No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOVEMBER 27, 2007 AGENDACITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E OBERNDORF, At -Large VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside - District 4 WILLIAM R. DeSTEPH, At -Large HARRY E. DIEZEL, Kempsville - District 2 ROBERT M DYER„ Centerville - District 1 BARBARA M. HENLEY, Princess Anne - District 7 REBA S. MCCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3 JOHN E. UHRIN, Beach - District 6 RONA. VILLANUEVA, At -Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At -Large JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 CITY MANAGER -JAMES K. SPORE CITY ATTORNEY - LESLIE L. LILLEY CITY CLERK - RUTH HODGES FRASER, MMC CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 27 NOVEMBER 2007 CITY HALL BUILDING 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE: (757) 385-4303 FAX (75 7) 385-5669 E- MAIL: Ctycncl@vbgov.com I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING - Conference Room - 2:30 PM A. FLOW CONTROL Phil Davenport, Interim Director — Public Works II. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS III. REVIEW OF AGENDA IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 4:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION 0 C. I� E. F G. fl I CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM INVOCATION: Reverend Richard Keever Pastor, Bayside Presbyterian Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION MINUTES 1. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE November 13, 2007 1. Resolution to REFER Ordinances re the AICUZ program to the Planning Commission: a. AMEND § 405, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806 and 1807 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) establishing restrictions on development of property within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone and Interfacility Traffic Area (ITA) and ADDING provisions pertaining to redevelopment b. AMEND the Comprehensive Plan by incorporating provisions pertaining to the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone and Interfacility Traffic Area (ITA) and a map of Sub -Areas 1, 2 and 3 within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone C. AMEND the official zoning map by ADDING Sub -Areas 1, 2 and 3 within the 65- 70 dB DNL Noise Zone 2. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE a temporary encroachment into a portion of City property, known as 52nd Street, for KATHLEEN MAGARITY at the front of 221 52nd Street, to replace existing concrete steps. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN PLANNING — NO ACTION Application of SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC., for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-12 Apartment District on the east side of Zurich Arch re the construction of a ten (10) unit residential condominium. DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL DEFERRED INDEFINITELY AUGUST 14, 2007 THIS ITEM WILL BE HEARD ON DECEMBER 11, 2007 K. PLANNING Application of BEACH INVESTMENT CORPORATION for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of portions of an alley at Aqua Lane and South Atlantic Avenue (Croatan Beach). DISTRICT 6 — BEACH RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 2. Applications of SOUTHEAST MARINE GROUP, LLC, re dry storage for boats and trailers, a restaurant, pool and recreational area at 2272 Old Pungo Ferry Road: DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE a. Variance to §5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations and to the Southern Watersheds Management Ordinance re proposed encroachments b. Modification of Conditions to add certain facilities on a Conditional Use Permit (approved April 11, 1966) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 3. Application of CORAL DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., re single family lots at Atwoodtown Road and Sandbridge Road: DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE a. Variance to §5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations re fill b. Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-15 Residential District with a PD -H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 4. Application of VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON BAPTIST CHURCH for a Modi kation of Conditions to a Conditional Use Permit (approved November 9, 1987) re two (2) temporary modular classrooms at 2301 Newstead Drive. DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 5. Application of THE SAVIN COMPANY, LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit re a car wash at 820 South Military Highway near Indian River Road. DISTRICT 1 — CENTERVILLE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 6. Application of JEB TOLLEY for a Conditional Use Permit re a bingo hall at 2644 Barrett Street. DISTRICT 6 — BEACH RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 7. Application of NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, L.L.C., for a Conditional Use Permit re a communications tower at 1052 Cardinal Road. DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN RECOMMENDATION DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 8, 2007 8. Application of CINGULAR WIRELESS for a Conditional Use Permit re a communications tower, antennas and equipment at 4021 Charity Neck Road. DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDATION L. APPOINTMENTS RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 8, 2007 1. ABSTRACT OF VOTES and CERTIFICATION OF WRITE-INS November 6, 2007, General Election O. ADJOURNMENT CITY COUNCIL'S SCHEDULE 2007 December 4 Briefing, Informal, Formal, Open Dialogue December 11 Briefing, Informal, Formal, Planning 2008 January 8 Briefing, Informal, Formal, Planning, Open Dialogue January 22 Briefing, Informal, Formal, Planning February 19 Location to be Announced — 7:15 pm Stormwater Plans and Funding If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303 Agenda 11/13/2007mb www.vbgov.com I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING - Conference Room - 2:30 PM A. FLOW CONTROL Phil Davenport, Interim Director — Public Works II. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS III. REVIEW OF AGENDA IV. INFORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION - Conference Room - 4:00 PM V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM I) A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Richard Keever Pastor, Bayside 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 13, 2007 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION Itroalittlott 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. CONSENT AGENDA I. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE Resolution to REFER Ordinances re the AICUZ program to the Planning Commission: a. AMEND § 405, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806 and 1807 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) establishing restrictions on development of property within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone and Interfacility Traffic Area (ITA) and ADDING provisions pertaining to redevelopment b. AMEND the Comprehensive Plan by incorporating provisions pertaining to the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone and Interfacility Trak Area (ITA) and a map of Sub -Areas 1, 2 and 3 within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone C. AMEND the official zoning map by ADDING Sub -Areas 1, 2 and 3 within the 65- 70 dB DNL Noise Zone 2. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE a temporary encroachment into a portion of City property, known as 52"d Street, for KATHLEEN MAGARITY at the front of 221 52nd Street, to replace existing concrete steps. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL October 9, 2007 4:42 p.m. INFORMAL SESSION CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING NOISE ORDINANCE VERBATIM CITY COUNCIL Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor Louis R. Jones, Vice -Mayor William R. DeSteph Harry E. Diezel Robert M. Dyer Barbara M. Henley Reba S. McClanan John E. Uhrin Ronald A. Villanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood CITY MANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: At -Large Bayside - District 4 At -Large Kempsville - District 2 Centerville - District 1 Princess Anne - District 7 Rose Hall - District 3 Beach - District 6 At -Large At -Large Lynnhaven - District 5 James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Fraser, MMC DEPUTY CITY CLERK SARAH DEAL JENKINS 1 2 MAYOR OBERNDORF: Now, since that was looked at, now there is another challenge on this Agenda, and that will be the briefing on the Noise Ordinance, and Mr. Stiles from the City Attorney's Office will be the presenter. Welcome, Mr. Stiles. MARK STILES: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of Council, good afternoon. This is an informational item for you. And the purpose of this presentation is to give you some information regarding an Ordinance revising the Noise Regulations in the City that I think, with your agreement, will be presented to you for formal action later this month. As you know, the City has and has had since the early 1980's a Noise Ordinance. It's currently Section 23-47 of the printed Code. As currently written, this Noise Ordinance prohibits unreasonably loud, disturbing, and unnecessary noise. It is what is commonly referred to as the Reasonable Man Standard or an Objective Reasonableness Standard. What that effectively means is that any noise level that a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities would conclude as too loud under the facts and circumstances that exist at the time that sound is made is in violation of your existing Ordinance. Now, this standard is a good standard, in the sense that it provides flexibility for all kinds of fact patterns and circumstances that might arise within the boundaries of our city. It's particularly appropriate in a city such as ours where we go everywhere from open farm land in the agricultural areas of our city, to suburban areas, to some more urban areas, and to our Resort Area, the Oceanfront. We have a wide range of uses, some of which are mixed together, and it makes sense to have an Ordinance that allows some flexibility that still provides a standard by which conduct can be effectively evaluated and judged. We have, however, recently had a number of challenges to this Ordinance; challenges that said on its face this Ordinance is too vague. Those challenges have all been rejected by the Courts. The Courts have said this is a perfectly workable Ordinance. It's a perfectly Constitutional Ordinance, and they've not, the Court has not, struck it down, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so. But while we're keeping the Ordinance on the books, we're not having the same success with enforcing or getting convictions for violations of the Ordinance. Because, while the Court says it's okay as an Ordinance, the Court turns around, sometimes the very same Judges turn around, and say "but I can't find on these facts whether or not this Ordinance has, in fact, been violated, so 3 I'm not going to convict under it". So, that has led my office, the City Attorney's office, to work with the Police Department and other City staff to investigate possible revisions to the Noise Ordinance. Our research has indicated that there are essentially three types of Noise Ordinances out there. There are Ordinances like our Ordinance that are Objective Reasonableness Ordinances, the Reasonable Man Ordinance, and that's all the provisions there are. There are Ordinances out there in some localities that rely on sound pressure levels or decibel meter readings for determining whether or not there had been a violation. And there are a number of jurisdictions that have a hybrid of those two. It's a violation to make unreasonable noise, but it's also a violation to exceed certain specified noise levels in certain specified places at certain specified times. What we have seen historically in Virginia is the use of the Reasonable Man Objective Standard, which you currently have. That is, giving way over time to some of the hybrid Ordinances and there is even one case that I'm aware of or one locality in Virginia that has now gone exclusively to a sound pressure level or noise decibel limit, but only one. We've looked at all of those, and the proposal we've come forward with is an Ordinance that maintains the Reasonable Man Standard but provides additional information for citizens, for Law Enforcement, and for Judges, so that they can determine as a citizen when their conduct violates this Reasonable Man Standard for Law Enforcement, again, when that conduct crosses the line, and specific factors that