeper. 4. The expense ratio of the investment options must be competitive with other investment options with similar objectives as measured by the applicable Morningstar® Category average and one other rating agency. The Board will consider higher expense ratios, however, for funds that have proven to outperform other funds (net of fees) with similar objectives on a long-term basis. 5. Wherever practicable, the Board will choose investment options that are offered by companies that have a reputation as being among the industry's leaders. 6. The selected investment options shall have at least three years of investment history. Furthermore, the Board will attempt to choose investment options where the investment manager exhibits style (i.e. growth, or value, large cap or small cap) consistency over at least a three-year period. Lastly, the specific fund manager shall have managed the fund for at least two years. In accordance with the above criteria, the Board shall choose investment options that have consistently outperformed their peer groups on both a total return and risk -adjusted basis. City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105 2 Original adoption: June 2, 1999 Revision: October 31, 2005 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT INVESTMENT OPTION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: The Board shall review each of the selected investment options at least annually to evaluate the investment option's performance. The Board may utilize a consultant and/or recordkeeper to assist in the evaluation process. The investment option review shall be objective, fair and shall incorporate statistical analysis provided by an independent third party. The Board shall utilize the following performance benchmarks: 1. Actively Managed Funds: Each Fund shall be benchmarked against its respective peer group as determined by the Morningstar® Category. The Morningstar® Category identifies funds based on their actual investment styles as measured by the underlying portfolio holdings over the trailing 36-month period. • Return Composite: The Return Composite measures the fund's performance relative to its peer group on a net -of -fee basis. It is calculated by taking the equally weighted average of the 3, 5 and 10 year return percentiles. • Sharpe Composite: The Sharpe Composite measures the fund's risk -adjusted performance relative to its peer group. It is calculated by taking the equally weighted average of the 3 and 5 year Sharpe percentiles. • Overall Composite: The average of the Return Composite and the Sharpe Composite determines the Overall Composite where an Overall Composite above the 66.67% percentile is considered above benchmark. • Morningstar® Ratings: The Morningstar® Rating is a quantitative measure of risk - adjusted returns. This rating shows how well a fund has balanced risk and return relative to other funds in the same Morningstar® Category. The Morningstar® Rating is calculated over a 3, 5 and 10 year time period on a 1 through 5 scale. A 3, 4 or 5 rating is considered above benchmark, while a 1 or 2 rating is considered "Below Benchmark." • Overall Rating: The below matrix combines the Overall Composite with the Morningstar® Rating to determine if a fund is Above Benchmark, Neutral or Below Benchmark for the most recent quarter -end time period. Overall Composite Morningstar® Rating Overall Rating > 66.67% AND 3, 4 or 5 Above Benchmark >= 50.0% AND 3, 4 or 5 Neutral Rating < 50.0% OR 1 or 2 Below Benchmark City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105 Original adoption: June 2, 1999 Revision: October 31, 2005 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT • Long -Term Rolling Analysis To assess the long-term consistency of fund performance, the previous 12 quarters are examined based on the accumulated Overall Ratings: Consecutive Quarters Below Benchmark Quarters Below out of trailing 12 Long -Term Rolling Analysis < 4 Quarters AND < 7 Pass >= 4 Quarters OR >= 7 Quarters Fail 2. Passively Managed Variable Funds (Index Funds): The Index Fund will track its respective index within a 25 basis point range, gross -of -fees, as measured on an annual basis. This tracking -error range shall be adjusted upward for International and Extended US Market Index funds. 3. Fixed Income Fund (Stable Value Fund): The Fixed Income Fund shall continue to provide participants with book value accounting and allow participants to make transfers without restriction. The Fixed Income Fund's issuer shall be rated among the top three ratings of at least two of the rating services (S&P, Moody's, Duff & Phelps, Best's). The Board recognizes that Investment Manager's performance can move in cycles over time and that investment option performance will not always be superior. As such, the Board will generally monitor selected investment option performance on a periodic basis, but not less frequently than annually. The Board will give fund managers sufficient time to remedy any underperformance before the investment option is deleted from the available investment option array available under the Plan. While the primary analysis of the investment option will be quantitative, the Board reserves the right to make decisions regarding the investment option based upon other criteria that it believes will be in the best interest of the Plan and the participants. Within the guidelines set forth above, the Board will evaluate investment options with the assistance of the consultant or Recordkeeper. Investment options that do not perform at or above their respective benchmark will be subject to the Plans' policies regarding underperforming investment options. UNDERPERFORMING INVESTMENT OPTIONS: The Board shall take the following steps in the event that an investment option is rated "Below Benchmark" for the current quarter or that "Fail" the Long -Term Rating criterion: City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105 4 Original adoption: June 2, 1999 Revision: October 31, 2005 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT If the Board determines that an investment option is rated Below Benchmark for the current quarter, then the investment option shall be placed on a "watch list." While an investment option is on "watch," no action will be taken to terminate and replace the investment option. The fund manager will be informed, and additional information will be gathered as to why the investment option is under performing. The Board may invite the fund manager to meet and explain the investment option's performance. 2. Should an investment option that was on the "watch list" subsequently exceed its benchmarks, it will be taken off the "watch list" and the investment option will again be in "good standing." If the investment option's performance continues "Below Benchmark" for four consecutive quarters or seven out of the trailing twelve, then the investment option has "Failed" the Long -Term Rating. The Board may notify participants of the failure and the investment option that failed its benchmarks may be closed to new contributions. Additionally, the Board may choose to select a new investment option in the same asset class. The Board, in its discretion, may also choose to terminate the investment option that failed its benchmarks and transfer its assets or designate an existing or new investment option to receive the assets from the investment option that failed its benchmarks. To the extent practical, these investment option deletions will only occur once per calendar year. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: The Board, in its discretion, may conduct informal reviews and evaluations of an investment option at any time. The Board may place an investment option under formal review, or immediately terminate an investment option for any reason, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. The investment option has changed managers, or such a change appears imminent; 2. The investment option has had a significant change in ownership or control; 3. The investment option has changed its investment mandate or has experienced style drift, departing from the investment objectives or parameters in its prospectus; 4. The investment option has experienced substantial portfolio turnover; 5. The investment option has violated a SEC rule or regulation; 6. The investment option has experienced difficulty in transacting trades, fund transfers, or pricing; 7. The investment option has experienced other changes or problems in its procedures, operations, investing, reporting, or lack of employee participation, which in the Board's view, has or could detract from the objectives of the Plan; or 8. Any other circumstance regarding the investment option that the Board determines is in conflict with this Policy Statement. 9. Recognizing that retaining a fund or fund complex that has been involved in a scandal process may be detrimental to the marketing of the Plan to participants City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105 5 Original adoption: June 2, 1999 Revision: October 31, 2005 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT this criteria allows the Board to delete funds or entire fund complexes depending on their involvement in a scandal or regulatory violation. The Board shall establish a rating for each mutual fund complex offered in the Plan to be called the Fund Complex Corporate Rating. Levels Red, Yellow, and Green will be determined. These ratings will be incorporated in the Fund Performance Report. The Fund Complex Corporate Ratings will be determined periodically. i. Red Fund Complex Corporate Rating — A fund complex or any of its respective funds may be placed on the Red Fund Complex Corporate Rating and may be terminated or disqualified from participating in the Plan if that fund complex is determined by a court or appropriate regulatory agency or the fund complex admits to having allowed regulatory violations or corporate infractions in its funds by its employees (officers or portfolio managers) of the complex. The occurrence of such activity indicates a lack of supervision or control at the fund complex level. In such event, depending on the severity of the violation or infraction, the Board may determine the fund(s) shall be terminated even if such activity was not found to have occurred in a fund used by the Plan but elsewhere in the fund complex. If the decision is to terminate the fund or the fund complex for this issue, the Board will use its best efforts to continue to monitor the fund or fund complex, which may include meetings with the fund complex. Because of the ongoing monitoring, the Board may determine at any time in the future that the fund complex has addressed the abuses and may remove the fund complex from the Red Rating making the fund complex eligible for consideration for inclusion in the Plan. If removed from the Red Rating the fund complex shall be re -rated. ii. Yellow Fund Complex Corporate Rating — A fund or fund complex will be put on the Yellow Fund Complex Corporate Rating watch list if the fund complex is charged by a court or appropriate regulatory agency or admits to regulatory violations or corporate infractions in its funds. While a fund is on the watch list, no action shall be taken to terminate or replace the fund. The Board, however, will use its best efforts to periodically monitor the fund or fund complex to determine its appropriateness for inclusion in the Plan. Such monitoring may include meetings with the fund complex to determine if the fund should continue on the watch list as a Yellow Rating or should be re -rated. iii. Green Fund Complex Corporate Rating — A fund or fund complex that has not been implicated in any regulatory violations of infractions nor has admitted to committing such activities. City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105 6 Original adoption: June 2, 1999 Revision: October 31, 2005 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT Definitions • Balanced Fund -- A fund that invests its assets in a combination of asset classes including money market, bonds, preferred stock, and common stock with the intention to provide both growth and income. Also known as an asset allocation fund. • Bond -- A debt investment with which the investor loans money to an entity (company or government) that borrows the funds for a defined period of time at a specified interest rate. • Equity - Stock or other security representing an ownership interest. • Fixed Income Security -- An investment that provides a return in the form of fixed periodic payments and eventual return of principle at maturity. • Fund -- A security such as a closed or open end registered investment company (i.e., a mutual fund) or other commingled or pooled funds consisting of a portfolio of assets, including Equities, Bonds or other securities in which each holder participates in the gain or loss of the entire portfolio. • Growth Stock - Stock in a company whose earnings are expected to grow at an above average rate relative to the market. • International Fund - A Fund that can invest in the Stock bonds or other securities of companies located anywhere outside the U.S. • Large -Cap Stock - Stock issued by companies with a market capitalization over $5 billion. • Mid -Cap Stock -- Stock issued by companies with a market capitalization of between $1 billion and $5 billion. • Record Keeper Third Party Administrator providing primary services of. 1. Trustee/Custodial Services — Take custody of all plan assets, maintain complete trust accounting records, and provide monthly trust reconciliation statements. 2. Investment Funds Selection/Retention — Provide advice and counseling to City Department of Finance and Plan Investment Committee on performance reviews of existing funds, recommendations on design of menu of funds, and advice and information on initial selection, retention or replacement of existing funds, and periodic (i.e., quarterly) ongoing monitoring of Plan funds against array of industry benchmarks and performance targets. City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105 Original adoption: June 2, 1999 Revision: October 31, 2005 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT 3. Participant Services — Provide adequate administrative support to provide plan information on an individual and group basis. 4. Administrative Services — Provide the City with quarterly consolidated account statements; investment performance summaries; assistance with negotiating reduction or elimination of certain fund expenses; and notification, updates, interpretation, and research of Section 457 plan issues. Management systems necessary for the administration of the Plan and accurate financial accounting shall be maintained. Meetings with the City as required to review the Plan's status, resolve problems, and discuss relevant issues. 5. Education Services — At various locations, provide educational seminars on a variety of investment and financial planning topics. Produce and distribute newsletters, with materials suited for a broad spectrum of investment expertise. 6. Hardship Services — Provide explanation and information to participants requesting application for a hardship withdrawal; begin immediate research of each received request; obtain supporting documentation; and prepare a written recommendation to the City for either denying or approving the request. • Small Cap Stock -- Stock issued by companies with a market capitalization less than $1 billion. • Stable Value Fund -- A Fund that invests in bonds and other fixed income securities with a goal of protecting the stability of the principal. • Value Stock - A stock in a company that tends to trade at a lower price relative to its fundamentals (i.e., dividend, earnings, sales, etc) and thus is considered undervalued. Common characteristics of such stocks include high dividend yield, low price -to -book ratio and low price -to -earnings ratio. POLICY STATEMENT: This Policy Statement has been formulated by the Board based on consideration of a wide range of policies, and describes the prudent investment process that the Board deems most appropriate for the Plan. The Board shall review this Policy Statement at least annually. The Board may amend this Policy Statement, as it deems advisable from time to time. City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105 $ Original adoption: June 2, 1999 Revision: October 31, 2005 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT AGREEMENT: This Policy Statement was adopted by the Board on October 31, 2005, supersedes any previously negotiated Investment Policy Statements, and shall remain in force until amended or revoked. Signed lkl);11,111A 3 664' --, Board Chairperson Date City of Virginia Beach Deferred Compensation Plan Investment Policy 10105 9 Original adoption: June 2, 1999 Revision: October 31, 2005 -23- Item V-11 a/b ORDINANCES ITEM # 54571 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Wood, City Council DEFERRED INDEFINITEL Y : Ordinance re EXCESS PROPERTY adjacent to the Fire Training Center: a. DECLARE City -owned land at rear of Seatack Elementary School as excess property b. AUTHORIZE the purchase of 9.3 acres by: (i) Exchange of a one (1) acre parcel (ii) Purchase 8.3 acre parcel Voting: 9-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay. - None Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan and Peter W. Schmidt November 1, 2005 ti7Be'� t�'wv� JJ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Seatack School/Fire Training Center Property MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: Fame Liquidation Land Trust (1990) ("Fame") is the owner of a 9.3-acre tract of land adjacent to the Fire Training Center. The property is suitable for expansion of the Fire Training Center and location of a FEMA storage facility. The property owner is willing to sell the property to the City. Ocean Breeze Fun Park (OB Land, LLC) ("Ocean Breeze") — an affiliate of Fame, encroaches into a 1-acre parcel of land owned by the City adjacent to the Seatack Elementary School property. The City with the agreement of the principals of Fame and Ocean Breeze, proposes to purchase the 9.3 acre tract adjacent to the Fire Training Center (1) by exchanging the 1 acre encroached property adjacent to Seatack Elementary to Ocean Breeze for 1 acre of the property adjacent to the Fire Training Center and (2) by purchasing the remaining 8.3 acres at City assessed value. This matter was deferred from its original Council Meeting date of November 1, 2005 because it needed to be re -advertised. ■ Considerations: Declare the encroached 1 ± acre in excess of the City's needs, allowing Ocean Breeze to keep its encroachments in place. Accept 1 acre adjacent to the Fire Training Center in exchange, and purchase the remaining 8.3 acres from owner for the city tax assessment of $106,585. The source of funding is CIP 3-368 Various Site Acquisitions. ■ Public Information: Advertisement for Public Hearing, for Excess Property and advertisement of Council Agenda. ■ Alternatives: Require Ocean Breeze to remove encroachments and not sell 1± acre to it and not purchase 9.3 acres adjacent to Fire Training Center for expansion. ■ Recommendations: Staff recommends conveyance of 1± acre to Ocean Breeze in exchange for 1 acre adjacent to the Fire Training Center and purchase of the remaining 8.3 acres adjacent to the Fire Training Center for $106,585. ■ Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map, Summary of Terms Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works 5tr City Manager:C�r 5 l�, , '�,� a V, I ORDINANCE NO. 2 3 4 AN ORDINANCE (1) DECLARING AS EXCESS 5 CERTAIN CITY -OWNED PROPERTY 6 LOCATED AT THE REAR OF SEATACK 7 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND (2) s AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 9.3 9 ACRES BY (A) EXCHANGE OF A ONE ACRE 10 PARCEL AND (B) PURCHASE OF THE 11 REMAINING 8.3 ACRES OF PROPERTY 12 ADJACENT TO THE FIRE TRAINING 13 CENTER 14 15 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach (the "City") is the owner of a parcel of real property 16 containing approximately 59.4± acres, which property is identified and depicted in blue on the 17 attached Exhibit A and includes the site of Seatack Elementary School (the "School Property"); 18 WHEREAS, the City is also the owner of a parcel of real property containing approximately 19 74 acres, which property is identified and depicted in blue on the attached Exhibit A and includes the 20 site of the City's Fire Training Center; 21 WHEREAS, OB Land, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company ("OB Land"), operating as 22 Ocean Breeze Fun Park, is the owner of a parcel of real property which abuts the School Property 23 and is identified and depicted in green on the attached Exhibit A; 24 WHEREAS, OB Land's improvements encroach on to approximately one acre of the School 25 Property (the "Excess Property") as shown in red on the attached Exhibit A; 26 WHEREAS, OB Land has requested that the City of Virginia Beach declare as excess and 27 convey to OB Land the Excess Property; 28 WHEREAS, Edward S. Garcia, Jr., Trustee of the Fame Liquidation Land Trust (1990) 29 ("Fame") is the owner of a certain parcel of real property containing approximately 9.3 ± acres (the 30 "Fame Property"), which property is also identified and depicted in green on the attached Exhibit A 31 and abuts the City's Fire Training Center; 32 WHEREAS, the City has identified the Fame Property as a suitable and appropriate site for 33 the expansion of the Fire Training Center and for the location of a FEMA storage facility; 34 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach, OB Land and Fame have agreed to the terms of 35 a proposed exchange of the Excess Property for the Fame Property pursuant to an Exchange 3 6 Agreement, a summary of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Exchange Agreement"); 37 WHEREAS, the Exchange Agreement includes the payment by the City to the owner of 38 the Fame Property of $106,585 (the "Equalization Payment") which is the difference in assessed 3 9 values between the Excess Property and the Fame Property; and 40 WHEREAS, sufficient funding exists in CEP 3-368 Various Site Acquisitions to pay the 41 Equalization Payment. 42 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF 43 THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 44 45 DECLARATION OF EXCESS PROPERTY 46 47 1. That the approximately 1-acre of real property owned by the City of Virginia 48 Beach identified and depicted in red on the attached Exhibit A (the "Excess Property") is hereby 49 declared to be in excess of the needs of the City. 50 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the transfer of the Excess Property to 51 OB Land, LLC to be incorporated into Ocean Breeze Fun Park. 52 ACCEPTANCE OF FAME PROPERTY 53 AND PAYMENT OF EQUALIZATION PAYMENT 54 2 7 55 3. That the City Council hereby authorizes the acceptance from Edward S. 56 Garcia, Jr., Trustee of the Fame Liquidation Land Trust (1990) of approximately 9.3 acres identified 57 and depicted in green on the attached Exhibit A (the "Fame Property") in exchange for the Excess 58 Property. 59 4. That the City Council further authorizes payment from CIP 3-368 Various Site 60 Acquisitions of the amount of $106,585 (the "Equalization Payment") to the owner of Fame 61 Property, representing the difference in assessed values between the Excess Property and the Fame 62 Property. 63 EXCHANGE AGREEMENT 64 5. The City Council hereby approves the terms of the property exchange 65 described herein and authorizes the City Manager to execute a Property Exchange Agreement, a 66 summary of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 67 6. That the City Manager or his designee is further authorized to execute all other 68 documents that may be necessary or appropriate in connection with the property exchange described 69 herein, including, without limitation, a deed of conveyance for the Excess Property and the 70 acceptance of the deed for the Fame Property, so long as such documents are customary in real 71 estate exchange transactions and are acceptable to the City Manager and the City Attorney. 72 This Ordinance shall be effective from the date of its adoption. 73 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day 74 of , 2005. THIS ORDINANCE REQUIRES AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THREE -FOURTHS OF ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ELECTED TO COUNCIL. 3 CA9520 R-6 F:\Data\ATY\OID\REAL ESTATE\Excess\Seatack-Fire Training CA9520\ord v6.doc October 26, 2005 Approved as to Content: gws C. kt�lic Works Approved as to Legal Sufficiency M, .s EXHIBIT A Exhibit B SUMMARY OF TER EXCHANGE OF EXCESS CITY PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE REAR OF SEATACK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CITY OBLIGATIONS: • City conveys approximately 1.07± acres ("Excess Property") located at rear of Seatack Elementary School to OB Land, Inc. for incorporation into Ocean Breeze Fun Park • City accepts conveyance from Edward S. Garcia, Jr., Trustee Fame Liquidation Land Trust (1990) ("Fame") of 9.3± acres located adjacent to City's Fire Training Center ("Fame Property") • City pays $106,585 equalization payment (representing tax assessment differential between Excess Property and Fame Property) to Fame FAME/OB LAND OBLIGATIONS: • Fame conveys Fame Property to City of Virginia Beach and accepts $106,585 equalization payment • OB Land, LLC accepts Excess Property and incorporates Excess Property into Ocean Breeze Fun Park by resubdividing and eliminating all interior lot lines. • OB Land, LLC to relocate 6 foot fence encroaching into City's 50' drainage easement on Seatack Elementary School Property rot �7 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM , ITEM: An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Lease Space at the Virginia Beach Farmers Market MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: The Farmers Market has been serving Virginia Beach and its citizens for almost three decades. A variety of businesses lease space at the Market. ■ Considerations: The Code of Virginia requires all leases of City property to be approved by City Council. The proposed lease for FLS Corporation t/a Nesting Box is for renewal of retail space rental. ■ Public Information: A public hearing is required and has been advertised. ■ Recommendation: The Farmers Market management team recommends the approval of the lease renewal. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Summary of Terms Recommended Action: Adopt ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Agriculture r City Manager: � , 1 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY 2 MANAGER TO LEASE SPACE AT THE 3 VIRGINIA BEACH FARMERS MARKET 4 5 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach has leased spaces at 6 the Farmers Market since its inception; 7 WHEREAS, FLS Corporation, t/a Nesting Box wishes to lease a 8 space at the Farmers Market; and 9 WHEREAS, a public hearing concerning the proposed lease has 10 been advertised and conducted. 11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 12 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 13 That the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized 14 on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach to enter into a lease 15 agreement from December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2008 with 16 FLS Corporation, t/a Nesting Box for Spaces #1 and #2 at the 17 Farmers Market. A summary of the material terms of such lease 18 is hereby attached. 19 Adopted by the City Council of Virginia Beach, Virginia on 20 this day of , 2005. APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Agriculture Departure t City Attorney's ffice CA9792 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Farmers Market ord (2) R-2 November 2, 2005 SUMMARY OF MATERIAL TERMS LEASE FOR RETAIL SPACE AT THE VIRGINIA BEACH FARMERS MARKET LESSOR: City of Virginia Beach LESSEE: FLS Corporation t/a The Nesting Box TERM: December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2008 RENT: $538 per month RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LESSEE: • Use leased space for retail enterprise consistent with the purpose of the Farmers Market. Specifically, Lessee will sell handcrafted birdhouses, bird feed and related items. • Maintain leased space, including heating and air conditioning units; pay all assessed fees. • Purchase commercial general liability insurance. • Keep business open during hours of Farmers Market operation. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY: • Maintain common areas of the Farmers Market and structural elements of the leased space. • Pay for water, sewer and electrical service. TERMINATION: City may terminate lease by providing Lessee sixty (60) days notice. o �I ss eF1c ti A I LOCATION MAP SHOWING ENCROACHMENT REQUEST FOR ROUSE I LLC AND COMP GPINS 1467-82-5496 and 1467-82-4604 SCALE: 1" = 200' PREPARED BY PM/ ENG. DRAFT. 12-OCT-2005 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Encroachment request into a portion of the City's right of way known as Rouse Drive from the adjoining property owners, Rouse I LLC, a Virginia limited liability company and Comp, a Virginia general partnership. MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: Rouse I LLC and Comp (affiliated companies) have requested permission to install and maintain 150', 4" PVC conduit for telephone and computer lines into a portion of the City's right of way known as Rouse Drive. ■ Considerations: City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the agreement. There are similar encroachments in portions of the City's rights of way. ■ Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda. ■ Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as presented, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by Council. ■ Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. ■ Attachments: Ordinance, Agreement, Location Map, Plat and Pictures. Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance. Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate "ya� � City Manager: . I Requested by Department of Public Works 2 3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A 4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A 5 PORTION OF THE CITY'S RIGHT- 6 OF -WAY KNOWN AS ROUSE DRIVE 7 BY ROUSE I LLC, A VIRGINIA 8 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND 9 COMP, A VIRGINIA GENERAL 10 PARTNERSHIP, THEIR ASSIGNS 11 AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE 12 13 WHEREAS, Rouse I LLC, a Virginia limited liability company 14 and Comp, a Virginia general partnership (affiliated companies) 15 desire to install and maintain a 1501, 4" diameter PVC conduit 16 for telephone and computer lines within a portion of the City' s 17 right-of-way known as Rouse Drive. 18 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2- 19 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to 20 authorize temporary encroachments into a portion of the City's 21 right-of-way subject to such terms and conditions as Council may 22 prescribe. 23 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 24 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 25 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof 26 contained in §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, 27 as amended, Rouse I LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, 28 and Comp, a Virginia general partnership, their assigns and 29 successors in title are authorized to install and maintain a 30 temporary encroachment for a 150', 4" PVC conduit for telephone PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(C) (4) THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of G� , 2001—�;, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGfNIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and ROUSE I LLC, A VIRGINIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND COMP, A VIRGINIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, THEIR ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WITNESSETH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee are the owners of those certain lots, tracts, or parcels of land designated and described as "NOW OR FORMERLY CLARENCE HARRIS," as shown on that certain plat entitled "PLAT OF PROPERTY TO BE CONVEYED TO WINSTON G. SNIDER + SAM L. HAKIM KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA," and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach in Map Book 102, at page 18; and designated and described as "#5034 & #5032," as shown on that certain plat entitled "PHYSICAL SURVEY PROPERTY KNOWN AS 95034 & 5032 ROUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR DENNIS R. STUVER," said plat recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 2246, at page 1020; and also designated and described as ".62 Ac.," as shown on that certain plat entitled "PROPERTY OF ALFRED MCCLENNEY LOCATED NEAR EUCLID — IN - PRINCESS ANNE CO., VA.," said plat recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 339, at page 364, and being further designated and described as 5033 Rouse Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462, GPIN 1467-82-5496 and also GPIN 1467-82-4604; GPIN: NO GPIN ASSIGNED TO RIGHT OF WAY 1467-82-5496 and 1467-82-4604 WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to install and maintain 150', of 4" diameter PVC conduit for telephone and computer lines, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, in installing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City right of way known as Rouse Drive "The Encroachment Area"; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachment Area. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "CONDUIT ROUTING PLAN OF PROPERTY OF ROUSE 1, LLC," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The 2 Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit and have approved a traffic control plan before commencing work in The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees that no open cut of the public roadway will be allowed except under extreme circumstances. Requests for exceptions must be submitted to the Highway Operations Division, Department of Public Works, for final approval. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Office of Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachment Area. 3 It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a right cat way permit, the Grantee must post a bond or other security, in accordance with their engineer's cost estimate, to the Office of Planning Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment must conform to the minimum setbacks�requirements, as established by the City. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit for review and approval, a survey of The Encroachment Area, certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachment sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary 11 Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of wha-t would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Rouse I LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, has caused this agreement to be executed by Robert S. Miller, III, Manager of Rouse I LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, with due authority to bind said limited liability company, and the said COMP, a Virginia general partnership, has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name on its behalf by Robert S. Miller, III and W. R. Stephenson Jr., partners, with due authority to bind said partnership. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager Wi ROUSE I LLC, A VIRGINIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPA-NY Robert S. Miller, III, Manager COMP, A VIRGINIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP PC STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: Robert S. Miller, III, Partner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 200_, by DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: BEACH. CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 200, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA Notary Public IN My Commission Expires: STATE OF CITY/Gnrv4r OF Y "jE6n'rt,'e4e to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this / day of 6 k, 2005 , by Robert S. Miller, III, Manager, on behalf of Rouse I LLC, a Virginia limited liability company. My Commission Expires: 06/67 STATE OF V,',,es,,nI A CITY/696� OF-�Lla-&Ac4 -wit: l Notary Public �}� The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /( day of A-10'dek , 200 5 , by Robert S. Miller, III and W. R. Stephenson, Jr., Partners, on behalf of Comp, a Virginia general partnership. My Commission Expires: 9/3D�o'7 Notary Public APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM S NTU v 6 , rt DEPARTMENT X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\Rouse Drive - 4 inch conduit - PHAWgreement Encroachment. Frm. doc 7 §Ba¥ |! m ®�- m# #% Kk¥` \\� % f '*- �,#«/-- k §! wW ~` � •; . s§ \�� ® $% \LM N >« \; § \ )\/ :�a»\;w . �. /~0§V 4)\d &�k % (%# ! m t m -- .��l. (AJIY0*) :M+o2 ,w , lvo ) � f k! § m � �@ f z \� �k§ � \� | � ■ ■§.a || � �- / � hw |� � ED 0 �o 0 �� R r�c�:, tj -� -* 7 � fir■ O.� �O Mw �6�� ? ENCROACHMENT REQUEST FOR CARE -A -LOT PET SUPPLY WAREHOUSE 1924 DIAMOND SPRINGS RD. GPIN 1469 16-5050 SCALE: 1" = 400' HKt—A—LLJI.UUN M.J.S. YKt YAKtU t3Y F'/W LNU C:ADD DEPT. OCT. 27, 2005 4 ate. p,\� �wM y�7 ft . �> CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Encroachment request into a portion of the City's right of way known as Diamond Springs Road from the adjoining property owners, R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company. MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company has requested permission to install and maintain 135'± of 4" diameter conduit for network cables into a portion of the City's right of way known as Diamond Springs Road. ■ Considerations: City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachment and has recommended approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the agreement. There are similar encroachments in portions of the City's rights of way. ■ Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda. ■ Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as presented, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by Council. ■ Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. ■ Attachments: Ordinance, Agreement, Location Map, Plat and Pictures. Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance. Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate �'v 'f City Manager: �.� U- I Requested by Department of Public Works 2 3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A 4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A 5 PORTION OF THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF- 6 WAY KNOWN AS DIAMOND SPRINGS 7 ROAD BY R. M. C LARKE, L.L.C., A 8 VIRGINIA LIMITED LIABILITY 9 COMPANY, ITS ASSIGNS AND 10 SUCCESSORS IN TITLE 11 12 WHEREAS, R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability 13 company, desires to install and maintain a 135'±, 4" diameter 14 conduit for network cables within a portion of the City's right-of- 15 way known as Diamond Springs Road. 16 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 17 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1-950, as amended, to authorize 18 temporary encroachments into a portion of the City's right-of-way 19 subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 21 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 22 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof 23 contained in §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as 24 amended, R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability 25 company, and its assigns and successors in title,is authorized to 26 install and maintain a temporary encroachment for a 135'±, 4" 27 diameter conduit for network cables in a portion of the City's 28 right-of-way as shown on the map marked Exhibit "A" and entitled: 29 "ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT FOR CARE -A -LOT PET SUPPLY WAREHOUSE VIRGINIA 30 BEACH, VIRGINIA SEPTEMBER 21, 2005," a copy of which is on file in 31 the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a 32 more particular description; and 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment is expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, (the "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of 1 2005. APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS SITGNATURE DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM CITY ATTORNEY CA-9707 PREPARED: 11/1/05 X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\Care a Lot - 4 inch conduit - PHA\Ordinance Encroachment.Frm.doc F:IDataJATYIOIDIREAL ESTATE I Encroachments I PW Ordinances I CA9707 R. M. Clarke, LLC.doc 2 I Requested by Department of Public Works 2 3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A 4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A 5 PORTION OF THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF- 6 WAY KNOWN AS DIAMOND SPRINGS 7 ROAD BY R. M. CLARKE, L.L.C., A 8 VIRGINIA LIMITED LIABILITY 9 COMPANY, ITS ASSIGNS AND 10 SUCCESSORS IN TITLE 11 12 WHEREAS, R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability 13 company, desires to install and maintain a 135'±, 4" diameter 14 conduit for network cables within a portion of the City's right-of- 15 way known as Diamond Springs Road. 16 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 17 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize 18 temporary encroachments into a portion of the City's right-of-way 19 subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 21 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 22 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof 23 contained in §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as 24 amended, R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability 25 company, and its assigns and successors in titlelis authorized to 26 install and maintain a temporary encroachment for a 135'±, 4" 27 diameter conduit for network cables in a portion of the City's 28 right-of-way as shown on the map marked Exhibit "A" and entitled: 29 "ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT FOR CARE -A -LOT PET SUPPLY WAREHOUSE VIRGINIA 30 BEACH, VIRGINIA SEPTEMBER 21, 2005," a copy of which is on file in 31 the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a 32 more particular description; and 33 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment is 34 expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained 35 in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and R. M. 36 Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, (the 37 "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by 38 reference; and 39 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his 40 authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; 41 and 42 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in 43 effect until such time as R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited 44 liability company and the City Manager or his authorized designee 45 execute the Agreement. 46 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 47 Virginia, on the day of 1 2005. APPROVED (AS yTO CONTENTS GNATURE DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM A" cc� — CITY ATTORNEY CA-9707 PREPARED: 11/1/05 X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\Care a Lot - 4 inch conduit - PHA\Ordinance Encroachment.Frm.doc F:IDataJATYIOIDIREAL ESTATEIEncroachmentslPW OrdinancesICA9707 R. M. Clarke, LLC.doc 2 PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(C) (4) THIS AGREEMENT, made this' day of iLl�-e1--k�-`, 2005 by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and R. M. CLARKE, L.L.0 , a Virginia limited liability company, ITS/HIS/THEIR/HER HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WITNESSETH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "Parcel B-1 B, 2.602 AC." as shown on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL B-1, PLAT SHOWING SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL B ON SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF CHRIS G. CHRISTOPOULOS & CONSTANTINE G. THOMAS, M.B. 45, P. 17", and being further designated and described as 1924 Diamond Springs Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455; WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain 135' f of 4" diameter conduit containing network cables, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City right of way known as Diamond Springs Road "The Encroachment Area"; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachment Area. GPIN 1469-16-5050 1 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT FOR CARE -A -LOT PET SUPPLY WAREHOUSE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA SEPTEMBER 21, 2005," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. Providing however, nothing herein shall prohibit the City from immediately removing, or ordering the Grantee to remove, all or any part of the Temporary Encroachment from The Encroachment Area in the event of an emergency or public necessity. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. 2 It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney' s fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit and have approved a traffic control plan before commencing work in The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees that no open cut of the public roadway will be allowed except under extreme circumstances. Requests for exceptions must be submitted to the Highway Operations Division, Department of Public Works, for final approval. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Office of Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a right of way permit, the Grantee must post a bond or other security, in accordance with their engineer's cost estimate, to the Office of Planning Department. 3 It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit for review and approval, a survey of The Encroachment Area, certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachment sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is 11 allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said R. M. CLARKE, L.L.C. has caused this agreement to be executed by Mary Clarke , Manager of R. M. CLARKE, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, with due authority to bind said limited liability company. Further, that the City of Virginia has caused this agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By: City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company By: Mary Clarke, 44anager STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2005, by DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. My Commission Expires: CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED Notary Public 5 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2005, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. Notary Public My Commission Expires: S OF V 1 I'LJyV) 6 IT COUNTY OF V1lat4NI - & - to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 day of 2005, by Mary Clarke, Manager(Title) on behalf of R. M. Clarke, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company_ Notary Public My Commission Expires: -7 3 l APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS S GNATURE DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM AA — &�. SIGNATURE X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\Care a Lot - 4 inch conduit - PHA\Agreement.doc 0 0 0 E.. a E �a mQazo �nI i o m C WCY O 0 V >N NO) OL_afQE cl- N�ap =cvaf -F- oW o u Z�r- 0) u-u't - 0Qm c 03:0ww1=C t- > I I og I Z Li > af 08 z I S wl mire = z o� wri o l a ma °�QI uw)� 1 0 v- N � 13� cAo �U) �0I < d - 3 0a)m Y�IiIl1it~nI1i i oyaCLm maa o z I �'o�W 1 Z oIII III NiIIOf LO o U =I 0 wD�_U O O o�o> woU �CD N ^WHLO �mp zz X Zwo w L41O o 1 zm Qozo a z 3:0Zcnz I I 0 owo .� Lna:z Q J cn I I I wm UpwZ LO o I I I w�(if _j0ow o�� =ww Z :D i- cn = ■ ►= ,d U J co U L- 0 0 E U cu 0 C: W �J ■ 0 N (� d 0 d ` s a` C*05 5 C1 a 0 m �, z ao 0 0 v N N 0 0 Z 0 CL f � ski i� psi CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Add One Full -Time Employee Position and Transfer $44,134 From the Reserve for Contingencies to the FY 2005-06 Operating Budget of the City Attorney's Office MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: The City Attorney's Office currently dedicates two full time attorneys to representation of the Department of Human Services ("DHS"). These attorneys provide legal advice, training and support to 95 DHS social workers. In addition, they represent DHS in cases involving child abuse and neglect and elder abuse and neglect in both administrative proceedings and in the Circuit and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts. The DHS Child Protective Services Program and the Adult Protective Services Program have experienced a significant increase in workload in recent years and require increased attorney support. As a result of the increased demand for attorney services, the attorneys presently assigned are insufficient to meet the needs of DHS and the courts. Accordingly, we recommend the addition of a new attorney position to supplement the attorneys presently assigned. ■ Considerations: Attorney support for DHS has increased by 18% from Fiscal Year 2004 to present. DHS caseload trends between 2000 and 2004 suggest that the demand for attorney services will continue to increase beyond present levels. The two attorneys currently assigned manage a daily docket of between 5 and 20 cases in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, some of which are emergency hearings involving less than 24 hours notice. In addition, because there is an appeal of right to the Circuit Court, these same attorneys are often scheduled to appear in that court as well. Because of competing demands for their time, the attorneys are often scheduled to be in two or more courtrooms at the same time. This means that the Court, parties, witnesses and other counsel often must wait for the assigned City Attorney to appear before their case can proceed. ■ Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. ■ Alternatives: Council could decline to add the new position. In that case, the City Attorney's Office will continue to support DHS to the fullest extent possible with existing staff. 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ADD ONE FULL-TIME 2 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND TRANSFER 3 $44,134 FROM THE RESERVE FOR 4 CONTINGENCIES TO THE FY 2005-06 5 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE CITY 6 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 7 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 8 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 9 1. That an additional full-time attorney position is 10 hereby established in the City Attorney's FY 2005-06 Operating 11 Budget at a total cost of $44,134 for the remainder of this 12 fiscal year. 13 2. That $44,134 is hereby transferred to the City 14 Attorney's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget from the Reserve for 15 Contingencies to fund the position authorized by this ordinance. 