Judges can say "yes, this is, in fact, a violation of the Ordinance, and this is a citation that should be founded and a penalty imposed". The Ordinance that we're proposing is based upon a Model Ordinance that was prepared by the International Municipal Lawyers Association, or IMLA. We have taken that Model Ordinance and we have adapted it in some respects to make it applicable to this jurisdiction. As I stated, the purpose of the proposed changes are to maintain the Reasonable Man Standard and the benefits, the flexibility that it provides, and at the same time to provide additional information to Law Enforcement, to the citizens, themselves, and to the Court in making conviction decisions. We are not proposing to you the use of decibel meters or decibel limits for purposes of determining violations. There are a number of reasons we're not proposing that to you. One, most citizens don't have decibel meters, and most citizens don't know what 65 decibels is, so they don't have any way of conforming their conduct to what a Noise Ordinance that 21 specifies decibel meters would require. A lot of times, when you get into discussions regarding Noise Ordinances and how to regulate noise, the Noise Ordinance violation is likened to speeding on highways, for example, and a decibel meter is like in that respect to a radar gun that a Police Officer would use to determine a violation. But there's one notable difference; the speed limits are posted along the highways you drive along, and as a driver you have sitting in front of you a real-time readout on your dashboard that tells you how fast or slow you're going so that you can modify your conduct as you go to make sure that you're not violating the law. That is not possible for the average citizen under a decibel -based Ordinance. The Police Department, who we've worked with again in making this recommendation to you, has Law Enforcement concerns in addition to that, and for that reason they join us in not recommending to you a decibel -based Ordinance. One enforcement, potential enforcement, issue that you may have, decibel meters do not readily differentiate between sound sources. They tell you what the sound pressure level is, that's the technical term, but they're not as good at telling you what the source of that sound is. So, it's readily foreseeable where you would have a situation that three or more commercial establishments, for example, might be in operation, might be contributing to the overall sound load in that area. And that sound load might exceed the stated decibel maximum for that area at that time of day or night, but how would the Police be able to determine the relative contributions to that sound level that each of those businesses made, and, therefore, be able to determine who to issue the citation to? And even if they could determine who to issue the citation to, the matter of proving the underlying facts of that citation beyond a reasonable doubt in our Circuit Court would be virtually impossible. So, there are serious enforcement issues that also go into whether or not we want to go with the decibel -based system. We also must keep in mind the issue of cost, and that's not the leading issue here, but it is an issue that you should be aware of. How many decibel meters does the City of Virginia Beach need? How much do they cost? Because we're not proposing a decibel -based system, we have not gone out and done all of that research, but some very brief research that I have done suggests that a noise meter of the type that we would need to use for Law Enforcement purposes can range anywhere in cost from $350 to nearly $1,000. How many of those are we going to have to buy? How will we calibrate them 5 so that we can use the results in Court proceedings? What is the cost to train the officers who are going to use them, both in terms of time of training and in terms of the actual training cost, itself? These are all additional concerns relating to the use of decibel meters. And finally, someone might suggest to you that decibel meters are more readily accepted by the Courts. That's not necessarily true. We could point to a number of cases where Ordinance based on decibel levels have also been struck down, because there are a number of questions that have to be asked. Where do you measure from? How long a response time do you use? There are three different -- four different rating scales for sound. Which one is appropriate? All of these are traps for the unwary and opportunities for the ingenious lawyer to come in and find a way to strike down the Ordinance based on decibel levels. So, going to a decibel -level Ordinance, I would suggest to you, does not buy you any safety, in terms of enforceability of your Ordinance. So, if we don't propose decibel meters and we want to continue using a Reasonable Man Standard, what exactly are the noise control standards that this new Ordinance would propose? There are two separate operative sections in this Ordinance. One would be Number 23-67. It's a general prohibition against unreasonable noise. The second would be 23-68, which would provide specific prohibitions that use tangible measurements of some nature that would allow the Court to be able to look at concrete facts and determine whether or not under specific circumstances there have been violations. Let's look first at the Proposed 23-67, and I think you all have copies of this presentation in front of you, as well as a copy of the Proposed Ordinance. As you can see, Proposed Section 23-67 has sn "a" subpart and a "b" subpart. The "a" subpart simply defines what the violation is, generally, and, that is, "intentionally making continuing or causing or allowing to be made any unreasonably loud or raucous noise or any noise that unreasonably disturbs, injures, or harms the comfort, peace, repose, of another citizen of ordinary sensibility". Again, the standard formulation of the Reasonable Man Test that is employed in so many different context in the law. You've all heard of probable cause in criminal prosecutions; that's a Reasonable Man Standard. You've heard of -- well, there are several. I won't bore you with law talk too much, but the Reasonable Man Objective Standard is well written in the law, and this is in the Noise Regulation area a pretty standard statement of it. Subpart "b" is new and provides some very commonsense factors C. that a Court or Law Enforcement Officer or even a citizen in trying to conform his conduct should look to and think about when making a decision about whether or not he or she is engaged in an activity in violation of this Ordinance. What are the changes between this Proposed 23-67 and the existing 23-47? First of all, and it may not seem like a big issue, but we have deleted the term "unnecessary noise". Some Courts in other jurisdictions have found that the term "unnecessary noise" is difficult to objectively define, and it's more of a subjective issue, and, therefore, the term "unnecessary noise" has been struck from Ordinances in other localities. We have been able to keep that in our Ordinance, but just to avoid the issue we would propose taking it out. The other major change is the addition of that Subpart "b". While the Courts utilize their commonsense in making judgments every day, Judges want to be able to say "the Statute says these are the things that I should consider, and in considering these things on the facts presented to me, I find as follows". So, they want a statement of the fact that they should consider in a citation under the Noise Generally Ordinance, and it makes sense. The time of day, noise that's perfectly acceptable no one would find unreasonable at three o'clock in the afternoon on a Saturday would be patently unreasonable at three o'clock in the morning on a Tuesday. What's the land use? Where is the sound occurring? You know, sound in the middle of a four -acre farm down in Pungo where there's not anyone else around probably is not offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities but might well be at Town Center at four o'clock in the afternoon when people are trying to do business. These are commonsense factors that were not previously set out that would be set out if you enacted this new Ordinance. Let's talk a little bit about 23-68. This Section is entirely new, and what you're looking at is a listing of specific subparagraphs, or the details of specific subparagraphs, in 23-68, which would tie certain types of conduct to specific tangible measurables. For example, the first line, "Vehicle Horns", if you for no good reason at any time during the day or night lay on your vehicle horn for ten consecutive seconds without an emergency in progress, you're in violation of the Ordinance. And that's all the Officer needs to know to write you a ticket, and that's all the Judge needs to know to find you guilty of the Ordinance; a specific measurable. "Non -emergency Signaling Devices", the next line, more than ten consecutive seconds an hour, a repeated noise that's not of an emergency nature, it's a problem for the community because it keeps recurring, there's no emergency that it's in response to, it disturbs the peace, tranquility, and harm of a reasonable person, but we make it clear that if it's more than ten seconds per hour any time during the day or not, it's a violation; again, a specific measurable. And you note over here, for example, church bells might be an example of this, but church bells are specifically exempt. Likewise, Public Alert Systems, you know, I don't know -- I'm not quite old enough to remember the Klaxons that used to go off when you had the Air Raid Warnings or the Nuclear Bomb Tests, but that type of testing device could be tested without violating the Ordinance. "Emergency Signaling Devices", car alarms, home alarms, you need to turn it off if you're not actually being robbed. If you leave it on for more than ten minutes, again, a specific measurable; if you've got an emergency you're okay, but if you don't and you leave it on for more than ten minutes in a residential neighborhood, you've violated the Ordinance. "Boom boxes, car stereos, other amplifying devices", musical instruments, any time during the day or night, if it's louder than necessary for you to hear and those who are voluntarily with you and listening, it's a violation. But the specific measurable here is, if it's audible from a distance of 50 or more feet from the source it's a violation. Again, it's a fact that can be clearly articulated and clearly established by competent evidence. Again, that's a 24 -hour -a -day restriction, but City events, for example, athletic events, concerts, Beach Street, any City -sponsored event, or any event for which the City issued a Special Events Permit, would be exempted from that. "Bars, nightclubs, restaurants, other commercial establishments", again, you have a measurable. One of the concerns that's been expressed is we don't know what a violation is by some business owners. Here, we plainly say after eleven o'clock at night, if you're a commercial establishment, bar nightclub, restaurant, or otherwise, if the sound you're creating in your business is plainly audible from a distance of 50 feet or more beyond the boundaries of your property, that's a violation; clear, concise, readily provable or disprovable, clear guidance to the citizen, clear guidance to the Police Officer, plainly establishable and refutable facts for presentation before a Court. "Noise Sensitive Areas", this is essentially a recodification of another Section that already exists in our Code that says if you make noise within 200 feet of a school, a place of worship, or a hospital, and that noise interferes with the operations, for example, if somebody's outside playing symbols I next to the window at school and the teacher can't teach, that's a violation of this subdivision or sub -provision. "Loud Speakers, Public Address Systems", I don't expect you'll see that very often, except at athletic events, which are exempted; again, that's a time-limited provision, eleven o'clock at night to seven o'clock in the morning. But if Landstown is playing Salem and they go to seven overtimes, if they even have overtime in high school now, and it goes to eleven -fifteen, that's exempted out. "Construction Equipment", the Ordinance identifies certain construction equipment that's very loud and simply says that that equipment is not to be operated in residential areas between nine p.m. and seven a.m., except in the event of an emergency. So, here you have some specific provisions that complement the general provision, much like other jurisdictions might use a decibel meter provision to complement the general provision, gives you some measurables, gives the Court some measurables and some guidance as to what you're saying would and would not be a violation. Now, we've talked about two sections. How would a citation be written? Some conduct could violate both 23-67 and 23-68. In those circumstances, what we would expect to see, it could be written under either section, but typically what you would expect to see is that if a violation was impacted by a specific provision of 23-68, it would be written under that provision so that you would have that tangible evidence that would be readily proven or disproved. But in cases where there wasn't a violation under 23-68 but still there's a clear case of unreasonably loud and raucous noise, you'd write that under 23-67, and usually in those cases you're going to have complaints from citizens; it's not going to be a close call. That would be the intent and the expectation. So, if a citation is written and if the individual is found guilty, what is the penalty? Under 23-47, the current Ordinance, violation of the Noise Ordinance is a Class 4 Misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine of up to $250. Under the Proposed Ordinance, a First Offense would be a Class 4 Misdemeanor, which is -- I'm sorry, a Class 3 Misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine of up to $500, and a Second or Subsequent Offense within one year would be a Class 2 Misdemeanor, which, as you can see, is punishable by up to $1,000 and a jail term of up to six months. Now, those are maximums. We would not expect that except under a case with egregious facts the Court to impose these maximums, but the Court cannot impose any punishment greater 0 than what your Code allows. And if you compare what we have here with what other jurisdictions do, you will see that the trend is consistent with what is being proposed. In Norfolk, violation of their Noise Ordinance is a Class 2. First Offense is a Class 2. In Chesapeake, it's a Class 1. A year imprisonment is the max in Chesapeake for violating their Noise Ordinance. Portsmouth, what we currently have, a Class 4. Suffolk, Class 2. Richmond, Class 2. Roanoke, Class 2. Fairfax County, $1,000 fine, up to thirty days, when you violate their sound levels. So, while at first brush, this may seem harsh to you, I recognize that it might, I'm just telling you that while it's your decision this is not out of line with what other jurisdictions around us are doing. So, I've run through this pretty quickly, because I know you've had two other briefings before me. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Otherwise, I'll wrap up and let you move on to the next thing. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Villanueva had his hand up, followed by Mrs. Henley, who has hers up. COUNCILMAN VILLANUEVA: Thank you, Mayor. Let me ask you, Mark, in your research, did you -- let me back up a little bit. As we redevelop our City, particularly at the Oceanfront and with Town Center, we're having more urbanized core areas. How do other cities implement specific Noise Ordinances? For instance, in New York City, when you have the hustle and bustle of everything, and you've got restaurants and nightclubs intermixed with residential condos and apartments and stuff, how do they work in the Noise Ordinances in their localities? MARK STILES: It really varies locality by locality. I just so happen to know that New York does use decibel levels. But by the same token, I also know that Miami and Miami Beach use the Ordinance that we essentially have on the books right now. So, it really varies, depending on where you look. Certainly, there are advantages and drawbacks going either way, and certainly we will go the way the will of this Council tells us to go, but I think you've got to look at the individual characteristics of each city in determining what makes the most sense. COUNCILMAN VILLANUEVA: What I was getting at was, is there a locality that specifically crafts Noise Ordinances for how everything is zoned? For instance, 10 like at the Oceanfront where we have different zonings, and we've got a good mix of commercial and residential, obviously, if you're moving into that area, you're going to know you're in the mix of things versus if you're in Pungo and you're out on the farm and that kind of thing, I just think the way you presented everything it just seems so broad and that we could do a little bit better with regards to crafting these Noise Ordinances to specific zoning areas, particularly since our City's redeveloping in such a way. And then, my second question would be, where are most of the noise ticket's written? Are they in the Oceanfront or are they near the Amphitheater, or are they near places where there's high noise area? MARK STILES: I honestly can't answer that. I don't know if Captain Zucaro can or not. CAPTAIN ZUCARO: I don't have that data readily available. Certainly, the Oceanfront, the Resort Area, contribute to a lot of the noise issues, particularly in the summer months, which is different than the residential and quite different than the rural section. I can certainly do some research and provide that for Council's review. COUNCILMAN VILLANUEVA: That would be good, because I guess it was today or yesterday's paper we read about Hunt Club Forest, and there's a Commercial Application amongst a Residential Area, and we permitted those folks to house that operation, but, you know, those residents that are nearby often hear the ghosts and ghouls screaming; we hear a number of complaints. I've run into a number of folks that live in the Mayflower near the 31st Street Hotel and often talk to me about the noise and the conflict there. And I just see the Town Center, as we, you know, that place thrives more with the outdoor concerts we're going to be putting out there in the plaza and those kinds of things, I see some conflicts. So, if we're going to do this, I'd like for us to get more specific and craft it better where it's done in such a way that it reflects the zoning. MARK STILES: Typically, decibel meter restrictions are based on zoning, where you have a mix of uses within a zoning classification, such as Resort where you have residences, boarding, places of lodging, as well as other commercial uses all tightly together, that actually is one of the things that makes it more difficult to be precise with your decibel level limits. And that's why, 11 one of the reasons, that's one of the reasons we suggest that instead you have a limit that says how far away can you hear the sound after eleven o'clock at night. But certainly, if it's Council's desire for us to look at a decibel based limitation, as opposed to the Reasonable Man Standard with these other modifications, we can come back to you probably in a relatively short time frame and do that, if that's the will of the Council. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Well, I have a number of Council People that have indicated, starting with Mrs. Henley, followed by Mr. Uhrin, and then Mrs. McClanan, I'm trying to keep a current list of folks who have a -- Mrs. Henley? COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Well, the decibel matter, as you described, has a lot of down sides, but it also kind of leaves it, you know, it's subjective, like noise is in the eye of the beholder. What's noise to one person may be a pleasing sound to somebody else. But then, as what Ron was saying about using it by zoning categories, noise is one of the factors that has a spillover effect; it's not confined to just the confines of the property on which it occurs. But this was a topic at the Advisory Commission Meeting last night, when there had been some complaints about some 4th of July fireworks, things that were done on private property. And I guess, maybe, in the rural area, noise travels farther, particularly at night, and it might be not noise to some folks who are enjoying it but noise to others who are, and I don't know how we decide these things. When does it become a disturbance to somebody? Just say, "Oh, you're a grouch. Any reasonable person wouldn't be objecting." I'm not sure how we decide. MARK STILES: Well, I think the violation has to be under the General Ordinance pretty severe, such that reasonable people would agree, the finder of fact, whether it be the Jurist, the Judge, in other words, or the Jury would have to agree that any reasonable person would agree this is beyond the pale. The situation, you can think of a thousand different situations. What about the guy who's out using a chain saw in his backyard? That chain saw is going to exceed any reasonable decibel level limitation, but if he's cutting down a tree that was damaged in a storm hours ago that's about to fall on his house, that's still not unreasonable noise under those facts and circumstances. That's a clearcut case. But what the 12 Reasonableness Standard allows you to do is to take all those factors into account, and, again, you're only going to get a finding of guilt for one of these violations where it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt under the law that this is unreasonable beyond any question. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Seems like it would have to be an extreme situation, but our residents are going to expect us to apply it in more of a not extreme situation. So, I don't know how we decide this whole thing. MARK STILES: And, Mrs. Henley, I'll tell you, we've been looking at this issue for at least months, and I'm going to say more than almost two years, I believe it is. And it's incredibly complex and difficult, so any suggestions that Council has for us we're happy to listen to. This is just the best recommendation we can make to you at this point based on the information we know. We're certainly happy to consider anything that any other stakeholder or the Council would like to bring to the table for us to consider. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Uhrin, and then Mrs. McClanan. COUNCILMAN UHRIN: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I certainly don't think that I would recommend going to a decibel level at all. I think the points that you made are well taken. I think that in terms of handling the bars and the nightclubs, the restaurants that have life entertainment or amplified music, this handles it very well. It would seem to me that the Police Department can use the 50 feet, measure it out, and they can actually identify a specific noise, a specific sound that's coming from an establishment. I would see that that would be a great advantage to them. I like the fact that it's already -- it's limited to the times that you have there. I would like to point out that four of those parks that we do have entertainment on in the Resort Area, they are all specifically limited to the hours of operation that they can do, and none of them, to my knowledge, exceed the eleven p.m. time period, and during the week I think that a lot of them are tighter than that. But Ron's point, there may be other opportunities that your staff may be able to brainstorm on in the 23-68 Section that can actually identify additional issues, maybe some that Barbara would be concerned about, probably the fireworks would probably be better than illegal fireworks. I mean, there's already an Ordinance for that. 13 COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: But then when they become legal and they can, you know -- COUNCILMAN UHRIN: Permitted? COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Yes. What one person doesn't find objectionable, somebody else does, so that's really hard to do. COUNCILMAN UHRIN: If they're permitted, then that just seems like we would have that opportunity to get that taken care of. But that's neither here nor there, whether that's the direction to do. But, I guess, in short, my suggestion would be that maybe we beef up that particular Section, and there probably are other opportunities to be specific, which would give a Judge the opportunity to really rule upon the specifics of whatever the violation was. MARK STILES: Yes, sir. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. McClanan? COUNCIL LADY MCCLANAN: Well, I think this is a difficult situation, and I think we're going to see where we're putting a lot of residential development in neighborhoods where it hasn't been before. Because I've always handled this when they start calling me about the bars in my District, you know, a woman calls and says "the weather's nice and they're opening the back door. What are you going to do about it"? Well, I either call the Police and we go over together, and we say "look, you're going to close this back door after a certain time of night, if you're going to stay open so late;" and they do. I've been wondering for years how this didn't bother people at the Beach and other places in the city, because people over in my neighborhood, after a certain time, they like to sleep, you know, if they live in a house and the bar is behind them. And these neighborhood bars were put there years ago, and they're there to stay, and the neighbors are there to stay, and I don't like participating in too many fights and arguments. I've taken people to the bars and we've sat in there and run people off. Take a bunch of older women into a bar where there are a lot of young men, and I'll guarantee you they'll get up and leave. But Ron mentioned a couple of things that I've had complaints, for instance, down at the Mayflower because the sound down at the Beach apparently does carry up more, far more 14 significantly than I ever realized. I've never been -- the people that live down there, they hear it, and it's the people who hear the noise. And I remember when we opened the soccer field, they had decibel meters out there, the people that were residents, and they could tell you what the Noise Levels were. And so, the City may not have them, but some of these meters are within a category the citizens can afford and they learn how to use them. MARK STILES: Certainly. I'm not saying a citizen can't afford to buy one. I'm just saying that most citizens won't. COUNCIL LADY MCCLANAN: No, they won't, but it depends on how uncomfortable they get with the situation. So, you've hit on a lot of really good points, and I think it's going to have to be up to the Council as to how we deal with it. I've never known, for instance, in the cities in this area how many of them do use decibel levels in their determination with noise problems. Occasionally, when things appear in the paper, you can't really tell from the analysis that's put there. But I'm impressed with the degree that you looked at this and you thought about it. And I know you all are faced with the same problems, because occasionally when I talk to people who live down there, they mention to me, and it's different depending on who you talk to. But as more residential units are built down there, I think you're going to find more problems, because where people live and where they visit for their entertainment, they tend to have a different standard. MARK STILES: Right. COUNCIL LADY MCCLANAN: So, I just need to think about this a little bit better, Mayor, including in context with all of the things that we've heard over the years from different neighborhoods and different people. It has some interesting ramifications, I think. MAYOR OBERNDORF: What Mrs. McClanan didn't tell you is when she goes away they call me. MARK STILES: Part of this thought process was trying to avoid those disputes so you didn't get those calls. And I'm sure this is not an all-encompassing solution, but, quite frankly, there has been a lot of time spent with it. And, again, we would welcome any ideas that you have to make it better. We'll certainly be happy to look at those. 15 MAYOR OBERNDORF: We thank you. Mr. Villanueva wants to have one more. COUNCILMAN VILLANUEVA: I'm sorry, Mayor. Captain, I think it would nice for everyone to get that data around the table so that they can see where the areas are more affected to see that there's high -noise incidents in one area versus another. Then not to make light of the situation, but, Mark, where do Ice Cream trucks fit into all of this? MARK STILES: They probably come under, if we can go back to the chart, they probably fall under Non -emergency Signaling Devices; so they've got to be careful. I think they can blow intermittently, but they can't go ten seconds, then, you know, wait a second, ten seconds, etcetera, etcetera. COUNCILMAN VILLANUEVA: But you know that doesn't happen, Mark. COUNCILMAN UHRIN: Gives.them ten seconds per hour. MARK STILES: No, ten consecutive -- COUNCILMAN UHRIN: Lot of business. MARK STILES: -- ten consecutive seconds per hour. ROD INGRAM: Depending on if they've got a speaker and it's playing music, that might be a Sound Amplifying Device that would come under the "unreasonably disturbing or audible more than 50 feet from the source". COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: But every kid in town hopes they can hear it more than 50 feet away so they can go get money. MARK STILES: And certainly, the ice cream vendor hopes that they can so they can go get money. COUNCILMAN VILLANUEVA: Are there Court cases right now, pending, challenging our Ordinances? MARK STILES: There is a case that is still pending that challenged both the facial validity of the Ordinance and the Ordinance, as applied. The 16 Court has ruled that the Ordinance as written is a valid Ordinance and does not violate any Constitutional provisions but has left open for a trial whether or not the Ordinance has been, quote, "selectively enforced". Now, one of the ideas behind this chart, and the concept behind this chart is, if you're 50 feet, if you're at the Mayflower and it's eleven -fifteen at night and you can still hear sound coming from that stage, it's a violation, and it's clearcut, and there's no question, and a citation should issue. If you're 50 feet from a business in the Resort Area after eleven o'clock, there should be no issue. The point I'm trying to make here is, the intendment of these specific provisions is to help the Police Department not have to face challenges of selective enforcement but to do so in a manner that doesn't create a bunch of other enforcement problems, such as the ones I have described. So, that's one of the concerns that this tries to address. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Obviously, there is great interest by Members of the Council, and if you all could make yourselves available when they want to ask questions and get some of these things answered and resolved. I really thank you for the hard work you've put in. This is obviously not just a spur-of-the-moment job. You've done a lot of research. By the way, I just signed a letter this afternoon telling someone that the vendors of ice cream in neighborhoods wasn't allowed to ring a bell or have music; am I wrong? I mean, that letter was prepared by staff for me to sign. I don't want to send something out. ROD INGRAM: That is correct in Virginia Beach. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay, good. I don't know whether I'm for or against it. I just didn't want to give the wrong information. Thank you very much. MARK STILES: Thank you. (whereupon, the discussion of this matter was concluded.) 'r CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Resolution Referring to the Planning Commission Ordinances Amending the City Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan and Official Zoning Map re 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone, Interfacility Traffic Area and Redevelopment in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones MEETING DATE: November 27, 2007 ■ Background: In a joint Navy -City Statement of Understanding issued after the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study (JLUS), the City agreed to involve the Navy in land use decisions at an early stage of the application process. Since then, the City and Navy have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), pursuant to which a committee consisting of City Staff and NAS Oceana representatives jointly review discretionary development applications for property located within Air Installations Compatible Use Zones. Although the City's AICUZ Overlay Ordinance does not apply to property in the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone, the MOU provides that the MOU Committee reviews applications involving property located within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone. Since the inception of the MOU review process, City staff and Navy representatives have jointly developed proposed standards governing discretionary development applications in the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone. Those standards are contained in ordinances amending the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan and official zoning map. The ordinances must be considered by the Planning Commission prior to final action by the City Council. ■ Considerations: The Resolution refers to the Planning Commission proposed amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan and the official zoning map. The CZO amendments establish standards for discretionary development in the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone and the Interfacility Traffic Area and for redevelopment on all property within the AICUZ footprint. The Comprehensive Plan amendments reflect the concepts embodied by the CZO amendments, and the zoning map amendments delineate sub -areas within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone in I which different development standards apply ■ Public Information: Advertisement as a normal agenda item. The package of amendments was the subject of a public City Council briefing on November 13, 2007. If the resolution is adopted, the amendments would be the subject of advertised public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council 0 Recommendations: Adoption of Resolution. ■ Attachments: Resolution; ordinances amending CZO, Comprehensive Plan and official zoning map; Comprehensive Plan amendments Recommended Action: Adoption of Resolution Submitting DepartmentlAgency: Planning Department City Manager: .�z��► I A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE PLANNING 2 COMMISSION AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN 3 THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 4 405, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806 AND 1807 OF THE CITY 5 ZONING ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING RESTRICTIONS ON 6 DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE 65-70 dB DNL 7 NOISE ZONE AND INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC AREA AND 8 ADDING PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO REDEVELOPMENT 9 OF PROPERTY IN AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE 10 NOISE ZONES; AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE 11 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY INCORPORATING 12 PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO THE 65-70 dB DNL NOISE 13 ZONE AND INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC AREA AND A MAP OF 14 SUB -AREAS 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE 65-70 dB DNL NOISE ZONE; 15 AND AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING 16 MAP BY THE ADDITION OF SUB -AREAS 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE 17 65-70 dB DNL NOISE ZONE 18 19 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning 20 practice so require; 21 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 23 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 24 25 That the above -entitled ordinances, copies of which are hereto attached, are 26 hereby referred to the Planning Commission for its consideration and recommendation. 27 28 COMMENT 29 30 The Resolution refers to the Planning Commission three (3) ordinances pertaining to the 31 City's AICUZ program. The ordinances: 32 33 1. Amend Sections 405 of the CZO and certain sections of the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance, 34 pertaining to restrictions on discretionary development in the Interfacility Traffic Area 35 (ITA) and the 65-70 .dB DNL Noise Zone and redevelopment in Air Installations 36 Compatible Use Zones; 37 38 2. Amend the Comprehensive Plan by incorporating provisions pertaining to the 65-70 dB 39 DNL Noise Zone and a map of Sub -areas 1, 2 and 3 within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise 40 Zone; and 41 42 3. Amend the official zoning map to designate Sub -Areas 1, 2 and 3 within the 65-70 db 43 DNL Noise Zone. 44 45 46 47 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 48 day of , 2008. 49 50 CA -10509 R-3 November 14, 2008 Approved as to.Content: Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: City Attorney's Office 2 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL 2 ZONING MAP BY THE ADDITION OF SUB - 3 AREAS 1, 2 and 3 OF THE 65-70 dB DNL 4 NOISE ZONE 5 6 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning 7 practice so require; 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 10 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 11 12 That the official zoning map of the City of Virginia Beach be, and hereby is, 13 amended to incorporate Sub -areas 1, 2 and 3 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone, as shown 14 on a series of sheets marked and identified as such, and which have been displayed 15 before the City Council this date and are on file in the Department of Planning. 