16 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 17 Virginia, on the day of Approved as to Content %Managem t ervices CA9794 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\City Attorney REFTE Ord November 4, 2005 R-1 2005. Approved as to Legal Sufficiency 0 . City Attorney's Office ■ Recommendations: Approve the addition of a full-time employee position to provide additional attorney support to the Department of Human Services and transfer $44,134 from the reserve for contingencies to the FY 2005-06 operating budget for the City Attorney's Office. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: l City Manager: I� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate $2,500 from the Virginia Office of the Attorney General's TRIAD Crime Prevention Program and $1,000 from the Wal-Mart Foundation to the Police Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget for the Purchase of Project Lifesaver Equipment MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: The Virginia Office of the Attorney General's TRIAD Crime Prevention for Seniors Grant Program provides funds to help Virginia localities protect senior citizens from crime through education and prevention programs. The Virginia Office of the Attorney General awarded the City $2,500 in grant funds. This grant requires $250 of matching funds. The $250 of matching funds will be funded through the Crime Prevention Operating Budget. This is the second TRIAD grant that the Police Department has received. It will allow the Police Department to expand on initiatives developed as a result of the first grant. The Wal-Mart Foundation provides funds through the Safe Neighborhood Heroes Grant Program to help organizations promote a safer community. In 2004, the Wal-Mart Foundation awarded more than 80,000 grants, totaling $61 million. The Wal-Mart Foundation has awarded the City $1,000 in grant funds. The grant does not require any matching funds. The TRIAD and Wal-Mart Foundation grants will be used to purchase 9 transmitters, 9 battery testers, and 223 batteries, which will be used to start up a loan program of Project Lifesaver tracking equipment for low-income seniors at risk of wandering. ■ Considerations: A $250 cash match is required for the TRIAD grant. No matching funds are required for the Wal-Mart Foundation grant. ■ Public Information: Public information will be provided through the normal Council agenda process. ■ Recommendations: Accept and appropriate the TRIAD and Wal-Mart Foundation grant awards to the Police Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget. ■ Attachments: Ordinance and Grant Award Letters (2) Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Police Department City Manager. ( S V .-ZY80-�, 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE $2,500 2 FROM THE VIRGINIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 3 GENERAL TRIAD CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM AND 4 $1,000 FROM THE WAL-MART FOUNDATION TO THE 5 POLICE DEPARTMENT'S FY 2005-06 OPERATING 6 BUDGET FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROJECT LIFESAVER 7 EQUIPMENT 8 WHEREAS, the Police Department has identified $250 in matching 9 funds to support the Virginia Office of the Attorney General's 10 TRIAD Crime Prevention for Seniors grant. 11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 12 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 13 1. That $2,500 is hereby accepted from the Virginia Office 14 of the Attorney General and appropriated to the Police Department's 15 FY 2005-06 Operating Budget for the purchase of Project Lifesaver 16 equipment, with state revenue increased accordingly. 17 2. That $1,000 is hereby accepted from the Wal-Mart 18 Foundation and appropriated to the Police Department's FY 2005-06 19 Operating Budget for the purchase of Project Lifesaver equipment, 20 with donation revenue increased accordingly. 21 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 22 Virginia, on the day of , 2005. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of the City Council. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT J) Management Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Ef I, �, City Attorney's afice CA9795 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Triad Walmart ORD R-2 November 10, 2005 ya5 Office of the Attorney General Judith Williams Jagdmann Attorney General September 30, 2005 Mr. A.M. Jacocks, Jr. Chief of Police Police Headquarters 2509 Princess Anne Road Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Title: TRIAD Crime Prevention for Seniors Grant Program Dear Chief Jacocks: 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 804-786-2071 FAX 804-786-1991 _.yugmiR Relay Services 800-828-1120 7-1-1 OCT • i Congratulations, your organization has been selected to participate in the Office of the Attorney General TRIAD Crime Prevention for Seniors Grant Program. I am pleased to advise you tat grant number for the above -referenced grant program has been approved in the amount of $7 00.00-1n, state funds and $250.00 in local matching funds for a total award of $ . 750,00• Enclosed you will find a Statement of wa ant ev,rri and, Statement ..0 (•. . a e... _a • -• TO indicate your acceptance of the award and rnnriihcLnc„sign the award acceptance and return it to Jennifer Hasty, Director of TRIAD & Citizen Outreach, at the Office of the Attorney General (OAG). Please review the conditions carefully; as some require action on your part before we will release grant funds. When we receive documentation showing that you have complied with the conditions, you will be eligible to request reimbursement of grant funds awarded under this grant. A REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT form is included with this letter and should be used for this purpose. In addition to the Request for Reimbursement form, please submit the EDI PAYMENT AGREEMENT form that is included in this packet to the Office of the Attorney General and Department of Accounts in order to expedite fund transmittal. You may request reimbursement of funds at the same time you submit the documentation of compliance with the grant conditions, or at any time thereafter. However, we cannot process your request until we have received and approved all required information. Also, enclosed are the Post Award Instructions and Reporting Requirements. Please refer to and read this information carefully as it contains details on processing financial and progress reports, as well as requesting reimbursement for the awarded funds. We appreciate your interest in this grant program and will be happy to assist you any way we can to assure your project's success. If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Hasty at (804) 786-9516 or via email at i has tv0),oa tr. state. va . u s. Sincerely o <?a Judith William aglannn Enclosure cc: Marie Chiarizia, Lieutenant Patricia Phillips, Finance Director 09,, 26 2em 14: 20 7574163497 f AGES 02 P U. IN a IN 03 14 n 00 PD V4 I# co p�m 'Ad Nov 16 05 02:35p p.2 grant Application — Office of the Attorney General, 900 East Main Street, Rich mond, Virginia 23219 Grant Program: TRIAD —Commonwealth of Virginia Applicant: Virginia Beach Police Department Applicant Federal ID 540722061 Number: Jurisdiction(s) Virginia Beach, Va Served: Program Title: Crime Prevention for Seniors G rant Program Grant Period: October 1, 2005 to June 30, 2000 Pro ject Director - • Name: Marie Chiarizia A.M. Jacoc cs, Jr. Title: Lieutenant Chief of Po ice Address: Third Police Precinct Police Hew [quarters 926 Independence Blvd 2509 Princi ss Anne Rd Virginia Beach, VA 23453 Virginia Be ach, VA 23456 Phone: 757-219-2703 Fax: 757460-7566 E-mail: MchiarizQyb com 757-427-41 - 11 757-427-91 i3 ov.com Patricia Phillips Finance Director Municipal Center, B dg. 1 2401 Courthouse D ive Suite 220 Virginia Beach, VA :3456 7574274681 7574274302 rwhilllofi�vbc .col r Establish a start up Loaner Program to provide the tracking device of the Project Lifesaver trr nsmitters and equipment to seniors who have Alzheimer's disease or memory impairment, and are at risk of wandering from home, becoming lost, and not being able to find their way home. This pry gram will benefit clients who need the device and who cannot ai ford to purchase the equipment. Once; client no longer needs the equipment, it will then be assigned to another client. State Cash Personnel $ N/A $ N/A Consultants $ N/A $ N/A Travel/Subsistence $ N/A $ N/A Equipment $2,500.00 $250.00 Indirect Costs $0.00 $0.00 Suonlies/Other Operating Expenses $0.00 $0.00 Totals: 00 I $250.00 Grand Total: $2700.00 Nov 16 05 02:36p p.3 TRIAD Crime Prevention fo' Seniors Grant Program Sponsored by the Office o ` the Attorney General APPLICANT: Marie Chiarizia JURISDICTION(S) SERVED: Virginia [leach, Va J PROJECT TITLE: Crime Prevention fcir Seniors Grant AMOUNT OF FUNDING REQUESTED: $2,500.00 AMOUNT OF CASH MATCH BY LOCALITY: $250.00 (Must Be 10% of Requested Funding) PROJECT DESCRIPTION • How will funding be used? Document the need for this funding. • Explain the project's relevance to senior crir ie prevention and expected timeline for completion of the project • Detail history of project if it has been done b afore (success stories) • Detail any organizations/agencies that will collaborate to ensure the success of the iro Wandering is one of the most common, potBntially life threatening behavior: associated with Alzheimer's disease. Wancering involves leaving a safe environment, walking away and getting loss. Adults with Alzheimer's diseas a and related dementia or memory impairment wh o wander constitutes a critical emergency and a need for immediate searc i efforts by police and search an 1 rescue personnel. Tremendous resources will be called upon to find the mi: sing person because with each passing hour, th,: area to be searched grows exponentially and the risk of injury and death for the missing person increas �s significantly. The probability they will not s urvive this incident escalates to ;0% if a missing Alzheimer's patient is not found within 12 hours. The average sl !arch effort lasts approximately 9 hours and the vfindow of successfully locating tl ie missing Alzheimer wanderer diminishes ra fiidly for these types of searches. There are approximately 26,000 people in H 3mpton Roads who have been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. In Virginia Beach it is estimated that o er 6500 people have Alzheimer's disease and '10% of this group will wander fro n their homes. That means 650 seniors are at -risk of becoming lost, or being fi irther victimized, while they are lost in our community. Such individuals are unaw� re of their situations and they leave few verifiabli� clues when they leave. A signif cant number of individuals will walk into areas a nd cannot get out. They do not c all out for help and will not respond when peol)le call out to them and many wii die as a result of exposure to the elements. Nov 16 05 02:3Gp p.4 In May 2005, the Virginia Beach Police Department partnered with Project Lifesaver, International to be able to provide a pro -active involvement with individuals who suffer from Alzheimer's di::ease. Project Lifesaver is desig led to provide security and comfort for the family while safe guarding the memory impaired and those who are least able to help themselves. This effort provi Jes personalized transmitters to people who are at risk of wandering away from home and becoming lost. The transmitter emits a constant radio signal that has bi -en powered by a small battery. They have been in operation since 1999 trainin I police and sheriff departments in this program. There has been 1165 searcl es to date and all 1165 individuals have been found alive and in less than 30 mint tes. If the client wanders away from home, a sp acialized team of officers from Vi •ginia Beach Police responds. Having been trainod in the unique tracking equipm ant and search techniques they will respond to all cases of the lost person in th s program and search for them. This equipment is being provided to citizens for a minimal fee of $376.35 for one year. For a little more than a $1.00 a day a 3ch participant will receive a personalized transmitter and battery tester that ensures the equipment is al, vays working. However, many Senior citizens at a on a fixed income and cannot; fford this extra expense. Insurance companies zind Medicaid do not cover the co ;t of this vital piece of equipment and we are loc eking for resources to be able to provide the assistance needed to obtain thi s equipment. The grant funding would be used to start ul) a loan program with the initial purchase for transmitters and battery testers and a supply of batteries for tt ose who cannot afford the equipment. Once a i:urrent client no longer needs the tracking equipment, it will be reassigned to others who are entering into the program. The transmitters and battery testers can be used for several year., and can be assigned to clients with the greaten: risk of wandering. By establish ng a loan program it will ensure those who are most in need and cannot afford th program will be able to obtain this equipment. BUDGET DETAIL • Breakdown of what the requested will be used for Purchase 9 transmitters @ $223.65 ea. Purchase 9 battery testers @ $ 52.50 ea. Purchase 33 batteries @ $ 6.50 ea. _ $2012.85 $ 472.50 = $ 214.50 $2699.85 Nov 16 05 02:36p p.5 TARGET POPULATION • How many seniors are expected to benefit fr :)m the project? The direct benefit will be to 9 individuals at a time. It is estimated that the program could assist 9 to 81 people. It will be dependent on the duration of he time they each spend in the program. FUTURE GOALS • Describe how the project could be maintained in future years if grant funding is not available The purchase of this equipment ensures th; it it will be available and designa- ed for those individuals who need assistance in the future. t 1 x '�Sr•i CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate $605,866 from the State to the Clerk of the Circuit Court's FY 2005-06 Technology Trust Fund MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: The Clerk of the Circuit Court receives funding for technology by charging fees. In the past the State awarded this money to the Clerk's Office through the State budget, so the City was not responsible for appropriating this funding. The State Compensation Board has changed this procedure, and the State now reimburses the City for technology expenses rather than appropriating the funding directly to the Clerk's Office through its State budget. The City has received $605,866 in additional revenue for the Clerk's Office to cover the cost of court technology for Fiscal Year 2005- 06. ■ Considerations: This appropriation will not require any additional money from the City. ■ Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal council agenda process. ■ Recommendations: Accept and Appropriate $605,866 in State Revenue to the Clerk of the Circuit Court's Technology Trust Fund. ■ Attachments: Compensation Board's Authorization of Funds Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval of Attached Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Clerk of the Circuit Court City Manager. --- 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE 2 $605,866 FROM THE STATE TO THE CLERK OF 3 THE CIRCUIT COURT'S FY 2005-06 4 TECHNOLOGY TRUST FUND 5 6 WHEREAS, the State of Virginia Compensation Board has 7 changed it's reimbursement format for the Clerk of the Circuit 8 Court's Technology Trust Fund. 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 10 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 11 That $605,866 in additional State revenue is hereby 12 appropriated to the Clerk of the Circuit Court's FY 2005-06 13 Technology Trust Fund to cover the cost of court technology with 14 State revenue increased accordingly. 15 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 16 Virginia on the day of Approved as to Content Management Services , 2005. Approved as to Legal Sufficiency A" City Attorney' Office CA9800 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Clerk Tech. Trust Fund ORD R-2 November 10, 2005 11- 9-05; 3:17PM; ;456 5586 # 2/ 2 11/01/05 Sel: Clerks Equipment/Service 757-427-8817 YY/MM: 05/10 Loc_ 810 Off: 321 Officer Name: TINA E. SINNEN IT Equipment Description Quantity Unit Cost Service Vendor Service Description Equipment Services Totl: 0.00 + 0.00 = LOC Combined Total: Totl: 0.00 + 0.00 = CB Combined Total: Authorized: Exp to Date: Aut: 66814.00 Aut: 539052.00 605866.00 0.00 YTD: 0.00 YTD: 0.00 0.00 Bal: 66814.00 Bal: 539052.00 0.00 SCBRUM23 Gross Cost 0.00 0.00 Balance: 605866.00 605866.00 . 0.00 N Q '� N R w E c m ECL cD CL N E.. O '9 0 EQ a�iv p p ow raU JS z N d d O Z -z d N 0 C M yo Q y p N R 3 7 � xC��^y oo� N :vat .yG� Q cLi al= O a) m M F w i3C C t/1 Z m oa w Q n c0LD z m E a' 5r a. n o E �cwav a) 0n �m a U H J � � 69 0 O d E o � w tp qq C 0 E Oo cc € c _ pj c o U 7 r-g m a3c 0 E-A -i o ti wvom m sa� oa'Y�'aEi Et�d�L at �EC�so CV M OCG I� a00� -:,4'i"i I7 all: Ir.2iR LO >-I>-I>-1 >-I d >-1 >-I >-I d >-1 d d d } -I -1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1m -1-1-1 m -1 ZI >-I ZI d ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI A ZI ZI ZI I r.1 d d d d d d d d d I d d d A d t�l MI �I UI co w r- mI C> �I Z 0 Q 0 LL Z LL 0 W 00 LL Z N K. PLANNING 1. Application of K & SONS, INC. for the Modification of the Indian Lakes Land Use Plan to allow a gasoline station in conjunction with a convenience store at 1196 Indian Lakes Boulevard (Deferred by City Council on October 11 and November 8, 2005). (DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE ) DEFERRED: November 8, 2005 RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL 2. Application of DONALD G. PRATT for a Modi cation of Pro, f ers from the Conditional Change of Zoning granted by the City Council on April 11, 2000, re an additional office building at 2244 General Booth. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 3. Petition for a Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO), Subdivision for WILLIAM L. PAGE, to vacate an existing property line of two adjacent properties, remove an existing single family home and resubdivide creating two new lots of equal size at 1544 West Little Neck Road. (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 4. Application of BLUE HORSESHOE TATTOO V, Ltd. for a Conditional Use Permit re a tattoo and body piercing establishment at 71-125 South Witchduck Road. (DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Application of SPRINTCOM, INC. for a Conditional Use Permit re development of a communication tower and maintenance cabinets at 1000 North Great Neck Road. (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 6. Application of STEVEN KREVER for a Chankof Zoning District Classification from 0-2 Office District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District at 3712 South Plaza Trail re a delicatessen. (Deferred by City Council on October 11, 2005) (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL) DEFERRED: October 11, 2005 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL AMENDMENTS to REORDAIN and REPEAL the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) a. § 221.1 re specific standards for conditional uses within certain Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ); and, ADD Article 18, §§1800 — 1807 re discretionary development applications and sound attenuation requirements in buildings and structures in certain AICUZ b. Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance (Appendix 1) re sound attenuation requirements in certain buildings, structures and required disclosures in residential real estate transactions C. Official zoning map by designation and incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area d. Comprehensive Plan by the incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area Map C. Comprehensive Plan, Chapters 1 (Introduction and General Strategy), 2 (Strategic Growth), 3 (Primary Residential Areas), 5 (Princess Anne/Transition Area) and 9 (Natural Resources and Environmental Quality Plan), Appendix of the Policy Document and Princess Anne Corridor Plan to incorporate provisions of AICUZ, the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study and AICUZ Overlay Ordinance DEFERRED: RECOMMENDATION: October 25, 2005 Defer to December 20, 2005 '4 L A I.; "A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING !1,111, WIII(Ip'-11 C", November 22, 2005. at 6:00 DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE Donald G. Application: rvloditical,�,_)n of Proffers rl­-) Ilie Conditional Cl),irir.c, ,)f Zoning front granted by the City Colincli Or) !NP 11 1 ", 2­(R) J7 '241 'general Booth Boulevard (GPIN )41.40665720()00) The Coniprehensive. Plan identr ties this site as being a 1)10 of the Primary Residential Aw,-i-South General R-)oth Cotridot, suitable for appropriately ocatecl s )(inurh,in residential and non-residential uses con,, teat v,,,li the j of the Comprehensive Plan. The ;-,U, oo-,,e of Itii- !iI_,dification is to develop an adflition(ii office. o[I ":Ii_ Idt". DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN Appeal to Deci;jons of Administrative Officers in regard to certain el(inen­ts of the Subdivision Ordinance. SUO(I'VISIMI lij, Wtlhatn L. Pap N�, .e. at West Little Neck Road (GPI 148915035590000; 14895046060000). SjwritCow, Inc. Api)llcali,,)n: Coriditi, r mal F�Use Permit for a Road iGPIN oininunic,ition Town cir 1000 Nort (� ,al Necl, 40813887200001. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE Blue Horseshoe Tattoo V. Ltd. Application: Conditional Use P-limit f(-), o tattoo and body piercing establishment a, 1 ' 25 Road (GPHNI 1467737757000(1)). DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL Yt,veri ",'(Fives Application: Chatil'—le of-Zoninp- District Clas- (;cation fr_1W, )-" Office to Conditional B-1 Nefg� ,)ornood 0 iciness a 1,712 South Plaza Trail it IGPIN 1_4g75(._)159 70000, Jl;e Comprehensive Plan designate') this site as being part of the Primary Residential Area, suit for appropriately located suburban residential ir,cj ri,w-iesideiiIial uses consistent with the policies of th,,� Cow, ptt�hen,:;ive Pan. The purpose of this rezoning is to cill')w a delicatessen; and other uses on the property (Deferred tw (,;,v Cotwt.;l on Oclohei I'l, 20un) All Interested citizens are invited to attend RI Hodges Smith. N11%1C City Clerk. Copies of the proposed ordinances, iesolotiui,s aiiJ ments are on file and may be examined in the Depar7w(�Iil of Planning. For information call 427-4621. If you are physically disabled or visually impaired iwl need assistance at this nleetiq,,, )!ease rail rite CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303. Hearing impaired, Virginia Relay at 1-800-828-1120. The plawnlng Ag_InIl,) is ""'i tire- Gltv',;Intr rnetHone r',rg /w_ww_vbgov.corTi _/plarriningcommission EXHIBIT "A" PARCELI: ALL that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, together with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate, and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, being known, numbered and designated as Parcel C-1-B as shown on that certain plat entitled "Subdivision of Parcel C-1, Map Book 181, Page 24, Kempsville Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia", made by Waterway Surveyors and Engineering, Ltd., dated January 6, 1987 and last revised on April 2, 1987, which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 2637, at Page 1808, reference to which plat is hereby made for a more particular description of the property. GPIN: 1465-89-6856 PARCEL 2: Part of that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Parcel C- I -1 as shown on that certain plat entitled, "Subdivision of Parcel C-1, Map Book 181, Page 24, Kempsville Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia", made by Waterway Surveyors and Engineering, Ltd., dated January 6, 1987 and last revised on April 2, 1987, which said plat -is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 2637, at Page 1808, containing 6262 square feet as depicted on the plan entitled "K & Son's, Inc. Gas Pumps Addition and Revitalization Plan", prepared by The Spectra Group, Inc., dated 3/ 1 /2005. GPIN: 1465-89-5885 (Part) CONDITIONALRZONE/ SAEED / PROFFER PREPARED BY: 1H SYKES. BOUi-�R�D7ON, IN AJIERN & LRVY, P.C. 7 PREPARED BY: IN SMS. ROURDON, IR AI URN & LEVY, P.C. WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: K & Son's, Inc., a Virginia corporation By: (SEAL) Khalid Saeed, President STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this lst day of June, 2005, by Khalid Saeed, President, K 8s Son's, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Grantor. f�-'a & At Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 me Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of Grantor and the Grantee. PREPARED BY: SYKES, ROURDON, AHERN & LEVY. P.C. 5 PREPARED BY: SYKES. ROURDON. AHERN & LEVY. P.C. shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. Grantor covenants and agrees that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning 0 PREPARED BY: . SYKLS. BOURDON, A►IERN & LWY, P.C. Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Revitalization Plan") shall be substantially adhered to. 2. When the Property is redeveloped, three (3) gasoline pumps shall be added as depicted on the Revitalization Plan and the architectural design, materials and colors of the canopy will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "LUKOIL - Pleasant Valley," prepared by Pro Signs, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Canopy Elevation"). 3. When the Property is redeveloped, the existing freestanding sign shall be replaced with a monument style freestanding sign no greater than eight feet (8') in height with a base of split -face block painted to match that on the existing building. The exterior surfaces of the masonry (split -face block) walls of the existing building shall be painted a light, earth tone color. The existing dumpster shall also be relocated and screened as depicted on the Revitalization Plan. 4. When the Property is redeveloped, the existing entrances on to the Property from Indian Lakes Boulevard shall be consolidated and relocated as depicted on the Revitalization Plan. All lighting on the site shall be consistent with those standards recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). A photometric lighting plan indicating the number and types of lighting will be submitted as part of the formal site plan submission for review by the Planning Department to determine consistency with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and practices. Lighting shall be installed and operated as shown on the approved plan. All lighting shall be directed inward and downward within the site. 5. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. The above conditions, having been proffered by Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions 3 PREPARED BY. D SYKES, ROURDON, 11 AHERN & LEVY. P.C. WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed modification to the PDH-1 Land Use Plan applicable to the Property in addition to the regulations provided for the PDH-1 and B-2 Zoning Districts by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is redeveloped, in order to achieve a more coordinated design and development on the site in terms of vehicular access, parking and landscape buffering, the "K 8v SON'S INC. GAS AND PUMP ADDITION AND REVITALIZATION PLAN", dated 3 / 1 / 2003 revised 5 / 2 / 2005, prepared by The Spectra Group, Inc., which has been exhibited to the Virginia 2 K & SON'S, INC., a Virginia corporation TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 31St day of May, 2005, by and between K & SON'S, INC., a Virginia corporation, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of a two (2) parcels of property located in the Kempsville District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 30,341 square feet of land which are more particularly described as Parcels 1 and 2 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcels are herein referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to modify the PDH-1 Land Use Plan with a B-2 Commercial Designation applicable to the Property to permit the sale of gasoline; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and GPIN: 1465-89-6856 1465-89-5885 (Part) PREPARED BY: SULS, BOURDON, AHERN & LRVY. P.C. 1 SYKES, BOURDON. FERN & LEVY, P.C. Robert J. Scott, Director November 10, 2005 Page 2 With kind regards, I am Very truly yours, REBjr/ arhm R. Edward Bourdon, Jr. Enclosures cc: Carolyn A.K. Smith, Department of Planning Ruth Hodges Smith, City Clerk Khand Saeed, K & Son's, Inc. Christopher A. Taylor, The Spectra Group, Inc. AmendmentPDHPlan/ Saeed / Macali2 1 LURN & LEVY, JL , P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK - BUILDING ONE JON M. AHERN 281 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD R. EDWARD BOURDON, JR. FIFTH FLOOR JAMES T. CROMWELL VI RGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462-2989 L. STEVEN EMMERT DAVID S. HOLLAND TELEPHONE: 757-499-8971 KIRK B. LEVYO. JACKSON MOORE, JR. FACSIMILE: 757-456-5445 November 10 2005 � JENNIFER D. ORAM-SMITH HOWARD R. SYKES. JR. Via Hand Delivery William M. Macali, Deputy City Attorney Office of the City Attorney City Hall Building # 1, Room 260 Municipal Center Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Re: Application of K & Son's, Inc. for Modification to the Indian Lakes Land Use Plan to allow fuel sales on property designated Neighborhood Commercial located 1196 Indian Lakes Boulevard, Kempsville District; City Council Agenda Date: November 22, 2005 Dear Bill: As discussed prior to the City Council's public hearing on Tuesday, November 8, 2005, enclosed herewith please find original revised pages 3 through 5 of my client's previously Proffered Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions. We would appreciate your inserting these revised original pages into the original Proffered Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions. Obviously, my client has endorsed and agreed to this revision. In addition to the pages which we request be substituted in the original agreement, I have also provided you with a black -lined copy of the revisions which are all contained in Proffer #3. I have also enclosed a complete copy of the Proffered Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions as revised for your information. If you have any questions or concerns in this regard do not hesitate to contact me. MSYKES, IROURDON, MM AURN & LEVY, P.C. Robert J. Scott, Director November 1, 2005 Page 2 With kind regards, I am Very truly yours, R. Edward Bourdon, Jr. REBjr/arhm Enclosures cc: William M. Macali, Deputy City Attorney Ruth Hodges Smith, City Clerk Khalid Saeed, K & Sons, Inc. Christopher A. Taylor, The Spectra Group, Inc. AmendmentPDHPlan/ Saeed/ Scotts SYKES, ]POURDON, AHERN & LEVY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK - BUILDING ONE 281 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD FIFTH FLOOR VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462-2989 TELEPHONE: 757-499-8971 FACSIMILE: 757-456-5445 November 10, 2005 Via Hand Deliverta Robert J. Scott, Director Department of Planning Building 2, Room 115 Municipal Center Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 ATTN: Carolyn A.K. Smith JON M. AHERN R.EDWARD BOURDON,JR. JAMES T. CROMWELL L. STEVEN EMMERT DAVID S. HOLLAND KIRK B.LEVY O. JACKSON MOORE, JR. JENNIFER D. ORAM-SMITH HOWARD R. SYKES, JR. Re: Application of K & Son's, Inc. for Modification to the Indian Lakes Land Use Plan to allow fuel sales on property designated Neighborhood Commercial located 1196 Indian Lakes Boulevard, Kempsville District; City Council Agenda Date: November 22, 2005 Dear Mr. Scott: As discussed by City Council at its informal briefing on Tuesday, November 8, 2005, and as previously offered by my client at the Planning Commission hearing on September 14, 2005, enclosed herewith please find a "black -lined" revision to the Proffered Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions along with eight (8) clean copies of the revision. The revisions made were to Proffer #3 on page 3 of the agreement. They involve my client's agreement to paint the exterior masonry surface of the existing building with a light earth tone color (i.e. beige). By separate cover we have submitted an original of the revised page 3 to the City Attorney's Office requesting that they insert the revised page 3 for the page 3 currently in the original document. In addition, I have provided a clean copy of the revised Proffered Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions to the City Clerk. Should you or any member of the Planning staff have any questions or concerns regarding this revision, do not hesitate to contact me. SYK ES, BOURDON, AHERN & LEVY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK - BUILDING ONE JON M. AHERN 281 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD R. EDWARD BOURDON, JR. FIFTH FLOOR JAMES T. CROMWELL VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462-2989 L. STEVEN EMMERT DAVID S. HOLLAND TELEPHONE: 757-499-8971 KIRK B.LEVY FACSIMILE: 757-456-5445 November 10, 2005 O. JACKSON MOORE, JR. JENNIFER D. ORAM-SMITH HOWARD R. SYKES, JR. Via Hand Deliveru Ruth Hodges Smith, City Clerk Office of the City Clerk City Hall Building # 1, Room 281 Municipal Center Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Re: Application of K & Son's, Inc. for Modification to the Indian Lakes Land Use Plan to allow fuel sales on property designated Neighborhood Commercial located 1196 Indian Lakes Boulevard, Kempsville District; City Council Agenda Date: November 22, 2005 Dear Ms. Smith: Given the fact that this application is going to be back on the Council agenda on November 22, 2005, I felt it prudent to provide you with a copy of the transmittal of the revised proffer to the Planning Department along with a copy of the revised set of Proffered Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions. Also be advised that I have provided a copy of the revised Proffered Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions to Mr. Macali in the City Attorney's Office. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. With kind regards, I am Very truly yours, R. Edward Bourdon, Jr. REBjr/arhm Enclosures cc: Carolyn A.K. Smith, Department of Planning William M. Macali, Deputy City Attorney Khalid Saeed, K & Son's, Inc. Christopher A. Taylor, The Spectra Group, Inc. AmendmentPDHPlan/ Saeed/ Smith 1 Item V-K. 4. -32- PLANNING ITEM # 54504 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Council Lady Wilson, City Council DEFERRED INDEFINITELY an Ordinance upon application of K& SONS, Inc. for Modification to the Indian Lakes Land Use Plan to allow a gasoline station in conjunction with a convenience store. ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF K & SONS, INC. FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE INDIAN LAKES LAND USE PLAN TO ALLOW GASOLINE SALES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CONVENIENCE STORE Ordinance upon Application of K & Sons, Inc. for the Modification of the Indian Lakes Land Use Plan to allow gasoline sales in conjunction with a convenience store on property located at H96 Indian Lakes Boulevard (GPINs 14658968560000; part of 14658958850000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being part of the Primary Residential Area, suitable for appropriately located suburban residential and non-residential uses consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this modification to the land use plan is to develop the site for gasoline sales in conjunction with a convenience store. DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None October 11, 2005 ro` � Ly CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: K & Sons, Inc. — Modification of the Land Use Plan MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of K & Sons, Inc. for the Modification of the Indian Lakes Land Use Plan to allow gasoline sales in conjunction with a convenience store on property located at 1196 Indian Lakes Boulevard (GPINs 14658968560000; part of 14658958850000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being part of the Primary Residential Area, suitable for appropriately located suburban residential and non-residential uses consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this modification to the land use plan is to develop the site for gasoline sales in conjunction with a convenience store. DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE This application was deferred at the request of the applicant by City Council on October 11t". The request was deferred again on November 11t" to allow for a new proffer to be added. An amended proffer agreement has been submitted indicating that the "exterior surfaces of the masonry (split face block) walls of the existing building shall be painted a light, earth tone color." In addition the revised proffer indicates that the proposed monument style freestanding sign shall be painted to match the building. ■ Considerations: The applicant is proposing a modification of the Land Use Plan to allow for fuel sales on property designated as "neighborhood commercial." A 97- foot by 24- foot fuel canopy is proposed parallel to Indian Lakes Boulevard and it will be 22 feet high. There is an existing convenience store and personal service business on the property in a single 3,024 square foot building. The site plan depicts additional property incorporated into the site for a total of 30,341 square feet. The existing dumpster is proposed to be relocated to a less conspicuous part of the site. Streetscape landscaping is proposed along both Indian Lakes Boulevard and Pleasant Valley Road. Two similar requests for the addition of fuel sales to this property were both denied by City Council in 1985 and again in 1987. The latter request was for a 24 by 24 foot canopy and fuel island. K & Sons, Inc. Page 2 of 2 The proposal is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area nor is it compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The Plan calls for established neighborhoods to be protected against invasive land uses that due to their activity would tend to destabilize them. The addition of the fuel pumps would increase the intensity of the existing commercial use in an area designated primarily as residential. The Indian Lakes Land Use Plan identifies this site as commercial use but not as a service station. Commercial areas are intended to provide residents of the immediate area with low intensity goods and services. Unfortunately, this proposed increase in intensity could result in negative impacts for the residential area by increased traffic generation, noise and bright lights. Uses such as fuel sales are more appropriately located in commercial corridors or on the fringes of neighborhoods and only when effective protective measures are in place to protect surrounding properties. Where commercial uses are adjacent to residential uses, the preference is for higher density residential adjacent to lower intensity commercial. The mix of more intense commercial adjacent to residential does not follow sound planning practices. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 5-4 to deny this request. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends denial. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: S Map p-9 a s�— K & SONS, INC. Agenda Item # 15 September 14, 2005 Public Hearing 0 Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith REQUEST: Modification of the Land Use Plan to allow for fuel sales on property designated as "neighborhood commercial' on property currently zoned PD-1-11. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 1196 Indian Lakes Boulevard. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14658968560000; 2 — KEMPSVILLE 30,341 square feet portion of: 14658958850000 SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing a modification of the Land Use Plan to allow for fuel sales on property designated as "neighborhood commercial' on property currently zoned PD-1-11. The proposed 97 foot by 24 foot fuel canopy is proposed parallel to Indian Lakes Boulevard and will be 22 feet high. There is an existing convenience store and personal service business on the property in a single 3,024 square foot building. The site plan depicts additional property incorporated into the site for a total of 30,341 square feet. Several of the required parking spaces are depicted immediately adjacent to a proposed ingress/egress easement. As cars within these spaces would be forced to back out into this easement, they must be either relocated or the property line adjusted to accommodate them. The existing dumpster is proposed to be relocated to a less conspicuous part of the site. Streetscape landscaping is proposed along both Indian Lakes Boulevard and Pleasant Valley Road. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: There is a small retail operation (convenience store and nail salon) on the property. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Grassed area, Indian Lakes Boulevard / PDH-1 USE AND ZONING: South: . Pleasant Valley Road, single family dwellings / PDH-1 East: . Daycare facility / PDH-1 West: . Intersection of Pleasant Valley Road and Indian Lake Boulevard, open space / PDH-1 NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There are no CULTURAL FEATURES: significant environmental features on the site as it is developed as a retail operation. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)• Indian Lakes Boulevard in the vicinity of the property is a 100 foot, four lane divided, collector road, as shown on the MTP. Improvements are not anticipated for this roadway within the next five (5) years. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Indian Lakes 8,273 ADT 13,100 ADT (Level of Existing Land Use — Boulevard Service "C") — 20,700 ADT 2,114 ADT ' (Level of Service D"") Proposed Land Use 3- 3,293 ADT Average Daily Trips z as defined by retail operation with convenience store 3 as defined by addition of fuel pumps WATER & SEWER: This site has an existing water meter that may be used or upgraded. The site is already connected to City water and sewer. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within COMPREHENSIVE PLAN the Primary Residential Area. The land use planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. The established type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non-residential, in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. "Generally, in large suburban settings often characterized by many'single use' zoning districts, land use compatibility is achieved through the process of orienting similar or, at the very least, not incompatible land uses and densities next to one another. While landscaped buffers, attractive site planning, quality architecture and other techniques are sometimes the only option to help mitigate the impacts of adjacent and incompatible land uses, it is the city's position that good architectural and site designs are not acceptable substitutes for good land use planning. We must focus on applying sound land use planning practices first, then address design considerations. As one travels outside the stable, low density, single- family neighborhoods, there should evolve a coherent pattern of development depicting gradual increases in residential densities and the introduction of neighborhood -serving commercial uses. Where residential and commercial uses adjoin one another, the preferred land use relationship should reflect higher density residential and lower intensity commercial uses." Page 90 Staff recommends denial of this EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION application. Two (2) similar requests for the addition of fuel sales to this property were both denied by City Council in 1985 and again in 1987. The latter request was for a 24 by 24 foot canopy and fuel island. The proposal is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area nor is it compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The Plan calls for established neighborhoods to be protected against invasive land uses that due to their activity would tend to destabilize them. The addition of the fuel pumps would increase the intensity of the existing commercial use in an area designated primarily as residential. The Indian Lakes Land Use Plan identifies this site as commercial use but not as a service station. Commercial areas are intended to provide residents of the immediate area with low intensity goods and services. Unfortunately, this proposed increase in intensity could result in negative impacts for the residential area by increased traffic generation, noise and bright lights. Uses such as fuel sales are more appropriately located in commercial corridors or on the fringes of neighborhoods and only when effective protective measures are in place to protect surrounding properties. Where commercial uses are adjacent to residential uses, the preference is for higher density residential adjacent to lower intensity commercial. The mix of more intense commercial adjacent to residential does not follow sound planning practices. Therefore, Staff cannot recommend favorably for this request. PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: When the property is redeveloped, in order to achieve a more coordinated design and development on the site in terms of vehicular access, parking and landscape buffering, the "K & Son's Inc. Gas and Pump Addition and Revitalization Plan," dated 3/1/2003 revised 5/2/2005, prepared by The Spectra Group, Inc., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Revitalization Plan") shall be substantially adhered to. PROFFER 2: When the property is redeveloped, three (3) gasoline pumps shall be added as depicted on the Revitalization Plan and the architectural design, materials and colors of the canopy will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled " LUKOIL — Pleasant Valley, " prepared by Pro Signs, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Canopy Elevation"). PROFFER 3: When the property is redeveloped, the existing freestanding sign shall be replaced with a monument style freestanding sign no greater than eight feet (8) in height with a base of split face block matching that on the building. The existing dumpster shall also be relocated and screened as depicted on the Revitalization Plan. PROFFER 4: When the property is redeveloped, the existing entrances on to the Property from Indian Lake Boulevard shall be consolidated and relocated as depicted on the Revitalization Plan. All lighting on the site shall be consistent with those standards recommend by the Illumination Engineering Society of North American (IESNA). A photometric lighting plan indicating the number and types of lighting will be submitted as party of the formal site plan submission for review by the Planning Department to determine consistency with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and practices. Lighting shall be installed and operated as shown on the approved plan. All lighting shall be directed inward and downward within the site. PROFFER 5: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers are not acceptable to staff for the reasons stated above The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated May 31, 2005, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. F k SONS, nda Item 1-NC # 15 Pare4 PROPOSED SITE PLAN"--"' WIN PROPOSED CANOPY [ap D-9 ► '� �� ♦ M.M." . �r WAR . � r• 0 i �� ►w 0 Modification of Land Use Plan A 1 01/05/87 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT fuel sales Denied 2 03/18/85 AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN Denied 3 09/10/84 AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN Denied 4 01/11/82 CHANGE OF ZONING PD-H to PD-H1 Granted ZONING HISTORY . fi x 13 DiSCLOSURE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) Sykes, Bourdon, Ahem & Levy, P.C. The Spectra Group, Inc. 1 "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliatedbusiness entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (I) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION. I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instr ctions `n this ackage. K & Sons, Inc. By: Khalid Saeed, President Applicants Signature Print Name Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Amendment to'POH Plan Application Page 12 or 12 Re%laed: 91112004 DISCLOSURE STATEMEENT'��,'.; Item # 15 K & Sons, Inc. Modification of the Indian Lakes Land Use Plan 1196 Indian Lakes Boulevard District 2 Kempsville September 14, 2005 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #15, K & Sons, Inc. An Ordinance upon application of K & Sons, Inc. for the Modification of the Indian Lakes Land Use Plan to allow gasoline sales in conjunction with a convenience store on property located at 1196 Indian Lakes Boulevard, District 2, Kempsville with five proffers. Dorothy Wood: Is there anyone here representing K & Sons? Eddie Bourdon: I apologize. My good friend Ms. Connors and I were having a nice chat. Alright. Again, for the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney and I'm representing the applicant. First of all, and I apologize. I intended to make copies but the copy machine and I didn't get along real well early this morning. I have a petition and I actually would like to get this back so I can have copies made before this matter goes to City Council. It's a petition signed by 1,041 who come into my client's business seeking your support and Council's support for this application for three gasoline pumps on this site. Again, I'll pass this around. I do not have copies for everyone. It is front and back signatures. Also, I understand that this is better than anything. This is a request that Mr. Din had to see what the pumps look like. These are what the proposed gas pumps look like. Now, this is an application for a Modification to the Land Use Plan on this property that is recommended for commercial. It has been a convenience store for many years. My client, who has operated there for approximately four years recently was able to acquire the property, and the adjacent property. He lives in the community. He operates his business in the community. It's an older building. He didn't construct it. He didn't have anything to do with the original development of it. I'm sure you all visited the site and realize that it is a property that could use some upgrading. It could use some investment. That is what he wishes to do. At the same time, there is a considerable amount of support, as I expressed, that he has been receiving from the neighborhood. There really aren't any gas facilities