16 17 18 COMMENT 19 The ordinance amends the zoning map to incorporate and designate Sub -areas 1, 2 and 3 of the 20 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone. Each of the three sub -areas is subject to different restrictions on 21 discretionary development, as set forth in Section 1804 of the City Zoning Ordinance. 22 23 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach on this day of 24 , 2007. 25 26 CA -10508 27 R-3 28 September 27, 2007 29 30 Approved as to Content: 31 4 32 33 { I 34 Planning epartment Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: City Attorney's Office 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE 2 PLAN BY INCORPORATING PROVISIONS PERTAINING 3 TO THE 65-70 dB DNL NOISE ZONE AND THE 4 INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC AREA AND A MAP OF SUB - 5 AREAS 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE 65-70 dB DNL NOISE ZONE 6 7 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning 8 practice so require; 9 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 11 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 12 13 That the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach be, and hereby is, 14 amended and reordained by the addition of the underlined portions, and the deletion of 15 the stricken portions, of the excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan shown on that 16 certain document entitled "EXHIBIT A — RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE 17 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY DOCUMENT CHAPTERS 1, 3 and 5, AND THE 18 PRINCESS ANNE CORRIDOR STUDY," such document being attached hereto and 19 made a part hereof, and which includes that certain map entitled "City of Virginia Beach 20 — Sub -areas 1, 2 and 3 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone, January 2008", such map 21 having been exhibited to the City Council and on file in the Department of Planning. 22 23 COMMENT 24 25 The ordinance amends the Comprehensive Plan by incorporating provisions pertaining to 26 development in the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone and in the Interfacility Traffic Area. The 27 amendments also incorporate a map of Sub -areas 1, 2 and 3 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone into 28 the Comprehensive Plan. 29 30 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this 31 day of , 2008. CA -10507 R-5 November 14, 2007 APPROVED T: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: r in City Attorney's Office EXHIBIT A RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY DOCUMENT CHAPTERS 1, 3 AND 5, AND THE PRINCESS ANNE CORRIDOR STUDY Added text is underlined. Deleted text is stricken. Chapter 1 Introduction Page 13 A strong military presence in the community 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. Since 2005, the City has adopted and refined a series of Oceana Land Use Conformity plans, policies and ordinances. These amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance provide greater land use conformity with military operation requirements. Further, administrative procedures outlined in a `Memorandum of Understanding' are in place and have significantly increased the Navy's participation in the process of reviewing and commenting on pending discretionary developments within AICUZ affected areas. See map below that outlines noise zones accident potential zones and special areas of review including the Resort Area, Interfacility Traffic Area and sub- areas within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone. The City Council also created the Oceana Land Use Conformity Committee in 2006 to oversee progress in this area and to recommend ways to reduce the amount of non- conforming development around NAS Oceana - assuring that such actions do not adversely impact affected neighborhoods. The City's has also made significant progress toward the purchase from willing sellers of qualified residential properties located in the Accident Potential Zone 1/Clear Zone and the Interfacility Traffic Area. These measures demonstrate the city's commitment to retain NAS Oceana as the Navy's east coast Master Jet Base by maximizing land use conformity while doing so in a manner that respects the integrity of established neijzhborhoods. 2 1 s Legend AICUZ NOISE ZONES R I' S 4* ITA RURALAREA '`'r EA LAINS RURAL _ _100 v" -YR. FLOCOPLAIN 'B• 11 FLOODPLAIN ARP Noise Zones 1• Virginia 2 Chapter 3 Primary Residential Area General Booth Boulevard Corridor Page 103 South General Booth Boulevard Corridor 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 development proposals must be consistent with the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance provisions that and should not contribute to strip 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 to be consistent with the provisions of the City AICUZprovisions and infer- to protect and enhance the character of existing neighborhoods. Such residential development should include affee workforce housing units. Page 106 Nimmo Parkway / General Booth Boulevard Intersection Area Future land use, site design and building architecture should complement the historic character of this area as defined by Nimmo Church. No structure in this area should exceed the 60' height of the Nimmo Church steeple. The tract on the northeast corner of Nimmo Parkway and General Booth Boulevard should preserve and integrate into the site design the historic Hickman House, an 18th Century tavern. The portion of the parcel on which the house is situated and the surrounding property is suitable for a range of compatible non-residential uses including neighborhood office, a quality restaurant and limited retail uses. The site and building design must respect and complement the integrity of the Hickman House. There should be no more than one ingress point on General Booth Boulevard and one on Nimmo Parkway. The tract on the southeast corner of Nimmo Parkway and General Booth Boulevard is planned for neighborhood office use for parcels located along General Booth Boulevard and single-family residential use behind the office use at densities compatible with the existing residential development in this area. Ipos'bo °:mss g �� sed "fir � r�.,Y., single fawAly deveiepment should eewiee4 to the existing single family area te the east. Vehicular access for proposed development should be limited to no more than one point on either Nimmo Parkway or General Booth Boulevard. Page 122 South Rudee Heights An attractive low -intensity and non-residential plan of development is recommended for -rt, t3Te and design of lew density single family dwellings e„ the property located north of the Virginia Aquarium and south of Rudee Heights_ Such development should be carefully planned and designed to ensure land use compatibility with the adjoining n+useufa aquarium and established residential areas. Chapter 5 Princess Anne /Transition Area Page 142-A Interfacility Traffic Area The western part of the Transition Area, comprising the 65 dB DNL or greater noise zones, is known as the Interfacility Traffic Area (ITA). It is an area subject to frequent military jet flyovers due to its location along a direct flight path between Naval Air Station Oceana and ^ hefaa4e Landing Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Fentress. As such, land use planning policies have been established for the ITA and that restrict additional residential developmentbeyend that allowed by right. i many eases, e ally � r to no more that one lot per 15 acres of developable land. Further, these policies recognize appropriate development opportunities for those non-residential uses and align with the city's Oceana Land Use Conformity Program, the Air Installations Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) provisions and general planning principles as outlined in this Comprehensive Plan. It is recommended that a master plan for the ITA be conducted to provide more land use planning guidance regarding particular subareas. In an effort to reduce future incompatible development, the City has purchased a number of properties from willing sellers in the ITA. As of fall of 2007, over $3 Million have been used for this purpose In addition the U.S. Navy has received federal approval to aivropriate of over $3 Million to advance land use conformity goals through voluntary purchase of property located in the ITA. This dee�ffnent ineludes a Me er.-ffladiffim of Under -standing between the City of Vir-gini 1? 1 a U.S. N> l. ++> in Y aft,t'" ; ]en guidelines r r y. feeefflp -etre a ple Affifie4r-ansifiea Area identified by the Navy as the G ' . The 1TA 1 +1, '+J r-eeeo the impei4aRee of ; r,moo,et'..4i planning Nv l; aie s f^ M MOM PP -M IM SIMS OMEN Princess Anne Corridor Study Page 24 VI. Land Use Recommendations These general recommendations apply to all Sub -Areas: 2. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) and Accident Potential Zone (APZ): New development or redevelopment should not include any housing, hotel or other uses that may be deemed by the city to be incompatible within applicable noise zones or APZ's. In further effort to address the U.S. Navy's AICUZ objectives and those of the City's Oceana Land Use Conformitypolicies, residential densities proposed for developments within the Princess Anne Corridor Study Sub -Areas should not exceed those that exist within surrounding neighborhoods. Noise Zones 65-7OdB DNL Virginia Beach SUB -AREAS Decefte, 20V, s. / `tom._ , ,y �j 11 son, It - off, Noise Zones 65-7OdB DNL Virginia Beach SUB -AREAS Decefte, 20V, 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 405, 1802, 1803, 2 1804, 1805, 1806 AND 1807 OF THE CITY ZONING 3 ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING RESTRICTIONS ON 4 DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE 65-70 dB 5 DNL NOISE ZONE AND INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC AREA 6 AND ADDING PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO 7 REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY IN AIR 8 INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE NOISE ZONES 9 10 11 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning 12 practice so require; 13 14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 15 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 16 17 That Sections 405, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806 and 1807 of the City Zoning 18 Ordinance are hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: 19 20 21 ARTICLE 4. AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS 22 23 .... 24 25 Sec. 405. Alternative residential development pursuant to conditional use 26 permits. 27 28 Except as provided in Section 1806, as As an alternative to the residential 29 development permitted by right in the agricultural districts, the city council may award 30 grant a conditional use permit to allow residential development at a density greater than 31 that which is permitted by right. The following regulations shall apply to residential 32 development outside of the Interfacility Traffic Area in the AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural 33 Districts pursuant to Genditional use ne emits this section: 34 35 .... 36 37 COMMENT 38 39 The amendments effectively provide that the alternative residential development option is 40 not available for agriculturally-zoned property within the Interfacility Traffic Area (ITA), 41 effectively limiting residential development on such property to one (1) dwelling unit per fifteen 42 (15) acres of developable land, as provided in City Zoning Ordinance Section 401. 43 44 Other revisions are stylistic and have no substantive effect. The omitted language 45 represented by the ellipsis on Line 35 sets forth development standards for the alternative 46 residential development option and has no relevance to this ordinance. 47 48 ARTICLE 18. SPECIAL REGULATIONS IN AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE 49 ZONES (AICUZ) 50 51 A. OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS 52 53 Sec. 1800. Title. 54 55 This article shall be known as the Air Installations Compatible Use Zones 56 (AICUZ) Overlay Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach. 57 58 Sec. 1801. Purpose and intent. 59 60 The purpose of this article is to regulate, in a manner consistent with the rights of 61 individual property owners and the requirements of military operations at Naval Air 62 Station (NAS) Oceana, development of uses and structures that are incompatible with 63 military operations; to sustain the economic health of the city and Hampton Roads 64 Region; to protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare from the adverse 65 impacts associated with high levels of noise from flight operations at NAS Oceana and 66 the potential for aircraft accidents associated with proximity to airport operations; and to 67 maintain the overall quality of life of those who live, work and recreate in the City of 68 Virginia Beach. 