close by and I've driven around. It is an area that really isn't served by any real gas other than out on Indian River Road. Three pumps he proposes to put in front of the site with an attractive canopy, brick columns. He will relocate the dumpster, which is in pretty visible location, screen it away from the residential. It is now in this area along Pleasant Valley Road. He is going to re -landscape the site and eliminate the existing curb cut here on Indian Lakes Boulevard so there will be one entrance from Indian Lakes and one from Pleasant Valley. The main thing is the landscaping and eliminating the dumpster here and putting it on this side and screening it. There will be a significant upgrade on the property. There is an existing sign now, which Item # 15 K & Sons, Inc. Page 2 is a pole sign and it is in bad shape and non -conforming. We're going to be eliminating the sign. We will be going with an attractive monument style sign. This is a neighborhood business that is there to support the residential and the people who live in the residences. I understand some of the reason for the staff's opinion based on Getty Oil, which developed the site many years ago attempted to gas approved here. There was a member of the community, at that time whom was adamantly opposed to it, and organized opposition within the community at that point before it was built, and that individual is no longer living in this area. My client has gone to the Community Association and was told that we certainly don't oppose you. At this point, I think it is something that the community would like to see. It is something that will be an upgrade on this piece of property. There is residential across the street and across both streets there is open space common area between the backs of those houses and the roads themselves, so there is some buffer. We would ask that it be approved and that the conditions and there are none and have been put forth because it is a proffered plan because it is PD-H1. I think it is something the community would like to see. We don't think limited scale which is three pumps is going to present a problem with regard to nuisance. Dorothy Wood: Eddie, I was happy to hear you say that they were upgrading the building. We didn't have that on our plans. What are they going to do with the building? Eddie Bourdon: I've misspoken. He would like to be able to upgrade the building and bought the land adjacent to it but he's got to pay for it. He needs the gas to help pay for it. He's got additional property that he is adding to it that will be able to be developed when he is able to afford it. It's my fault. I misstated. He wants to be able to afford to make upgrades over and above the ones that we have shown but he is not a big operation like Wawa. Dorothy Wood: I didn't see the upgrades. That is what I was asking you. Eddie Bourdon: The upgrades are the landscaping. Once we can get that into the ground and start producing the revenue so he can afford to get financing. Dorothy Wood: I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you said that he was going to upgrade the building and improvements. Eddie Bourdon: That is his desire to do that. This is a way to. Dorothy Wood: But not at this time. Eddie Bourdon: He's has to able to afford to do it. These costs that he is occurring, eliminating the curb cut and putting up a new sign, and doing landscaping, these are also costs but it's the first step in what he hopes to be a more comprehensive development and redevelopment of the property. Item #15 K & Sons, Inc. Page 3 Dorothy Wood: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for Eddie? William Din: Eddie, on your petition have you evaluated your petition to see how many people actually live in this neighborhood or just passing through? Eddie Bourdon: Well, I have not but my client has collected signatures over a long period of time. This is a neighborhood business if you've been to the site. It is not a road that garnishes a significant. If you look at the addressed they're primary addresses of houses in this area. There is no doubt about that. May there be out of the 1,041 some people who don't reside in this particular neighborhood? I'm sure there are but the mass majority of them are people who live in this neighborhood. William Din: Indian Lakes Boulelvard is a cut through from Providence Road down to Farrell Parkway back and forth. Eddie Bourdon: It's a cut through for the residents of that area. It is not a citywide type of arterial highway. I mean it is to people who live in that general community that are the ones who are using that road. William Din: But you really haven't analyzed to see how many live in this area? It is not just walk in traffic. Correct? Eddie Bourdon: I'm sorry. William Din: Is it walk in traffic? Eddie Bourdon: They certainly have walk in traffic. Certainly. Dorothy Wood: This wasn't like, and I think Mr. Din is saying that they didn't go door to door in the neighborhood? Eddie Bourdon: No. I apologize. I misunderstood you. No. They did not go door to door in the neighborhood. He has talked to the Neighborhood Association and his neighbors. He lives in the neighborhood. I'm not aware that he took the petition door to door. He may tell me that he did. William Din: So you're saying that he approached the civic leagues in this area and they approved? Eddie Bourdon: This community that the facility is in, absolutely. He met with them. William Din: The Indian Lakes Civic League? Do you know what civic league? Item #15 K & Sons, Inc. Page 4 Eddie Bourdon: The Indian Lakes Community Association is what I understand to be the entity. William Din: They opposed no opposition to this? Eddie Bourdon: Correct. In fact, they told him they would not oppose. William Din: I do think that it is an increase in the intensity of the use of this area. I agree with what staff has written up on this that it does provide an intensive use that is highly a residential area. That is why I'm concerned with how many of these residents were actually on this petition. Eddie Bourdon: Most of them have addresses listed there. It's a community business and my client tells me that he is active in the community. He lives in the community. He tells me that the community supports what he is trying to do. It's three gas pumps. It's not a Wawa, which is a great operation but were not talking about a large twelve pump operation here. Three pumps. I pointed to a situation where there is a gas station on South Lynnhaven at the entrance to Princess Anne Plaza that has been recently upgraded, and pumps added. It looks good. It's right next to residential but is only a small operation. I think in that case four pumps. So, this area is underserved by gas when you drive around and look there really isn't any. I think that is the reason why there is a significant amount of support for it. I understand staff having a similar application having been denied by City Council 15 years ago. It's kind of difficult for them to take the position that they favor it when there has already been a Council action denying it. I'm not taking any vows with the staff but I think there has been an evolution of thought in this particular community, and I can certainly understand why there would be support for it. Dorothy Wood: Barry? Oh, I'm sorry. William Din: I understand that the landscaping is a condition here. Correct? The landscaping around the site is going to come in. Eddie Bourdon: Totally re -landscaped. The dumpster moved and screened. Sign removed and replaced with a monument style sign. We proffered the canopy elevation with the brick columns. They have shown you what it looked like. William Din: The building itself is not going to be renovated? Not going to be painted or anything? You know, some improvements to it. Eddie Bourdon: In terms of if you want to suggest that it be painted, I don't think my client is adverse to that. He would really like to do is be in a position within a few years to be able to do basically a total redo on the building. He is just not in a position financially to be able to afford to do that at this point. If you want to suggest a condition Item # 15 K & Sons, Inc. Page 5 that the building be repainted, I don't think he would be adversed to doing that. He is not in a position to do what he ultimately would like to do from a financial standpoint. William Din: Do you know what neighborhood he lives in around here? Eddie Bourdon: He lives in Indian Lakes. He lives in that neighborhood. Dorothy Wood: Barry. Barry Knight: I see down here where it says it is zoned for neighborhood commercial. There may be a technical set of criteria for neighborhood commercial that I kind of wonder when the neighborhood if the biggest majority of the people who signed the petition live in the neighborhood and they are for this type of commercial or this type of gas pumps. If they want it then maybe it meets the criteria of the neighborhood commercial. If you could, put the aerial up please? Eddie, can you show us. There is a buffer zone around the yellow line. I believe that is all zoned the same zoning on there. I anticipate some time in the future that will probably be developed as neighborhood commercial. It may be a buffer zone if one is even needed between them and the residents. Then you go across the street and that looks like it is designated as open space. It looks like we may have a buffer zone with these gas pumps or with this convenience store. If we have all these 1,041, although I did note that one person on there objected so maybe your down to 1,040 but you do have some numbers on there. It looks like the neighborhood or the biggest majority that signed the petition I assume are from the neighborhood are in favor of it. I understand the staff's recommendation but I kind of think it wouldn't be quite as intrusive as I first thought. I guess that is just my observation. Eddie Bourdon: You're correct. This is all commercial designation. This is open space here and here along Indian Lakes Boulevard. It's all residential. There wouldn't be, and it doesn't set a precedent for the leapfrog across the street. Dorothy Wood: You know, we did talk this morning about our design awards and making sure that this is a design that makes sure the building fits. Barry Knight: That is why I'm kind of wondering if the gas pumps are approved and they put a new style canopy in there, and once they dig up that parking lot then of course, that is going to be totally asphalted. I'm sure we wouldn't consider approving this unless we did ask him to, at the very minimum paint the building. Its kind of where I was going on that. I kind of think that if we left it as is, it would be status quo, and if we maybe approved it with a condition or two, it would maybe be an upgrade. Dorothy Wood: Unless he spent his money now creating it and then coming back with the pumps. Jan. Janice Anderson: I have some concerns about putting gas at this site. It is in a residential Item #15 K & Sons, Inc. Page 6 area. And even though the petition has been signed. That is one factor to look at and it is an important factor but is not the whole basket that you got a petition signed that they want that and it should go. I think it is important factor but if you look at other items. The concern that I have is adding the canopy and three gas pumps. I don't think it adds to much of the site attractiveness. I don't think it is a full improvement really in total. It is a definitely a more intense use. You're going to have a lot more traffic in this area because you're going to have gas pumps. It is just putting a drive thru on the corner it attracts so much more traffic than the facility that doesn't have a drive thru. Gas pumps are going to do the same. You're going to have a lot more people stopping there then you do just for the convenience. And, my other concern is that it is zoned right next to it the neighborhood businesses, from my understanding is kind of like the 13-1 Neighborhood zoning and if you put gas there, I think it would flow to the other parcel that had a more intense use to other parcels rather then keeping them a neighborhood business. Those are my concerns. Dorothy Wood: Ron. Ronald Ripley: I'm kind of going on with what Barry said. I do appreciate the intent to keeping the neighborhood commercial. It's not a mega corner and a mega flow of traffic going through here. What would be important to me is to see some attention paid to this building that is acceptable to the Planning Director, and perhaps if you looked at the building from the neighborhood backs and sides, the foundation and landscaping around there that would help mitigate that too. I like the landscaping along Indian Lakes and Pleasant Valley. I think that is good and that is going to help a lot. So, I would be supportive of the application providing that some redevelopment would occur to this building that would be acceptable to Mr. Scott and his staff. The parking lot is going to get ripped up. I assume the tanks are going in the ground where the asphalt is? Am I correct? Eddie Bourdon: You are correct Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: So you will have new asphalt and new canopy out there. Eddie Bourdon: New parking lot. We will are certainly willing to work with the Planning Director and the Zoning Administrator. We don't have a problem with a new site plan putting down a foundation of landscaping and painting the building. If there are any other upgrades that might be suggested that would not be astronomical in cost, my client, who is here, will be happy to try to incorporate that into it. The idea is to upgrade the site. The surrounding commercial doesn't change with this. Dorothy Wood: Eddie, they just won't be patching the asphalt. They're totally going to replace it. Item # 15 K & Sons, Inc. Page 7 Eddie Bourdon: I think that is what is going to have to happen given the improvements. He is also eliminating a curb cut. They're putting a gutter along Indian Lakes Boulevard. That is another benefit of that. There are two curb cuts there now and there will only be one. That is also an expense. There is going to be a lot of work done that will be a positive nature on this site. Dorothy Wood: Gene. Eugene Crabtree: I sort of go along with Barry and Ron. I feel like that something should be done to the building but I don't think we need to look at past history because if we look at past history then we're just going to stay and stagnant and we're not looking at future economic development, which we were talking about doing in the City. If we don't do something to upgrade pieces of property like this then it just stays there the way it is. It does nothing and we don't improve anything. Maybe this is the first step in improving that particular maybe for economic development in there. There is a lot of wide-open space around. It doesn't look like it is going to be intrusive on anybody and therefore if there were improvements to the building, and upgrade the site to make it look a little bit better, I think I would be in favor of supporting this application. Dorothy Wood: Joe. Joseph Strange: I'm surprised because we don't have anybody here to speak in opposition that I know of. No one signed up. It is kind of me, personally, maybe I shouldn't speak personally but it is kind of funny that nobody has shown up with them putting a gas station right in the middle of this development because that is exactly what you're doing here. Having said that and since there is no opposition, I do think if we're going to approve this that we ought to extract something out of this as far as the building because as you can see it, nothing doesn't seem like anything has been done to this piece of property in the last 15 years to upgrade it or put in any types of shrubs out or anything else. I mean, I think at the very least we need to extract something out of this if we're going to approve to put gasoline. Dorothy Wood: I agree with you. I couldn't support it unless they were going to redo the building. Eddie Bourdon: If I could add, the site has actually been up for two months. It was on the agenda last month. Dorothy Wood: Thanks Eddie. Eddie Bourdon: We're willing to work with you. Dorothy Wood: On the building? That is what we're all asking for. Item #15 K & Sons, Inc. Page 8 Eddie Bourdon: There isn't an ability financially to tear the building down and build a new building. Again, we're not dealing with a major oil company here. This is a one man, one family, mom and pop business and he's invested a lot of money just to buy it. He didn't create it. He just recently purchased it. He agrees with me. He is trying to upgrade the site. It's one of those deals where Rome wasn't built in a day. He's not in a position financially to be able to just simply bulldoze what's there and start over again. Dorothy Wood: Of course his spending doesn't ask him for something and this is what we're asking for in return. Eddie Bourdon: He's willing to do the landscaping. He's willing to paint the building. I don't know how you would begin to suggest how would you remodel the building? You would have to tear it down. Dorothy Wood: I have no idea. Will. William Din: Well, I don't think I'm talking about remodeling the building as a saving grace for this. I don't think I'm in favor of putting fuel pumps in this area. This is in the middle of a residential area. It does and it will lead to other commercial uses into this area, which I don't think needs to go into the middle of a residential area that this is in. It is a PD-H area. It hasn't been developed because I think there is enough commercial on the end of Indian Lakes Boulevard and to the Kempsville River area also, and also future west toward Kempsville, and where Providence comes in. And for that reason, I think putting an intense use like this would lead to other commercial building in this area, which I don't believe is needed in the middle of a residential area. The intensity of a gas pump is, I think is going to destabilize this area to some degree. The commercial aspect of it, I don't believe is really needed in this area. So, I will be voting against this application. I don't believe that even remodeling the building is going to quite do that. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Waller. John Waller: I agree with Will. I don't think putting gas pumps or anything you do that to that building is going to help that site at all. It's a nice piece of land. Good location. It's the wrong building. It's the wrong use for it. I'm going to vote against it. William Din: I would like to make a motion that we deny this application. John Waller: I'll second the motion. AYE 5 NAY 4 ABS 0 ABSENT 2 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE NAY DIN AYE Item # 15 K & Sons, Inc. Page 9 HORSLEY ABSENT KASTIAS AYE KNIGHT NAY MILLER ABSENT RIPLEY NAY STRANGE AYE WALLER NAY WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 5-4, the Board has denied the application of K & Sons, Inc. In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6204 TO: Leslie L. Lilley FROM: B. Kay Wilso 0 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: November 10, 2005 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application; K & Son's, Inc. The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 22, 2005. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated May 31, 2005, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW/ks Enclosure cc: Kathleen Hassen K & SON'S, INC., a Virginia corporation TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 31st day of May, 2005, by and between K & SON'S, INC., a Virginia corporation, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of a two (2) parcels of property located in the Kempsville District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 30,341 square feet of land which are more particularly described as Parcels 1 and 2 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcels are herein referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to modify the PDH-1 Land Use Plan with a B-2 Commercial Designation applicable to the Property to permit the sale of gasoline; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and GPIN: 1465-89-6856 1465-89-5885 (Part) PREPARED BY: C SYKES, BOURDON, f#HHERN & LEVY. P.C. 1 PREPARED BY. SULS, R(O JRDON, El AILRN & LL1r'. P.C. WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed modification to the PDH-1 Land Use Plan applicable to the Property in addition to the regulations provided for the PDH-1 and B-2 Zoning Districts by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is redeveloped, in order to achieve a more coordinated design and development on the site in terms of vehicular access, parking and landscape buffering, the "K & SON'S INC. GAS AND PUMP ADDITION AND REVITALIZATION PLAN", dated 3/1/2003 revised 5/2/2005, prepared by The Spectra Group, Inc., which has been exhibited to the Virginia E PREPARED BY: 3 SYKES. BOURDON. I ANFRN & LEVY. P.C. Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Revitalization Plan") shall be substantially adhered to. 2. When the Property is redeveloped, three (3) gasoline pumps shall be added as depicted on the Revitalization Plan and the architectural design, materials and colors of the canopy will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "LUKOIL - Pleasant Valley," prepared by Pro Signs, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Canopy Elevation"). 3. When the Property is redeveloped, the existing freestanding sign shall be replaced with a monument style freestanding sign no greater than eight feet (8') in height with a base of split -face block painted to match that on the existing building. The exterior surfaces of the masonry (split -face block) walls of the existing building shall be painted a light, earth tone color. The existing dumpster shall also be relocated and screened as depicted on the Revitalization Plan. 4. When the Property is redeveloped, the existing entrances on to the Property from Indian Lakes Boulevard shall be consolidated and relocated as depicted on the Revitalization Plan. All lighting on the site shall be consistent with those standards recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). A photometric lighting plan indicating the number and types of lighting will be submitted as part of the formal site plan submission for review by the Planning Department to determine consistency with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and practices. Lighting shall be installed and operated as shown on the approved plan. All lighting shall be directed inward and downward within the site. 5. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. The above conditions, having been proffered by Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions 3 PREPARED BY: SULS. ROURDON. =RN & LEVY, P.C. shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. Grantor covenants and agrees that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning M PREPARED BY: 11 SYKES, BOURDON. A}IERN & LEVY, P.C. Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of Grantor and the Grantee. 5 PREPARED BY: 10 SYKES, ROURDON. 11 AURN & LEVY. P.C. WITNESS the following signature and seal: 3iG F.A110 91 K 8v Son's, Inc., a Virginia corporation By: (SEAL) Khalid Saeed, President STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this lst day of June, 2005, by Khalid Saeed, President, K 8v Son's, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Grantor. My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 4,6( ! .Kt i 11-2 Notary Public 6 EXHIBIT "A" PARCELI: ALL that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, together with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate, and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, being known, numbered and designated as Parcel C-1-13 as shown on that certain plat entitled "Subdivision of Parcel C-1, Map Book 181, Page 24, Kempsville Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia", made by Waterway Surveyors and Engineering, Ltd., dated January 6, 1987 and last revised on April 2, 1987, which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 2637, at Page 1808, reference to which plat is hereby made for a more particular description of the property. GPIN: 1465-89-6856 PARCEL 2: Part of that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Parcel C- I -1 as shown on that certain plat entitled, "Subdivision of Parcel C-1, Map Book 181, Page 24, Kempsville Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia", made by Waterway Surveyors and Engineering, Ltd., dated January 6, 1987 and last revised on April 2, 1987, which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 2637, at Page 1808, containing 6262 square feet as depicted on the plan entitled "K 8s Son's, Inc. Gas Pumps Addition and Revitalization Plan", prepared by The Spectra Group, Inc., dated 3/ 1/2005. GPIN: 1465-89-5885 (Part) CONDITIONALRZONE/ SAEED/ PROFFER PREPARED BY: IM SYKES.IIOURDON, IN ANERN & LEIS'. P.C. 7 Modification of Proffers Cp41A BEq `7 Yam- o '1. {lit mbl `�`fflas.�ex CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Donald G. Pratt — Modification of Proffers MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Donald G. Pratt for a Modification of Proffers from the Conditional Change of Zoning from granted by the City Council on April 11, 2000 on property located at 2244 General Booth Boulevard (GPIN 24140665720000). The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being a part of the Primary Residential Area -South General Booth Corridor, suitable for appropriately located suburban residential and non-residential uses consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this modification is to develop an additional office building on this site. DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE ■ Considerations: The Conditional Rezoning from R-20 Residential District to 0-1 Office District was approved by the City Council on November 23, 1993 with seven (7) proffers. Proffer 6 relates to the original plan which called for the existing two-story barn to be removed and is requested for modification because the applicant proposes to keep the two-story structure and add to it. Additionally, Proffer 3 no longer is relevant since the property to the north was rezoned in 1995 from R-20 Residential District to 0-1 Office District. Since the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant has amended the proffer agreement to include a new proffer #6 requiring privacy fencing along the southern property line adjacent to the residential property. This was added at the request of the adjacent property owner. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The proposal is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood as well as the business areas. The existing two-story structure is located to the rear of the property and is not obtrusive from the street. A two-story addition using similar materials and design to the Gambrel roof portion of the structure would be appropriate. Donald G. Pratt Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because conditions have changed surrounding this site, the neighbors concerns were alleviated and the proposed site plan changes are appropriate. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request, as proffered. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department! City Manager. � V ' �l DONALD G. PRATT Agenda Item # 1 October 12, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Modification of Proffers from the Conditional Change of Zoning from granted by the City Council on November 23, 1993. K-" nee Donald G. Pratt 'R- Cl- a % 0 3P d Q R-2o R-20 AR 2L''�i R-2, (�� Modification of Proffers ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located 2244 General Booth Boulevard. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 24140665720000 7 — PRINCESS ANNE 41,991 square feet SUMMARY OF REQUEST The Conditional Rezoning from R-20 Residential District to 0-1 Ofice District was approved by the City Council on November 23, 1993. The Conditional Rezoning has seven (7) proffers: 1. The Property shall only be used for the following principle uses and their accessory uses and structures: a. Business offices; b. Medical and dental offices and clinics and laboratory; legal, engineering, architectural and other professional offices; accounting and bookkeeping offices; c. Florist retail. 2. Access to the Property from General Booth Boulevard shall be in accordance with the Deed of Easement and Agreement dated December 16, 1991 and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach in Deed Book 3055 at Page 2018. 3. Landscaped buffer areas shall be maintained along the northern property line of Property to screen the structure and the parking lot so long as the adjacent property is zoned for residential use. The buffer areas shall be ten feet (10') in width for the length of the structure and parking lot. 4. Lighting on the Property shall be directed inward and not toward surrounding property. 5. The existing residential structure shall be maintained and exterior improvements of any structure located on the Property will be constructed and maintained in a manner aesthetically compatible with adjoining residential uses and with Nimmo Church. 6. The Property shall be developed in accordance with the Site Plan filed with the Planning Department entitled "Rezoning Exhibit Property of Donald G. & Sandra Pratt' dated September 14, 1993, prepared by Talbot Group and exhibited before the Planning Commission. 7. Further conditions maybe required by the Grantee during detailed site plan and/or subdivision review and administration of applicable city codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable city code requirements. Proffer 6 relates to the original plan which called for the existing two-story barn to be removed and is requested for modification because the applicant proposes to keep the two-story structure and add to it. Additionally, Proffer 3 no longer is relevant since the property to the north was rezoned in 1995 from R-20 Residential District to 0-1 Office District. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: One single family home and a two-story barn on site. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single family dwelling / 0-1 Office District USE AND ZONING: South: . Single family dwelling/ R-20 Residential District East: . Undeveloped land / Ag-2 Agricultural District West: . Across General Booth Boulevard is Crescent Apartments multifamily residential and two single family home sites / A-18 Apartment District and R-20 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is currently residential. There are no cultural features or CULTURAL FEATURES: significant natural resources. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): General Booth Boulevard in the vicinity of this site is a four lane divided minor urban arterial. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Ca acity Generated Traffic General 36,382 ADT 14,800 ADT (Level of Existing Land Use — Booth Service "C") 19 ADT Boulevard 22,800 ADT' (Level of Proposed Land Use s Service "D") — 330 ADT 27,400 ADT' (Level of Service "E" Average Daily Trips Zas defined by existing residential use as defined by office use WATER: This site currently connects to an existing 16" water main on General Booth Boulevard. This site has an existing 5/8" meter (meter # 9504990) which may be upgraded. SEWER: This site currently has a septic tank and field. There is an existing 6" sanitary force main located on General Booth Boulevard. City gravity sanitary sewer is not available. Health Department approval is required for septic systems. Private grinder pumps and force main may be an option. If flows enter an existing pump station area, analysis of the pump station and the sanitary pump collection system is required to ensure flows can be accommodated. SCHOOLS: Not applicable FIRE: The Fire Department has no concerns with the concept of leaving the existing structures and rehabbing into offices as long as appropriate permits are obtained. The proposed site plan shows the rear structure greater than 150 feet from General Booth Boulevard, which requires a turn around for fire apparatus or emergency equipment. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this site to be within the Primary Residential Area, Site 4.2 Nimmo Parkway / General Booth Intersection Area. Proposed development within the Primary Residential Area should focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. Within this particular area, "Future land use, site design and building architecture should complement the historic character of the area as defined by Nimmo Church." (p.106) EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the modified proffers submitted by the applicant. The proffers are provided below. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The proposal is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood as well as the business areas. The existing two-story structure is located to the rear of the property and is not obtrusive from the street. A two-story addition using similar materials and design to the Gambrel roof portion of the structure would be appropriate. PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFERII: When the property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on exhibit entitled "Preliminary Layout Exhibit A General Booth Office Building" dated July 27, 2005, prepared by Site Improvements Associates, Inc., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan"). PROFFER 2: The use of the property shall be limited to (a) business offices; (b) medical and dental offices and clinics and laboratory; legal, engineering, architectural, and other professional offices; accounting and bookkeeping offices; and (c) florist retail; all in accordance with a conditional zoning duly approved by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach. PROFFER 3: Access to the Property from General Booth Boulevard shall be in accordance with the Deed of Easement and Agreement dated 16, 1991, and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, in Deed Book 3055, at page 2018. PROFFER 4: Lighting on the Property shall be directed inward and not toward surrounded property. PROFFER 5: The existing residential structure shall be maintained and exterior improvements of any structure located on the Property will be constructed and maintained in a manner aesthetically compatible with the adjoining residential uses and with Nimmo Church. PROFFER 6: Provide privacy fencing along the southern property line adjacent to the residential property. PROFFER 7: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are acceptable as they dictate the level of quality of the project. D G. PRATT nda Item # 1 Page 4 The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated September 22, 2005, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. i b 9 0 wr.siw * • r'* N rur d awrrwi*s BOOK mmar Kw owst m 4). r. f * THE SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR THIS PROPERTY 1S RMVft " N KS. 162, PG. S. EXHIBT A * IN -MNSUBDIVISION. ^s PRELIMINARY' LAYOUT 2244 GENERAL BOOTH BLVD. / * GPIN # 2414-0—6572-00D0 / GENERALBOOTH OFFICE BUILDING * ZONtNG: 0-1-(CONDITIONAL REZONED 11-23-93) VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA WE &MOVl9u M A AT NO. SCALE: I" = 40, DATE: 07-27-05 188 I P, � s ITE 100 40 20 0 40 80 Y1 MtA BEACH, VA. 23"2 11 wow / (7M M-M FAX (M M-. 1 as�oa scale feet 1 05/25/99 Conditional Rezoning from AG-1, AG-2 & R-20 to A-18 Apartment District Granted 2 08/08/95 Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to 0-1 Office District G ranted 3 11/23/93 Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to 0-1 Office District 4 08/25/92 Subdivision Variance -Granted Granted 5 01/28/92 Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to 0-1 Office District Granted 6 06/25/90 1 Conditional Use Permit for a church addition Granted 7 04/25/88 1 Street closure Granted ZONING HI DISCLOSURE APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: t. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) rAI 3 Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: I . List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) "l . 4+ 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) W ! Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. See next page for footnotes Modif tion of GondiWns Appkation Page 10 of 11 Revised W1 t2004 ISURE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal services: (Attach list� if necessary) �1- WCOJS L01(11 AV44� , I i I (", I Y Y4 ry I t ' "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101 . 2 'Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101 . TION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been schedul for public hearing, I sible for obtaining and posting the required onl sign rr su t ;�bje �rope ;q eas 0 days prior to the scheduled public hearing ns 6116 - package- rdi� o ns �F! Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Modification of Conditions Application Page 11 of1l Revised 9M/2004 Print Name Do I Rutf Print Name K-01 =1 doom LD G. PRATT enda Item # I Page 10 Item # 1 Donald G. Pratt Modification of Proffers 2244 General Booth Boulevard District 7 Princess Anne October 12, 2005 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next order of business will be the consent items. The Vice Chair will handle this portion of the agenda. Mr. Din. William Din: Thank you Ms. Wood. Today we have eight items on our consent agenda. As I call each of the items, will the representative for each of the items come forward to the podium, please state your name, your relationship to the application, and if there are conditions related to that item, please state that you've read them and you agree with them. My first item that -I have is Item #1, Donald G. Pratt. This is request for a Modification of Proffers from a Conditional Change of Zoning that was made on November 23, 1993 on property located at 2244 General Booth Boulevard, Princess Anne District. Yes sir. Welcome. Donald Pratt: Good afternoon. My name is Donald Pratt. I'm the owner at 2244 General Booth Boulevard property. I've read the proffers and I understand them and agree with them. William Din: Thank you Mr. Pratt. Donald Pratt: Yes sir. Thanks. William Din: Is there any objection to placing this item on the consent agenda. If not, we generally explain why we have explained these items on consent agenda. Karen Prochilo: We are going to add one proffer to that and they are aware of that. William Din: Okay. Thank you Karen. That is correct. They have added one proffer to make a total of seven proffers. The applicant has added the additional proffer. As I was saying, we generally explain why we have placed these items on consent agenda and today explaining Item #1 is Don Horsley. Donald Horsley: Thank you Will. As I recollect back, I think I was on Planning Commission back in 1993 when this was originally brought forth. It was passed with the conditions. But the applicant is asking to adjust some of those conditions. Condition #3 is no longer needed because of the property adjacent has been rezoned so that is fine to delete that. The barn that is associated in Proffer #6 was to have been removed, the Item #1 Donald G. Pratt Page 2 applicant wishes to change that proffer because he is planning on doing some work to the barn and adding on to it, so Proffer #6 will be a site plan change reflecting that. And, also it was mentioned the adjacent R-20 property, the one it is in buffering and this is a proffer that will have to be added before Council that states that a six foot high buffer will need to be put between this property and the R-20 property next door. And that has to be done before it gets to Council. I think the applicant is aware of that with the neighbor. So, there was no objection from the community, and staff recommended approval so that was the reason why we put it on the consent agenda for today. William Din: Thank you Don. I'd like to make a motion to approve the following consent item. Item #1 is Donald G. Pratt. A Modification of Proffers previously approved on November 23, 1993 located at 2244 General Booth Boulevard in the Princess Anne District. Do I have a second for that? Donald Horlsey: Second. William Din: Thank you Don. AYE 10 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, the Board has approved Item #1 for consent. 2 9 0" OUR NAZ��N S In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6300 TO: Leslie L. Lilley FROM: B. Kay Wilsone6u� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: November 10, 2005 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application; Donald G. Pratt The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 22, 2005. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated September 22, 2005, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW/ks Enclosure cc: Kathleen Hassen Thb Document Prepared by: Fiae, Fine, T,egum & McCracken, T.LP THIS AGREEMENT made this 22nd day of September, 2005 by and between DONALD G. PRATT. Property Owner, herein referred to as Grantor, party of the first part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the second part. _WIINESSETH: WHEREAS, Property Owner is the owner of certain parcels of property located in the Princess Anne district of the City of Virginia Beach, more particularly described as follows: See Exhibit "A" said parcels hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated a conditional amendment to the zoning map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from R-20 to 0-1, having been previously rezoned by agreement dated June 10, 1993 duly recorded on November 29, 1993, in Deed Book 3307, at page 417; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to permit different types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will GPIN No.2414-06-6572-0000 Page 1 of 6 Owner's Initials be created by the Grantor's proposed rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing; in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, Grantee, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid fro cuq for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, Grantee, and other successors in interest or title: l . When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "Preliminary layout Exhibit A General Booth Office Building", dated July 27, 2005 prepared by Site Improvement Associates, Inc., which has been exhibited to Virginia i Page 2 of 6 's Initials Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan"). 2. The use of the Property shall be limited to (a) business offices; (b) medical and dental offices and clinics and laboratory; legal, engineering, architectural and other professional offices; accounting and bookkeeping offices; and (c) florist retail; all in accordance with a conditional zoning duly approved by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach. 3. Access to the Property from General Booth Boulevard shall be in accordance with the Deed of Easement and Agreement dated December 16, 1991, and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, in Deed Book 3055, at page 2018. 4. Lighting on the Property shall be directed inward and not toward surrounded property. The existing residential structure shall be maintained and exterior improvements of any structure located on the Property will be constructed and maintained in a manner aesthetically compatible with adjoining residential uses and with Nimmo Church. 6. Provide privacy fencing along the southern property line adjacent to the residential property. 7. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. All references hereinabove to the 0-1 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall c ue in ful fo Page 3 of 6 er's Initials effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the CIerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that such instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantors covenant and agree that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied, and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory t or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictionsZshaticonstittune o deny Page 4 of 6Owners Initials f the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantor and the Grantee, WITNESS the followin STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGRQA BEACH, to -wit: 1, / f / < <, � e 4 // / f -e— , a Notary Public in and for the City and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Jonald G. Pratt, whose name is signed to the foregoing instrument dated the 22nd day of September, 2005 did personally appear before me in my City and State aforesaid and acknowledge the same before me. GIVEN under my hand and seal this ZIday of October, 2005 Notary Public My commission expires: Page 5 of 6 uwner•s initials Exhibit "A" ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, near Nimmo Church, numbered and designated as Lot A, upon that certain plat entitled, "Subdivision of Property, Charles C. Hickman, et ux, D.B. 482, P. 21, M.B. 25 P. 70, Princess Anne Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Scale 1" = 100', September 24, 1971, W. B. Gallup, Surveyor," said lot being of the size and dimension as shown on said plat, which is duly of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 88, at Page 45, to which reference is hereby made for a more particular description for the land herein conveyed. Page 6 of 6 Owner's Initials Map G-4 M�p Not to William Pa . Subdivision Variance CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: William L. Page — Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for William L. Page. Property is located at 1544 West Little Neck Road (GPINs 14895035590000; 14895046060000). DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN ■ Considerations: It is the intent of the applicant to vacate the property line of two adjacent properties, remove the existing single family home that is in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Resource Protection Area (RPA) then re -subdivide to create two new lots of more equal size. Both proposed lots will meet the minimum square footage requirement of 40,000 square feet outside of water, marsh, wetlands and the floodway portion of the floodplain. The applicant intends to then build one single family dwelling on each newly created lot. One (1) of the two existing lots does meet the minimum square footage requirement of 40,000 square feet. Neither existing lot meets the minimum lot width requirement of 125 feet. One of the existing parcels (Parcel One) is 64904.4 square feet with a lot frontage of 122.05 feet. The other existing parcel (Parcel Two) is 21,576.6 square feet with a lot frontage of 42.58 feet. The proposal provides evidence of a hardship created by the physical character of the property including dimensions and topography justifying the granting of a variance to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. Both of the proposed parcels will meet the minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet for R-40 zoning, which is in keeping with the surrounding properties. Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because this request will result in lots that are in keeping with the surrounding area. ■ Recommendations: William L. Page Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The parcels shall be subdivided and recorded as depicted on the plan entitled "Proposed Subdivision Property of Doris Ellen Harvey Lambert" prepared by The Spectra Group dated 06/30/05. 2. No development for either principal structure or any accessory structure excluding water dependent facilities shall occur within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Resource Protection Area (RPA). All structures for Proposed Lots A and B shall be placed landward of the variable buffer (100' top of bank) depicted on the submitted plan identified in Condition #1 above. 3. Provide a site plan for demolition of the existing residence along with erosion and sediment control plan on how the area will be restored. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager: 1� V Planning Department' WILLIAM L. PAGE Agenda Item # 2 OCTOBER 12, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots to meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. William L. Ya e QR-40 1YNfilF�FLIJ-= _ �' `f40 R-AO -� R-40 R 40 D Subdivision Variance ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Properties located at 1544 West Little Neck Road and 185 feet west of Little Neck Point. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14895035590000 5 — LYNNHAVEN Parcel One: 1.49 acres 14895046060000 Parcel Two: 0.51 acres Total Site: 2 acres or 87,120 SF SUMMARY OF REQUEST It is the intent of the applicant to vacate the property line of two adjacent properties, remove the existing single family home that is in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Resource Protection Area (RPA) then re -subdivide to create two new lots of more equal size. Existing Lots: One (1) of the two existing lots does meet the minimum square footage requirement of 40,000 square feet. Neither existing lot meets the minimum lot width requirement of 125 feet. One of the existing parcels (Parcel One) is 64904.4 square feet with a lot frontage of 122.05 feet. The other existing parcel (Parcel Two) is 21,576.6 square feet with a lot frontage of 42.58 feet. Proposed Lots: The applicant proposes to recreate two lots of more equal area by re -subdividing the existing two lots. The applicant shall then build one single family dwelling on each newly created lot. Both proposed lots will meet the minimum square footage requirement of 40,000 square feet outside of water, marsh, wetlands and the floodway portion of the floodplain. WILLIAM L. PAGE Agenda Item # 2 Page 1 1WM e9quiW LQt..A LQt@ Lot Width in feet 125 feet 144.5 feet 20.13 feet* Lot Area in square feet 40,000 SF 40,952 SF 44,526 SF *Variance required LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: One site with a single family dwelling and one undeveloped site SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single-family dwellings / R-40 Residential District USE AND ZONING: South: . Across West Little Neck Road, single-family dwellings / R-40 Residential District East: • Across from the Lynnhaven River, single-family dwellings / R- 40 Residential District West: . Single-family dwellings/ R-40 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. A portion of the CULTURAL FEATURES: property lies with in the Resource Protection Area (RPA), the more stringently regulated portion of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. No new development is planned for the RPA. The existing lots are wooded with tidal wetlands along the shoreline. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): West Little Neck Road is a two lane undivided residential street. There are no plans to upgrade this facility at this time. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Little Neck Road 500 ADT 6,200 ADT Existing Land Use — 10 ADT Proposed Land Use 3- 20 ADT Average Daily Trips s as defined by one single family dwelling 3 as defined by two single family dwellings WATER: The site must connect to City water. There is an 8 inch City water line in West Little Neck Road fronting the site. SEWER: There is currently a City CIP in this area for the installation of a vacuum sanitary sewer that will front this site. The site must connect to City vacuum sanitary sewer when it becomes available. Sanitary sewer and pump station analysis is required to determine if flows can be accommodated. FIRE and RESCUE: All minimum requirements of the building code and fire code must be met. Provide an all weather road surface for fire department access to within 150 feet of structure. Fire hydrant shall be within 500 feet of residential structure. Minimum fire lane width to be not less than 20 feet under some condition greater width will be required by the authority having jurisdiction. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designates this neighborhood as a Primary Residential Area. The land use planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. The established type, size and relationship of land use, both residential and non-residential, in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. B. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. C. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. D. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self- inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials does provide evidence of a hardship created by the physical character of the property including dimensions and topography justifying the granting of a variance to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. Both of the proposed parcels will meet the minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet for R-40 zoning, which is in keeping with the surrounding properties. Staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions. CONDITIONS 1. The parcels shall be subdivided and recorded as depicted on the plan entitled "Proposed Subdivision Property of Doris Ellen Harvey Lambert" prepared by The Spectra Group dated 06/30/05. 2. No development for either principal structure or any accessory structure excluding water dependent facilities shall occur within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Resource Protection Area (RPA). All structures for Proposed Lots A and B shall be placed landward of the variable buffer (100' top of bank) depicted on the submitted plan identified in Condition #1 above. 3. Provide a site plan for demolition of the existing residence along with erosion and sediment control plan on how the area will be restored. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. AERIAL OF SITE M1 40, an unu am ilaw •ar a 4 a xaw r r PROPOSED SITE PLAN AA"4% /_-A Subdivision Variance TTf'17• T 71h 1 06/08/05 Subdivision Variance Granted 2 07/05/83 Subdivision Variance Denied 11 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT] APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) N/A 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity,2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) N/A 0 Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) N/A 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) N/A 1731 Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. i & 2 See next page for footnotes Subdivision Variance Application Page 10 of 11 Revised: 911 C2004 W DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) The Spectra Group, Inc. Billy Garrington 1 "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation,' See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2,2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (4) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities.' See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101 CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions in t e. packag William L. Page Applicant's Signature Print Name Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name k S(-,C ATrkfiChi f-AVCRASt,t_yj'gA47 Subdivision Variance Application Page 11 of 11 Revised 9,1r2004 MW I Aft Am Item #2 William L. Page Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in Regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance 1544 West Little Neck Road District 5 Lynnhaven October 12, 2005 CONSENT William Din: Our next item on consent is William L. Page. This is a subdivision variance request for property located at 1544 West Little Neck Road in the Lynnhaven District and there are three conditions associated with this item. Billy Garrington: Thank you Ms. Wood and ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. For the record, I'm Billy Garrington. I'm a local consultant here on behalf of the applicant Mr. William Page to ask for approval of this subdivision variance on property located at West Little Neck Road. In the staff write up, there are three conditions attached to this request. We're in total agreement with all three conditions. William Din: Thank you Mr. Garrington. Is there any objection to placing this item on consent? If not, Ms. Katsias will explain this item. Kathy Katsias: This property is located at 1544 West Little Neck Road. It consists of two lots. One lot is 1.49 acres and the other lot is a'/z acre. It is the intent of the applicant to vacate the property line and remove the existing single-family house that is in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area and then resubdivide the lot to create two new lots of equal size. By vacating these lots each lot will be approximately 40,000 square feet, which will be conformed to the R-40 zoning, which is keeping in with the surrounding areas. Staff recommends this application and with three conditions. Therefore, we placed it on the consent agenda. William Din: Thank you Kathy. I'd like to make a motion to approve the following consent item. Item #2 is William L. Page. This is a request for Subdivision Variance on property located at 1544 West Little Neck Road in the Lynnhaven District with three conditions. Donald Horlsey: Second. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE Item #2 William L. Page Page 2 HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, the Board has approved Item #2 for consent. Map D-7 4_11.�s 1141. Mijo "~coch io Tnttnn TV .�lot__ ME - IN N pan aeq n CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Blue Horseshoe Tattoo V, Ltd. — Conditional Use Permit (tattoo and body piercing establishment) MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Blue Horseshoe Tattoo V, Ltd. for a Conditional Use Permit for a tattoo and body piercing establishment on property located at 71-125 South Witchduck Road (GPIN 14677377570000). DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE ■ Considerations: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a tattoo and body - piercing establishment. The applicant currently operates a tattoo and body - piercing establishment on London Bridge Road and is aware of State and City requirements regarding the use. The applicant plans to occupy a 4,700 square foot unit in the existing center and will employ four tattoo artists. The proposed hours of operation are Monday through Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. and Sunday, 10:00 a.m. to Midnight. The applicant will also have body jewelry, silver goods, and clothing for sale in the unit. The conditional use permit request to operate a tattoo and body -piercing establishment in an existing retail space does not present any land use concerns that depart noticeably from the Comprehensive Plan policies established for this portion of Strategic Growth Area 4, specifically, the West Pembroke sub -area. The proposed establishment meets the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to tattoo and body piercing establishments. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because they felt that it is an appropriate use for the site, staff recommended approval and there was no opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: The conditional use permit for a tattoo and body -piercing establishment is approved for a period of one year, with an administrative review every year Blue Horseshoe V, Ltd. Page 2 of 2 thereafter. 2. A business license shall not be issued to the applicant without the approval of the Health Department for consistency with the provisions of Chapter 23 of the City Code. 3. No signage more than four (4) square feet of the entire glass area of the exterior wall(s) shall be permitted on the windows. There shall be no other signs, including neon signs or neon accents installed on any wall area of the exterior of the building, windows and / or doors. 4. The actual tattooing / body piercing operation on a customer shall not be visible from any public right-of-way adjacent to the establishment. 5. The hours of operation shall be 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sunday. 6. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for the change of use in the unit from the Building Code Official. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager.r �'� L r BLUE HORSESHOE TATTOO V, LTD. Agenda Item # 3 October 12, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a tattoo and body - piercing establishment CUP - Tattoo & Body Piercing Establishment ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 71-125 South Witchduck Road GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14677377570000 2 - KEMPSVILLE 4,700 square feet u The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a SUMMARY OF REQUEST tattoo and body -piercing establishment. The applicant currently operates a tattoo and body -piercing establishment on London Bridge Road and is aware of State and City requirements regarding the use. The applicant plans to occupy a 4,700 square foot unit in the existing center. The center was constructed in 1977 and has split zoning of B-2 Business and 1-1 Industrial. Uses fronting Witchduck Road include roofing, window, satellite T.V., hot tub, and kitchen showrooms and offices. A beauty shop and hot dog stand also occupy the front of the center. To the rear of the site are office and warehouse uses. The applicant will employ four tattoo artists in the unit. The proposed hours of operation are Monday through Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. and Sunday, 10:00 a.m. to Midnight. The applicant will also have body jewelry, silver goods, and clothing for sale in the unit. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: A retail and serivice oriented strip commercial center. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Norfolk and Southern Railroad right-of-way USE AND ZONING: South: . Interstate 264 East: . Witchduck Road • Across Witchduck Road are service oriented uses / 1-1 and 1-2 Industrial West: . Interstate 264 BLUE HORSESHOE NATURAL RESOURCE AND There are no natural resources or cultural features associated with the CULTURAL FEATURES: site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Witchduck Road in front of this application is a four -lane divided minor urban arterial facility. The Witchduck Road Phase II Roadway Improvements project, which will widen Witchduck Road in front of this site to six lanes, is currently in the design stage and is scheduled to begin construction in 2009. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Witchduck Road 44,043 ADT 27,400 ADT Existing Land Use — Unknown Proposed Land Use 3 - 200 Average Daily Trips s as defined by unknown 3as defined by specialty retail WATER and SEWER: The site is connected to city water and sewer. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Strategic Growth Area #4. The Pembroke Strategic Growth Area consists of many tracts of land that differ widely in land use type, intensity, character and value. Staff recommends approval of this EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION request subject to the conditions listed below. The conditional use permit request to operate a tattoo and body -piercing establishment in an existing retail space does not present any land use concerns that depart noticeably from the Comprehensive Plan policies established for this portion of Strategic Growth Area 4, specifically, the West Pembroke sub -area. The proposed establishment meets the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, Section 242.1. The applicant is aware of the Health Department requirements for the operation. CONDITIONS BLUE HORSESHOE 1. The conditional use permit for a tattoo and body -piercing establishment is approved for a period of one year, with an administrative review every year thereafter. 2. A business license shall not be issued to the applicant without the approval of the Health Department for consistency with the provisions of Chapter 23 of the City Code. 3. No signage more than four (4) square feet of the entire glass area of the exterior wall(s) shall be permitted on the windows. There shall be no other signs, including neon signs or neon accents installed on any wall area of the exterior of the building, windows and / or doors. 4. The actual tattooing / body piercing operation on a customer shall not be visible from any public right- of-way adjacent to the establishment. 5. The hours of operation shall be 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sunday. 6. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for the change of use in the unit from the Building Code Official. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. BLUE HORSESHOE TOO V, LTD nda Item #3 Page 3 AERIAL OF SITE BLUE HORSESHOE s 7 PROPOSED SITE PLAN. BLUE HORSESHOE 7 PROPOSED SITE PLAN. BLUE HORSESHOE EXISTING BUILDING BLUE HORSESHOE Mn.n 1�7 CUP - lattoo & Body Piercing Establishment I-f 1. 6/22/04 Street Closure I.Approved 2. 2/12/02 Conditional Use Permit Communication Tower Approved DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by th4 names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) 151"- 901--;0-5 it TA*Do 31, 1—T4 At. ff , A-cs;(Je-4-, Zr, fX, W MAA1 2. List all businesses that have a parent-eiubsIdlary" or affiliated business entity' relationship with the applicant: (Attach list ffnecessary) Check here If the applicant is NOT a cdrporation, partnership, fin-n, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPMY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this voctfon only If property owner Is dftrent from applicant. if the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated orgenitaflon, complete the following, 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) BeA-S-4- V,�"t-, 7co 4 &,- ! �A-e d E I I i - s S4*-,3,-- L - P�4r-�Lcwls� M/j;/1 rw4�JY-,VA 23s-jo 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity' relationship with the applicant: (Attach list ff necessary) CA-V4— Check here if the property owner is Nora corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. I & 2 See ne$t page for footnotes Zonculional Uee Parmft A.Ppilration Page a or 10 Rvvis-d 9,1112004 �3 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AODITJONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or busineisses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, Including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services and legal services: (Attach list It Mbwt- . "Parent -subsidiary relationihip" means 'a relationship that exists when one corporation airectly or inairseW owns snares possessing more than bu percent or ine voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Intere%lis Act, Va. Code § 2.2-310I.1 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means 'a relationship, other than parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (1) one business entity has a controlling ownership Interest In the other business entity, (il) a controlling owner in one entity Is also a controlling owner In the other entity, or (111) them Is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the axislance of an affillated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantlielly the same person own or rnanage, the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there Is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities.' Sae State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code S 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION, I certify that the Information contained herein Is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been schadud for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign o%,the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing accorAYng to the tqstrqbtlons In this package. Print Name - k b�Ll�ae_ CJ Owner's Siqni:ik�dl different then applicanti Print Name ConditkWmI Us& Permit AppiloalJon P&gm, ?Oar? C, ftv4sd WV2004 BLUE HORSESHOE Item #3 Blue Horseshoe Tattoo V, Ltd. Conditional Use Permit 71-125 South Witchduck Road District 2 Kempsville October 12, 2005 CONSENT William Din: My next item is Item #3. This is Blue Horseshoe Tattoo V, Ltd. This is a Conditional Use Permit request for a tattoo and body piercing establishment to be located at 71-125 South Witchduck in the Kempsville District, and this has six conditions. Is there a representative for this item? If not, can we move forward with this? I believe we can, right? Bill Macali: Yes sir. Sure. William Din: There's no opposition. Is there any opposition to placing this item on consent? Okay. If not, then Ms. Anderson will explain this item. Janice Anderson: Thank you. This application is for a tattoo and body piercing facility. The applicant already has an established business on London Bridge Road. The applicant is familiar with the health regulations and has been in compliance with those. The approval is based on six conditions. It will limit hours of operation. And actually this new business is going to be located in an existing lease space, in a B-2 zoning area, and the surrounding zoning off Witchduck Road is industrial. So the Commission believed that it was an appropriate use and would recommend approval to Council. William Din: Thank you Jan. I'd like to make a motion to approve the following consent item. Item #3 is Blue Horseshoe Tattoo V, Ltd. This is a Conditional Use Permit for a tattoo and body piercing establishment on property located at 71-125 South Witchduck Road in the Kempsville District with six conditions. Donald Horlsey: Second. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER ABSENT Item #3 Blue Horseshoe Tattoo V, Ltd. Page 2 RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, the Board has approved Item #3 for consent. CUP - Telecommunication Tower rSry,.aR� ''Lv 1.., xa�:. ,. o✓ovl CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: SprintCom, Inc. — Conditional Use Permit (communications tower) MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of SprintCom, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower on property located at 1000 North Great Neck Road (GPIN 24081388720000). DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN \� Considerations: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow development of the site for a communication tower and maintenance cabinets. The proposed tower and maintenance cabinets are to be located in the northwestern portion of the site adjacent to Princess Anne Memorial Cemetery. The proposed lease area is 58- feet by 60-feet with a 20-foot access easement. The submitted site plan depicts the required landscaping of Leyland Cypress trees and Burford Holly shrubs around the proposed lease area. The proposed communication tower is a stealth monopole type of an overall height of 130-feet. The proposed monopole will accommodate three carriers. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this request because the applicant worked with staff and the adjacent neighborhoods to locate the monopole tower in the least obtrusive area of the site. The applicant has provided evidence of the need for additional coverage in the Great Neck area, and has provided for additional carriers on the monopole. There was opposition at the public hearing. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request, with the following conditions: 1. The tower shall be constructed substantially in adherence to the site plans entitled "Sprint, Virginia Beach Christian Life Center", prepared by Fullerton Engineering Consultants, Inc., and dated 3/22/05. This site plan has been exhibited to City Council and is on file with the Department of Planning. 2. The tower shall be limited in height to 130-feet. SprintCom, Inc. Page 2of2 3. The tower shall be constructed to accommodate equipment for two additional wireless providers as depicted on the submitted site plans. 4. Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emissions study (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will not interfere with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities, shall be provided prior to site plan approval for the tower and all subsequent users. 5. In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference. 6. The applicant shall submit a tree protection plan for review and approval before any disturbance of the site. 7. Should the antennae cease to be used for a period of more than one (1) year, the applicant shall remove the antennae and their supporting tower and related equipment. 8. All conditions of the conditional use permit approved for Virginia Beach Christian Life Center, dated 10/14/03, shall remain in effect. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: V � `�� SPRINTCOM, INC. Agenda Item # 17 October 12, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a Communication Tower ss s+► �� � tr � i . � � x'"•r,y C Qi�� •<,.: AFL . ICI ,. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 1000 North Great Neck Road GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 24081388720000 5 - LYNNHAVEN 10,000 square feet The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow SUMMARY OF REQUEST development of the site for a communication tower and maintenance cabinets. The proposed tower and maintenance cabinets are to be located in the northwestern portion of the site adjacent to Princess Anne Memorial Cemetery. The proposed lease area is 58-feet by 60-feet with a 20-foot access easement. The submitted site plan depicts the required landscaping of Leyland Cypress trees and Burford Holly shrubs around the proposed lease area. The proposed communication tower is a stealth monopole type of an overall height of 130-feet. The proposed monopole will accommodate three carriers. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: The Wave Church, formerly Virginia Beach Christian Life Center SURROUNDING LAND North: 0 Princess Anne Memorial Park / R-10 Residential USE AND ZONING: South: . Old Donation Parkway • Across Old Donation Parkway are Single-family dwellings / R- 10 Residential East: . Single-family dwellings / R-10 Residential West: . Great Neck Road Across Great Neck Road is Single-family dwellings / R-20 Residential NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is wooded in several areas. The applicant has SP 4. Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emissions study (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will not interfere with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities, shall be provided prior to site plan approval for the tower and all subsequent users. 5. In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference. 6. The applicant shall submit a tree protection plan for review and approval before any disturbance of the site. 7. Should the antennae cease to be used for a period of more than one (1) year, the applicant shall remove the antennae and their supporting tower and related equipment. 8. All conditions of the conditional use permit approved for Virginia Beach Christian Life Center, dated 10/14/03, shall remain in effect. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. S _c F d �r 3 F � b � 4y� th ox 0 ix oil 0 JIN 0 x o H 0,9:1 II 0 0 0 0000000 XF M�,Ww I PROPOSED SITE & LANDSCAPE PLAN' a C RY 1/12/67 Rezoning (R-R1 Rural Residential / R-S1 Residence Suburban to R-M Withdrawn Multiple -Family / C-L2 Limited Commercial) 1/13/69 Conditional Use Permit (Billboard) Approved 6/9/75 Rezoning (R-5 Residential to R-9 Residential Townhouse) Denied 4/26/76 Conditional Use Permit (Church) Approved 8/9/82 Conditional Use Permit (Church Expansion) Approved 5/21/84 Conditional Use Permit (Church Expansion) Approved 7/13/93 Conditional Use Permit (Pre-school) Approved 12/5/95 Conditional Use Permit (Church Expansion) Approved 10/14/03 Conditional Use Permit Church Expansion) 1a. 11/14/66 Rezoning (R-S 3 Residence Suburban to C-L1 Limited Commercial) Denied 5/15/78 Conditional Use Permit(Cemetery) Approved 2. 9/14/93 Subdivision Variance A roved 3. 7-7-92 Conditional Use Permit Pre-school Approved DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the fallowing: 1. Ust the applicant name "owed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc, below: (Attach list if necessary) SprintCom, Inc. - See Attached List Z. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entityz relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PIJOPERTY OWN DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner i different from applicant. If the property owner is a c arporation, partner hip, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the foi owing: 1. List the property owner name followed by he names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc, low: (Attach list 'f necessary) Vir1linia Beach Christian Life Ce ter - S76 .� Owl'-14Y� Cd 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entityz relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ElCheck here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. .dr Aft DISCLOSURE STATE �0M, INC, i Item # 17 Page 9 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services and legal se ' Att�st If necessary 1 "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means"a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns -hares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." ,gee State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3 01. a "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (6) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially` the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the applice scheduled public hearing, 1 am responsible for e btaining and petinc sign on o s,,b' t property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled pub nstrtmtions in this package_ ame N Print ante tee, different than applicant) PrintNatto - Grxn ltion:al Use Penn!! Aplica�c^ Placet 0, 0 10 Revised T1f<'.uii�'! DISCLOSURE STATEMENT R� Directors Gene M. Betts Robert J. Dellinger D. Brett Haring Jff€c&! s Len J. Lauer President Michael W. Strut Executive Vice President Kathryn A. Walker Executive Vice President- Network Services Gene M. Betts Senior Vice; President and Treasurer William R. Blessing Senior Vice President - Corporate Strategy/Dcvelupment John A. Garcia Senior Vice President Sales/Distribution - PCS John P. Moyer Senior Vice President and Controller Thomas E. Murphy Senior Vice President Corporate Communications Steven M. Nielsen Senior Vice President - Finance - PCS Cynthia A. Rock Senior Vice President- Customer Solutions Michael P. Allen Vice President - Law - Marketing/Sales Operations David B. Bottoms Vice President- Strategic Partners Clary E. Charde Vice President -Tax Faye S. Davis Vice President,- Enterprise Property Services Kurt C. Gastrock Vice President Wireless Sites Stephen P. Geldmachcr Vice: President- Indirect Field Sates Luisa L,ancetti Vice President- Regulatory Policy Thomas F. Mateer Vice President - Customer Experience James C. Mickey Vice President - Sprint Store Management Dennis C. Piper Vice President and Assistant Treasurer Claudia S. Toussaint Vice President and Secretary Charles E. Wunsch Vice President and Assistant Secretary Harley Ball Assistant Vice President Mark V. Beshears Assistant Vice President - Tax. James G. Meyers Assistant Vice President _- Site Development Jahn W. Chapman Assistant Secretary D. Brett Haring Assistant Secretary Michael T. Ilyde Assistant Secretary Ellen S. Martin Assistant Secretary 6/9/2005 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT I Item #17 SprintCom, Inc. Conditional Use Permit 100 North Great Neck Road District 5 Lynnhaven October 12, 2005 REGULAR Dorothy Wood: We're going to go on and call Item #17 first because there is only one speaker in opposition, and I think the rest of you are here for Items #8 — 12. Joseph Strange: Item #17, which is SprintCom, Inc. An ordinance upon application for a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower on property located at 1000 North Great Neck Road, District 5, Lynnhaven with eight conditions. Dorothy Wood: Lisa, would you like to do a short presentation because you were on consent. There is someone who would like to speak and maybe you can answer the questions. Lisa Murphy: Briefly, my name is Lisa Murphy. I'm a legal attorney, and I'm here today on behalf of the applicant, SprintCom. This, as you may recall this particular application was deferred from the last Planning Commission hearing. Our original application was for a 150 foot flush mounted antenna installation tower at the Virginia Beach Christian Life Center. And in speaking with the neighbors who live in Michael's Glen, a couple of times we have revised that application, which is what you have before you. It is a 130 foot tower, but it is a stealth tower so that the antennas are internal to the tower, and really the antennas won't be seen from outside. This is obviously, as most of you know a very difficult area of the City to cover because of the trees. Just to give you an idea of the surrounding sites, there is a site at Cox High School, which you're probably familiar with. There is a 125-foot light pole replacement at that installation. There is a Virginia Power tower to the south at the Great Neck Professional Center, and there is rooftop installation at First Colonial. Really, other than that, there is a pretty good gap of coverage in that part of Great Neck Road. That is really what Sprint is looking to cover. As you know from the application there is a Letter of Intent to collocate that we received from another wireless carrier. As it shows in the plans, there will be two additional spaces for other carriers to install their antennas. And we believe, a little bit surprised that there is someone here today, but we are happy to answer any questions. We did work very closely with staff and with the neighbors on this to try to tailor this application for that particular location. Dorothy Wood: Thanks Lisa. We're going to call the opposition and then give you a few minutes. Item # 17 SprintCom, Inc. Page 2 Joseph Strange: Speaking in opposition is Paul Diaczun. Dorothy Wood: Welcome sir. Paul Diaczun: Thank you. My name is Paul Diaczun, and I do have an adjacent property to the Princess Anne Memorial Park. Unlike the other neighbors mentioned there was no effort made to enlist our concerns earlier than this point until I received a letter about this. I have two items that really amount to more questions, that perhaps if answered then my objection would go away. One is whether this tower will give any RF interference to my own personal and business communications. I do run a business out of my house, and I use the cell phone to work my business. Second, whether there was any consideration of the fact that there is quite a bit of press on health risks that radio towers in residential area that recommends up to three miles away from a residential area, and whether that has been investigated fully to make sure that this tower does not propose such a risk. When those questions are answered satisfactorily, I remove any opposition. Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Perhaps you and Lisa can talk and come back? Would you like to do that, or would you like her just to answer? Paul Diaczun: If she could answer the questions right now. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Lisa Murphy: The first question that was raised with regard to RF interference. Sprint operates between 1850 — 1900mh. Most of your other household uses, your computer, fluorescent lights, television, am-fm radio, those types of things, operate at a much lower frequency. So unlike the situation where you have a baby monitor and someone's cordless phone possible causing interference, the range at which the carriers operate, and which their licensed to operate, is a range that should not cause interference with any other types of electrical uses or computers in the area. As far as the health risks, I think that has been addressed by the Telecommunications Act. And, the antennas, as you probably know are all around. There on the football field at Cox High School, at First Colonial High School. They are on the rooftops of buildings. The federal government has determined that there really isn't a health risk that is created by them. And we are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, in additional other federal agencies. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Lisa. Lisa Murphy: You're welcome. Dorothy Wood: Does this answer your question sir? Item # 17 SprintCom, Inc. Page 3 Paul Diaczun: She mentioned that it wouldn't interfere with my computer. My question was on my cell phone, whether it would interfere with my cell phone? Dorothy Wood: She's shaking her head no sir. Paul Diaczun: Then I withdraw my opposition. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Ron. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Scott, have you received any complaints against these towers that you can recall? Robert Scott: No. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Do I hear a motion? Eugene Crabtree: I make a motion that we approve the item as presented. Kathy Katsias: Second. Dorothy Wood: A second by Ms. Katsias. AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, the Board has approved Item #17. ABSENT -35- Item V-K.6. PLANNING ITEM # 54506 Attorney David S. Hay, 3720 Holland Road, Suite 103, Phone; 428-8488, represented the applicant and requested an INDEFINITE DEFERRAL to allow inclusions within the proffer agreement. The applicant requests the hours be 10: 00 A.M. to 9: 00 P.M. weekdays and 10: 00 A.M. to 11: 00 P.M on weekends. The exterior of the building shall be refurbished and the parking lot repaved. Upon motion by Council Lady McClanan, seconded by Council Lady Wilson, City Council DEFERRED INDEFINITELY an Ordinance upon application of STEVEN KREVER for a Conditional Change of Zoning: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF STEVEN KREVER FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICA TIONFR OM 0-2 TO CONDITIONAL B-1 Ordinance upon Application of Steven Krever for a Change ofZoninQ District Classification from 0-2 Office District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District on property located at 3712 South Plaza Trail (GPIN 14875015970000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being part of the Primary Residential Area, suitable for appropriately located suburban residential and non- residential uses consistent with thepolicies ofthe Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this rezoning is to allow a delicatessen and other uses on the property. DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye. - Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None October 11, 2005 �me c y11�* HL, { t! CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Steven Krever — Change of Zoning District Classification MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Steven Krever fora Change of Zoning District Classification from 0-2 Office District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District on property located at 3712 South Plaza Trail (GPIN 14875015970000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being part of the Primary Residential Area, suitable for appropriately located suburban residential and non-residential uses consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this rezoning is to allow a delicatessen and other uses on the property. DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL This request was deferred by the City Council on October 11t" to allow the applicant to amend the proffers. A new proffer has been added to the legal agreement, proffer #3, indicating that the parking lot will be repaved where necessary and that the exterior of the building will be cleaned and repainted where necessary. The new proffer has been incorporated into the revised staff report that is attached. ■ Considerations: The applicant proposes to rezone the existing office property to B-1 Neighborhood Business District in order to operate a delicatessen restaurant. No changes to the exterior of the existing building or parking lot are proposed with the exception of the addition of landscaping that the applicant has proffered. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because they felt that the rezoning and the proposed use are appropriate for this location. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The rezoning to B-1 Neighborhood Business District with proffered conditions will allow a small delicatessen with no drive through window and no alcoholic beverages to operate in conjunction with the established office uses on the site. As proffered, the delicatessen is compatible with the adjoining residential neighborhood and more appropriate than many uses allowed by right in the existing unconditional 0-2 Office District. Steven Krever Page 2 of 2 Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to approve this request, as proffered. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: ' -' 'L, STEVEN KREVER Agenda Item # 14 September 14, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Barbara Duke REQUEST: Change of Zoning District Classification from 0-2 Office District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District. Steven Krever 7 TELJMINIA fIXJL 5 (s»�wQ,w �� ;tr_cm_cQmrr cr �°I ,�A 6b Q j o 0 S. --,I��I TT Zoning Change from 0-2 to Cond. B-IA ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 3712 South Plaza Trail GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14875015970000 3 — ROSE HALL 12,000 square feet This item was deferred from the August public hearing at the request of the applicant to work with staff on the proffer agreement. The applicant proposes to rezone the existing property to B-1 SUMMARY OF REQUEST Neighborhood Business District in order to operate a delicatessen restaurant. No changes to the exterior of the existing building or parking lot are proposed with the exception of the addition of landscaping that the applicant has proffered. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Existing office building and parking SURROUNDING LAND North: 0 Child day care center/ 0-2 Office District USE AND ZONING: South: • South Plaza Trail East: . Office building/ 0-2 Office District West: . Presidential Boulevard NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: There are no natural resource or cultural features on this site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES No measurable impact on city services is anticipated with this rezoning. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within COMPREHENSIVE PLAN the Primary Residential Area. The land use planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. The established type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non-residential, in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. Staff recommends approval of this EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION request with the submitted proffers. The proffers are provided below. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The rezoning to B-1 Neighborhood Business District with proffered conditions will allow a small, independently owned delicatessen, the epitome of a neighborhood use, to operate in conjunction with the established office uses on the site. The B-1 Neighborhood Business District is more appropriate for this location at the entrance to this residential area than the existing unrestricted 0-2 Office District zoning. PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: The Property shall be used for business offices as permitted in the B-1 District, and less than 50% shall be used for a restaurant without drive -through windows provided that products prepared or processed on the premises shall be sold only as retail. Also, there shall be no sale or serving of alcoholic beverages at the restaurant. ST PROFFER 2: Grantor shall install foundation landscaping as approved by the Planning Director. Grantor shall also install street frontage landscaping as approved by the Planning Director in the existing green spaces between the sidewalk and the parking lot along South Plaza Trail and Presidential Boulevard. PROFFER 3: The parking lot will be repaved where necessary and the exterior of the building will be cleaned and repainted where necessary. PROFFER 4: The hours of operation of the restaurant will be from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. during the week and 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. PROFFER 5: Further conditions mandated by applicable development ordinances may be required by the Grantee during detailed site plan and/or subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated October 12, 2005, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. AERIAL VIEW OF SITE TION 4 KREVER a Item # 14 Page 4 3AINO ':CIOQ VNNOO I� j( E .........�.�.._ eJ Ru F 4r ►c.. i .+w �r 4 .�lit Jr ..._ ! I. MTV a {'0 "'(A IQ.. IYII 3atS3Cv 1 04/07/65 REZONING from RS-4 Residential to GRANTED CL-2 Commercial 2 12/15/75 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for GRANTED beauty salon 3 10/15/84 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for gas DENIED station 4 10/24/83 REZONING from B-2 Business to A-1 DENIED Apartment ffDISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below. (Attach list if necessary) e- Lnst an Dusinesses triat nave a parent-subsidiary'or affiliated business entity relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) figglCheck here If the applicant Is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Corn#ete this section only if properly owner Is differarg from applicant. If the property owner Is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the followinW. I 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers. membAm- trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Z. LIST all Dusinesses that have a parent-subsidiary'I or affiliated business entlty2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list ff necessary) Check here if the Property owner Is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. & See next page for footnotes I-� Conditional Rezonkig Application P09e 71 of 12 Revised 911/2004 POW 12 of 12 Item #14 Steven Krever Change of Zoning District Classification 3712 South Plaza Trail District 3 Rose Hall September 14, 2005 CONSENT William Din: Our next and last item is Item #14 Steven Krever. This is an application by Mr. Krever to Change the Zoning District Classification from 0-2 Office District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District on property located at 3712 South Plaza Trial in the Rose Hall District. This is a proffered application. David Hay: Good afternoon. My name is David Hay. I'm a local attorney representing Steve Krever. We have got three proffers and we agree to the conditions set forth in the staff comments. William Din: Thank you Mr. Hay. David Hay: Yes sir. William Din: Is there any objection to placing this item on consent agenda? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Gene Crabtree will explain this issue. Eugene Crabtree: This application is for rezoning from 0-2 to B-1 in a residential or at the start of a residential area in the Windsor Woods section of Virginia Beach. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this as being in a primary residential area but it is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as recommended for this area. We believe that the B-1 Neighborhood Business District is appropriate for this location at the entrance to the residential area. There are some office buildings adjacent to this that should be able to support a business of this type. Therefore, we put it on the consent agenda. William Din: Thank you Gene. I would like to make a motion to approve the following item. Item #14 is Steven Krever. This is an application to change the Zoning District Classification from 0-2 Office District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District on property located at 3712 South Plaza Trail, Rose Hall District. Barry Knight: I'll second that motion. William Din: Thank you. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 2 Item #14 Steven Krever Page 2 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, the Board as approved Item #14 for consent. Dorothy Wood: Thank you very much. W In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6229 TO: Leslie L. Lilley FROM: B. Kay WilsonV CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: November 10, 2005 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application; Steven Krever The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 22, 2005. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated October 12, 2005, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW/ks Enclosure cc: Kathleen Hassen KREVER HOLDINGS, INC. a Virginia corporation To CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH a Municipal Corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS PROFFER AGREEMENT ("Agreement") made this f� day of October, 2005, by and among KREVER HOLDINGS, INC. (the "Grantor"); and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Grantee") RECITALS: A. Grantor is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the City of Virginia Beach being briefly described as Parcel A, 0.58566 Acres, 3712 South Plaza Trail, and more particularly described upon Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. Grantor has initiated an amendment to the zoning map of the City of Virginia Beach by petition of Grantor addressed to Grantee to change the zoning classification of the property to Conditional B-1 Community Business District. The proposed amendment is made pursuant to the terms of the City Zoning Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted April 18, 1988, as amended and in effect on the date of this Agreement (the "City Zoning Ordinance"). C. Grantee's policy is to provide for the orderly development of land for various purposes, including commercial purposes, through zoning and other land development legislation. D. Grantor acknowledges that in order to prevent incompatible land use, reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property, in addition to the regulations generally applicable to land zoned B-1 as specified in the City Zoning Ordinance, are required to address the project proposed in Grantor's rezoning application. PREPARED BY: DAVID S. HAY, ATTORNEY AT LAW GPIN NO. 1487-50-1597-0000 E. Grantor has voluntarily proffered in writing, prior to the public hearing before Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map and in addition to the regulations specified in the City Zoning Ordinance for the B-1 zoning district, reasonable conditions outlined in this Agreement related to the development and operation of the Property. These conditions will be adopted as a part of the amendment to the Zoning Map relative to the Property, and have a reasonable relation to the use of the Property as rezoned B-1 and are needed as a result of the rezoning. F. The conditions outlined in this Agreement have been proffered by Grantor and allowed and accepted by Grantee as a part of the amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map. These conditions shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property; provided, however, that such conditions shall continue if the subsequent amendment is part of the comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance of Grantee. The conditions outlined in this Agreement may be amended only by following the procedures and recording the documents as outlined and required in the City Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, Grantors, its heirs, successors, assigns, grantees and other successors in title or interest to the Property, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from Grantee or its governing body and without any element or compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit or subdivision approval, makes the following declaration of conditions and restrictions governing the use and physical development and operation of the Property, and covenants and agrees that this declaration and the further terms of this Agreement shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property, and upon all persons and entities claiming under or through the Grantor, his heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns, grantees and other successors in interest or title to the Property; namely: 1. The Property shall be used for business offices as permitted in the B-1 District, and less than 50% shall be used for a restaurant without drive -through windows provided that products prepared or processed on the 2 premises shall be sold only as retail. Also, there shall be no sale or serving of alcoholic beverages at the restaurant. 2. Grantor shall install foundation landscaping as approved by the Planning Director. Grantor shall also install street frontage landscaping as approved by the Planning Director in the existing green spaces between the sidewalk and the parking lot along South Plaza Trail and Presidential Boulevard. 3. The parking lot will be repaved where necessary and the exterior of the building will be cleaned or repainted where necessary. 4. The hours of operation of the restaurant will be from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. during the week and 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. 5. Further conditions mandated by applicable development ordinances may be required by the Grantee during detailed site plan and/or subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. 6. All references hereinabove to zoning districts and to regulations applicable thereto, refer to the City Zoning Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, in force as of the date of the conditional rezoning amendment is approved by the Grantee. 