69 70 Sec. 1802. Findings. 71 72 The city council hereby finds that: 73 74 (a) Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana was first established as an auxiliary airfield 75 in 1943 and was designated as a major Navy jet air base in the 1950s. It is now one of 76 the largest Navy air bases in the country and is the Master Jet Base for the Navy's 77 Atlantic Fleet. NAS Oceana is a vital component in the architecture of the Defense 78 Department's joint service method of operational planning and execution and in the 79 newly -emerging inter -agency approach to meeting homeland defense requirements; 80 81 (b) NAS Oceana is the single largest employer in the City of Virginia Beach. In 82 2003, it had a gross annual payroll of over seven hundred fifty million dollars 83 ($750,000,000.00) and spent another four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000.00) for 84 goods and services. In that year, over twelve thousand (12,000) personnel, comprised 85 of nearly nine thousand eight hundred (9,800) military and over two thousand five 86 hundred (2,500) civilian employees, were employed there. Most of those employees live 87 within the community, infusing additional benefits into the local economy, primarily 88 through spending and spousal employment salaries. When considering the personal 89 impact of the military in the community, the economic benefit exceeds one billion dollars 90 ($1,000,000,000.00) annually; 91 2 92 (c) There are more than thirty thousand (30,000) acres of land in areas within 93 the 70-75 dB DNL or >75 dB DNL Noise Zones and approximately 16,500 acres of land 94 within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone. Approximately four thousand, twe three hundred 95 (4,200 4,300) acres of this land is encumbered by easements or restrictive covenants 96 that limit the uses of the land to those that are not incompatible with flight operations 97 arising out of NAS Oceana; 98 99 (d) Since the installation's inception, development of a type deemed 100 incompatible under the Navy's AICUZ Program has occurred, such that the Navy has 101 voluntarily modified flight arrival and departure procedures, thereby resulting in flight 102 procedures and training that do not replicate actual aircraft carrier operating procedures. 103 104 (e) In August 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission 105 added to the list of installations to be closed or realigned the recommendation to realign 106 NAS Oceana by relocating the Atlantic Fleet's East Coast Master Jet Base to Cecil Field 107 in Jacksonville, Florida if, among other things, the cities of Virginia Beach and 108 Chesapeake fail to enact and enforce legislation to prevent further encroachment of 109 NAS Oceana by the end of March 2006 by adopting zoning ordinances that require the 110 governing bodies to follow Air Installations Compatibility Use Zone (AICUZ) guidelines 111 in deciding discretionary development applications for property in noise level 70 dB day 112 night average noise level (DNL) or greater; 113 114 (f) The closure or realignment of NAS Oceana would have serious adverse 115 economic consequences to the city and the region; and 116 117 (g) In 2004 and 2005, the City of Virginia Beach, along with the cities of Norfolk 118 and Chesapeake, joined with the Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District 119 Commission to craft a regional joint land use study (JLUS). Among the 120 recommendations of the JLUS was that the city adopt an ordinance applicable in all 121 noise zones greater than 65 dB DNL to help prevent encroachment at NAS Oceana. 122 The JLUS was accepted by resolution of the city council in May of 2005 and the city 123 council directed that appropriate ordinances implementing the recommendations of the 124 JLUS be brought forward for its consideration. 125 126 COMMENT 127 128 The amendments add to the fmdings set forth in the ordinance information concerning the 129 acreage of land within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone and update the information concerning the 130 acreage under Navy easements. 131 132 Sec. 1803. Applicability. 133 134 (a) Area of applicability. EXGept as .,Feyided on SeGtien 1805 and ;R o„+ B of 135 thmsAFtiGle, the The provisions of this Article shall apply to discretionary development 136 applications for any property located within an Accident Potential Zone (APZ) or Nese 137 die 65-70 dB DNL, 70-75 dB DNL or >75 dB DNL Noise Zone, as shown on the 3 138 official zoning map, that have not been approved or denied by the City Council as of the 139 date of adoption of this Article. For purposes of this Article, discretionary development 140 applications shall include applications for: 141 142 (1) Rezonings, including conditional zonings; 143 144 (2) Conditional use permits for new uses or structures, or for alterations or 145 enlargements of existing conditional uses where the escupaRG occupant 146 load would increase; 147 148 (3) Conversions or enlargements of nonconforming uses or structures, except 149 where the application contemplates the construction of a new building or 150 structure or expansion of an existing use or structure where the total 151 eeeupaney occupant load would not increase; and 152 153 (4) Street closures where the application contemplates the construction of a 154 new building or structure or the expansion of a use or structure where the 155 total eeGupanG occupant load is increased. 156 157 COMMENT 158 159 The changes to this section are stylistic in nature and have no substantive effect. 160 161 Sec. 1804. Discretionary development applications; city council policy. 162 163 (a) City Council policy. Except as otherwise provided in sestieR 4896—this 164 Article, it shall be the policy of the city council that no application included within the 165 provisions of seetiee Section 1803 shall be approved unless the uses and structures it 166 contemplates are designated as compatible" under Table 1 below and, if applicable, 167 Table 2,. unless the city council finds that no reasonable use designated as compatible 168 under the applicable table or tables can be made of the property. In such cases, the city 169 council shall, , approve the proposed use of 170 property at the least lowest density or intensity of development that is reasonable. 171 172 (b) Tables. The following tables show the uses designated as compatible (Y) 173 and those designated as not compatible (N) in each listed ^^'c^ ^^ , Noise Zone 174 (Table 1) or ^^^i^'^^+ potential ze% Accident Potential Zone (Table 2). The designation 175 of any use as Gempatible- compatible shall not be construed to allow such use in any 176 zoning district in which it is not permitted as either a principal or conditional use. 177 178 TABLE INSET: 179 TABLE 1 - AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN NOISE ZONES -19 Land Use Land UseCompatibility 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; products made from fabrics, leather and similar materials; manufacturing Y Y 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; manufacturing Y Y Stone, clay and glass products; manufacturing Y Y Primary metal products; manufacturing Y Y Fabricated metal products; manufacturing Y Y Professional scientific, and controlling instruments; photographic and optical goods; watches and clocks Y Y Miscellaneous manufacturing Y Y Transportation, communication and utilities Railroad, rapid rail transit, and street railway transportation Y Y 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 utilities Y Y Trade Wholesale trade Y Y Retail trade - building materials, hardware and farm equipment Y Y Retail trade - general merchandise Y Y Retail trade - food Y Y Retail trade - automotive, marine craft, aircraft and accessories Y Y Retail trade - apparel and accessories Y Y Services Retail trade - furniture, home, furnishings and equipment Y Y Retail trade - eating and drinking establishments Y Y Other retail trade Y Y Finance, insurance and real estate services Y Y 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 faa. facilities 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 recreation Y N Resource Production and Extraction Agriculture (except live stock) Y Y Livestock farming Y N Animal breeding Y N Agriculture related activities Y Y 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 Forestry activities Y Y Fishing activities Y Y Mining activities Y Y Other resource production or extraction Y Y (c) Special re_gulations in the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone. The following- regulations ollowingregulations shall apply to discretionary development applications for residential uses on Property within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone. Residential uses shall include all of the uses listed under the heading of "Residential and Related" in Table 1 of this section. 188 (1) For property within Sub -area 1 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone, 189 discretionary development applications for residential uses may be 190 granted only if the City Council finds that the proposed 191 development: 192 193 (i) conforms to the applicable provisions of the City Zoning 194 Ordinance, including all requirements of the zoning 195 district; and 196 197 (ii) conforms to the applicable provisions of the 198 Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, the 199 Oceanfront Resort Area Plan, Laskin Road Gateway 200 Design Guidelines, Old Beach Design Guidelines or 201 Oceanfront Resort Area Design Guidelines. 202 203 (2) For property within Sub -area 2 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone, 204 discretionary development applications for residential uses may be 205 approved only if the City Council finds that the proposed 206 development: 207 208 (i) is at a density similar to or lower than that of surrounding 209 properties having a similar use and no greater than 210 recommended by the Comprehensive Plan; and 211 212 (ii) conforms to the applicable provisions of the 213 Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, the 214 Princess Anne Corridor Study, Princess Anne 215 Commons Design Guidelines, or Mixed Use 216 Development Guidelines. 217 218 (3) For property within Sub -area 3 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone, it 219 shall be the policy of the City Council that no application for a 220 residential use shall be approved unless the City Council finds that 221 no reasonable non-residential use can be made of the property, in 222 which event the City Council may allow the proposed residential 223 use of such property at the lowest density that is reasonable. 224 225 (d) Redevelopment. The provisions of this section shall not apply to 226 discretionary development applications for the redevelopment of property where the 227 proposed dwelling unit density is the same as or lower than the actual dwelling unit 228 density existing at the time the application is submitted. COMMENT The substantive amendments to this section are in subsections (c) and (d). Subsection (c) provides different standards for granting or denying discretionary development applications for residential uses within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone according to the sub -area within that Noise Zone in which the subject property lies. Two points must be noted: first, with one unlikely -to -occur exception (outdoor music shells and amphitheatres), the only uses that are deemed incompatible under the OPNAV Instruction in the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone are residential uses, which include all types of dwellings, hotels/motels, trailer parks and dormitories. For that reason, the proposed development restrictions in the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone address only residential development. Second, the sub -areas themselves will be shown both on the City's zoning map and on a map in the Comprehensive Plan as discrete areas within the 65-70 dB DNL noise contour (ordinances adding the sub -areas to the Plan and the zoning map are being brought forward concurrently with this ordinance). The standards for granting discretionary development applications in the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone are increasingly stringent in each higher -numbered sub -area, as follows: In Sub -area 1 (the portion of the Resort Area within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone), discretionary development applications for residential uses may be approved only if the City Council finds that they meet all applicable criteria of the City Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. In Sub -area 2, such applications may be approved only if