7. The Grantor covenants and agrees that (1) the Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions specified in this Agreement, including (i) the ordering in writing of the remedying of any noncompliance with such conditions, and (ii) the bringing of legal action or suit to ensure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages or other appropriate action, suit or proceedings; (2) the failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) if aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator made pursuant to the provisions of the City Code, the City Zoning Ordinance or this Agreement, the City shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) the Zoning Map shall 3 show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the subject Property on the map and that the ordinance and conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department and that they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and indexed in the name of the Grantor and Grantee. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: STEVEN KREVER President of Krever Holdings, Inc. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: I, 4Cme tl A• �/a=E"�� , the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the City and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Steven Krever, whose name is signed to the foregoing instrument as president of Krever Holdings, Inc., has sworn to, subscribed, and acknowledged the same before me in my City and State aforesaid this /.t" day of October, 2005. The said Steven Krever is personally known to me; or ✓ has produced 4 vas✓'ms for identification purposes. My Commission ARY PUBLIC 4 EXIIIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION ALL that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the building and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the Lynnhaven Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and described as "Parcel A, 0.58566 acres" on plat entitled "Subdivision of Property of W. C. Lineberry Estate, M.B. 72, Pg. 4, made by Langley and MacDonald, Engineers -Planners -Surveyors, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Scale 1" = 20', dated 8/31/79 including an easement shown on "Parcel B" and "Parcel C" on said plat extending from South Plaza Trail to the northern boundary of "Parcels B and C", and "Ingress/Egress, Parking Easement hereby dedicated to Parcels A and C from Parcel B", which said plat is duly of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 136 at page 31. IT BEING the same property conveyed to Krever Holdings, Inc. by deed dated March 31, 2003, from Key Associates, Inc. - 5 - Page 2 of 2 on the change to the instruction We recently applied for a rezoning necessary to better lay out a residential project to protect the Chesapeake Bay. We offered reduced density from what we can build by right and we offered the minimum of land disturbance. The Commanding Officer of NAS Oceana has recommended denial; he said we should build a compatible use. I checked the table; now this is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. To the Navy, compatible use is a rubber manufacturing plant, a petroleum refinery, a distribution facility, an automobile service facility, or a shopping center. I do not think you would want to face the neighborhood under these circumstances. My point is that I want the planning commission and the city council to retain sovereignty over local land use decisions. I want the Chairman of the Planning Commission to be that person whom you elect, not the CO of NAS Oceana. I object to the ceding of local authority over land use decisions to federal officials. I have many other comments about the proposed changes, but frankly, most important is the transfer of local authority to the federal government. I urge you to recommend to the City Council that you simply will not concur with these changes, that they have not been through due process, that they clearly substitute the judgment about land use from you and the planning staff to federal bureaucrats over whom we in this community have no authority nor input whatsoever. Sometimes, we just have to stand up and speak truth to power. This is one of those times. MJB sends! 9/21 /2005 Page 1 of 2 Gloria S. Winkler From: Ruth H. Smith Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:13 AM To: Gloria S. Winkler Subject: FW: comments on Proposed AICUZ changes BE SURE THIS IS A LEFT PUNCH when the item comes to City Council in November - - or later - - whenever ............. From: Mike Barrett[mailto:mjbarrett@runnymedecorp.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 9:53 AM To: Bob Scott Cc: Ruth H. Smith; James Spore Subject: comments on Proposed AICUZ changes Bob, may I asked your indulgence to pass this on to the members of the Planning Commission? Honorable Chairman Members of the Planning Commission I intend to appear to offer comment at your October 12th meeting; however, I had hoped to be able to send these comments to you in advance in the hope that you will have ample opportunity to consider them before you make your recommendation to City Council. First, I believe that since 1974, the Planning Commission and the City Council have acted on some 8,700 applications; according to the Virginian Pilot, the Navy opposed 71 of those applications. Also, it is noted that in 52 cases, the council voted against the Navy's recommendation. In other words, in over 99% of the applications over a 31 year period, the commission and the council voted approval without objection from the Navy. This is important to the discussion of these new AICUZ proposals. You and the Council incorporated the old AICUZ in your comprehensive plan and in the zoning ordinance, but that made not one wit of difference to the BRAC; they condemned all development whether it was compatible with AICUZ or not. In that context, and in view of the fact that over 20,055 homes have been built without objection from the navy in the noise zones which house 92,162 citizens of Virginia Beach, and this property is now valued at $3,416,568,491, how can we as a community justify now saying that residential use is not allowed in the noise zones? In fact, in the preface to the changes, section 1802, the drafter of this amendment all but identified the tactic any land use lawyer will use to say we did this for the Navy. If you vote to pass this ordinance, you will vote to deny property owners the right to use their property in the same way that their neighbors have used theirs, and believe it will open the city to numerous challenges for taking property rights without due compensation. I thought that under Virginia Land Use Law, similar properties must be treated similarly and that property owners must be afforded a reasonable use of their property. Frankly, with 20,055 homes in the noise zones already, how can the door suddenly be slammed shut in the face of other property owners with similar properties? Why was residential use compatible on December 18, 2002, but not so on December 19, 2002? We all know the answer; the Navy's AICUZ instruction changed; in fact, the table of compatibility that accompanies the AICUZ map was changed to make residential use not compatible. The official who made the change, Alan Zusman, testified to the AICUZ task force that he simply made the change on his own; he conducted no scientific studies, took no testimony from experts, held no public hearings, gave no opportunity for local officials to comment or to be heard. He just made the change and the Chief of Naval Operations signed off 9/21 /2005 -43- Item V-K.1. PLANNING ITEM # 54544 (Continued) Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Maddox, City Council DEFERRED until the City Council Session of November 22, 2005: Ordinances re AICUZ, noise, traffic and JLUS: a. AMEND andREORDAINthe CZOREPEALING Section 221.1 and ADD a new Article 18 to establish City Council Policy re discretionary development applications and sound attenuation requirements in buildings and structures in certain AICUZ b. AMEND and REORDAIN the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance (City Code Appendix I), re sound attenuation requirements in certain buildings and structures and required disclosures in residential real estate transactions c. AMEND the Official Zoning Map to designate and incorporate the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area d. AMEND the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area Map e. AMEND the Comprehensive Plan by revising Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, the Appendix, and the Princess Anne Corridor Plan to incorporate provisions of AICUZ, JLUS, and the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance Voting: 7-4 Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Council Members Voting Nay: Robert M. Dyer, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Absent: None Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones DISCLOSED Pursuant to Section § 2.2-3115 (G) re discussion and vote on the City's response to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission's (BRAG) Final and Approved Recommendations regarding Naval Air Station Oceana. Vice Mayor Jones owns property located in the inter facility traffic area and is a member of the Board of Directors of Resource Bank where he receives more than $10, 000 annually in compensation as a Member of the Board. Resource Bank has extended loans and lines of credit to owners and developers ofproperty located in the Accident Potential Zone Vice Mayor Jones wished to disclose this interest and advised he was able to participate in this discussion fairly, objectively and in the public interest. Vice Mayor Jones's letter of October 25, 2005, is hereby made a part of the record. October 25, 2005 Sm Item i- K.1. PLANNING ITEM # 54544 (Continued) Bill Gambrell, 6304 Atlantic Avenue, registered in OPPOSITION. Oceana is a vital component of our City. He requested DEFERRAL until completion of the Citizen BRAC Committee report and Economic Study Don Smith, 208 77th Street, life long resident and business owner, requested DEFERRAL until completion of the Citizen BRAC Committee report and Economic Study. Attorney R..J. Nutter, 222 Central Park Avenue #2002, Phone: 687-7500, represented hotel owners on 33'd 34`h, 35`h, 36', 37" and 391h Street. This is the area where the 70 decibel noise area intersects with the Oceanfront and particularly the east side of Atlantic Avenue. These businesses jointly have over 3, 000 employees. Attorney Nutter requested DEFERRAL until completion of the Citizen BRAC Committee report and Economic Study Mike Barrett, 212 72"d Street, member of the earlier AICUZ Task Force and now newly appointed Citizen BRAC Committee. The Navy will continue to oppose any development above 65 decibel. There are approximately 95, 000 citizens residing in 25, 000 homes valued at approximately $3.5-BILLION who reside in the noise zones. Mr. Barrett registered in OPPOSITION and requested DEFERRAL until completion of the Citizen BRAC Committee report and Economic Study A MOTION was made by Councilman Dyer, seconded by Councilman Wood, to ADOPT Ordinances re AICUZ, noise, traffic and JLUS: a. AMEND andREORDAINthe CZOREPEALING Section 221.1 and ADD a new Article 18 to establish City Council Policy re discretionary development applications and sound attenuation requirements in buildings and structures in certain AICUZ b. AMEND and REORDAIN the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance (City Code Appendix I), re sound attenuation requirements in certain buildings and structures and required disclosures in residential real estate transactions c. AMEND the Official Zoning Map to designate and incorporate the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area d. AMEND the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area Map e. AMEND the Comprehensive Plan by revising Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, the Appendix, and the Princess Anne Corridor Plan to incorporate provisions of AICUZ, JLUS, and the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance October 25, 2005 -41- Item V-K.1. PLANNING ITEM # 54544 (Continued) Ray Breeden, 1433 North Bayshore Drive, Phone: 422-1666, represented the Breeden Companies of Virginia Beach and spoke in SUPPORT of adoption of the Ordinances Alan Kent Little, 1634 Cutty Sark Road, Phone: 496-0448, represented the City of Oceana Coalition (a coalition of businesses in Virginia Beach comprising professional, medical, real estate, construction, retail - 10, 000 employees and approximately $1-BILLION of the tax base), spoke of SUPPORT. Oceana represents 17% of the jobs in the City. Hu Odom, 4506 Oceana Front Avenue, Phone: 491-4362, operates Golden Corrals in Virginia Beach and Hampton Roads, spoke in SUPPORT. In 2006, the three (3) Virginia Beach Golden Corrals will have approximately $15-MILLION in sales and generate over $800, 000 in food and beverage taxes for this City. During the Summer of 2006, the restaurants will employ approximately 450 in addition to the 22 office personnel in Kempsville Jim Arnhold, 1612 Centerville Turnpike, Phone: 621-8868, owner of a local development construction business for the past thirty (30) years, life-long resident of Virginia Beach. Mr. Arnhold requested DEFERRAL until completion of the Citizen BRAC Committee report and Economic Study. Captain Patrick Lorge, Commanding Officer - Naval Air Station Oceana, spoke in SUPPORT and requested ADOPTION of the Ordinance Janice Roller, 2444 East Chester Drive, Phone: 486-2854, spoke on behalf of the residents of Cheltenham Square as per request of Joe Ferrara. Ms. Roller registered in OPPOSITION and requested DEFERRAL until completion of the Citizen BRA Committee report and Economic Study. The BRA mandated plan does not have to be in place until March 2006 Jerry Chaplain, 913 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Phone: 428-6302, property owner at the Resort strip, registered in OPPOSITION. Citizens have a right to develop their property. The safety of our young pilots and the citizens are the most important. Eminent domain should not be considered Joseph Arnhold, 1077 Frazee Lane, Phone: 749-4805, resident since 1981, spoke in OPPOSITION. More than 50,000 residents live within the 70 decibel or higher noise level. Pilots cannot even train properly because of restricted access Attorney R. E. Bourdon, Phone; 499-8971, advised he is not OPPOSED to Oceana's continued presence in the City. Attorney Bourdon requested DEFERRAL for further discussion and refinement and continued public information gathering. Approximately $114-MILLION was expended to build a Convention Center on 19`" Street and is now considered an incompatible land use. Redevelopment of the Resort is essential to the success of the new Convention Center Bob Horton, 3288PageAvenue #309, Phone: 685-5064, spoke in OPPOSITION, concerned re encroachment by the Navy on the quality of life. Mr. Horton advised Oceana only represents 5% of the employment in the City of Virginia Beach. Mr. Horton spoke to nine Mayor's (or their representatives) throughout the United States and researched various Military closures and their economic results Bill Lee, 3521 Indian River Road, Phone: 427-6404, spoke in OPPOSITION. Amendment 5 of the Bill of Rights allows private property owners the economic viable use of their property. Mr. Lee requested DENIAL or DEFERRAL October 25, 2005 Item V-K.1. PLANNING ITEM # 54544 The following registered to speak: Linwood Branch, President - Virginia Beach Motel/Hotel Association, 720 Windwood Drive, Phone: 422-0256, expressed concern re the redevelopment strategy for the Oceanfront not being apart of this proposal. Under this Ordinance, hotels are an incompatible use from 341" Street to the Cavalier Hotel as well as the area surrounding the Convention Center. Over thirty (30) redevelopment projects are "on hold" in the Resort area. A successful resort industry will require a mix of retail, restaurant and hotel development, which is currently not practical with the current zoning. Only a portion of the JL US recommendations are being considered. The Honorable Owen Pickett, spoke in SUPPORT and advised these ordinances are another step in the direction of implementing the Joint Land Use Plan (JL US). Chesapeake and Norfolk are moving ahead with similar changes Mom Prevette, Chairman - Virginia Beach Division of the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce, Vice President of Government Affairs for Cox Communication, Phone: 222-8496, spoke in SUPPORT Admiral Fred Metz, 805 Circuit Court, Phone: 481-3248, served on the Joint Land Use Task Force, spoke in SUPPORT David Gracie, 2532 South Adventure, Trail, Phone: 486-8341, requested DEFERRAL until the Virginia Beach Citizen BRAC Committee report is completed. Dr. Christopher Hooper, 2916 Gaines Landing, Phone: 496-3411, Dentist, Executive Committee- Tidewater Dental Association, spoke in SUPPORT of the Ordinances and Oceana Sam Reid, 1533 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Phone: 437-5648, President - Oceana Garden Coalition Civic League, requested DEFERRAL until completion of the Virginia Beach Citizen BRAC Committee and Economic Consultant reports Stephen R. Davis, Vice President - Virginia Beach Visions and Chair of the JL US Task Force and now member of the Citizen BRAC Committee, requested DEFERRAL until completion of the Citizen BRAC Committee report and Economic Study Jimmy Capps, 940 Cardinal Road, Phone: 428-4099, hotel owner in the Resort Area, spoke in support of the Resort Area as a year `round destination area with the opportunity to develop the 19`" and 31" Street Corridor. Mr. Capps requested DEFERRAL until completion of the Citizen BRAC Committee report and Economic Study. Tom Snyder, 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1700, represented the Taylor Group (Linda Chapel and Barbara Creech), owners of approximately 1, 000 acres of land located west and south of Oceana Naval Air Station. Mr. Snyder participated as a stakeholder in the JL US process. Mr. Snyder requested DEFERRAL until completion of the Citizen BRAC Committee report and Economic Study Tim Faulkner, 1026 Spotswood Avenue, Norfolk, Phone: 626-0220, property manager, advised 50% of'the tenants are military related with 25%from Oceana. Mr. Faulker urged adoption of the Ordinances October 25, 2005 a�c�BEa�� j CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — Amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance (repeal Section 221.1 and add new Article 18, Sections 1800 through 1807) MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance to amend and reordain the City Zoning Ordinance (Appendix A) by repealing Section 221.1, pertaining to specific standards for conditional uses within certain Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) and by adding a new Article 18 thereto, consisting of Sections 1800 through 1806, establishing the policy of the City Council pertaining to discretionary development applications and sound attenuation requirements in buildings and structures in certain Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ). This item was deferred by City Council on October 25, 2005. ■ Considerations: In 2004 and 2005, the Cities of Virginia Beach, Norfolk and Chesapeake joined with the Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to craft a regional Joint Land Use Study (JLUS). The JLUS was adopted by the Virginia Beach City Council in May of 2005. One recommendation of the JLUS was that the City adopt an ordinance applying to all noise zones greater than 65 dB DNL to help prevent encroachment. These new regulations are established by Article 18 and named the "Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Overlay District." The AICUZ Overlay District applies only to discretionary development applications for uses that are not compatible with the Noise Zones and Accident Potential Zones. The ordinance makes it clear that where an application in not compatible, but is the only reasonable use, the City Council shall approve the proposed use at the least density or intensity that is reasonable. The ordinance does not deal with the condemnation of property in Accident Potential Zone 1. It applies only to future applications in noise zones greater than 65dB DNL for rezonings, conditional use permits and other discretionary applications to the City Council where the proposed use or structure would result in an increase in occupancy load. The proposed JLUS Overlay District is in keeping with the recommendations of the Joint Land Use Study adopted by City Council in May of 2005. City of Virginia Beach Page 2of2 There were speakers in support of the amendments and speakers that expressed concerns. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve these amendments as revised by the City Attorney's Office prior to the public hearing. Note: the revised amendments recommended for approval are attached. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Revised Amendments Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department — City Manager: t 1L'VVV��"� """ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AMENDMENT TO CITY ZONING ORDINANCE 1) REPEAL SECTION 221.1 2) ADD NEW ARTICLE 18, SECTIONS 1800 THROUGH 1807 Agenda Item #8 October 12, 2005 Public Hearing REQUEST: An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain the City Zoning Ordinance (Appendix A) by repealing Section 221.1, pertaining to specific standards for conditional uses within certain Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) and by adding a new Article 18 thereto, consisting of Sections 1800 through 1807, establishing the policy of the City Council pertaining to discretionary development applications and sound attenuation requirements in buildings and structures in certain Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ). SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT In 2004 and 2005, the Cities of Virginia Beach, Norfolk and Chesapeake joined with the Navy and the Hampton /Roads Planning District Commission to craft a regional Joint Land Use Study (JLUS). The JLUS was adopted by the Virginia Beach City Council in May of 2005. One recommendation of the JLUS was that the City adopt an ordinance applying to all noise zones greater than 65 DB DNL to help prevent encroachment. These new regulations are established by Article 18 and named the "Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Overlay District." The AICUZ Overlay District applies only to discretionary development applications for uses that are not compatible with the Noise Zones and Accident Potential Zones. The ordinance makes it clear that where an application in not compatible, but is the only reasonable use, the City Council shall approve the proposed use at the least density or intensity that is reasonable. The ordinance does not deal with the condemnation of property in Accident Potential Zone 1. It applies only to future applications for rezonings, conditional use permits, the enlargement of nonconforming uses where the total occupancy load would increase and street closures that increase occupancy load. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH- AICUZ 7RDINANCE mcla Item :# 8 Pa e 1 Lines 45 through 81 delete Section 221.1, the standards for conditional use permits located within the Airport Noise Zones and Accident Potential Zones, which were adopted in 1994. The amendment creates a new Article 18, Special Regulations in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ). The new Article will be called the AICUZ Overlay District. The purpose and intent of the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance is articulated in Section 1801. Section 1802 lists the findings of the City Council underlying the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance. Section 1803 on applicability, indicates that the AICUZ Overlay District will apply only to discretionary development applications in the Accident Potential Zones and in the 70 — 75 and >75 dB DNL Noise Zones. It also clarifies the type of applications that will be impacted by the AICUZ Overlay District. In addition, Section 1803 contains the tables that designate whether or not a use is compatible or not compatible in the Accident Potential Zones and in the 70 — 75 and >75 Noise Zones. Section 1805 provides that sound attenuation measures be incorporated into uses and structures in Noise Zones 65 —70, 70 — 75 and >75 dB DNL where required by the Virginia Statewide Building Code. This Code has required sound attenuation in residential structures and was recently amended to require sound attenuation in Assembly, Business, Educational, Institutional and Mercantile Use Groups. Item #11 on this agenda establishes the Interfacility Traffic Area within the Princess Anne/Transition Area. The Interfacility Traffic Area is located between NAS Ocean and NALF Fentress and is subject to a high volume of military jet traffic. Section 1806 of the AICUZ Overlay District limits the maximum allowed density in the Interfacility Traffic Area to one dwelling unit per 5 acres of developable land in the 70 — 75 dB DNL Noise Zone and to one dwelling unit per 15 acres in the >75 dB DNL Noise Zone. These maximum densities are subject to the provisions of Section 405, the Alternative Residential Development in Agricultural Districts. Section 1807 contains reservation of powers and severability clauses. RECOMMENDATION The proposed JLUS Overlay District is in keeping with the recommendations of the Joint Land Use Study adopted by City Council in May of 2005 and approval is recommended. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH- AICUZ 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN THE CITY 2 ZONING ORDINANCE (APPENDIX A) BY REPEALING 3 SECTION 221.1, PERTAINING TO SPECIFIC 4 STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USES WITHIN 5 CERTAIN AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE 6 ZONES (AICUZ) AND BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE 18 7 THERETO, CONSISTING OF SECTIONS 1800 THROUGH 8 1807, ESTABLISHING THE POLICY OF THE CITY 9 COUNCIL PERTAINING TO DISCRETIONARY 10 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND SOUND 11 ATTENUATION REQUIREMENTS IN BUILDINGS AND 12 STRUCTURES IN CERTAIN AIR INSTALLATIONS 13 COMPATIBLE USE ZONES (AICUZ) 14 15 16 Section Repealed: City Zoning Ordinance 17 §221.1 18 19 Sections Added: City Zoning Ordinance H 20 1800, 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806 and 21 1807 22 23 24 Whereas, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare 25 and good zoning practice so require; 26 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 27 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 28 That the City Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and 29 reordained by the repeal of Section 221.1, pertaining to 30 specific standards for conditional uses within certain Air 31 Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) and by the addition 32 of a new Article 18 thereto, pertaining to regulations 33 applicable to property in certain Air Installations Compatible 34 Use Zones (AICUZ), which shall read as follows: 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 ARTICLE 2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO ALL DISTRICTS C. CONDITIONAL USES AND STRUCTURES. Sec. 221.1. Speeifie--standards fer eer-tain aendi:tiena' uses leeated within airpert nei9e and aireraft aeeident petential zenesw- [Repealed] . 2 .. .T.sw Tre r a f- �C TSG Gi'QLZTC Pe tenti a-1 Zen e GZ APZ 170 7S dBLd�n Aire t aeeident petential—zene-1 neis ezzene 70 7 S dBLdn TPZ T .+ FT �T��rea-t��than '�-�B �3 r��a t-t �--awe-i���r���ral Tie�rT, lAn ne i se-zzene-greater than 75 dB n APZ 11,170 7 S dBL dot Awe r a f-taae i dent petenialze n e11, neise- zene7SdB-Ldn r..mp t ; � ., har-aehiste- r. t ibl mr- tr� Gempatible— with —aeeustieal t t,,, +- fer-r-eefctiilings/ emteTrer walls 39 B TF , deers / wmews-z 5-S C . Y(b) €er=ree fl/eeilmgs-/e3Eterierwalls 44 STG, deers/ indews 33 S C. Y(e) ram-ibie with aeeust.ieal treatments f-er-reef/ee i l i ng/eieteri er walls 49 ST-C-deers / windews-3,8 SG . N Net ml - tible NGTES (I) Aireraft aeeident petential zenes =p apply enly to military airfields. Use E ems, dB Ada 1,17c) s dB- d ll/�,7s dB- d - IMF� EIB LEI T7 5 dB Ldn 70 75 dB- Ld 65 79 dB Ldn Auditoriuxrts, N N N N N N Y (b) y (a) binge ,-, L, -, l l ., 'J^ Child N N N N N N Y(b) eare eenters ehape-l-s Clubs; N N N N N Y(e) Y (b) Y(a) private er rr-,f L.l etcnxccrc GelleJ__ ___-.'7 + , N N N N N N Y(b) Y(a)universi- eena-le t hemes N N N N N N Y(b) Y- a-}- s ee r,...,,,,,,,. e amarinasN -Y 3F i -Y 3F -Y y establishments manufaetur-4— steraged Family eare hemes N �3 N �Tdi �3TT Y(b) Y4- + Fraternity �, rl sererityheuses N T�T3 N N N N TT + \w/ TTai Hemes f-er aged , disabled ar N N N N N N Y (b) y (a) Hess; f -.l s c f ariume N N N N N N "�T Y(a)saniT Indeer reereat , l f l t , =r N N N T Y Fraternal ledges N N N N N -Y (e) Y(b) - `'/ `` .^,+ Plebiles here—park-s N N N N N Nb) Y4-a-� M..,-. -, s F .- r ,-. and eenvents N N N N N N �T Multiple family d:.,..l lw,- -- n, N N N N N N y (h) Y(a) N,a r se s' he,nes& sifail h N N N N N N Y (b) Y(a) deer reereat , - l amphitheaters N N N N N N N y N N N N N _Y Y music shells N N N N N N £3 Y f-.e ' l�� P a-s seRge-r terminals N Y Y Y Y _Y Y _Y preeessing Private l,,a,.e� N N N N N y(e) Y(b) y-a- Satellite e N _N N N N Y(e) Y(b) Y (a) iiy Shelter fer far N N N N N N TTVT Y (a) empleyees TttaeL,e.] dwellings N N N N N N Y(b) Y(a) 1S e e i-al eenCe S s N M N N N N ZT� -Y (a) €er live N N N _N N N try Y(a) Theaters pred,aetien 70 71 T ncrrmzced uses andyested rig is T N 72 Az— cT is seetienr hull net afzcet any use 73 permitted any persen by right er any vest 75 , 1 ll ti ,a } f� e tti, zzt—�i���tT�rAn� 3uzrr� �. c��-.�zTcrcc�cA—cc�L-c 76 79 80 81 neise zee— W." MN 5 79 80 81 neise zee— W." MN 5 84 COMMENT 85 The provisions of this Section are superseded by those contained in new Article 18 86 which, among other things, establishes restrictions on conditional uses in Accident 87 Potential Zones (APZs) and Noise Zones 70-75 dB DNL and >75 dB DNL. 88 89 90 . . . . 91 92 ARTICLE 18. Special Regulations in Air Installations 93 Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) 94 95 Sec. 1800. Title. 96 This Article shall be known as the Air Installations 97 Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Overlay Ordinance of the City of 98 Virginia Beach. 99 100 Sec. 1801. Purpose and intent. 101 The purpose of this Article is to regulate, in a manner 102 consistent with the rights of individual property owners and the 103 requirements of military operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) 104 Oceana, development of uses and structures that are incompatible 105 with military operations; to sustain the economic health of the 106 City and Hampton Roads Region; to protect and preserve the 107 public health, safety and welfare from the adverse impacts 108 associated with high levels of noise from flight operations at 109 NAS Oceana and the potential for aircraft accidents associated 110 with proximity to airport operations; and to maintain the s ill overall quality of life of those who live, work and recreate in 112 the City of Virginia Beach. 113 COMMENT 114 The section sets forth the purpose and intent of the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance. 115 116 117 Sec. 1802. Findings. 118 The City Council hereby finds that: 119 (a) Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana was first established 120 as an auxiliary airfield in 1943 and was designated as a major 121 Navy jet air base in the 1950s. It is now one of the largest 122 Navy air bases in the country and is the Master Jet Base for the 123 Navy's Atlantic Fleet. NAS Oceana is a vital component in the 124 architecture of the Defense Department's joint service method of 125 operational planning and execution and in the newly -emerging 126 inter -agency approach to meeting homeland defense requirements; 127 (b) NAS Oceana is the single largest employer in the City 128 of Virginia Beach. In 2003, it had a gross annual payroll of 129 over $750 million and spent another $400 million for goods and 130 services. In that year, over 12,000 personnel, comprised of 131 nearly 9,800 military and over 2,500 civilian employees, were 132 employed there. Most of those employees live within the 133 community, infusing additional benefits into the local economy, 134 primarily through spending and spousal employment salaries. 7 135 When considering the personal impact of the military in the 136 community, the economic benefit exceeds $1 billion annually; 137 (c) There are more than 30,000 acres of land in areas 138 within the 70-75 dB DNL or >75 dB DNL Noise Zones. 139 Approximately 4,200 acres of this land is encumbered by 140 easements or restrictive covenants that limit the uses of the 141 land to those that are not incompatible with flight operations 142 arising out of NAS Oceana; 143 (d) Encroachment by incompatible land uses has occurred 144 since the installation's inception, and includes the type of 145 high -density, residential and commercial development that now 146 threatens the viability of the station's mission; 147 (e) In August 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure 148 (BRAG) Commission added to the list of installations to be 149 closed or realigned the recommendation to realign 150 NAS Oceana by relocating the Atlantic Fleet's East Coast Master 151 Jet Base to Cecil Field in Jacksonville, Florida if, among other 152 things, the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake fail to 153 enact and enforce legislation to prevent further encroachment of 154 NAS Oceana by the end of March 2006 by adopting zoning 155 ordinances that require the governing bodies to follow Air 156 Installations Compatibility Use Zone (AICUZ) guidelines in 157 deciding discretionary development applications for property in A 158 Noise Level 70 dB Day Night Average Noise Level (DNL) or 159 greater; 160 (f) The closure or realignment of NAS Oceana would have 161 serious adverse economic consequences to the City and the 162 region; and 163 (g) In 2004 and 2005, the City of Virginia Beach, along 164 with the cities of Norfolk and Chesapeake, joined with the Navy 165 and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to craft a 166 regional Joint Land Use Study (JLUS). Among the recommendations 167 of the JLUS was that the City adopt an ordinance applicable in 168 all noise zones greater than 65 dB DNL to help prevent 169 encroachment at NAS Oceana. The JLUS was accepted by resolution 170 of the City Council in May of 2005 and the City Council directed 171 that appropriate ordinances implementing the recommendations of 172 the JLUS be brouqht forward for its consideration. 173 174 175 176 COMMENT 177 178 The section sets forth the findings of the City Council underlying the AICUZ Overlay 179 Ordinance. 180 181 182 Sec. 1803. Applicability. 183 (a) Area of applicability. Except as provided in Section 184 1805, the provisions of this Article shall apply to P] 185 discretionary development applications for any property located 186 within an Accident Potential Zone (APZ) or Noise Zone 70-75 dB 187 DNL or >75 dB DNL, as shown on the official zoning map, that 188 have not been approved or denied by the City Council as of the 189 date of adoption of this Article. For purposes of this Article, 190 discretionary development applications shall include 191 applications for: 192 1. Rezonings, including conditional zonings; 193 2. Conditional use permits for new uses or 194 structures, or for alterations or enlargements of 195 existing conditional uses where the occupancy 196 load would increase; 197 3. Conversions or enlargements of nonconforming uses 198 or structures, except where the application 199 contemplates the construction of a new building 200 or structure or expansion of an existing use or 201 structure where the total occupancy load would 202 not increase; and 203 4. Street closures where the application 204 contemplates the construction of a new building 205 or structure or the expansion of a use or 206 structure where the total occupancy load is 207 increased. 10 208 COMMENT 209 210 The section provides that the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance applies to discretionary 211 development applications (i.e., those requiring approval of the City Council) for property in 212 Accident Potential Zones (APZs) and in the 70-75 and >75 dB DNL Noise Zones. Applications for 213 conditional use permits and conversions or enlargements of nonconforming structures in which the 214 proposed use or structure would not result in an increase in occupancy load are exempted from the 215 provisions of the section, although they, as all other types of discretionary development application, 216 would remain subject to the City Council's legislative discretion to grant or deny them under 217 general principles of zoning law. 218 219 Sec. 1804. Discretionary development applications; City Council 220 policy. 221 222 (a) Except as provided in Section 1806, it shall be the 223 policy of the City Council that no application included within 224 the provisions of Section 1803 shall be approved unless the uses 225 and structures it contemplates are designated as compatible" 226 under Table 1 below and, if applicable, Table 2 unless the City 227 Council finds that no reasonable use designated as compatible 228 under the applicable Table or Tables can be made of the 229 property. In such cases, the City Council shall, subject to the 230 provisions of Section 1806(a), approve the proposed use of 231 property at the least density or intensity of development that 232 is reasonable. 233 (b) The following tables show the uses designated as 234 Compatible (Y) and those designated as Not Compatible (N) in 235 each listed Noise Zone (Table 1) or Accident Potential Zone 236 (Table 2). The designation of any use as Compatible shall not 11 237 be construed to allow such use in any zoning district in which 238 it is not permitted as either a principal or conditional use. 239 TABLE 1 - AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN NOISE ZONES Land Use Land Use Compatibility LAND USE NAME 70-75 dB DNL >75 dB DNL Residential and Related Single-family dwellings N N Semidetached dwellings N N Attached dwellings/townhouses N N Duplexes N N Multiple -family dwellings N N Dormitories and other group quarters N N Mobile home parks N N Hotels and motels N N Other residential uses N N Manufacturing Food & kindred products; manufacturing Y y Textile mill products; manufacturing Y y Apparel and other finished products; Y y products made from fabrics, leather and similar materials; manufacturing Lumber and wood products (except furniture); manufacturing Y y Furniture and fixtures; manufacturing y y Paper and allied products; manufacturing Y y Printing, publishing, and allied industries Y y Chemicals and allied products; manufacturing y y Petroleum refining and related industries Y y Rubber and misc. plastic products; Y y manufacturing Stone, clay and glass products; manufacturing y y Primary metal products; manufacturing Y y Fabricated metal products; manufacturing y y 12 TABLE 1 - AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN NOISE ZONES Land Use Land Use Compatibility LAND USE NAME 70-75 dB DNL >75 dB DNL Manufacturing (cont'd) Professional scientific, and controlling Y Y instruments; photographic and optical goods; watches and clocks Miscellaneous manufacturing Y Y Transportation, communication and utilities. Railroad, rapid rail transit, and street Y Y railway transportation Motor vehicle transportation Y Y Aircraft transportation Y Y Marine craft transportation Y Y Highway and street right-of-way Y Y Automobile parking Y Y Communication Y Y Utilities Y Y Other transportation, communication and Y Y utilities Trade Wholesale trade Y y Retail trade - building materials, Y Y hardware and farm equipment Retail trade - general merchandise Y Y Retail trade - food Y Y Retail trade - automotive, marine craft, Y Y aircraft and accessories Retail trade - apparel and accessories Y Y Services Retail trade - furniture, home, furnishings and equipment Y Y Retail trade - eating and drinking Y Y establishments Other retail trade Y Y Finance, insurance and real estate Y y services 13 TABLE 1 - AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN NOISE ZONES Services (cont'd) Personal services Y Y Cemeteries Y Y Business services Y Y Warehousing and storage Y Y Repair Services Y Y Professional services Y Y Hospitals, other medical fac. Y N Nursing Homes N N Contract construction services Y Y Government Services Y Y Educational services Y N Miscellaneous Y Y Cultural, entertainment and recreational Cultural activities (& churches) Y N Nature exhibits N N Public assembly halls N N Auditoriums, concert halls Y N Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters N N Outdoor sports arenas, spectator sports Y N Other outdoor recreational facilities Y Y Indoor recreational facilities Y Y Campgrounds Y N Parks Y N Other cultural, entertainment and Y N recreation Resource Production and Extraction Agriculture (except live stock) Y Y Livestock farming Y N Animal breeding Y N Agriculture related activities Y Y Forestry Activities Y Y Fishing Activities Y Y Mining Activities Y Y Other resource production or extraction Y Y 240 241 14 TABLE 2-AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES LAND USE NAME CLEAR ZONE APZ-I APZ-II Residential Single-family N N Y dwellings Semidetached dwellings N N N Attached N N N dwellings/townhouses Multiple -family N N N dwellings Dormitories and other N N N group quarters Hotels and motels N N N Mobile home parks N N N Other residential N N N Manufacturing Food & kindred N N Y products; manufacturing Textile mill N N Y products; manufacturing Apparel and other N N N finished products; products made from fabrics, leather and similar materials; manufacturing Lumber and wood N Y Y products (except furniture); manufacturing Furniture and N Y Y fixtures; manufacturing Paper and allied N Y Y products; manufacturing Printing, N Y Y publishing, and allied industries 15 TABLE 2-AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES LAND USE NAME CLEAR ZONE APZ-I APZ-II Manufacturing (cont'd) Chemicals and allied N N N products; manufacturing Petroleum refining N N N and related industries Rubber and misc. N N N plastic products; manufacturing Stone, clay and N N Y glass products; manufacturing Primary metal N N Y products; manufacturing Fabricated metal N N Y products; manufacturing Professional N N_ N_ scientific, & controlling instrument; photographic and optical goods; watches & clocks Miscellaneous N Y Y manufacturing Transportation, communication and utilities Railroad, rapid rail N Y Y transit, and street railway transportation Motor vehicle N_ Y Y transportation Aircraft N_ Y Y transportation Marine craft N Y Y transportation TABLE 2-AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES LAND USE NAME CLEAR ZONE APZ-I APZ-II Transportation, communication and utilities (cont,d) Auto parking N Y Y Communication N Y Y Utilities N Y Y Solid waste disposal N N N (Landfills, incineration, etc.) Other transport, N Y Y comm. and utilities Trade Wholesale trade N Y Y Retail trade - building materials, N Y Y hardware and farm equipment Retail trade - general merchandise N N Y Retail trade - food N N Y Retail trade - automotive, marine craft, aircraft and N Y Y accessories Retail trade - apparel and accessories N N_ Y Retail trade - furniture, home, furnishings and equipment N N Y Retail trade - eating and drinking N N N establishments Other retail trade N N Y Services Finance, insurance N N Y and real estate services 17 TABLE 2-AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES LAND USE NAME CLEAR ZONE APZ-I APZ-II Trade (con t' d) Personal services N N y Cemeteries N Y y Business services N N y (credit reporting; mail, stenographic, reproduction; advertising) Warehousing and storage services N Y y Repair Services N y y Professional services N N y Hospitals, nursing N N N homes Other medical facilities N N N_ Contract construction services N Y y Government Services N N y Educational services N N N Miscellaneous N N y Cultural, entertainment and recreational Cultural activities N N N Nature exhibits N Y y Public assembly N N N Auditoriums, concert N N N halls Outdoor music shells, N N N_ amphitheaters Outdoor sports arenas, N N N spectator sports Indoor recreational N Y y facilities Campgrounds N N N Parks N Y y TABLE 2-AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES LAND USE NAME CLEAR ZONE APZ-I APZ-II Cultural, entertainment and recreational (cont'd) Other cultural, entertainment and recreation N Y Y Agriculture (except Y Y Y live stock Resource production and extraction Livestock farming and N Y Y breeding Agriculture related N Y Y activities Forestry Activities 11 N Y Y Fishing Activities 12 N Y Y Mining Activities N Y Y Other resource production or extraction N Y Other Undeveloped Land Water Areas Y N Y N Y N 19 242 COMMENT 243 244 The section sets forth the policy of the City Council that, unless a parcel of property has no 245 reasonable use that is designated as compatible under Table 1 and, if applicable, Table 2, the City 246 Council shall not approve any discretionary development application for that parcel of property 247 that the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance applies to discretionary development applications (i.e., those 248 requiring approval of the City Council) for property in Accident Potential Zones (APZs) and in the 249 70-75 and >75 dB DNL Noise Zones. 250 251 Lines 229-232 make it clear that in cases in which a use proposed by an application is NOT 252 Compatible, but is the only reasonable use, the City Council shall approve the proposed use at the 253 least density or intensity that is reasonable. As an example, if an application contemplates the 254 development of 100 single-family dwellings (which are designated as Not Compatible in 70-75 and 255 >75 dB DNL Noise Zones), the City Council may approve the application with fewer dwelling units 256 density even if there is no reasonable use of the property other than single-family dwellings if it rinds 257 that a lesser number of dwelling units would constitute a reasonable use of the property. It is also 258 important to note that, as stated in Section 1806(a), the City Council may exercise its zoning powers 259 to the fullest extent, such that it may deny an application for any valid reason, even if that reason 260 does not involve AICUZ-related considerations. 261 262 The section also contains the tables that designate whether or not a use is Compatible (Y) or 263 Not Compatible (N) in APZs and Noise Zones 70-75 dB DNL and >75 dB DNL. 264 265 Sec. 1805. Sound attenuation. 266 Sound attenuation measures shall be incorporated in anv use 267 or structure located in Noise Zones 65-70 dB DNL, 70-75 dB DNL 268 or >75 dB DNL in accordance with the requirements of the 269 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. 270 COMMENT 271 The section provides that sound attenuation measures are required to be incorporated in 272 uses and structures in Noise Zones 65-70, 70-75 and >75 dB DNL, if required by the Virginia 273 Uniform Statewide Building Code. The Code, which was recently amended to incorporate 274 legislation enacted by the 2005 General Assembly, requires sound attenuation in Assembly, 275 Business, Educational, Institutional and Mercantile Use Groups, as defined in the International 276 Building Code. Sound attenuation in residential structures is already required under the Code. 277 278 279 20 280 Sec. 1806. Allowable residential density in Interfacility 281 Traffic Area 282 283 (a) Subject to the provisions of Section 405 (Alternative 284 Residential Development in Agricultural Districts), single- 285 family residential development in Agricultural Districts shall 286 be permitted as a conditional use at the following density in 287 that portion of the Princess Anne/Transition Area designated as 288 "Interfacility Traffic Area" on the official zoning ma 289 Noise Zone Maximum Permitted Density (Single- 290 Family Dwellings) 291 292 70-75 dB DNL: One (1) per five (5) acres of 293 developable land 294 295 >75 dB DNL: One (1) per fifteen (15) acres of 296 developable land 297 298 (b) Where a tract of land is located within more than one Noise 299 Zone, lots shall be situated, to the extent practicable, on the 300 portion of the tract within the lowest Noise Zone. In such cases, the 301 portion of the tract within the lowest Noise Zone may contain the 302 entire number of dwellings allowable on the acreaqe of the entire 303 tract. 304 COMMENT 305 The section limits the maximum allowed density in the Interfacility Traffic Area portion of 306 the Princess Anne/Transition Area to one dwelling unit per 5 acres of developable land in the 70-75 307 dB DNL Noise Zone and to one dwelling unit per 15 acres in the >75 dB DNL Noise Zone. Those 308 maximum densities are subject to the provisions of Section 405 (Alternative Residential 309 Development in Agricultural Districts). 310 311 312 Sec. 1807. Reservation of powers; severability. 21 313 (a) Nothing in this Article shall be construed to require 314 the City Council to approve any application solely because it 315 meets the requirements of this Article, it being the intention 316 of this Article that the City Council shall be entitled to 317 exercise its authority in such applications to the fullest 318 extent allowed by law. 319 (b) The provisions of this section shall be severable, it 320 being the intention of the City Council that in the event one or 321 more of the provisions of this section shall be adjudged to be 322 invalid or unenforceable, the remaininq provisions of this 323 section shall be unaffected by such adjudication. 324 COMMENT 325 The section provides that (1) the City Council shall retain, to the fullest extent, its other 326 powers over discretionary development applications, such that it may deny any application for 327 reasons not related to AICUZ considerations; and (2) the provisions of the section shall be deemed 328 severable, such that if one or more of its provisions are held to be invalid or unenforceable by a 329 court, the remaining provisions are to remain unaffected. While such language is not binding upon 330 a court, it raises a legal presumption that the invalid provision may be stricken, leaving the others 331 intact. 332 333 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 334 Virginia on the day of , 2005. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: lv-lei-ate Planni g Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: mh4 �, #wel, City Attorney's Office CA-9596 OID\ordres\AICUZ Overlay Ordinance.doc R-12 October 12, 2005 22 Page 1 of 1 Karen Lasley 41 c,'-t From: YDogzilla@cs.com Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:06 AM To: Faith Christie; Karen Lasley; Melisa A. Chimienti; Tom Pauls; Bob Scott; James Spore; Stephen J. White; Deborah Zywna Subject: Heads Up! - fyi To: Old Beach Neighborhood Email List Re: Upcoming Proposed Development Restrictions Dear Neighbor With the exception of Richard Maddox, it seems that City Council is determined to save the Oceana jets at ALL COST and Old Beach is now on the chopping block. The upcoming proposed "Joint Land Use Study ("JLUS") Zoning Overlay" will affect property in the 70-75 noise zone, which is basically everything west of mid -block between Baltic and Med. If you are east of Baltic in the 65-70 zone, DO NOT think you are home free! The BRAC has concerns with 70 and above, but when their commission expires in March the Navy takes over and their concerns start with the 65 zone. It could just be a matter of time before all of us are in the same sinking boat! Here's the situation - since the majority of the homes and lots in Old Beach are "nonconforming" -- meaning that the lots are small and the homes do not sit within the current setbacks -- you will not be able to make any additions or add an allowed unit unless everything fits into the current setbacks (called "by right" development). What this means is that for you to exercise your property rights, you will have to tear down your existing home and rebuild only what is allowed "by right." (If this sounds insane, it is!) Since our current setbacks are so screwed up (which was why we were doing the Old Beach Neighborhood Zoning Overlay, a document that is now gathering dust), this will force the 3-story box or doublebox development and we will end up looking like Shore Drive and the North End. If your lot is 30'-40' wide, I hope you like what you have now because you will never be able to have anything different unless you like very narrow houses! A question I have is, "Why is City Council willing to destroy our property values and our chance to be a premier cottage community, only to bring in louder jets?" If you think the jet noise is bad now, just wait 3-5 years. I understand that the next generation of jets will be "earth shattering" and will make the F-18s "sound like a whisper." The proposed "JLUS Overlay" goes to the Planning Commission tomorrow and then to City Council on October 25th. PLEASE email all of these people ASAP and ask them to defer this issue until all of the facts on Oceana have been gathered. Send your email to the City Clerk, Ruth Smith, at ctycncl@vbgov.com, and ask her to distribute it to members of the Planning Commission and City Council. Please plan to attend the City Council meeting on October 25th at 6 p.m. If you can make it to the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow (Noon at City Council Chambers), that would be great. We will have an update at the civic league meeting on October 24th. After all of the work that has been done in Old Beach, it breaks my heart to know that we are going to loose our cute little cottages and instead have 3-story "Garage Mahals." Barbara Yates 428-8052 10/ 11 /2005 Page 1 of 1 Karen Lasley lC1- From: Michael O'Neil [michaelscottoneil@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:59 AM To: Ruth H. Smith; Richard A. Maddox; Bob Scott; Tom Pauls; Planning Administration; Jeannette M. Smith; Karen Lasley; Deborah Zywna Cc: CMA1776@aol.com; YDogzilla@cs.com; Betsy McBride Subject: October 12, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting - Input Dear Planning Staff: Please ensure this letter is given to members of the City Council and Planning Commission. Dear Planning Commission members: Please defer all items that would alter our current Zoning Ordinance until after the work groups formed to analyze NAS Oceana impacts have finished their job, the independent firm has finished its analysis of the economic impacts of complying with the BRAC demands, and especially not until citizens are allowed to provide input on this matter. It would be unconscionable to act before all have been obtained. Please ensure the following will be part of the analysis of the economic impact: • Lost revenue from decreasing density at the Oceanfront, contrary to the SOM study. • Increased expenses from lawsuits by these owners. • Lost revenue from unrealized additional redevelopment opportunities (if we build up the Oceanfront, more areas would be redeveloped, e.g., Virginia Beach Boulevard). • Lost revenue from unrealized additional tourist income (more cafes and coffee shops and less T-shirt shops). The Virginian-Pilot's City Page of October 6, 2005 stated, "No actions will be taken until the facts are weighed and citizens have the opportunity to voice their views." If you take action on this matter, it will be against this, and other, statements. We will never have trust in the government when this happens. Thank you for your consideration, Michael O'Neil and Barbara Clark 16th Street 10/11/2005 y� A �r sV.�v CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — Amendment to the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance to amend and reordain the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance (City Code Appendix 1), pertaining to sound attenuation requirements in certain buildings and structures and required disclosures in residential real estate transactions. This item was deferred by City Council on October 25, 2005. ■ Considerations: This ordinance updates the City Code Appendix I, the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance. In lines 45 through 51, the reference to disclosure requirements in residential property transactions is deleted. This is not needed in the local ordinance since the 2005 General Assembly made such requirements a matter of state law. Section 3 updates the reference to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code to the International Building Code, where the use group classifications are now found. Section 5 on acoustical performance standards adds the use groups beyond residential that now require noise attenuation measures. These use groups include Assembly, Business, Educational, Institutional and Mercantile and they were the subject of legislation enacted by the 2005 General Assembly as part of the Uniform Statewide Building Code to be effective on November 17, 2005. Section 7 makes it clear that the acoustical performance standards do not apply in Noise Zones of less than 65 dB DNL. Section 9, on disclosure, is deleted since the 2005 General Assembly required noise disclosures in all residential real estate sales and leases that will be more effective and appropriate than the remedy established by Section 9. In several sections the abbreviation for day - night sound level is updated to read, "dB DNL." These amendments update the Airport Noise and Safety Ordinance in keeping with the JLUS Overlay District and new initiatives adopted by the 2005 General Assembly pertaining to disclosure in residential sales and expanded noise attenuation requirements. The amendments are recommended for approval. City of Virginia Beach Page 2of2 ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager: S K$ Planning Department CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AMENDMENT TO THE AIRPORT NOISE ATTENUATION AND SAFETY ORDINANCE Agenda Item # 9 October 12, 2005 Public Hearing REQUEST: An Ordinance to amend and reordain the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance (City Code Appendix 1), pertaining to sound attenuation requirements in certain buildings and structures and required disclosures in residential real estate transactions. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This ordinance updates the City Code Appendix I, the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance. In lines 45 through 51, the reference to disclosure requirements in residential property transactions is deleted. This is not needed in the local ordinance since the 2005 General Assembly made such requirements a matter of state law. Section 3 updates the reference to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code to the International Building Code, where the use group classifications are now found. Section 5 on acoustical performance standards, adds the use groups beyond residential that now require noise attenuation measures. These use groups include Assembly, Business, Educational, Institutional and Mercantile and they were the subject of legislation enacted by the 2005 General Assembly as part of the Uniform Statewide Building Code to be effective on November 17, 2005. Section 7 makes it clear that the acoustical performance standards do not apply in Noise Zones of less than 65 dB DNL. Section 9, on disclosure, is deleted since the 2005 General Assembly required noise disclosures in all residential real estate sales and leases that will be more effective and appropriate than the remedy established by Section 9. In several sections the abbreviation for day -night sound level is updated to read, "dB DNL." CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH -AIRPORT NOISE ATTENUATION AND RECOMMENDATION These amendments update the Airport Noise and Safety Ordinance in keeping with the JLUS Overlay District and new initiatives adopted by the 2005 General Assembly pertaining to disclosure in residential sales and expanded noise attenuation requirements. The amendments are recommended for approval. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH -AIRPORT NOISE ATTENUATION AND 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN THE 2 AIRPORT NOISE ATTENUATION AND SAFETY 3 ORDINANCE WITY CODE APPENDIX I), PERTAINING 4 TO SOUND ATTENUATION REQUIREMENTS IN CERTAIN 5 BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AND REQUIRED 6 DISCLOSURES IN RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE 7 TRANSACTIONS 8 9 Sections Amended: Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10. 10 Sections Repealed: Sections 9 and 14 11 12 13 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 14 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 15 That the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance of 16 the City of Virginia Beach (City Code Appendix I) is hereby 17 amended and reordained, to read as follows: 18 19 APPENDIX I. AIRPORT NOISE ATTENUATION AND SAFETY 20 ORDINANCE 21 22 Sec. 1. Title. 23 This ordinance shall be known as the Airport Noise 24 Attenuation and Safety Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach. 25 Sec. 2. Purpose and intent. 26 (a) The intent of city council and the purpose of this 27 ordinance are to: 28 (1) Protect the public health, safety and welfare 29 from the adverse impacts associated with excessive 30 noise from flight operations at NAS Oceana/ALF 31 Fentress and the potential for aircraft accidents 32 associated with proximity to airport operations; and 33 (2) Ensure that the construction of residential use 34 group buildings or portions thereof, located within 35 those areas of Virginia Beach likely to be affected by 36 aircraft noise associated with flight operations at 37 NAS Oceana/NALF Fentress provide for appropriate sound 38 reduction to minimize the impact of such noise on 39 occupants; an 40 ( 3 ` E re- that purehasers , renterser lessees -ef 41 preperty within -airport noise zenes and aircraft 42 aeerdent petenti-al-zzenes- are -aware -ef the asseciated 43 neise levelsandthe --hazards -=whieh may endanger t the 44 lives andpreperty of the eeeupants of ---..'-., reperty. 45 The-aeeidst.ieai pe fermanee standards set ferth in this 46 47 diselesure reqairements sems-€er}ch in this erdinanee--deal -with 48 di-selesire-te- petit al purehas =s,renters er lessees of--th-e 49 50 airera € t ae e idents--a s s e eiated with pre 51 eperatiens. 52 (b) The designation of any parcel of land as lying in an 53 airport noise zone or in an aircraft accident potential zone, or 54 both, shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, the zoning K 55 district classification of such parcel, such that any parcel of 56 land situated within an airport noise zone or in an aircraft 57 accident potential zone, or both, shall also lie in one or more 58 of the zoning districts established pursuant to section 102 of 59 the city zoning ordinance [Appendix A] and shall be subject to 60 all applicable provisions of this ordinance and the city zoning 61 N. 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 ordinance. COMMENT The amendments delete the reference to disclosure requirements in residential property transactions, as legislation adopted during the 2005 General Assembly made such requirements a matter of state law and provided aggrieved persons with effective legal remedies for violation of the statute. Lines 35-41 are deleted as unnecessary. Sec. 3. Definitions. 70 The following words and terms used in this ordinance shall 71 have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates 72 otherwise: 73 Day -night average sound level (:Ldn) (DNL). A twenty-four- 74 hour energy average sound level expressed in dBA, with a ten- 75 decibel penalty applied to noise occurring between 10:00 p.m. 76 and 7:00 a.m. 77 Permits and inspections division or division of permits and 78 inspections. The division of permits and inspections of the 79 department of planning. 80 Building official. The building code administrator of the 81 permits and inspections division. 3 82 Residential as-e Use group bui dir . All buildings and str ,et,,res 83 The classification of buildinqs and structures as to the use and 84 occupancy thereof as set forth in Chapter 3 of the International 85 Building Code elassified in theoirini-a—Uniferm St-atewidew 86 Building Cede -asuse -gr-eup R (residentia 4. 87 Sound transmission class (STC) rating. A single number 88 rating characterizing the sound reduction performance of a 89 material tested in accordance with ASTM E 90-90, "Laboratory 90 Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building 91 Partitions." 92 93 The amendment replaces the reference to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code 94 with one to the International Building Code, in which is the actual use group classifications are 95 defined. 96 97 Sec. 4. Airport noise zones and boundaries. 98 (a) The boundaries of the airport noise zones shall be as 99 shown on the zoning map as adopted and amended by city council. 100 (b) For purposes of administering and enforcing the 101 provisions of this ordinance, there shall be four (4) airport 102 noise zones and three (3) aircraft accident potential zones: 103 Airport noise zones shall be as follows: 104 (1) Noise Zone less than 65 dB Ld33 DNL ; 105 (2) Noise Zone 65-70 dB lAn DNL; 106 (3) Noise Zone 70-75 dB idn DNL; 4 107 (4) Noise Zone greater than 75 dB Irvin DNL; 108 Aircraft accident potential zones shall be as follows: 109 (1) CZ - Clear Zone (an area extending outward from 110 the threshold of an active runway which possesses a ill high potential for accidents); 112 (2) APZ-I - Aircraft Accident Potential Zone I (an 113 area extending outward from a clear zone which posses 114 a significant potential for accidents); and 115 (3) APZ-II - Aircraft Accident Potential Zone II (an 116 area extending outward from either a clear zone or 117 aircraft accident potential zone I which possesses a 118 measurable potential for an accident. 119 The purpose of the establishment of four (4) airport noise 120 zones and three (3) aircraft accident potential zones is to 121 distinguish between the severity of the level of noise impacts 122 so that appropriate acoustical performance standards can be 123 employed to mitigate the adverse impacts of aircraft noise and 124 to facilitate accurate identification of such zones. Each of the 125 four (4) airport noise zones and three (3) aircraft accident 126 potential zones shall be designated on the zoning map as adopted 127 and amended by city council. 128 COMMENT 129 The amendments update the abbreviation for day -night average sound level. 130 5 131 Sec. 5. Acoustical performance standards. 132 (a) Except as otherwise provided, any resident 133 Residential use group building or structure or portion thereof 134 constructed or placed within an airport noise zone after January 135 1, 1995, and any Assembly, Business, Educational, Institutional 136 or Mercantile Use Group building or structure or portion thereof 137 constructed after November 17, 2005 shall be constructed to 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 provide acoustical treatment measures in accordance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, Velufnez. COMMENT The amendment adds the Assembly, Business, Educational, Institutional and Mercantile Use Groups to the types of buildings that require sound attenuation. The effective date of the Uniform Statewide Building Code requirements is November 17, 2005. The added use groups were the subject of legislation enacted by the 2005 General Assembly at the request of the City. Sec. 6. Nonconforming buildings and structures. 148 (a) Any residential use group building which lawfully 149 existed on the effective date of this ordinance and which is not 150 in conformity with any one or more of the provisions of this 151 ordinance, and any residential use group building which lawfully 152 existed on the date of adoption of any amendment to this 153 ordinance and which is not in conformity with such amendment, 154 shall be deemed nonconforming. 155 (b) Any extension, enlargement, relocation, reconstruction 156 or substantial alteration of a nonconforming residential use 157 group building shall be subject to the acoustical performance N. 158 standards as set forth in section 5 of this ordinance unless 159 otherwise modified by the building official pursuant to se��n 160 1:3.2 applicable provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide 161 Building Code. 162 COMMENT 163 164 The amendment updates the reference to the Uniform Statewide Building Code and renders 165 further amendments to a specific section of the USBC unnecessary. 166 167 168 Sec. 7. Exemptions. 169 The acoustical performance standards specified in section 5 170 and the—diselesure requirements set ferth in seetien9 of this 171 ordinance shall not apply to the construction of residential idse 172 gip buildings or structures in any Noise Zone less than 65 dB 173 -T=,dFt DNL ei—buildings er sticuetures elassiffied in the Vii-g±n± r 174 Uniferm Statewide Bidilding Cede as se—greitp--B (business.- 17 5 e f f i ees `, E ( e did eatienal) , F ( f Ere t erp and industrial), 176 (, st, t„t; e 3 ,a T a-l�-P4--(-r�c��~�=e`-��--r��oz-age , oar-e�re�rs �-,—�r�a 177 -(util ; ty and e , ^ ) . 178 COMMENT 179 The amendment provides that the sound attenuation requirements of the ordinance do not 180 apply in Noise Zones of less than 65 dB DNL. 181 182 183 Sec. 8. Appeals. 184 (a) Any determination or decision made by the building 185 official or any administrative officer in the administration or 186 enforcement of this ordinance may be appealed in writing to the 7 187 local board of building code appeals within thirty (30) days 188 from the date of such determination or decision. The appeal 189 shall be filed in the office of the building official. In the 190 event such an appeal is f iled, the local board of building code 191 appeals shall schedule at least one (1) public hearing on the 192 matter and render its decision in writing to the appellant 193 within fourteen (14) working days from the date of the public 194 hearing. 195 (b) Any party aggrieved by any decision of the local board 196 of building code appeals, who was a party to the appeal, may 197 appeal to the state building code technical review board. 198 Application for review shall be made to the state building code 199 technical review board within twenty-one (21) calendar days of 200 receipt of the decision of the local board of building code 201 appeals by the aggrieved party. 202 (c) Decisions of the state building code technical review 203 board shall be final if no appeal is made. An appeal from the 204 decision of the state building code technical review board may 205 be filed in the circuit court of the City of Virginia Beach in 206 accordance with t4a-e applicable provisions of the Administrative 207 Process Act, Artie-le-4, Se-eien-a.14�5 of Chapter ' 1 : 4of 208 Title 9 ef the Gede ef Virginia. 209 COMMENT 210 211 The amendment deletes unnecessary language from the section. Csl 212 213 See. 9. Diselesure. [Reserved] 214 (a) Efleetive-- Nevember , 1998, 215 preperty fer sale, rental er lease within any neise zene er 216 aeeident pet-ential zene shall pr-evide writtenidi-selesusece--all- 217 218 219 220 sales eentraets and leases. The feregein.g, ----irement shall net 221 222 purpeses. 223 (b) The—dent--ef planning shall ake availab! 224 infermatien e3Eglainingthe —effeet of the designatien of—sue.h. 225 airera t—aeeidentz and aiipert neisezenes--and —a p abl 226 building requirements. 227 COMMENT 228 The section is deleted in light of the enactment of legislation by the 2005 General Assembly 229 that required noise disclosures in virtually all residential real estate sales and leases and provided 230 private remedies for its enforcement. Those remedies are considerably more effective, and more 231 appropriate, than the remedy set forth in this section. 232 233 234 Sec. 10. Violations. 235 (a) A violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance 236 shall be a misdemeanor punishable as set forth in the Virginia 237 Uniform Statewide Building Code, Volume I previded, hewever, 238 9 239 4 misdemeaner punishable -by a fine- in air-ameunt net to exeeeel 240 . 241 (b) In addition to, and not in lieu of, the penalties 242 prescribed in subsection (a) hereof, the city may apply to the 243 circuit court of the City of Virginia Beach for an injunction 244 against the continuing violation of any of the provisions of 245 this ordinance and may seek any other remedy authorized by law. 246 (c) Upon notice from the permits and inspections division 247 that any construction or other activity is being conducted in 248 violation of the provisions of this ordinance, such construction 249 or other activity shall be immediately stopped. An order to stop 250 work shall be in writing and shall state the nature of the 251 violation and the conditions under which the construction or 252 other activity may be resumed. No such order shall be effective 253 until it shall have been tendered to the owner of the property 254 upon which the construction or other activity is conducted or 255 his agent or to any person conducting such construction or other 256 activity. Any person who shall continue an activity ordered to 257 be stopped, shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance. 259 Sec. 11. Severability. 260 The provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be 261 severable, and if any of the provisions hereof are adjudged to 262 be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining portion of this 10 263 ordinance shall remain in full force and effect and their 264 validity shall remain unimpaired. 265 266 Sec. 12. Vested rights. 267 The provisions of this ordinance shall not affect the 268 vested rights of any person under existing law. 269 270 Sec. 13. Administration and enforcement. 271 This ordinance shall be administered and enforced by the 272 building official and any inspector assigned to the permits and 273 inspections division, who shall exercise all authority of police 274 officers in the performance of their duties. Such authority 275 shall include, without limitation, the authority to issue 276 summonses directing the appearance before a court of competent 277 jurisdiction of any person alleged to have violated any of the 278 provisions of this ordinance. 279 See. 4. Ef€eetive Date—. 280 This —er-dinanee—shall beeeme—effeetive—en the first day e�f 281 January—,--149T 282 COMMENT 283 The section is repealed, as there is no longer a reason to set forth the effective date 284 of the ordinance. 285 286 287 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 288 Virginia, on the day of , 2005. 11 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Planning Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY City Attorney's Office 12 7 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — amend the Official Zoning Map (designation and incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area) MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning Map by the designation and incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area. This item was deferred by City Council on October 25, 2005. ■ Considerations: In 2004, the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk joined with the Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to craft a regional Joint Land Use Study. This study, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, was approved in May of 2005 by the regional JLUS Policy Committee and all participating cities. This document includes a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Virginia Beach and U.S. Navy that, in part, provides guidelines for comprehensive plan adjustments to certain tracts of land in the western portion of the Princess Anne/Transition Area identified by the Navy as the `Interfacility Traffic Area'. The ITA is subject to a high volume of military jet traffic between NAS Oceana and ALF Fentress and the city recognizes the importance of incorporating appropriate planning policies for this area, consistent with the approved JLUS provisions. This ordinance incorporates the designation and boundaries of the Interfacility Traffic Area into the Official Zoning Map. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. City of Virginia Beach Page 2of2 Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department" City Manager: k . 5 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AMENDMENT TO OFFICIAL ZONING MAP Agenda Item # 10 October 12, 2005 Public Hearing REQUEST: An Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning Map by the designation and incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area. In 2004, the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT and Norfolk joined with the Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to craft a regional Joint Land Use Study. This study, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, was approved in May of 2005 by the regional JLUS Policy Committee and all participating cities. This document includes a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Virginia Beach and U.S. Navy that, in part, provides guidelines for comprehensive plan adjustments to certain tracts of land in the western portion of the Princess Anne/Transition Area identified by the Navy as the `Interfacility Traffic Area'. The ITA is subject to a high volume of military jet traffic between NAS Oceana and ALF Fentress and the city recognizes the importance of incorporating appropriate planning policies for this area, consistent with the approved JLUS provisions. This ordinance incorporates the designation and boundaries of the Interfacility Traffic Area into the Official Zoning Map. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this amendment. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH- IT 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL 2 ZONING MAP BY THE DESIGATION AND 3 INCORPORATION OF THE NAS OCEANA - 4 NALF FENTRESS INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC 5 AREA 6 7 8 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare 9 and good zoning practice so require; 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 11 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 12 That the official zoning map of the City of Virginia Beach be, 13 and hereby is, amended to incorporate and designate the NAS Oceana 14 - NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area, as shown on a series of 15 sheets marked and identified as such, and which have been displayed 16 before the City Council this date and are on file in the Department 17 of Planning. 18 COMMENT 19 The ordinance amends the zoning map to incorporate and designate the NAS Oceana — 2 0 NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area. 21 22 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on this 23 day of , 2005. 24 25 26 CA-9737 27 OID\ordres\ITA Map ordin.doc 28 R-1 29 August 17, 2005 30 31 32 Approved as to Content: Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: 33 34 35 W.04en 10'14•09- 36 Planning Department City Attorney's Office c'PZ��',IA BPA�I. rSf sy.�. rod', f�k 'vzy auS =si L ga CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — amend the Comprehensive Plan (incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area Map) MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by the incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area Map. This item was deferred by City Council on October 25, 2005. ■ Considerations: In 2004, the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk joined with the Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to craft a regional Joint Land Use Study. This study, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, was approved in May of 2005 by the regional JLUS Policy Committee and all participating cities. This document includes a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Virginia Beach and U.S. Navy that, in part, provides guidelines for comprehensive plan adjustments to certain tracts of land in the western portion of the Princess Anne/Transition Area identified by the Navy as the `Interfacility Traffic Area'. The ITA is subject to a high volume of military jet traffic between NAS Oceana and ALF Fentress and the city recognizes the importance of incorporating appropriate planning policies for this area, consistent with the approved JLUS provisions. This ordinance incorporates the map identifying the boundaries of the Interfacility Traffic Area into the Comprehensive Plan. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance City of Virginia Beach Page 2 of 2 Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department — City Manager: •� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Agenda Item # 11 October 12, 2005 Public Hearing REQUEST: An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by the incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area Map. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT In 2004, the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk joined with the Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to craft a regional Joint Land Use Study. This study, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, was approved in May of 2005 by the regional JLUS Policy Committee and all participating cities. This document includes a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Virginia Beach and U.S. Navy that, in part, provides guidelines for comprehensive plan adjustments to certain tracts of land in the western portion of the Princess Anne/Transition Area identified by the Navy as the `Interfacility Traffic Area'. The ITA is subject to a high volume of military jet traffic between NAS Oceana and ALF Fentress and the city recognizes the importance of incorporating appropriate planning policies for this area, consistent with the approved JLUS provisions. This ordinance incorporates the map identifying the boundaries of the Interfacility Traffic Area into the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this amendment. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH- ITA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY THE INCORPORATION OF THE NAS OCEANA - NALF FENTRESS INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC AREA MAP WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so require; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 11 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 That the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach be, and hereby is, amended to incorporate that certain map entitled "CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC AREA," dated August 2005, which map has been displayed before the City Council this date and is on file in the Department of Planning. COMMENT The ordinance amends the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the map of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on this 22 day of 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 2005. CA-9739 OID\ordres\Comp Plan ITA Map ordin.doc R-1 August 18, 2005 Approved as to Content: Approved as to Legal Suffici ncy: Y,o fool Planning Department City Attorney's Office CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — amend the Comprehensive Plan MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by revising Chapters 1 (Introduction and General Strategy), 2 (Strategic Growth Areas, 3 (Primary Residential Areas), 5 (Princess Anne/Transition Area), 9 (Natural Resources and Environmental Quality Plan), the Appendix of the Policy Document and the Princess Anne Corridor Plan by incorporating provisions pertaining to Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ), the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study and the Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Overlay Ordinance. This item was deferred by City Council on October 25, 2005. ■ Considerations: In 2004, the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk joined with the Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to craft a regional Joint Land Use Study. This study, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, was approved in May of 2005 by the regional JLUS Policy Committee and all participating cities. This ordinance incorporates the specific recommendations of the study into the Comprehensive Plan policy document. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City of Virginia Beach Page 2 of 2 City Manager:`L- CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Agenda Item # 12 October 12, 2005 Public Hearing REQUEST: An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by revising Chapters 1 (Introduction and General Strategy), 2 (Strategic Growth Areas), 3 (Primary Residential Areas), 5 (Princess Anne/Transition Area), 9 (Natural Resources and Environmental Quality Plan), the Appendix of the Policy Document and the Princess Anne Corridor Plan by incorporating provisions pertaining to Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ), the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study and the Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Overlay Ordinance. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT In 2004, the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk joined with the Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to craft a regional Joint Land Use Study. This study, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, was approved in May of 2005 by the regional JLUS Policy Committee and all participating cities. This ordinance incorporates the specific recommendations of the study into the Comprehensive Plan policy document. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this amendment. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH-AICUZ COMPREHENSIVE P 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2 BY REVISING CHAPTERS 1 (INTRODUCTION AND 3 GENERAL STRATEGY), 2 (STRATEGIC GROWTH 4 AREAS), 3 (PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL AREA), 5 5 (PRINCESS ANNE/TRANSITION AREA), 9 (NATURAL 6 RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PLAN), 7 THE APPENDIX OF THE POLICY DOCUMENT AND THE 8 PRINCESS ANNE CORRIDOR PLAN BY INCORPORATING 9 PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO AIR INSTALLATION 10 COMPATIBLE USE ZONES (AICUZ), THE HAMPTON 11 ROADS JOINT LAND USE STUDY AND THE AIR 12 INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES (AICUZ) 13 OVERLAY ORDINANCE 14 15 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general 16 welfare and good zoning practice so require; 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE 18 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 19 That the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia 20 Beach be, and hereby is, amended and reordained by the addition 21 of the underlined portions, and the deletion of the stricken 22 portions, of the excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan shown on 23 that certain document entitled "EXHIBIT A - RECOMMENDED 24 AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY DOCUMENT'S CHAPTERS 25 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 & APPENDIX AND PRINCESS ANNE CORRIDOR STUDY," 26 dated September 9, 2005, such document being attached hereto and 27 made a part hereof. H 29 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 30 Virginia, on the day of 1 2005. CA-9740 OID/ordres/AICUZ Comp Plan Text ord.doc R-2 September 28, 2005 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Planning Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: C](/ill /V� /y/1'My ity Attorneys O fice 2 Exhibit A Recommended Amendments to Comprehensive Plan Policy Document's Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 & Appendix and Princess Anne Corridor Study September 9, 2005 Strikeout language indicates deletion and underline language indicates addition. Amend the following parts of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan to read: Chapter 1 Introduction and General Strategy Military presence Page 12 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report A strong military presence in the community We want Virginia Beach to continue to be the proud host and home to the military. We support the military and recognize the important contributions they make to our community. We will work to further galvanize the strong partnership that has been a hallmark of our relationship over the past four decades. The military presence in this region is a major positive force that stabilizes our economy, provides numerous government and private sector jobs, results in extensive government expenditures in the private sector, and provides an important element in the identity for the region. The military also helps by contributing to a reliable and well -trained local labor pool that is an effective lure to desirable industry. A consistent and reliable AICUZ Program provides necessary protection to potential development in the community from jet noise and accident potential, and is an important factor in enabling the military to remain here in force and contribute to our local economy. Future military aircraft basing decisions may bring louder and more numerous aircraft accentuating the importance of giving due consideration to this program during all land use decision making. Retention and growth of the military presence in this region will be directly reflected in the economic vitality of Virginia Beach. In 2004, the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk joined with the Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to craft a regional Joint Land Use Study. This study, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, was approved in May of 2005 by the regional JLUS Policy Committee and all participating cities. It addresses issues related to land use compatibility and clarifies the strategic and operational objectives of the participating jurisdictions and the Navy. It also embodies a series of recommendations regarding policies, regulations and programs designed to balance local government's land use planning responsibilities and the military's operational readiness objectives. Chapter 2 Strategic Growth Areas SGA 6 North London Bridge Area Page 75 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report While AICUZ provisions impose some restrictions in the eastern portion of this Strategic Growth Area, some properties along Potters Road, Dean Drive and Barrett Street are located outside the more intensive AICUZ zone. These parcels, including those located in the vicinity of the Lynnhaven Parkway/I-264 interchange and along Virginia Beach Boulevard, are suitable for a higher intensity of mixed uses including offices, institutions and hotels with limited additional retail. ,compatible with the Joint Land Use Study. Strategic Growth Area #6 North London Bridge Area 2 SGA 7 Hilltop/North Oceana Area Page 77 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report It is recommended that future growth in the Hilltop Area be accomplished, in part, by containing retail and commercial activities within the presently defined area. Because of the influence of AICUZ high noise in this area, non-residential uses are recommended for this area including office, retail; and institutional Motel. Strategic Growth Area #7 Hilltop/North Oceana Area t SGA 11 West Holland Area Page 85 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report The Princess Anne Corridor Plan, adopted by reference as part of this Comprehensive Plan, recommends a ffli of ..esi nt ' and an intensity range of institutional, educational or commercial uses as part of an incentive based development for the approximately 63 acre tract of land located on the eastern corner of Dam Neck and Princess Anne Roads. Exeept as feeommended in the P fineess Aftne Cof fide f Plan, No residential or hotel uses i-s are planned for this Strategic Growth Area. The corridor plan promotes parcel consolidation and provides design guidelines to achieve a conditional development of high quality that is consistent with planning and design performance criteria created for this Sub -Area die€ six &velling „its o aer-e d 100,000 squar-e feet .,f ,..r,�.,...eial use. Access to land uses li \/1111111�11�1C11 UJV. in this Sub -Area is provided by an interior fead traffic and pedestrian circulation s. sy tem that is safe and efficient is paFtFt of a larger- lao el g the Dam "Toe'' and D n 1 lSIl{�IJJJ I111111.� Roads into-seetio . Equally, Iin order to ensure safe and efficient transportation movement in to this area, no more than one direct access to this site to Dam "Teek and from Princess Anne Roads should be provided. Further, direct access from Dam Neck Road should be limited to the minimum number necessary to achieve the objectives cited above is not r-eeommende Strategic Growth Area #11 West Holland Area M Chapter 3 Primary Residential Area Site 4 South General Booth Boulevard Corridor Pages 103-104 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report General Booth Boulevard is the primary road arterial serving the easternmost part of the Courthouse/Sandbridge Planning Area, north of the Green Line. Three distinctly different land use nodes exist along this arterial roadway: the Dam Neck Node; the Corporate Landing Area Node; and the Nimmo Church Node. Along this corridor and especially within these nodes the fe should be ^o- development proposals must be consistent with the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance provisions that and should not contributes to strip residential er commercial development, sprawl, or any disorderly arrangement of uses. Of particular importance is the need for future development in this corridor area to achieve a minimum reasonable density or intensity in order to protect and enhance the character of existing neighborhoods to avoid any additional eo al reW Such residential development should include affordable housing units. TheFe is suffieient existing and zefled eemmefeial retail pr-opeFty in the South Genffal Booth reeenifnended. FuFdief-,-tThe 42-acre tract of land in Corporate Landing Business Park currently zoned B-2 should be changed to a more appropriate zoning classification to achieve the land use and economic goals of this business park. Multi family uses beyond those ai-0,,.1y eyel.,peor- zonedf6f should only be o,,,-lorserl i the south Gene .,l Booth uaavuu� ua. Beulevai:d eer-r-idof! if they are leeated in areas designated in this ehapter far- sueh use and af!-e consistent with the ' In addition, a Traffic Impact Study must be conducted for proposed developments affecting any of these specified areas. 5 South General Booth Koulvard Corridor Site 4 m Site 4.1 Page 105 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report A mix of retail and neighborhood serving office uses are suitable for the area along the General Booth Boulevard Corridor. Development proposals are expected to adhere to the General Booth Boulevard corridor site and building design standards cited in this Comprehensive Plan. Specific attention should be given to ensuring adequate buffering of these uses from the adjacent residential neighborhood and to utilizing the existing road stub from this neighborhood as a method of providing access from the neighborhood to the development, as described in the design standards. In addition, educational, institutional, neighborhood service uses (i.e. day care centers, medical buildings), low intensity commercial uses and associated open space areas are suitable for the area located south of Kmart Plaza,—net4h of Edison The sou Edison Read, north of Gunn Hall Road and west of Upton Estates is appropriate for- single family detaehed, neighbefhood ser-viee uses and multi family residential use at densities ne All proposals must be consistent with principles set forth in the site and building design standards for this corridor. Proposals that improve upon these standards should be given the highest consideration. It is preferred that the strip parcel of undeveloped land located between Eastborne and Gunn Hall Drives should be consolidated with other parcels to the west to form a well planned development. In this case, much of this strip of land should serve as open space. in the event this strip of land i-s developed apaft fFofn any etheF pr-epef:fies, then it should aeeemmedate single fiam4y detached units at densities eempar-able to institutional, edueational OF SuffOufidiflg afea. Developments that, in the Planning Commission!s opinion, go beyond the minifRum design guidelines may be eensider-ed for- slightly higher densi Particular attention should be given to the transitioning of uses and integration of design into projects proposed for this area. Such integration should be carefully designed and include extensive buffering of proposed uses from surrounding residential areas. In addition, every effort should be made during the site design of projects to coordinate site access between projects on both sides of Gunn Hall Drive as far from General Booth Boulevard as possible. Development of the area south of Gunn Hall should provide for an internal circulation route that encourages the majority of automobile traffic to access Culver Lane. While discouraged, any access onto General Booth Boulevard should be limited to a right -turn in / right -turn out with no median break. Ideally, no development should occur on these parcels until all of the parcels have been consolidated into one or two large parcels. 7 Gunn Halll Edison Area Site 4.1 t Hl- General Planning Guidelines for North General Booth Boulevard Corridor Page 116 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report These general planning guidelines should be incorporated, where appropriate, into developments proposed within the North General Booth Boulevard corridor: All site and building design elements and other physical improvements, such as landscaping, orientation and signs, lighting and other treatments should be illustrated using renderings proffered through conditional zoning. Where practical, stormwater management facilities should be designed for new and redeveloped uses on a larger, more regional scale than simply site -by -site. This approach promotes development flexibility and opportunities for multiple benefits, such as passive recreation and wildlife enhancement. In addition, wetland benches and forebays for trapping sediment entering ponds and lakes need to be designed into existing and proposed facilities. A well -planned network of sidewalks and bikepaths needs to be implemented to promote safe and attractive pedestrian mobility. In particular, the linkage between the bike path from the Virginia Marine Science Museum to Rudee Walk and the Oceanfront Resort Area needs to be improved in the vicinity of the Rudee Inlet Bridge. Pedestrian areas for viewing the inlet, ocean and marinas need to be incorporated into these improvements. Residentialinfi" an Any development or redevelopment should adhere to the provisions of the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance and be of a scale and architectural design so as to complement the physical characteristics of the adjoining r-esidential areas. Views and vistas of the area's waterways should be protected and enhanced to the greatest extent practicable. Future transportation projects should incorporate removal of overhead power lines into project costs to improve aesthetics in the area and reduce potential for power outages from storm event E North General Booth Boulevard Corridor Site 8 ... e y� st �� ... .. j af<1 3 3 v 3 10 Chapter 5 Princess Anne/Transition Area Page 142 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report Included in the vision for the Transition Area is the concept of a rural heritage center. This center would incorporate an equestrian component, livestock exhibits, farming demonstrations and other activities relating to agriculture. The City Council approved the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study on May 10, 2005. This document includes a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Virginia Beach and U.S. Navy that, in part, provides guidelines for comprehensive plan adjustments to certain tracts of land in the western portion of the Princess Anne/Transition Area identified by the Navy as the `Interfacility Traffic Area'. The ITA is subject to a high volume of military jet traffic between NAS Oceana and ALF Fentress and the city recognizes the importance of incorporating appropriate planning policies for this area, consistent with the approved JLUS provisions, as follows: • Within the ITA, noise zone 75+ DNL — retain the agricultural zoningof f one residential lot per 15 acres of developble land. • Within the ITA, noise zone 70 to 75+ DNL — density of residential development should not exceed one lot per five acres of developable land, depending upon the degree to which each development proposal meets the City's defined criteria. • Within the ITA, noise zones less than 70 DNL, density of residential development should not exceed one lot per acre of developable land, depending upon the degree to which each development proposal meets the City's defined criteria. 11 N CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC AREA WW55 DB \t�'� Auyus12005 3 �v 5; ........... 