the City Council finds that the proposed development is at a density similar to or lower than that of surrounding properties having a similar use and no greater than recommended by the Comprehensive, and that it conforms to the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Sub -area 2 generally includes the portion of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone from Rudee Inlet south to Indian River Road and west to Princess Anne Road near the former TPC course. In Sub -area 3, the most restrictive area, the same standards apply as in the 70-75 dB DNL and >75 dB DNL Noise Zones, i.e., no discretionary development application for a residential use may be approved if there is any reasonable non-residential use of the subject property. If no such 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 use exists, the City Council may allow the proposed use of such property at the lowest density that is reasonable. Sub -area 3 includes essentially the remainder of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone, except for the portion within the Interfacility Traffic Area (which is addressed in Section 1806 below) and an area south of Indian River Road comprised almost exclusively of land in the Agricultural Reserve Program or on which development is severely constrained by environmental conditions. Another significant change made by the proposed ordinance concerns redevelopment for residential use. Subsection (d) exempts from the provisions of Section 1804 discretionary development applications for residential uses when the application seeks the same or a lower density than the existing density on the property. Thus, for example, if a rezoning application seeking to redevelop property would, if granted, result in the same or a lower number of residential dwelling units on the same property than actually exist at the time the application is made, the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance would not apply. Sec. 1805. Sound attenuation. Sound attenuation measures shall be incorporated in any use or structure located in the ►e+r ^, 5 65-70 dB DNL, 70-75 dB DNL or >75 dB DNL Noise Zones in accordance with the requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. COMMENT The changes to this section are stylistic only and have no substantive effect. Sec. 1806. Allowable residential density in Interfacility Traffic Area. (a) Subject tG Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 402 (b) and 405 (Alternative Residential Development in Agricultural Districts), single -#anvil} residential development in-agF:GU!tu.-,al--diStF*Gtshall -be pemAi#ed--as_a-eondino„al-use at the on Property within the "Interfacility Traffic Area" on the OffiGial ZORiAg Fnap shall be limited to single-family dwellings at a density no greater than one (1) dwellingper fifteen (15) acres of developable land. 10 308 neise zene. in sueh Gases, 309 . 310 311 COMMENT 312 313 The amendments limit residential development on property within the Interfacility Traffic 314 Area to one single-family dwelling per 15 acres of developable land. 315 316 317 Sec. 1807. Reservation of powers; severability. 318 319 (a) Nothing in this Article shall be construed to require the City Council to 320 approve any application solely because it meets the requirements of this Article, it being 321 the intention of this Article that the City Council shall be entitled to exercise its authority 322 in such applications to the fullest extent allowed by law. 323 324 (b) The provisions of this Article shall be severable, it being the intention of the 325 City Council that in the event one (1) or more of the provisions of this Article shall be 326 adjudged to be invalid or unenforceable, the validity and enforceability of the remaining 327 provisions of this Article shall be unaffected by such adjudication. 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 COMMENT The changes to this section are stylistic only and have no substantive effect. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on this day of , 2008. CA -10503 November 14, 2007 R-14 Approved as to content: Approved as to legal sufficiency: LI &� N - A� - City Attorney's Office 11 T3 d Z a W.,. �; A CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to authorize a Temporary Encroachment into a portion of the City right of way known as 52nd Street, for property owner, Kathleen Magarity. MEETING DATE: November 27, 2007 ■ Background: Kathleen Magarity has requested permission to construct and maintain a portion of a set of concrete steps, upon a portion of the City's right of way known as 52nd Street, located at the front of 221 52nd Street, Virginia Beach, Virginia. ■ Considerations: City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachment and has recommended approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the Agreement. The proposed concrete steps will replace the existing concrete steps at the residence which are hazardous due to their steep descent from the residence to the street level. Also, the proposed concrete steps will encroach less into the right of way than the existing steps, thus reducing the encroachment in this area. ■ 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, Plat, Pictures and Location Map Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance. Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate $CX D O City Manager: , t�- 6V>7- 1 Requested by Department of Public Works 3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A 4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO 5 A PORTION OF THE CITY RIGHT OF 6 WAY KNOWN AS 52ND STREET FOR 7 PROPERTY OWNER, KATHLEEN 8 MAGARITY 9 10 WHEREAS, Kathleen Magarity desires to construct and maintain a portion of a 11 set of concrete steps within a portion of the right of way known as 52nd Street, located at 12 the front of 221 52nd Street, in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. 13 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, 14 Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments upon the 15 City's right of way subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. 16 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 17 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 18 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 15.2- 19 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Kathleen Magarity, her heirs, 20 assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary 21 encroachment for a portion of a set of concrete steps in a portion of the City's right of 22 way as shown on the map marked Exhibit "A" and entitled: "ENCROACHMENT 23 EXHIBIT MAGARITY RESIDENCE #221 52ND STREET GPIN: 2418-79-8212 PARCEL 24 B, RESUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY, LOT 22 & 23, BLOCK 13 UBERMEER (D.B. 25 2676, PG. 208) VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA," a copy of which is on file in the 26 Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular 27 description; and 28 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment is expressly 29 subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the 30 City of Virginia Beach and Kathleen Magarity (the "Agreement"), which is attached 31 hereto and incorporated by reference; and 32 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee 33 is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and 34 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such 3.5 time as Kathleen Magarity and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the 36 Agreement. 37 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day 38 Of , 2007. CA -10535 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\W pdocs\D007\P002\00043475.DOC X:101D\REAI ESTATE\Encroachments\PW Ordinances\CA10535 Magadty.doc R-1 PREPARED: 11/7/07 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS C . sw, LIC WORKS, REAL ESTATE APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM (A&I ) Lk p CIT ATTORNEY PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(C) (4) THIS AGREEMENT, made this izA day of dVr , 2007, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantor, "City", and Kathleen MAGARITY, 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," as shown on that certain plat entitled: "RESUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOT 22 and 23 BLOCK 13, UBERMEER, MB.7 P.150, LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH,VA " and said plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Deed Book 2676, at page 208, and being further designated, known, and described as 221 52nd Street, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451; WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a portion of a set of concrete steps, the "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 52nd Street, the "Encroachment Area"; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit the Temporary Encroachment within the Encroachment Area. GPIN: 2418-79-8212 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 hereby grants 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 MAGARITY RESIDENCE #221 52ND STREET GPIN: 2418-79-8212 PARCEL B, RESUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOT 22 & 23, BLOCK 13 UBERMEER (D.B. 2676, PG. 208) VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA," 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, and Grantee shall bear all costs and expenses of such removal. 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 construction, 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 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/utility easement permit, the Grantee must post a bond or other security, in the amount of two times her engineer's cost estimate, to the Office of Planning Department to guard against damage to City property or facilities during construction. 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 Q 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 construction, location, and/or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit for review and approval, a survey of the Encroachment Area, certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachment sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of the Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed .19 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, Kathleen Magarity, the said Grantee, has caused this Agreement to be executed by her signature. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. (Remainder of this page intentionally left blank) 5 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By (SEAL) City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 200_, by , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, on its behalf. He/She is personally known to me. Notary Public Notary Registration Number: My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: (SEAL) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 200_, by , CITY CLERK/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, on its behalf. She is personally known to me. Notary Registration Number: My Commission Expires: 2 Notary Public (SEAL) Kathleen Magarity/ STATE OF VIRGIN CITY/OAbW7T'OF , to -wit: S� The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of b , 2007, by Kathleen Magarity. j40q 14 44 1 141, 1 a4ry Public My Commission Expires: 30-10 CANDACE B HOPSON NOTARYPUBUC COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 30, 2010 COMMISSION 11222170 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS SIGNATURE DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM rNu Ul GMSERS\SHARED\WP80\RE\Real Estate Forms\WORD DOCS\ENCROACHMENTS\ENCROACHMENT.AGREEMENT.doc 7 �x °W17 y PARCEFA-1 R. (M. B. 307, PG. 12) N0. 009266 (D.B. 2626, PG. 2163) d8/1Y(47 GPIN.• 2418-79-7289 r, _ `,,. Itt" C'L'�.r -•'' r', HOLLY LL .o� N f Q 1 '04100 '' 1-05.6WL- r+- 0.LErii it ��- t r 5' DRA/NAGE {--- PARCEL B �i `� l:.f ��r.�i`5 f-• � 4�C� E"i.. �L �rrL 111 /!� �.1i5, i/ � n n^ �.r.I'L'�M� FFf•; CE 4 EX. ELEVATIO '; i _ , It `y M ^.� 0 VER Z 1�• l CONTOURS �� y '.5:^ '- ` r ^tiN �.� �i' , [.i. r. ! t�{ 2_y, Y FR, it (� '\i'�Y irtJV n(Z 'i 14 (ZS QQ 01, lL;Y i 1n I rr D' R' r22 5, �S81'04 00 W —•- 95.DO 4 23 _ 22 rSl 1 —.— ~iri'ti io tii',i-fA...