70 DB �,.1 `r �•r .e t � 7� /DB , s, kj 65 �B ' f r\ 65 DB h;" \''=r;'� J ? r J ✓`�6'"y"e: (w�,� / 75 DB - 75 DB a« 'i 70 DB � • Protlucetl by the CAy of Virglnla Beach Planning Department NOTE DISCLAIMER. THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY ALL WARRANTIES, UCC AND OTHERWISE EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. INCLUDING WARRANTIES AS TO ACCURACY OF THE DATA SHOWN HERON AND MERCHANTABILITY AND THE FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED AND ALL INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE DATA SHOWN ON THIS MAP ARE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED.ANY DETERMINATION OF TOPOGRAPHY OR CONTOURS, OR ANY DEPICTION OF PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS, PROPERTY LINES OR BOUNDARIES IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR THE DESIGN, MODIFICATION, OR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVMENTS TO REAL PROPERTY OR FOR FLOOD PLAIN DETERMINATION. Development potential in the Transition Area is kept purposefully low. The density of fesidential development is ealeulated at one &,II,elling unit E)F less per- developable aef:e depe... ing , the degf!ee to which o eh development proposal ,Y, ets the C ty's define U Vt./V11U111� U1JV11 111V 11V �1 VV lV VO Illy II li Ulill C[�YG ^rimer- This density minimizes the level of impact on existing public infrastructure; avoids the need for higher level and more expensive urban improvements, conforms to the recommendations of the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study; and, in keeping with the intent of the Green Line, ensures that citizens in other parts of the city will not be subsidizing capital improvements to support higher density, more urban type development in this area. 12 Page 148 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report Carefully plan high quality neighborhoods and consider creating varying lots sizes. Except as recommended in the Interfacility Traffic Area's noise zones at or above 70 DNL, the maximum calculated residential density in the Transition Area is one dwelling unit per developable acre. his Mmaximum allowable densityies should be earned based upon quality of design and the level of conformance with all relevant design guidelines affecting this area. Such active adult communities that employ a complete range of services that reduce the need for vehicle trips and city services as well as follow the Transition Area Guidelines may be considered for dwelling densities slightly above the maximum recommended by this plan. Page 152 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report Public infrastructure to support the recommended maximum density E)f one dwelling unit pe developable aefe should be contained within the defined Transition Area boundary. No urban level infrastructure should be extended into the Rural Service Area located south of Indian River Road. Public facilities, such as roads, public water and sewer, among others, that are programmed and built within the Transition Area should be sized and located in a manner compatible with the land use policies established for this area. 13 Chapter 9 Natural Resources and Environmental Quality Plan Noise impact policy Page 230 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report Goal E-6 Minimize noise impacts and air pollution from both mobile and stationary sources to the greatest extent practicable, and continue to qualify as an Ozone attainment area. The City of Virginia Beach is affected by noise created by surface transportation, aircraft and stationary sources. The need to minimize these impacts will be balanced against other required planning objectives as cited in state law. This point is especially true as it applies to the city's Air Installations Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) program and the recommendations cited in the 2005 Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study. In addition, Hampton Roads is located at the eastern edge of an airshed that covers much of the Ohio valley and the mid -Atlantic region. Accordingly, the Hampton Roads region's physical location has contributed to its relatively low air quality problems as compared to other metropolitan areas of its size. Projected increases in traffic congestion and a much higher rate of growth in motor vehicle registrations as compared to population growth account for the majority of projected air quality declines in the region in coming years. At the local level, there are a number of actions that can be initiated as pilot projects to demonstrate a focused approach at helping to reduce air quality declines. Collectively, these actions can help mitigate against projected increases only slightly; however, they can begin to encourage shifts in behaviors and activities that could significantly help improve the region's air quality in the future, especially when connected with new technologies being developed in transportation. Additional information concerning air quality can be found in the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Add new policy E-6-8 to read: Adhere to AICUZ and other policyprogrammatic recommendations cited in the 2005 Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study as approved by City Council. 14 Appendix of Policy Document Page A-3 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report Agenda for Future Action Delete the following language: n IGUZ B fine do Page F-1 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report Documents Adopted by Reference Add the following language: • Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study, 2005 Page G-1 of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Report Maps Adopted by Reference Add the following language to the list: • Interfacility Traffic Area map 15 Strikeout language indicates deletion and underline language indicates addition. Amend the following parts of the 2000 Princess Anne Corridor Plan to read: Page 7 of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan Goals and Objectives of the Planning Effort A. Goals In response to the need for a comprehensive examination of the Corridor, a community participation process was developed and endorsed to address a variety of issues. The neighborhood of the lower Princess Anne Corridor has changed rapidly and significantly over the last five to ten years, and more change is in view. The TPC golf course, continuing residential development, and other transportation improvements are part of the sequence of change. In order to properly address concerns about the quality and character, as well as the purpose and need for change in the Princess Anne Corridor itself, a comprehensive planning and design approach is mandatory. The principal goal of this study is to review current and likely future changes in the immediate area, and to create a design and a planning framework for the corridor which effectively addresses concerns of the residential and business community, and those who use Princess Anne Road on a frequent basis. Out of meetings, workshops, and community input, the following goals were developed as a beginning point, a point from which to orient the design and planning outcome: 1. To develop a design character for the Princess Anne Corridor that is unique, identifiable, and enjoyable. 2. To develop a roadway facility that is a prototype for similar facilities and that ensures functionality and design integrity consistent with the adopted Master Transportation Plan and supports corridor land use planning objectives. 3. To promote a controlled access roadway and minimize traffic disruption. 4. To protect and promote stable surrounding neighborhoods and enhance property values. 5. To include pedestrian and open spaces linking complementary public and private land uses. 6. To enhance community investment through the creation of a high -quality physical environment— a program of public improvements that complements and prompts appropriate private investment. 7. To advance compatible economic development objectives within the Princess Anne Corridor. 8. To create the basis for a comprehensive plan amendment that is clear and supportable. 16 B. Objectives While goals serve as the point of orientation for decision -making, objectives serve the purpose of defining the actual, more definitive achievements that must be made. A number of design objectives were formulated and approved, as part of the community participation process, as a road map of how to direct the Corridor improvements. These objectives are: 1. Provide compatible and incentive -based land use policies for developable tracts of land along this corridor. 2. Provide useful and cost-effective corridor design guidelines that will result in: a. Protected stable neighborhoods; b. New site designs and buildings that complement the Municipal Center to the south and the Higher Education Center/ Amphitheater to the north - exhibiting a blend of exceptional beauty and function; c. Inviting roadways that are attractively landscaped and distinctively designed; d. Corridor improvements that respect and, where possible, showcase natural environment, views and open space elements. Recognition of the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study Nearlyfive ive years after adoption of the Princess Anne Corridor Study, the Virginia Beach City Council approved the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Stuff, a policy document that places far greater emphasis on the role aircraft noise zones and accident potential zones play in the land use planning and development process. The Joint Land Use Study has particular relevance with regard to Princess Anne Corridor's Sub -Area 1. For the most part, this Sub - Area is affected by noise zone levels greater than 70 dB DNL and the eastern portion of this site is located within an Accident Potential Zone. One of the key provisions of the Joint Land Use Study is a restriction regarding the placement of additional residential units in areas affected by noise zones greater than 70 dB DNL. The land use policy cited in the Princess Anne Corridor Study that was adopted in July of 2000 recommended residential use for most of Sub -Area 1. Consequently, certain revisions have been made to the land use recommendations affecting this Sub -Area in order to align the policies of this corridor study with the policies of the Joint Land Use Study. Further, the following goal is added as part of this document: a. Provide reasonable development opportunities within the Princess Anne Corridor consistent with the provisions outlined in the approved Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study. 17 Page 9 of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan Existing Conditions 2. Constraints Among the constraints associated with the existing corridor, residential neighborhoods close to the road are concerned about noise and about the impacts of proposed nonresidential uses. Certain adjacent land uses, planned roadways and environmental factors impact future development tracts and will require special mitigation methods. An example includes the level of jet noise and accident potential zones (APZ's) associated with the Navy's Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) due to the proximity to Oceana Naval Air Station. One area of particular concern is within Sub -Area 1 (see description on page 12). In addition to the AICUZ impacts, high tension Virginia Power transmission lines traverse the property. Similar power line and utility rights -of - way are located within other developable areas of the Corridor and will require innovative site planning and design methods to accomplish the quality physical environment we seek to achieve through this study. Wetlands and archaeological/historic sites are present within the Princess Anne Corridor and must be respected and/or mitigated if development plans encroach on these areas. These areas are delineated in the description of the specific areas and Sub -Areas on pages 12 through 14 and desefibed and shown on page 16. Page 12 of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan d. Sub -Area 1 This Sub -Area contains thirteen separate privately owned properties comprising approximately 63 acres that consist mostly of vacant land with a few private residences and small commercial establishments. Given its proximity to both Princess Anne Road and Dam Neck Road, this Sub - Area faces high development pressure. Althougl3 Ddevelopment of the eastern portion of the site is restricted by the Oceana NAS Accident Potential Zone (APZ), This and the remaining area are located in the 70-75 DNL noise zone. ^ffeFs tremendous ^ ^,.-,,,,:ties • t-h thA. ^^*R^* A] f^r ot the adjaeent fesidential afeas as well as the needs of Pr-ineess Anne . The Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study, approved by City Council on May 10 2005 recommends against planning additional residential uses in noise zones 70+ DNL. Hence, residential development is not recommended for this area. Non-residential uses including retail, service office, educational and institutional are appropriate for this tract. Industrial uses and hotels are not recommended for any portion of this site. Special attention should be given to ensure that the adjacent Landstown Meadows neighborhood is protected from intrusive or adverse land use impacts through the use of increased setbacks, attractive sound barriers, effective landscape treatments and other methods. General Location Map Princess Anne Corridor - Sub -Area 1 19 Pages 24 and 25 of the Pri ncess Anne Corridor Plan Land Use Recommendations A. General Recommendations These general recommendations apply to all Sub -Areas: 1. General Criteria for Sub -Area Development: To advance the corridor objectives of creating well -planned developments, protecting existing neighborhood areas and preventing the addition of any unplanned accesses along the arterial parkways, the following land use planning strategy should be applied to the Sub - Areas within the Princess Anne Corridor as described in this document. It is the desire of the City that all proposed developments within this corridor adhere to the general Goals and Objectives cited on page 7 and the Development Criteria noted on page 23. In addition, Area -Specific Recommendations are presented on pages 24-32. It is the policy of the city to strongly discourage development of individual parcels or isolated tracts of land within the Sub- Areas of this corridor. Such methods of development result in an unplanned, inefficient, unattractive and fragmented pattern of growth and contribute to increased traffic congestion. Therefore, in those cases where applicants submit development proposals for such unwanted development, especially those that propose direct access to the arterial parkways, they will be judged against the criteria and objectives of this corridor plan and the comprehensive plan in general. 2. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) and Accident Potential Zone (APZ): New development or redevelopment should not include any housing, retail ^r effi hotel or other uses that may be deemed by the city to be incompatible within applicable noise zones or the APZ's. Equivalent density that othefwiseweuld be allowed in the APZ afea may be applie to . s located autside this 3. Site/Building/Landscape Design: Significant well -programmed and landscaped public (and private, if applicable) open space. Well spaee eonneetions to future or- existing residential areas. 4. Reverse Frontage: Those properties fronting on Princess Anne Road and Dam Neck Road (includes Sub -Area 1, Sub -Area 2, Sub -Area 3 and properties adjacent to the TPC Golf Course) should be provided sole access from a street connecting the rear of these properties - otherwise known as "reverse frontage" access (see pages 40-42). 20 B. Area -specific Recommendations The following land use recommendations apply to Sub -Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4: 1. Sub -Area 1 The development potential of Sub -Area 1, above that allowed under current zoning, will be based upon Aadherence to the following "ineextive"planning and design Performance development Ceriteria: iii.a. Incorporate as a significant part of the development D"main street" rows of specialty shops with wide, attractively landscaped sidewalks or clusters of "pedestrian scale" commercial retail shops, services, and effectively landscaped parking areas. These "main street" rows should provide the maior focus of the development. rather than the typical single, large commercial structure served by a large and relatively unbroken parking lot flanked by auto dependent, single use outparcels. Unsightly rooftop structures, loading areas and trash receptacles should be completely screened from public view using design techniques that complement the quality of the proposed development. iii.b. Pay special attention to the design of roadway entrances and edges of development, especially as they relate to commercial signage and landscaping. Carefully designed undulating berms of reasonable depth should be built along the edges of Princess Anne and Dam Neck Roads. Interior streets, parking areas and other traffic circulation features should be designed using attractive, diverse landscaping, quality street and pedestrian light fixtures and other street furniture that evokes a welcoming commercial and residen environment. This subarea should not include an expansive `sea of parking'. Instead, proposed plans for this site should incorporate the site design concept of `chambered parking lots'. These lots, divided into an organized series of well -planned and carefully landscaped parking areas, provide safe, convenient and attractive movement for both motorists and pedestrians. goadvistial aeeess to businesses in this afea. 21 iii.c. Carefully design the sidewalk and trail system so that it provides safe, attractive and convenient access within this Sub -Area and provides good connections to the larger trail system serving the Princess Anne Corridor and Princess Anne Commons. iii.d. No-Ceommercial uses should be leeated adjaeefit to separated from the Landstown Meadows and Landstown Lakes neighborhoods. Tistead, s Such area should include :the,- well landscaped afeassingle family detached units at or below 4 dwelling units-peFae-re a significant buffer area utilizing attractive fencing or berms and appropriate landscape material that provide an effective screen between the neighborhoods and Sub -Area 1. ii.e. Vehicular and pedestrian Roadwa access within €er- proposed uses in Sub -Area 1 to Pr-ineess Anne and r,,,,-., Neek Roads will „ltifn tely should be provided by an safe, efficient and attractive, tr-eelined, , the general a4ignmen of whieh is pfesented in this plafl.. internal circulation system. " twE) lace r��d eonstfueted within a right of way wide enough te aeeammodate an ultifnate fouf lane divided f4eility may be built as paFt E)f a phased development plan, provided it fneets aeeeptable levels .,f se,.viee s defined by the e t y Allaben Drive and Nettle Street in Landstown Meadows will not be extended or connected to roadways within Sub -Area 1. iii.f. Integrate an attractive, well -landscaped and parklike system of reg}efml stormwater management facilityies to serve this Sub -Area. iii.g. Provide at least 20% of this Sub -Area with attractively landscaped open space areas that may include public plazas, trails and other areas designed for public use and enjoyment. Delete the maps presented on pages 26 and 27 of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan, as shown below and delete the references of these maps on page 54. Renumber the list of figures on page 54 and the pages of the Princess Anne Corridor Study, accordingly: 22 Page 26 of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan Figure 14 of Subarea I to be deleted Dam Meek Road princess Ante Road Access point I, .M Singh family MiltiArpost Trail kident Potential loot (API) Limits 100' min. Buffer Noah Example of Undesirable Piecemeal Development Using Baseline Option. Now Drawing Not to stale. Sub -Arta I 23 Page 27 of the Princess Anne Corridor Plan Figure 15 of Subarea I to be deleted Pritscm Anne — Road ((ontrolledl ka (emwoeqfy ) Entrance JL .1 fironia Pow Buffer Trail Local Road M, R 77- Data Neck Road !Natr kirrent of Dan Nkk Road bewto ?fires Arwe Rod a Loop had x be (Oftriolk] stress.i hail Connection Whrit Potential Im (011) Umirs t—ifflrpost Tfail Opin Spa(ehrk kia Power hmi Iff Kin. Buller - to include exist. Trees stands Lonnection to Exist. Park :of one of several Oosw concepts for based development. kil: Drawing not to scale. Sub -Area I 24 Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance to amend and reordain the City Zoning Ordinance (Appendix A) by repealing Section 221.1, pertaining to specific standards for conditional uses within certain Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) and by adding a new Article 18 thereto, consisting of Sections 1800 through 1807, establishing the policy of the City Council pertaining to discretionary development applications and sound attenuation requirements in buildings and Structures in certain Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Item #9 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance to amend and reordain the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance (City Code Appendix I), pertaining to sound attenuation requirements in certain buildings and structures and required disclosures in residential real estate transactions Item #10 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by designation and incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area Item # 11 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by the incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area Map. Item #12 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by revising Chapters 1 (Introduction and General Strategy), 2 (Strategic Growth), 3 (Primary Residential Areas), 5 (Princess Anne/Transition Area), 9 (Natural Resources and Environmental Quality Plan), the Appendix of the Policy Document and the Princess Anne Corridor Plan by incorporating provisions pertaining to Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ), the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study and the Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Overlay Ordinance REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next items are Items #8 — 12, the City of Virginia Beach. An Ordinance to amend and reordain the City's Zoning Ordinance (Appendix A) by repealing Sections 221.1, pertaining to specific standards for conditional uses within certain Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) and by adding a new article 18 thereto, consisting of Sections 1800 through 1807, establishing the policy of the City Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 2 Council pertaining to discretionary development applications and sound attenuations requirements in buildings and structures in certain Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ), Number #9 is the City of Virginia Beach for an Ordinance to amend and reordain the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance (City Code Appendix I), pertaining to sound attenuation requirements in certain buildings and structures and required disclosures in residential real estate transactions, Number #10 is the City of Virginia Beach for an Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning Map by the designation and incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area, Number #11 is the City of Virginia Beach for an Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by the incorporation of the NAS Oceana — NALF Fentress Fentress Interfacility Traffic Area Map, Number #12 is the City of Virginia Beach for an Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by revising Chapters 1 (Introduction and General Strategy), 2 (Strategic Growth Areas), 3 (Primary Residential Areas), 5 (Princess Anne/Transition Area), 9 (Natural Resources and Environmental Quality Plan), the Appendix of the Policy Document and the Princess Anne Corridor Plan by incorporating provisions pertaining to Air Installations Compatible Zones (AICUZ), the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study and the Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Overlay Ordinance. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. I know that is the reason why most of you are here. Before we call the first person, I'd like to make a few comments. The resolution from the City Council requires the Planning Commission to act on this today, October 12, 2005. The AICUZ Overlay District was agreed to as part of the Joint Land Use Study, which was adopted by the City Council in May 2005. City Council agreed to adopt a Zoning Overlay District applying to all noise zones greater than 65dB to help prevent encroachment. The AICUZ Overlay District applies only to discretionary development applications such as Rezonings and Conditional Use Permits. The amendments do not preclude the use of discretion by the Planning Commission and City Council. The amendments have absolutely nothing to do with the condemnation of homes. The amendments will not create a situation where no reasonable use is allowed on a parcel of property. The amendments alone do not mandate noise attenuation measures. This is required by the building code. Whether these amendments are approved or not, noise attenuation measures are required. Noise attenuation measures for the residential use group were adopted in 1994. The building code now also requires sound attenuation in the assembly, business, education, institution, and mercantile use groups effective on November 17, 2005. And this is a result of action by the Virginia General Assembly. The Zoning Ordinance section on disclosures adopted in 1994 is deleted because a 2005 General Assembly required disclosure as a state law. This is a better way to do it. Aggrieved people will have a more effective way to seek legal remedies for violations. The AICUZ Overlay District reduces discretionary density in the interfacility traffic area in accordance with the Joint Land Use Study. These amendments do not jeopardize the proposed Old Beach Overlay District. The Overlay District does not increase density it provides for better development and should not be in conflict. When the Old Beach Overlay District is adopted, variances should rarely be needed to preserve the existing cottages or to add a second unit. We're happy to have you all here today. I think it will Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 3 start with a presentation by Mr. Macali, and then everyone will have three minutes to speak. Mr. Macali. Bill Macali: The first ordinance and probably the most significant of the ordinances is the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance. First, I think it most important to stress what the ordinance does not do. It does not affect any by -right development. Any development permitted under the Zoning District Classification of a parcel of property now will be continued under this ordinance, if in fact, the ordinance is adopted by the City Council. The other thing that this ordinance does not do, and is kind of truism at this point is the fact any condemnation of property. It simply has nothing to do with that. What it does does is two things. The first, and the lesser importance is the fact that it requires sound attenuation measures to be employed in most types of commercial structures. Not all but most types of commercial structures. The ones that people generally frequent. In addition to the currently required sound attenuation in residential structures, that is also required as a matter of state law under the Virginia Uniform State Building Code even if this ordinance did not specify that sound attenuation measures in these commercial buildings are required, it would never the less remain the law. We chose to put it in there because that was a representation we made before the Joint Land Use Study folks, and it certainly does no harm to put it in there just as a reminder that is required. Secondly, the ordinance provides that the OPNAV Instructions, which basically contain two tables which state whether or not particular land uses are compatible in noise zones, and secondly in APZ (Accident Potential Zones) are being compatible. As part of the JLUS, the City agreed that it would take those considerations into much more serious account in determining whether or not zoning applications coming before the City Council would be granted. And so what this ordinance does is provide that in cases of discretionary development applications, which include primarily rezonings and Conditional Use Permits, it also includes other matters such as conversions or enlargements of non- conforming structures where the application contemplates either a new building or an expansion of a building where the total occupancy load would increase. It also includes street closures of certain kinds as well. Essentially, the ordinance, and this is getting to the heart of it, states that any application for a discretionary type of development coming before the City Council that it would be the City Council's policy not to approve such applications if the application contemplates a use or uses which are not deemed compatible by either or both tables, depending on which of the tables is appropriate. For that reason if an application contemplated a use that was in a noise zone where the particular use was not deemed compatible that application, it would be the policy of the City Council that application would not be granted. There is one big "unless" to that. The application would not be granted unless there is no reasonable use of that particular property that is compatible. So, if there is only one reasonable use of the particular piece of property that is the subject of a rezoning, that use is incompatible with the charts or tables, then the City Council would be able to grant that application so long as the application that's granted is of the least intense or dense nature that is reasonable. The reasoning for that is because there are constitutional restrictions on what the City may or may not allow. Essentially, this abides by those constitutional restrictions. It does have Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 4 some special provisions for applications for residential development in the Interfacility Traffic Area. The Interfacility Traffic Area is the Navy's designation for the flight path between NAS Oceana and NALF Fentress. It's generally in the western portion of the Princess Anne Transition Area. The change that this ordinance makes is that it limits the maximum permitted density of single-family dwellings in the 70-75 dB DNL noise zone to one dwelling per five acres of developable land. The ordinance also states that in the greater than 75 dB DNL area the maximum permitted density is one dwelling unit per 15 acres of developable land. That's in the ordinance just to be in there so people know what the restrictions are. That particular restriction though is not a change of current law. The current Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate that there is any greater development density in the greater than 75 dB DNL than one to fifteen. Essentially that is it. I should mention that although this ordinance does establish an Overlay District in all the entirety of the AICUZ footprint, that is to say 65-70, 70-75 and greater than 75 dB DNL noise zones, the development restrictions on rezonings apply only in the 70-75 and greater than 75 dB DNL areas. For that reason, in the 65-70 dB DNL noise zone, this ordinance has absolutely no affect on existing development regulations. That's basically the summary of the first ordinance. If the Chair would like me just to summarize the others, I will quickly. Dorothy Wood: Please. Bill Macali: The next ordinance is the amendments to the City's Noise Attenuation and Appendix I to the City Code. I forget the exact name of it. It is the Airport Noise Attenuation and Safety Ordinance, as I said, City Code Appendix 1. Those amendments simply reflect the fact that this ordinance would be on the books and in order to avoid conflicts we made some technical changes to reflect the fact that the real sound attenuation, and the real heart of the matter is in the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance. The one significant change we made is to delete the noise disclosure requirements in Appendix I, which had required that people notify perspective buyers of residential property of the existence of a noise zone on a particular piece of property under question. As the write up states, the reason we did that is because the General Assembly passed legislation which mandates that as a matter of state law and provides for private legal remedies which are found to be a great bit more effective and serve as a much greater deterrent to violators. So there is no reason for us to have that particular provision for enforcement by the City. The enforcement is much, much better under the state law. The next ordinances are Numbers #10 and 11 on your agenda. They simply designate and incorporate the Interfacility Traffic Area, both on the City's official zoning map and in the Comprehensive Plan. Those are self-explanatory. We're just going to designate that area and show it on the zoning map and on the Comprehensive Plan map. The next ordinance amends the Comprehensive Plan by revising certain chapters. I think probably that Mr. Scott is a better person to do that, if he maybe could explain that part. Robert Scott: The noise attenuation? Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 5 Bill Macali: No. The Comprehensive Plan amendments. Robert Scott: Well, the Comprehensive Plan amendment is mostly oriented toward the Interfacility Traffic Area and really reflects the guidelines that are represented in the Joint Land Use Study. It's a change, not in zoning but in the planning for that area. However, it does extend somewhat further than that. It does, in some ways, address certain discretionary approvals that could be contemplated outside of that area, in the city generally. However, those are not great in number. If any questions come up about that we can address that but primarily it is oriented towards putting a change in place to adjust the plan for the Interfacilty Traffic Area, according to the density guidelines that Bill has outlined. Bill Macali: Madame Chair, I should mention that in light of some of the concerns or the comments expressed by the Commission during the informal session, we have made a couple of minor revisions to the ordinance. The new version has been passed out as a stand-alone version to each member of the Commission. A copy has been provided to a couple interested folks, and Ms. Lasley, has available several other copies. If I could just take a couple of minutes to explain the changes just to reassure the members of the public that they are minor. In your agenda version on Page 6, Line 108, that line reads "associated with excessive noise from flight operations", we simply deleted the word "excessive" and put in its place "high levels of noise". So essentially it reads, "to protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare from the adverse impacts associated with high levels of noise from flight operations at NAS Oceana." The next change is on Line 163 through 168, Page 9 of your agenda version, there is a finding there regarding the modification of flight arrival and departure procedures. That entire finding has been deleted. It simply is extraneous and really adds not much to the ordinance and probably was best deleted. The only other change comes as a result of a very recent change in the Department of Defense's OPNAV Instruction itself. Under the current ordinance, under the ordinance in your agenda, nursing homes are permitted as compatible in noise zone 70-75 dB DNL. In the revised ordinance, which reflects the updated OPNAV, nursing homes are deemed not compatible in the 70-75 dB DNL noise zone. Those are the only changes. I think we would agree that none of them are particularly significant. And anyone who wishes to have a copy of the revised ordinance and can't get one today, you need only give Ms. Lasley or me a call and we will both go ahead and make sure that gets done. Dorothy Wood: Thank you very much Mr. Macali. Thank you for the hard work you have done to bring this to us. Ronald Ripley: May I ask Mr. Macali a question? Dorothy Wood: Of course Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Macali. You went through discretionary development applications Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 6 dealing with people that own property that are non -conforming and they wish to expand. Would you try to explain that in layman's terms? For people that own homes and they might want to add an addition to their house or you have a business and you want to expand it. What conditions would you think would be considered increasing occupancy load? Bill Macali: Well, first for people that have non -conforming dwellings, well for instance a single-family dwelling in a B-2 District, something like that. In order to enlarge or alter that non -conforming house, for instance by adding a new bedroom, something like that, a person would have to go to the City Council to get that permission under current law. This ordinance would not affect situations like that simply because any kind of addition to a single-family dwelling, so long as it remained a single-family dwelling, really does not contemplate any total occupancy load increase or anything like that. So, people who want to expand their non -conforming homes are not affected by this ordinance. Similarly people who want to expand a non -conforming business are affected only where the total occupancy load would increase. In other words, if you have some type of business where you want to expand it to allow the occupancy load to be greater, this ordinance would cover you. And it would mean that if the business that you seek to expand is deemed not compatible with the tables, which reflect the OPNAV tables, then the expansion could be allowed by the City Council only if not to do so would be unreasonable and essentially be a violation of one's constitutional rights. Otherwise the expansion could certainly go forward. Ronald Ripley: So if you had a business that had ten employees and is a warehouse attached to it and you wanted expand the warehouse in a non -conforming area, would that be increasing the load? Bill Macali: Well, presumably yes. It would depend on where you wanted to increase it. But if the occupancy load, which is the number of people permitted on the premises at one time would increase the ordinance would cover it. Ronald Ripley: Well, now let me ask something. If it is conforming and you wish to expand your property? Let's say I had a house and I wanted to add on to it, is that going to be a problem with this? Bill Macali: No sir. The ordinance does not cover expansion of conforming structures and uses simply because they are by -right development and this ordinance does not affect by -right development. It affects only those matters that are required to come before the City Council for permission. Ronald Ripley: Thanks. Bill Macali: So that if a warehouse in an I-1 district needs expansion, a warehouse in an I-1 district is compatible and the ordinance does not cover that. Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 7 Ronald Ripley: But if your house is not compatible under the ordinance but it is by -right use you can still expand it? Bill Macali: Exactly. Yes sir. Absolutely. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Din. William Din: I may just ask another question concerning that. How would that effect an expansion of a church for instance in one of these areas? Bill Macali: You need a Conditional Use Permit for that and number two covers it, and it would cover it for an alteration or enlargement of an existing Conditional Use where the occupancy load would increase. So this ordinance would affect any kind of Conditional Use that sought to be expanded if the expansion would result in an increase of occupancy load. And it would depend on whether the church, in your example is deemed compatible or incompatible and it depends on the noise zone and APZ is located as well. Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions? Thank you. Will you please the first speaker? Joseph Strange: Our first speaker in support will be Ray Firenze. Dorothy Wood: Welcome Mr. Firenze. Ray Firenze: Thank you. Good afternoon Madame Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Ray Firenze, the Community Planning Liaison Officer for Naval Air Station Oceana. It is my pleasure to speak to you today on behalf of the Commanding Officer Captain Patrick Lorge in support of Items #8 — 12 that pertains specifically to the AICUZ around Oceana. In response to the Navy's concern over encroachment, the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk undertook a regional Joint Land Use Study with the Navy as technical advisors and the final study was adopted by Virginia Beach on May 10, Chesapeake on May 17, and Norfolk on May 24. There were no descending votes. The city leadership has spoken. At their direction and tireless efforts on the part of your staff, we move forward today with a delicate understanding of each other's concerns in a cooperative manner. Captain Lorge and former Command Officer Captain Tom Keeley, would like to thank Mr. Scott and his staff for their hard work in the process. They also appreciate the City leadership for the formation of the AICUZ Task Force force that stimulated the bait and open public forum on these emotional issues. Their hats are off to the City Manager Mr. Spore and Councilman Maddox for their active participation throughout and on the AICUZ Task Force and more importantly their role in forming the core of the Joint Land Use Study Policy Group. We also like to thank the City Attorney's Office headed by Mr. Lilly and his deputy Mr. Bill Macali. There were a vital communication link and kept us all straight. The city team is Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 8 to be commended and again the Captain sends his appreciation for their professionalism, dedication, and cooperation in this partnership. Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you very much. Are there any questions for Ray? Thank you very much. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Commander John Lauderbach. Dorothy Wood: Welcome Commander. We're happy to have you with us. John Lauderbach: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I'm Commander John Lauderbach. I'm Special Legal Advisor for the Commanding Officer Captain Lorge. Ray pretty much said everything but I did want to echo his comments concerning thanks to the Planning staff, to the City Attorney's staff. It was a unique effort that we went into together, into the JLUS, which created a product that you're here considering today. The one thing that we did all agree on, I think across the board when we're going through that process was that we should have gotten together like this, the Navy and the City at the level and intensity that we were many, many years ago. It's a good product. We like it. Whatever the future holds for NAS Oceana. Whatever the future holds with respect to Virginia Beach and NAS Oceana, this is a good product. Regardless of what may come down the road. It's a regional effort. I'd ask you to consider that also that this is one part of what many cities have undertaken and it merits your serious consideration. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Commander. Are there any questions for the Commander? Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Tim Faulkner. Dorothy Wood: Welcome sir. Tim Faulkner: Thank you. Good afternoon. I appreciate you all allowing me to be here. I'm Tim Faulkner. I represent the Breeden Company, a real estate developer here in Virginia Beach. And I would just like to recommend that you all approve these ordinances. I think this is a first step in the process to retain Oceana at large. As we have done research in our portfolio and looked at the economics of Virginia Beach, we consider Oceana an extremely crticial part of that economy. And so we would ask that you seriously consider approving this as a first step in retaining Oceana. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you so much for coming today. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Nancy Perry. Dorothy Wood: Welcome Ms. Perry. Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 9 Nancy Perry: Thank you. Chairperson Wood and members of the Planning Commission, I'm Nancy Perry, Executive Director of the Virginia Beach Hotel/Motel Association. I am here before you today to place our association on the record as not having enough information to either oppose or support this ordinance. The City has indicated to us that an economic analysis of the impact of complying with the BRAC directives will be the starting point for discussion and ultimate decision with what we would hope for would be plenty of public information and debate on this issue. Our board agrees with this approach. It is also necessary that before any decisions are made regarding Oceana that the public understand exactly what the consequences will be regarding eminent domain, property rights, economic impacts, and what the future of any areas of the city affected by Councils decision will be. In a perfect world no decision would be made until all of this had taken place. Yet, we have been told that in order to comply with the timeline that this ordinance needs to be send on to City Council now. Let my appearance before you toady be an indication of the VBHMA strong desire to be informed and involved in every step of this decision making process from this point forward. A deferral of this item would allow for more information to be made public and discussed with the stakeholders. You have before you an ordinance that makes hotels incompatible uses in certain area of the Oceanfront and our Association and the stakeholders are not sure exactly what that means at this point. We do not know what uses would be compatible at the Oceanfront if this ordinance was adopted. The lack of information is not a good course of action to follow particularly with an issue of this magnitude. Thank you for allowing me to place our concerns and requests on the record. And once again, we would a request a deferral. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. You understand that we can not defer this today but thank you. Nancy Perry: I do now. Thanks. Joseph Strange: Speaking in opposition is William J. Lee. Dorothy Wood: Welcome Mr. Lee. We're happy to have you with us today. William Lee: Commissioners. Guests. Taking people's property by zoning decree is not right. Dorothy Wood: Sir. Before you start, you know that were not talking about condemning property? William Lee: Well, it's taking some of your property rights. Dorothy Wood: Okay. William Lee: My name is Bill Lee. I live in the western Transition area. Taking people's property by zoning decree is not right. The Bill of Rights states you are entitled to the Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 10 economic viable use of your property. Zoning by a 1999 or 2000 AICUZ Overlay does not make any sense. There is also a 2000 AICUZ map being used in 3,500 noise law- suits. What about OPNAV Instruction stating when a change of emission occurs, the AICUZ should be changed also and any land or property up for sale should be bought by the Navy or the City at fair market value. This being the Planning Commission you should vote against this AICUZ Overlay for future rezonings. It makes no sense to restrict 80 percent of the available land in the transition area in this overlay. This is very poor planning. First it was the Transition Area, one unit per acre. Then with the AICUZ Overlay is one unit per five acres or 15 acres. How long will it take to really be the transition area it was supposed to be? The JLUS is flawed. Jacksonville and Cecil Field are getting cold feet. The Chief of Naval Operations has a decision to make on the master jet base. His impact study of losing Oceana is due in November. Was Virginia Beach ever in the domain? The Overlay with regard to the AICUZ map should be one of the last things to do, not the first. It should be deferred. It has been said that Oceana is not the future of the Navy. Likewise, with this Overlay what is the future of Virginia Beach? Dorothy Wood: Are there any questions? Thank you very much sir. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Wade Rabey. Wade Rabey: I'm going to withdraw my comments. John Harris: Can I have his turn? Dorothy Wood: Yes. But please come up and give your name. John Harris: Madame. City Planners. My name is John Harris and I live off of Indian River Road. Dorothy Wood: Welcome Mr. Harris. We're happy to have you with us. John Harris: I had no questions or no concerns until I heard Mr. Scott speak earlier about plans for the Transition Area. We've seen our property go from 1 to 15 acres, one per five. We recently applied on the recommendation from our City Council member for the ARP Program and we were turned down for the ARP Program. And Mr. Scott just mentioned earlier there's a plan for the Transition Area. I would just like to ask Mr. Scott what that plan is? Robert Scott: It is right in the document in front of you. It's a reduction of the density prescribed through the Use Permit process from 1 to 1 acre down to either 1 to 5 or lower depending. John Harris: But in particular Mr. Scott, can you address the ARP Program? There were five people who applied and were turned down. Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 11 Robert Scott: I'll be happy to do that. One of the things that we are trying to do as part of this approach is to look at an acquisition program for the property in that area. It would be our preference to work with the property owners in the area to pursue purchase of property but acquire the title to the property rather than just the development rights. Naturally, we would be interested in doing that on a fair market value basis. But we are aware that fair market values in this area have risen to the point where to acquire the development rights or to acquire the title costs almost the same amount of money. And we would like to talk to property owners in that area about acquisition but not necessarily through the ARP Program. John Harris: Okay. Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir for coming. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Barbara Yates. Dorothy Wood: Welcome Ms. Yates. We're happy to have you with us. Barbara Yates: Thank you. Good afternoon Ms. Wood and gentlemen and ladies of the Planning Commission and city staff. My name is Barbara Yates and I'm Vice President of Resort Beach Civic League. I'm here today representing the neighborhoods of Lakewood, which runs from Norfolk Avenue to 171h Street and Old Beach, which is 22nd to 281h Streets. Within these neighborhoods we have nine zoning categories. Half of the resort neighborhoods are in the 70-75 noise zone and the other half are in the 65-70. I appreciate your comments prior to this issue coming up. I got to admit to you I am not smart enough to understand what is going on. Dorothy Wood: I'm sure you are Ms. Yates. Barbara Yates: I'm not. I'm telling you. But I would like to go ahead and say my comments. I understood that I would have more time since I was representing a group. And then maybe you all could come back and help me figure out what we're doing here. Would that be okay? Dorothy Wood: I'm sure that staff would be more than happy to work with you. But I believe it is three minutes for everyone. Barbara Yates: Is it? Dorothy Wood: Yes ma'am. Do you all want to give her more time? Barbara Yates: It's not a full ten minutes. It won't be. Dorothy Wood: We'll start from now. Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 12 Janice Anderson: If it is just something extra. I'll sponsor her. Dorothy Wood: You'll sponsor her? Thank. Barbara Yates: Okay. Thank you. Today, I'm here to speak to the negative impacts of adopting the AICUZ Overlay that would be to the resort neighborhood and the resort area overall. With the support of my neighbors and city staff, I spent the last 15 years trying to improve the quality of life of Lakewood and Old Beach residents. Over the last year, a working group of residents with every kind of zoning along with developers, builders and city staff produced the Old Beach Neighborhood Zoning Overlay. This document would have permitted us to develop with a look similar to Norfolk's East Beach except homes not so big and close together, and which had no opposition. It was weeks from being presented to you and to City Council when all hell broke loose with Oceana and everything was frozen. This Overlay provided incentives to property owner, which could have resulted in lots, which now have 5-6 apartments being redeveloped into 1 or 2 single-family cottages. Now, I admit that I may not completely understand what this proposed JLUS AICUZ Zoning Overlay does but I think it means that we will only be able to develop by -right. If this is the case and since probably 90 percent of the lots and homes in Lakewood and Old Beach are non -conforming, we are in a world of trouble. And just to make sure I'm clear on this Overlay, I have a couple of questions. You maybe answered one of them. If someone has an R-5S lot with a single-family cottage that does not sit within the current setbacks and they want to add some square footage, will they be allowed to do so? Secondly, if someone has an R-51) or A-12 lot with a single-family cottage that sits outside the current setbacks, will they be allowed to add their second unit? With the JLUS Overlay, I believe the answer to both of these questions is no. I hope I'm wrong because this will force the property owner to tear down their existing cottage and rebuild by -right. Since most of our lots are so small this will force the three story monster box houses and duplexes to be built and we will loose our cottage character. Our 30 and 40-foot wide lots will essentially be worthless unless there is an out pouring of demand for very narrow homes. Now, I would like to comment what I believe will be the affects of the JLUS Overlay on all resort development that encompasses my neighborhoods as well. Although the BRAC's concern is for the 70- noise zone and above when the BRAC Commission ends in March and the Navy's authority takes over in April, their concern is with the 65 dB zone and above. This means that the development of the entire resort is in big trouble because the by -right development is not what will make the resort great and inviting. Here is how I see it. If we are not able to surround the resort with quality diversified year around residential density, the resort will never be an upscale year round destination. When the Convention Center attendees arrive in the off season and can only find a t-shirt shop open, they will never return and our new Convention Center will collapse on itself. Additionally, if we are not able to develop a high quality resort the negative commercial impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods impacts that make it nearly impossible to live in peace will continue. The future of the entire resort will be no better than it is right now and in fact, I believe, the resort will decline and finally another question? Why are we doing all of this Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 13 when we know that the next generation of jets will be much louder than the F-18s? I believe it will be virtually impossible to live or work anywhere near where these jets fly. So, I'm begging you please do not allow our cottage neighborhoods and the growing resort industry to be destroyed. Please vote to not recommend approval of the AICUZ Overlay. So help me understand. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ms. Yates. I'm sure that Karen will be happy to work with you Ms. Yates. I think that your fears will be taken care of. Barbara Yates: Great. Good to hear. Janice Anderson: I've worked with Barbara on the Old Beach District so I can see her concern. And I think that some of the issues that you brought up will not be affected. It is my understanding that we will have more discussion on that but so far as if it's zoned A- 12 that would be the underlying zoning. You could build A-12. If you have a single family home and you want to increase it with overlay that we're proposing for Old Beach is to move those setbacks back so that would be the underlying zoning. But whatever the underlying zoning allows you, you would be able to do it. So that wouldn't affect the plans that we have for the cottage, the duplexes abilities with the garage apartments that you have in your area that would be allowed. If you are zoned for a bed and breakfast or like that, it would be allowed. It is whatever the underlying zoning that would be allowed. Barbara Yates: Then why was a recent application to the BZA, where I love to go we have so much fun down there for 613 22nd Street that was an A-12 site with a non- conforming cottage adding on a second unit, why was that recommended for denial from city staff recently? Karen Lasley: Because technically that was not in the Old Beach neighborhood. I know you debate that point with us. Barbara Yates: I do. Janice Anderson: There are other goods that make it common with the resort, which is my concern also. The resort area has a zoning now that allows hotels there so those hotels are allowed. There hasn't been a change really to the Overlay with the 19th Street and with the Convention Center. We were talking about changing that zoning with an overlay and I think that will require some year round residential. Barbara Yates: Okay. Janice Anderson: I think it has been studied that is the only way feasible to carry that development. So, those are my understanding on the issues on. Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 14 Barbara Yates: Great. Thank you so much. Dorothy Wood: Come back to see us. We'll try to make it more fun next time. Ronald Ripley: May I make a comment to? Barbara, I haven't read anything here that says that we're not going to be creating any more new ordinances. Anymore new zoning ordinances. I think picking up on what Jan's says, I would envision and Mr. Scott can correct me if he would like or not at this point, but I would envision at some point there will be an ordinance to address the 19th Street area to make sure that the mix uses are allowed. But I think we're just trying to get the dust to settle at this stage of things. Once we know exactly what we have that will be fashioned out so that we can move forward. Would you envision something like that Mr. Scott. Robert Scott: I would. We said at the very beginning of all this that the root of this package that is in front of you today is in Joint Land Use Study. Well, something else has its root in the Joint Land Use Study as well and that's the contemplation of revised a set of regulations for the Oceanfront. And I think that when that is done, Old Beach area, the 19th Street area and all that will be appropriately addressed. Once again we're in the framework with the principles of the Joint Land Use Study but at the same time I'm convinced as to the benefit of all the property owners and business people that have an interest in that area. Ronald Ripley: So, what's RT-1 today may not be. It will be something else but it is going to be taken into account the whole logistic approach. We want the quality. That is what we want. The quality development and the right compatibility with the Navy is what we're trying to achieve and I think that is what Mr. Scott wants to see happen. Barbara Yates: My concern is that by the time we get to that point, nervous developers would have come in and built by -right, at least in my neighborhood they'll be nothing to save. That is my concern. Ronald Ripley: That is a good concern. Barbara Yates: So, we'll pray for divine order. I walk around with the Serenity prayer with me at all times. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Ann Wells. Dorothy Wood: Welcome Ms. Wells. Ann Wells: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Ann Wells and I'm President of the Landstown Civic League. And like Barbara, I think I'm a little over my head but I'm Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 15 here to speak on behalf of my civic league concerning agenda Item #12, the sub area one of the Princess Anne Corridor Study on page 12. We're not necessarily opposed to any development. My understanding is that it is being changed from a residential development to a business development and we do have some concerns. The first being public safety. Specifically our neighbors are concerned about access of emergency vehicles and emergency services to our neighborhood. Secondly, the potential for the increase in crime that comes with any business development. We have a very active neighborhood watch but it shouldn't be the burden of our neighborhood watch to take care of these concerns, and lastly the quality of life for our neighborhood. We have concerns over the visual aesthetics for the homes bordering the property as well as the increase in traffic and inconvenience for our neighborhood, specifically the Princess Anne entrance onto our neighborhood, which is Winterberry Lane. So in conclusion, I just want to say that we trust that this Planning Board as well as the City will do what is right for the citizens of Virginia Beach as well as for our neighborhood. Thank you very much. Dorothy Wood: Any questions for her. Thank you so much coming down. Barry Knight: As far as, I don't think it's a direction as far as business is concerned. I think the Transition Area was down to 1 to 1 if you met a specific set of guidelines. And with this, the zoning is going back to by -right I to 15 in certain areas, probably I to 5. So, what you're probably going to see is if someone decides to build in there, it probably still will be residential with a mix of business in certain areas. But it will be 1 to 5. It won't be as dense as it would have been with the Transition Area. So, I understand your concerns but I don't think they're come to pass. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Scott. Robert Scott: Ms. Wells civic league is north of the green line. It's in the Dam Neck Road area. The problem is that part of that area is in an accident potential zone. All of her comments are right on target. They are very legitimate concerns. What we need to make sure of first of all is that we don't locate residential where residential is not going to work because of the accident potential zone but any of that and it is zoned agricultural as Mr. Knight points out. So, any of it is going to have to go through a rezoning to get to another state and that rezoning needs to be very closely looked at with the effect of people to make sure that the considerations are such that may work out for the residents that are already in that neighborhood. But it does look like because of the presence of the accident potential zone in there that where we have been planning residential before may not be good idea moving along that kind of thought. Barbara Yates: Mr. Pauls came and spoke to our civic league about a week and half ago and that's where I received the information that it was going more towards the business then residential development. Dorothy Wood: Thank you so much for coming down. Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 16 Barbara Yates: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Edward Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Madame Chair, I'm passing out letters. These are a long list of thoughts that I pinned a couple of weeks ago, and some of you in your spare time may want to take the opportunity to read it and throw it away after you do. I represent a number of property owners both of the resort and the interfacility zone, who have asked me to come and speak on a number of topics and issues. Granted the City Council did adopt the Joint Land Use Study that the Navy really didn't sign off on. They were just really advisors back in May. As all of you should know and do know, the devil is always in the details, and this ordinance does involve some details that are problematic. But before I get into that I couldn't help to start with that it is nice that we're all standing up and trying to give platitudes that everything is going to be okay down at the resort with all of our residential redevelopment that was a partial of our decision to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on the resort Conference Center. And yet, we're saying that all of that land is now incompatible for just the type of development that we have said all along we want to have happen there. And pardon me if I don't quite buy into that warm and fuzziness saying that it is all incompatible and saying that we're still going to do it all when we have an ordinance here that when I read it, and I would invite you to take a look at line 152-157 on Page 8. It says if "the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake fail to enact and enforce legislation to prevent further encroachment of NAS Oceana by the end of March 2006 by adopting zoning ordinances that require the governing bodies to follow AICUZ Compatibility Use Zone guidelines in deciding discretionary development applications". We're saying that is what we're going to do. It's says that is what were doing here although I'm not sure we actually do it here in substance but we sure put it here in form, how can we be saying that on the one hand and on the other hand suggesting that we're going to adopt these zoning changes that the Overlay etc., that have to be adopted in order to be able see that vision come to pass. I don't frankly know how we get from Point "A" to Point `B" when that's what were saying we're doing in this ordinance. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon, we'll give you a few more minutes since you're representing people. Your three minutes are up. Eddie Bourdon: I appreciate that and that leads me into another issue. Never in all my days and all my history of being here have I seen ordinances that do so much which affects so many people be adopted with less public review, less public discussion, and less notice to the effected property owners than this ordinance. You all got this for the first time less than 30 days ago. It's changed a few times. I'm not here to talk about noise attenuation or talk about notice to people. All that stuff is wonderful. It should happen. Don't have a problem with it. But when you get down to specific provisions that I think clearly do impact and impact significantly people's property rights, there are some things that need to be said. Let me look at lines 139-142 with you for just a second. In there, there is reference made to the fact that the Navy has acquired restrictive easements Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 17 over about 4,200 square acres of land. The appropriate way for the Navy and the Department of Defense to do what they need to do to protect their facility, I might add. It is interesting that I have to note that the factual statement in your ordinance is not correct because, in fact, many of the Navy's easements on properties in the 70-75 dB noise zone permit hotel/motel development in those noise zones. Now, with this ordinance we're changing that. Saying what was permitted under their own easements that they spent money for and told the property owner that was one of the rights you get to keep we're now coming in and taking it away. And that is what this does. Now it doesn't effect the Oceanfront because they didn't take any easements at the Oceanfront but it does effect people in other parts around Lynnhaven Mall and other some places where they have these easements in place that allow that use and now we're saying that its not compatible simply because somebody up in Washington decided it wasn't compatible, which leads me into the interesting little comment at the end of Mr. Macali's presentation. All of sudden, and did anyone know about it before today that nursing homes are no longer compatible in the 70-75 noise zone. If you own one, that's a big deal. Even though it may not be a big deal to you guys today, but if you own one it's a big deal. Did anyone in Virginia Beach know it happened? No. We just found out about it today, the day that were going to adopt this ordinance. This is exactly why we should not be advocating our responsibility to land use plan in the City of Virginia Beach to somebody who doesn't live here, doesn't speak to, us, and makes these decisions without any input from us. Ed Weeden: Eddie, your time is about up. Eddie Bourdon: I'm sure it's up because people don't want to hear another side because there is another side to this. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon. That's not the reason why it is up. We gave you more time than anyone else including the Navy representative. But I appreciate it. Mr. Scott would probably want to answer. Robert Scott: I can answer some of the issues. As to the recent changes, there evidentially has been an adjustment made to the OPNAV Instruction that truthfully we did just find that out about very recently. And we made that known as soon as we found out about them, which was today. We did know that there was a change having to do with the applicability to hotels. And I think that has been accurately reflected in the ordinance but we decided to compare the two versions of the OPNAV Instruction to see if we could find other discrepancies, and we did find one or two others most noted the nursing home thing. We made those changes known as soon as we discovered them. I do feel that and I have said it before. A couple of times today and I'll say it again. Mr. Ripley brought it up in his comments. I think it is accurate that there is a great deal more work to be done in terms of putting things in the right direction as far as development in the City is concerned. This is a step but it is not the only step. There are more concerns out there that have been appropriately addressed in the Joint Land Use Study. I feel that it is incumbent upon us at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way to follow through Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 18 with that. We are faced right now with one of the most difficult questions any City Council in our history has ever been faced with. It requires a great deal of patience on the part of everybody. It requires a clear vision of where we want to be and how we want to get there, and how we have to work together to get to that point. It's exceedingly difficult. It is very clear already that it exceeds the amount of patience that some people have but that can't deter us. We have to keep working. We have to keep exhibiting the necessary amount of patience and adherence to our goals and the outcomes we want to achieve. There are some very difficult decisions yet to be made by our City Council. And part of our job is to put the Council in the position, the best possible position, for those decisions to be made with all the parts in place, one of which you have in front of you today. It is very important. Dorothy Wood: People are asking us to defer it. Would you please explain why we can't defer this Mr. Scott? What would happen if we did defer it? Robert Scott: It's not going to be a timely unfolding of all the pieces to the puzzle that have to be in place. There are federal concerns. There are local concerns. There are state concerns. The state concerns represent our efforts through the General Assembly, legislation that has to be brought forward through the General Assembly. And other considerations that have to do with the government at the state level. And that has to be done in a timely manner and that necessitates that action be taken today. It's not just a local concern. It is not just a local Virginia Beach concern. It's a regional concern as Commander Lauderbach reminded us earlier. But in addition to that, significant work with our federal government liaison and our state governmental liaison has got to be an integral part of this every step of the way. Dorothy Wood: And if we did defer it today, it would be as if we passed it? Is that correct? Robert Scott: Well you have a resolution that has been sent to you by the City Council. It specifically calls for you to act on October 12, 2005. That is today. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is R.J. Nutter. R.J. Nutter: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is R.J. Nutter. I'm an attorney. Madame Chair, I will try not to go over the time limit, however I do have the problem of representing two distinct sets of clients, with two distinctly separately sets of issues. So, forgive me, I may take six minutes but not in an effort to supplant your rules, if you will. First let me say that I'm here representing a series of hotel interests. In particular, the hotels that currently exist in the portion of the Oceanfront that is designated with a 70-75 noise zone area. As you know, that is only a relatively small portion of the Oceanfront but nonetheless it is a significant portion because the hotels between somewhere, and I'm Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 19 not sure between 32❑d and 33�d up to about 401h Street. It's difficult to know because of the lines in the AICUZ maps have a plus or minus several hundred feet. So, we're somewhere in that area. And, we represent these owners that own the hotels and resorts on 33`d, 34`h, 35`h, 36", 371h and 391h Street. So as you can imagine they are keenly aware and keenly concerned by the proposed ordinance. While they acknowledge that the ordinance amendment only applies to discretionary acts, it does, nonetheless bother them for several reasons. I'd like to relay that to you. And I would also like to say that while this amendment that you're being asked to pass on today is based upon a compatibility map of a third party, it is nonetheless our ordinance. It is nonetheless a decision that the Planning Commission has to face like it does every other decision. So, I would urge you not simply to think about what the Navy has asked. You aren't put here just to rubberstamp this. You were put here to make a decision like you do on every other decision and every application by either the city or the private sector. I would urge you while you have evidence that indicates the Navy wants you to adopt certain compatibility rules, it doesn't supplant the obligation, in my mind or the freedom of this group to make an independent decision. So having said that the biggest concern these parties have is the fact that their hotels are listed as no longer being compatible. The 1999 map, lists hotels as conditionally compatible. They have built on that. They have bought land on that. They have borrowed money on that. They made investments on that decision. And while this does not change the zoning of those properties it does change a list somewhere to indicate that they are incompatible. I've like to being like a first cousin in non- conformity. You really can build but if you have to come back to Council for something we may have to say no. So, it's really in between compatible and incompatible. I'd liken it to be the first cousin of incompatibility. Here is how that affects them. Number one, when they refinance their structures the banks and lending institutions, and these are very, very sophisticated organizations, will look to a variety of decisions and laws affecting those properties. The fact that their use is incompatible could undermine the redevelopment of those properties. Second, as you all know the Oceanfront has a problem with development and its blocks are long and on the east side of Atlantic Avenue are short. They're narrow and they're difficult to develop upon. And the other problem is that our code was adopted in 1988, which means it is almost 17 years old. And you take an old ordinance and apply it to a difficult piece of property and the net result is something that you've seen already and that is practically every new large hotel development down there requires some sort of Councilmatic review. I've done many of them so I can tell you I've been here for street closures, rezonings, Use Permits, modifications of non -conformity. We've all come to facilitate these structures. Listing them as incompatible jeopardizes that process and causes that industry great concern. The second concern they have has to do with what some of you already touched upon and that's the sound attenuation issue. I want to thank Mr. Scott and his office and Cheri Hairier and her office for providing a memo to us yesterday. My clients are simply reserving the right to meet with Cheri. She is not in town today. And try to make sure that the level of construction phase they enjoyed the last two years will continue to be the same after this ordinance is adopted, if it is adopted. So, those are the interests of those sets of clients. It is a serious issue. If you think about it you're being asked to adopt an Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 20 ordinance that lists hotels as incompatible in the City of Virginia Beach on the Oceanfront all being in a 9-10 block area. Nonetheless, I don't think that has ever been done in the history of this city. The second set of clients Ms. Wood I would like to address have to do with those in the industrial areas around Oceana. These areas are often zoned industrial. We will often come to you and rezone them from whatever they are zoned today to I -I or I-2. The concern in the list of tables and I didn't mention Mr. Ray Firenze by the way coming in today. The table on Page 19 lists water areas as an incompatible use in APZI, APZ2, and clear zones. Fortunately, I think the clear zones are all on the Navy's property so we don't have that issue but many of the clients in that area have properties that are zoned I-1 and I-2, and the concern being raised here is that one of them wants to build a lake, they are all required to build stormwater management ponds and stormwater features. We don't to in anyway imply want to or we want to make sure that this ordinance in no way prohibits BMP features that are required by the stormwater ordinance otherwise those properties will not be able to be developed for industrial purposes when that's exactly what they were intended to serve. Dorothy Wood: I think Mr. Scott could probably answer that. Would you answer his concern? Robert Scott: It's an excellent point. I think that my recollection of the Navy's concerns, which they have voiced over the years, is the location of water features above and beyond that, quite frankly they would attract birds and things like that and would interfere with Naval operations. I think that is understandable. But, I think it is a question of doing the things that are necessary to make development work but not go beyond that. R.J. Nutter: We understand. Dorothy Wood: I understand that. R.J. Nutter: We thank you very much. Glad I'm not in your shoes. Dorothy Wood: Are there any questions for Mr. Nutter? Thanks R.J. R.J. Nutter: Thank you very much. My pleasure. Dorothy Wood: That concludes our speakers. I guess we will have discussion. I would like to thank the members of the Police Department that were here today. Thank you so much for coming and I think now we're just going to have discussion. If you all want to leave and you're certainly welcome to stay. We do appreciate you being here and protecting us today. Thank you very much. And thank the Lieutenant. Ron, I'm sure you have something to say. Ronald Ripley: Well, this ordinance that we have in front of us has come from the JLUS process and it has been an initiative that has been approved by that group. And, the Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 21 BRAG, even though we didn't intend to marry the two together, the BRAC managed to marry a provision that says, and I'm reading from the BRAC right her, enact the 2005 final Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study Recommendations, which is this document, which is what we're doing here today. And, whether we like it or not, this is something whether you agree with it or disagree with it, this is something that JLUS has agreed to. It is something that the cities have agreed to. I've read the ordinance probably now at least four times just to make sure that I really I understood it. I'm like Mr. Nutter, I'm really concerned about the message it sends about hotels on the beach and I think there are a lot of people concerned about what is going to happen to their properties. Mr. Macali was very clear in explaining that if your property is a by -right property this doesn't affect it. If it is something you wish to add to it, it doesn't affect it. My main concern and I'm going to support it at this point because I believe that the vision that we have for the city is still the same vision. It may look a little different. Our resort area may look a little different when it's finished but our vision is still the same. We would have to step back and deal with this but I think once we get past that it will clear up and our vision will become better and we will know what we will have to do to proceed. I've worked real closely on the 19`h Street plan, as Jan has, and I still see the redevelopment occurring in that area. One of the problems you have with redevelop though is that you need density. Density will help drive the redevelopment. We don't have a redevelopment authority so for the city to go out and actually acquire property and entice the development community to come in and do something we don't seem to have the ability to do it. So we are going to be a little handicapped in the density side of things but on the other hand we have a base of density that may look different under the new ordinance in the future. That is what I hope we see. My statement to City Council is that if for some reason this ordinance is passed by this body and it will proceed to City Council in one form or another, if City Council so chooses to comply with and pass this ordinance in order to comply with what BRAC has really demanded of us, and if for some reason the Department of Defense and the Inspector General of the Department of Defense decides to realign the jets after this has been enacted, then I would like to recommend to the City that this ordinance be returned to the Planning Commission to review to make recommendations again. Because I think it is not right to take this set of circumstances and apply it to a base that may be different in the future because the jets were realigned. And I think also that if the City Council decides not to comply with BRAC in order to retain the jets that it ought to come back to the Planning Department and the Planning Commission for further recommendations back to Council because the base will look different if something like that were to occur. So those are my comments. I will be supporting it. I have reservations but I believe at this point this is the appropriate thing to do. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any other comments on that side? Gene. Eugene Crabtree: I concur with Ron. I think the people have worked long and hard. This is the result of something that's really been in the works for approximately two years. All of the communities in the area have been involved in it. The federal Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 22 government has been involved with it. The Department of Defense. I just think this is the first step. I don't think this changes anything that exists right to date what exists today remains. What is going to come about in the future will probably be restricted. Hindsite is always better than foresight. And had we had this same vision 20 years ago or 30 years ago then we would not be in this predicament today. We would not be facing the BRAC. We wouldn't have to worry about the JLUS. So, I think this is something that is correct and this should have been done about 30 years ago. So, I'm going to support it. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Barry. Do you have anything to add? Barry Knight: Like my two colleagues have said, this is a hard decision. A lot of thought has gone into it. We do have some time constraints imposed upon us because which ever way is recommended by this body then it needs to go to City Council so in a timely fashion it can get to the state so they can pass a resolution or a law to conform with what BRAC has requested of us. This is just a first step along the way to move the process along. But I would like to reiterate what Ron says. I'll call it a closings clause. That if at such time the majority of the jets leave Oceana on the scope, purpose or mission of Oceana changes, we would refer it back to Planning Commission and City Council, hopefully go back to the laws on the books the way it was or revisit them anyways. We know that all these laws and all these conditions are being done because of crash zones and noise areas. Well, if we don't have a need for the crash zones or the noise areas, maybe we don't have a need for this ordinance. I'll kind of second what Ron said along those lines. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Will? William Din: Yeah. I think I agree with my colleagues here that we probably should have had this JLUS discussion years ago. But I think that this is another step in that planning process that we need to go through. This is a step in the right direction I believe. And, it's the right step for these circumstances and I concur with the need to review these circumstances if we go through this process to make sure that our ordinance and our other Comprehensive Plan Guidelines are inline with the circumstances as they change. So, I probably will be supporting this also. Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there anybody on this side? Joseph Strange: I too will be supporting the Joint Land Use Study. As everybody says, it started a couple of years ago and only lately has the debate been intensified because of BRAC but before that if we take BRAC out of it this Joint Land Use Study would have come before us and I think I would have supported it without BRAC. So, I'll be supporting that. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Mr. Virginia Tech. Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 23 Donald Horsley: Thank you. It's a compliment. I'm going to support the ordinance also. Relative to the discussion it should of happened many years ago. That is the way a lot of things happen. If our foresight were as good as our hindsite, we would be a whole lot better off. You know, maybe these issues weren't as prominent back then and that's the reason they didn't come up. But, all of a sudden the issues become more serious and that's when these real serious decisions have to be made. Many times they are too late. But there comes a time when they have to be made and this is the time. We can't continue to wait any longer to do it. I'll be glad when this decision process is over and they say we can do this or we can't do this so that the citizens and property owners will know what's going on. Right now I think there are a lot of them in limbo. Mr. Harris came today. In fact, Mr. Harris spoke today and asked me last night why his property that was turned down for the Agricultural Reserve Program. I really didn't know but Mr. Scott, I appreciate your explanation for that today. Because I couldn't answer his question last night but I can understand that reasoning behind that because I think he thought that if they applied for Agricultural Reserve it wouldn't be any problem. But these people would like to keep their property but I can understand the City's position there. So, I plan to support this ordinance today. Kathy Katsias: I too concur with my fellow commissioners. They all have been so eloquent. Like Mr. Crabtree said we probably should have had these discussions many years ago. Unfortunately, we didn't. I think we're going in the right direction. I think going as a unified body presenting this to City Council is in the right direction. Therefore, I'm supportive of this amendment. Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Jan. Janice Anderson: Thank you. I had the same concerns as a lot of the speakers had here today, Mr. Bourdon, Mr. Nutter, Ms. Yates, and the representative from hotel/motel. I think there are concerns but I think at this point it would be a concern if we would hold up at this position. This is a JLUS study that was entered and accepted by Council and approved. The comments though are, especially with the no further encroachment that Mr. Bourdon brought up. That's in the open statement of this and it says that the findings. It's a statement of this was the findings is like a prelude of why we're going forward in this. It's a statement that something BRAC Commission said to prevent no further encroachment. That is not what this ordinance does. Because they're letting you do by -right so if you have by -right and have a duplex and you have s single family home you can do further encroachment by doing your by -right. So, this ordinance does not say no further encroachment. And that is not what is it says. I see in the pre -ample it mentions that but that is not what it says. And, there are some concerns with the underlying zoning and that was one the issues that I wanted to make sure about and inquired on that the underlying zonings there can be changes to those and what is by -right because it has to been works and Mr. Ripley stated that we've been working on 19tn Street, Old Beach, and then the old Oceanfront Zoning, the RT. That's going to be changed. That has been in the works with the city. So, I just wanted to make sure those Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 24 issues won't be affected. I understand what Mr. Nutter says. It's kind of strange to say that a hotel at the Oceanfront is not compatible but I believe when you're looking at this ordinance it says that a hotel anywhere is not compatible with the higher noise zone 70- 75, which is different from before. But it is just saying that a hotel in high noise is not compatible. But if the hotel area and the Oceanfront is zoned hotel then that would be compatible really because it is permitted there. So, I think you get around that compatibility because the City by zoning it there actually says that is a permitted use and it's a reasonable use. And, I don't see any change of the City direction in saying that hotels at the Oceanfront are not reasonable uses. There are some changes definitely with this ordinance and the IFA is one of them. The Transition Area and that area is affected. But I believe those issues Council had seen when they started implementing the Transition Area matrix when development started there. They started seeing those issues within that IFA area and now they have identified it and we included it into a map and actually we're talking about specific area map now. I believe that it is appropriate that we should go forward with this change and would be supportive to send it on to Council. Dorothy Wood: Sounded like that was a motion. Janice Anderson: I was going to let Mr. Waller have his say. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Waller. John Waller: Well, I'm going to support the ordinance. I have a lot of misgivings. I think we'll see some big changes particularly in the Old Beach area and along the Oceanfront. But, I think we're between a rock and hard place. But I will be supporting it. Dorothy Wood: A motion by Ms. Anderson and seconded by Mr. Waller. Bill Macali: Madame Chair. Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. Bill Macali: Just make it clear that the motion encompasses all five ordinances. Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. Would you say exactly what you want it to say? Bill Macali: The motion would be to approve Items #8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 as listed in your agenda. Dorothy Wood: Is that alright Ms. Anderson? Janice Anderson: So moved. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Waller? Item #8-12 City of Virginia Beach Page 25 William Din: As revised today or presented today? Bill Macali: Ordinance Number 8 as revised and that was handed out to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting. AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ABSENT Dorothy Taylor: By a vote of 10-0, Items #8 — 12 have been approved. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Thank you all for coming down today. We all will have to work together. Thank you. Meeting adjourned. L. APPOINTMENTS BEACHES and WATERWAYS COMMISSION BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA BOARD COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR HISTORIC SITES HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE — PPEA PERSONNEL BOARD (Alternates) PLANNING COMMISSION RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (RAC) SENIOR SERVICES OF SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA (SEVAMP) VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORAITON (VBCDC) WETLANDS BOARD (Alternates) M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS 1. ABSTRACT OF VOTES — GENERAL ELECTION — November 8, 2005 O. ADJOURNMENT ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for: GOVERNOR NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITN PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED (IN FIGURES) JERRY W. KILGORE - R.............. .... ....... 46,471 TIMOTHY M. KAINE - D ......................... 47,120 H. RUSS POTTS, JR. - I ......................... 3,178 Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] [Valid write -Ins * Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes]...... . 120 Total Number Of Overvotes For Office ............... 23 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above. Given under our hands this 10 to day of No, A copy teste: Electoral Board Sea] Chairman Chairman Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for: LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED (IN FIGURES) WILLIAM T. "Bill' BOLLING - R ..................... 52,354 LESLIE L. BYRNE - D ............................. 41,225 Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] $63 [Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins Total Write -In Votes] ......... Total Number Of Overvotes For Office..... ........ 16 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the .office indicated above. Given under our hands this A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal 10 th day of November, 2005. Chairman Chairman Secretary 4 fir., .<<.� E� �c -� Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for: ATTORNEY GENERAL NAMES OF CANDIDATES MTN PARTYID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED (IN FIGURES) ROBERT F. "Bob" McDONNELL - R ................. 54,885 R. CREIGH DEEDS - D ............................ 41.1 AR Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] [Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes]........... 11 R Total Number Of Overvotes For Office ................. 15 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above. Given under our hands this 10 th day of No A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal Chairman Chairman Secretary %�� _4 Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for: MEMBER HOUSE OF DELEGATES 21 st District ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARrY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT John J. Welch III - R TOTAL VOTES RECErvED (IN FIGURES) 10,877 Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] [Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] 440 Total Number Of Overvotes For Office..... .... 0 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above. Given under our hands this 10 th day of November, 2�05. � A copy teste: Electoral Board Sea] Chairman Chairman 1 �� Secretary x � Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for: MEMBER HOUSE OF DELEGATES 81 st District ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER NAMES OF CANDlDATEs WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT Terrie L. Suit - R TOTAL voles RECEIVED ON FIGURES) 8,145 Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] 258 [Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ......... Total Number Of Overvotes For Office .................. 0 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and. correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above. Given under our hands this 10 th day of A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal Chairman Chairman Secretary w�-�-- -t--� Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for: MEMBER HOUSE OF DELEGATES 82 nd District ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT TOTAL VOTES RECENED (IN FIGURES) Harry R. "Bob" Purkey - R ................. 14,339 John O. Parmele, Jr. - I ................. 5,838 Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] [Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ......... 58. Total Number Of Overvotes For Office..... 4 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and. correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above. Given under our hands this 10 th day of November, 2Q05. A copy testes I - Chairman Electoral j �� , Vice Chairman Board Seal Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the „ City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for: MEMBER HOUSE OF DELEGATES 83rd District ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED (IN FIGURES) Leo C. Wardrup, Jr. - R ................. 99241 Georgia F. Allen - D ................. 69139 Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] [Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes) ......... 12. Total Number Of Overvotes For Office..... .... 2 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and. correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above. Given under our hands this 10 th day of November, 2005.. A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal Chairman Chairman Secretary ��y T Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for: MEMBER HOUSE OF DELEGATES 84th District ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED (IN FIGURES) Sal R. laquinto - R 8 269 Supriya Christopher - D I ... _ .. ....... 6,615 Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] [Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ......... 20 Total Number Of Overvotes For Office..... 1 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Cleric of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above. Given under our hands this A copy teste: Electoral Board Sea] 10 th day of November, 2005. Chairman Chairman -a , Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for: MEMBER HOUSE OF DELEGATES 85th District ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER NAMES OF CANDIDATEs WITH PARTY /D AS SHOWN ON BALLOT TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED (IN FIGURES) Robert "Bob" Tata - R ................. 16,692 Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] 287 [Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ......... Total Number Of Overvotes For Office................. 4 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and. connect Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above. Given under our hands this A copy teste: Electoral Board Sea? 10 th day of No, Chairman Chairman Secretary --�-a Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for: MEMBER HOUSE OF DELEGATES 90th District ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED (IN FIGURES) Algie T. Howell, Jr. - D 797 Total Write -In Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] [Valid write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ......... 9 Total Number Of Overvotes For Office..... 0 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and. correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above. Given under our hands this A copy testa: Electoral Board Seal 10 th day of Novembor,-200t. c, Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for: COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY NAMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED (IN FIGURES) Harvey L. Bryant III 77,028 Total Write -In Votes [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write-in Votes) .......... 744 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person has received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election: Harvey L. Bryant III Given under our hands this loth day of November, 2005,-. � A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal Chairman Chairman `---y. , Secretary �� Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for: TREASURER NAMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT John T. Atkinson, Sr. .............. ToTAI VOTES RECENED (IN FIGURES) 80,639 Total Write -In Votes [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] .......... 887 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person has received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election: John T. Atkinson, Sr. Given under our hands this 10 th day of November, 2005. A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal Chairman Chairman Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of City of Virginia Beach Virginia, at the November 8, 2006 General Election, for: COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED NAMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES) Philip J. Kellam 79,094 Total Write-in Votes 619 [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] .......... We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the. Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person has received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election: Given under our hands this A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal 10 thday of Nc Philip J. Kellam Chairman Chairman Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of City of Virginia .Beach , Virginia, at the November 8, 2005 General Election, for: SHERIFF TOTAL VGTES RECEIVED NAMES OF CANDIDATES AS SNOWN oN BALLOT ON FIGURES) Paul J. Lanteigne .......... 77,418 Total Write -In Votes [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] .:........ 711 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 8, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person has received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election: Paul J. Lanteigne Given under our hands this 10 th day of Noven A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal Chairman Chairman �✓' "`� `� , Secretary �� -__V ' Secretary, Electoral Board