• i� i i�..:�y -i' P�IL� Y VV �iA.S; ri+�.L•it. ��-��'=rM1 ' ,�iT � • ��%+ 1 rr`.. y'�T���/_ \•.,rf` �\:u :\_ �V, 1y �{nom` 6� .,� `� -'.Mea! PA VMW TO th \r. 5, MAD__ - -,i �D % 2 S TREE'T - -- -- ; - -- tx. INN, (¢0' RIW) (M.8.7, PG.50) date: 08/13/07 revised: p ro'. no-207-0128� file: ENCROACHMENT PLAN.dwg tech: EG project: ENCROACHMBff EXHIBIT L _ = MAGARITY RESIDENCE m221 52nd STREET OPS 2418-75.8212 PARCEL B. RESUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY. LOT 22 a 23. BLOCK 1s UBERMEER(D.e.2676, PG.208) Landsoape Architects 757.431.1()41 VIR MNA BEACH, VIRQINIA Land Surveyorsisite.com Civil Engineers scale: drawing title: 242 Mustang Trail. Suite 8 1*, 20' ( EMBIT 'A' Virginia Beach, VA 23452 PLANNING — NO ACTION 1. Application of SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC., for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-12 Apartment District on the east side of Zurich Arch re the construction of a ten (10) unit residential condominium. DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL DEFERRED INDEFINITELY AUGUST 14, 2007 THIS ITEM WILL BE HEARD ON DECEMBER 11, 2007 K. PLANNING Application of BEACH INVESTMENT CORPORATION for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of portions of an alley at Aqua Lane and South Atlantic Avenue (Croatan Beach). DISTRICT 6 — BEACH RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 2. Applications of SOUTHEAST MARINE GROUP, LLC, re dry storage for boats and trailers, a restaurant, pool and recreational area at 2272 Old Pungo Ferry Road: DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE a. Variance to §5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations and to the Southern Watersheds Management Ordinance re proposed encroachments b. Modification of Conditions to add certain facilities on a Conditional Use Permit (approved April 11, 1966) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 3. Application of CORAL DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., re single family lots at Atwoodtown Road and Sandbridge Road: DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE a. Variance to §5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations re fill b. Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-15 Residential District with a PD -1-12 Planned Unit Development District Overlay RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 4. Application of VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON BAPTIST CHURCH for a Modification of Conditions to a Conditional Use Permit (approved November 9, 1987) re two (2) temporary modular classrooms at 2301 Newstead Drive. DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE. RECOMMENDATION I11;J9:Z6u:111 5. Application of THE SAVIN COMPANY, LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit re a car wash at 820 South Military Highway near Indian River Road. DISTRICT 1 — CENTERVILLE RECOMMENDATION 6. Application of JEB TOLLEY for a Conditional Use Permit re a bingo hall at 2644 Barrett Street. DISTRICT 6 — BEACH RECOMMENDATION 0aa-116".11 I 7. Application of NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, L.L.C., for a Conditional Use Permit re a communications tower at 1052 Cardinal Road. DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN RECOMMENDATION DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 8, 2007 8. Application of CINGULAR WIRELESS for a Conditional Use Permit re a communications tower, antennas and equipment at 4021 Charity Neck Road. DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDATION DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 8, 2007 tom'. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Virginia Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber at City Hall, Municipal Center, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Tuesday, November 27, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. The following applications will be heard: DISTRICT 1- CENTERVILLE The Savin Company, LL.C. Application: Conditional Use EgMA for a car wash at 820 South Military Highway. �GPIN 1456253633). . DISTRICT 6 - BEACH Jeb Tolley Application: Conditional Use Permit for a bingo hall at -2644 Barrett Street (GRIN 1497538465. Beach Investment Corp. Application: Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of an alley located adjacent to Lots 1 and 13, Block 20, Croatan Beach. Property is on the north side of Aqua Lane. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN New Cingular Wireless PCS, L.L.C. Application: Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower at 1052 Cardinal Road (GRIN 2418246584). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE Virginia Beach Beacon Baptist Church Application: Modification of Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit for a church (approved by City Council on November 9. 1987) at 2301 Newstead Drive (GRIN 2414167704). AICUZ is 65 to 70. Expedited from November 14. 2007 Planning Commission. Southeast Marine Group, LLC, Application: Variance to Section 5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations at 2272 Old Pungo Ferry Road (GPINs. 2309236398;2309336649). Southeast Marine Group, LL.C. Application: Modification of Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational facility and marina (approved by City Council on April 11, 1966) at 2272 Old Pungo Ferry Road (GPINs 2309236398; 2309336649). Coral Development, L.L.C. Application: Variance to Section 58 of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations at Atwoodtown and Sandbridge Road: ,GPINs 2413898033; 2413889744; 241399609. 2413897501:2413998154). Corel Development. LLC Application: Changeof Zonine strict Classification from AG -2 Agricultural to Conditional R-15 Residential with a PD -1-12 Planned Unit Development Overlay at 1628 Sandbridge Road, Parcel B Sandbridge Road, 2741, 2753 and 2797 Atwoodtown Road (GPINs 2413898033: 2413889744; 2413996091: 2413897501: 2413998154). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as 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 develop single-family dwellings. DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. Application: Change of 2onir� District Clagsification from R-7.5 Residential to Certdrtionai A-12 Apartment at Zurich Arch, south of 1-264 (GPIN 1487939540). All nterested citizens are invited to attend Rutn Hodges Fraser, MMC City Clerk Copies of the proposed o:dmances, resolutions and amendments are on file and may be examined in the Department of Planning or online al !to—.//Www.vbgov.com/oc For nformation call 385.4621. If you are physically disabled or visually Impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 3854303. Beacon Nov. 11 & 18. 2007 17886966 -66 - Item V -L 10, PLANNING ITEM #56702 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Council Lady Wilson, City Council DEFERRED INDEFINITELY an Ordinance upon application of SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC for a Conditional Change of Zoning re the construction of a ten (10) unit residential condominium: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROMR-7.5 TO CONDITIONAL A-12 Ordinance upon Application of South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. for a Chan-ge of Zoning District Classi cation from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-12 Apartment District on property located on the east side of Zurich Arch, south of 1-264 (GPIN 1487939540). DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL Voting: 10-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: William R "Bill" DeSteph, Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Barbara M Henley, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: John E. Uhrin August 14, 2007 -31 - item V44. PLANNING ITEM #56549 Attorney Edward Bourdon, Pembroke Office Park Building Ne, 281 Independence Boulevard Phone: 499-8971, represented the applicant and requested DEFERRAL until August 14, 2007. His clients have spoken to Kenneth lacy President – Ly—haven Woods Civic League, re storm water runoff and will makearrangements eats to meet with the Lynnhaven Woods Civic League. Upon motion by Council Lady McClanrm„ seconded by Councilmmi Dyer, City Council DEFERRED until the City Council Session of Augwr 14, 2007, Ordinance upon Wlication of SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANXTY, INC for a Conditional Change of Zoning re the construction of a ten (10) unit residential condominium ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC. FOR A CHANGE OF ZQNING DISTRICT CLASSIFICA7TONFROMR-7.5 TO COND1I70NAL A-12 Ordinance upon Application of South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. for a Change otZonrnQ District Closs' inion from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-12 Apartment District on property located on the east side of Zurich Arch, south of I-264 (GP1N 1487939540). DISTRICT 3 –NOSE HALL Council Lady McClanan reiterated the concern and reduced the Conditional Use Permit from a ten (10) unit to a six (6) unit residential condominium. The Memorandum of Uttdastanding (MO[n Committee met on April 26, 2007, and was of the opinion that there are no other reasonable uses for the property that are compatible with the Nary s AICTZ Program guidelines. A maximum development potential of the site, six (6) unit residential condominium is not unreasonable. This application is within the 65-70 dB DK Noise Zone. Voting. 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: William R "Bill" DeSteph, Harry E Diezel, Robert M Dyer, Barbaro M Henley, Vice Mayor Louis R Jones, Reba S. McClanon, Mayor Afeyera 1« Oberndorf, John E. Uhrin, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Cow7cil Members Voting Nay. None Council Members Absent: Ron A. Villanueva June 12, 2007 South Hampton Roads conrllflonai zonrng unange: From n / . _-) uv ,-,- + L 4�u: psi CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance upon Application of South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-12 Apartment District on property located on the east side of Zurich Arch, south of 1-264 (GPIN 1487939540). DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL MEETING DATE: November 27, 2007 ■ Background: The applicant has received a donation of this parcel for the purpose of creating affordable housing. The applicant proposes to rezone the existing R-7.5 property to A-12 Apartment District for the purpose of constructing a ten (10) unit residential condominium. On June 12, 2007, the City Council deferred this application to August 14 at the request of the applicant. On August 14, the application was indefinitely deferred. ■ Considerations: The applicant has incorrectly advertised for the November 27 City Council agenda. The item will not be heard by the City Council until December 11. ■ Recommendations: No action is necessary, as the item is in an indefinitely deferred status. The request is being advertised for the December 11 City Council hearing. ■ Attachments: Location Map Recommended Action: No action necessary. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen 6 City Manager: WrN In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF -6452 TO FROM IN Leslie L. Lilley B. Kay Wilson�� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: November 16, 2007 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application: South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 27, 2007. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated October 23, 2007 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 PREPARED BY: M SYK£S, ROURDON. M AII£RN & LEVY. P.C. SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC. TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 23=d day of October, 2007, by and between SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC., 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 certain parcel of property located in the Rose Hall District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 3.202 acres, which is more particularly described in Exhibit "A' attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel is herein referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the 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-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A- 12 Apartment District; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and GPIN: 1487-93-9540 1 PREPARED BY: MSYKES, BOURDON, AHMN & LWY. P.0 WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the A-12 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro._ quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, . or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is developed, it shall be subdivided and the layout of the townhomes shall be substantially in accordance with the Exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT OF ZURICH ARCH PROPERTY" dated 09/21/07, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter the "Concept Plan"). 2. When the Property is developed, there will be no more than six (b) residential townhome units, as depicted on the Concept Plan. 3. When the Property is developed, the residential structures depicted on the Concept Plan shall have the architectural design and appearance substantially as depicted on the combined Exhibit entitled "BUILDING FRONT ELEVATIONS OF ZURICH ARCH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY" and "BUILDING ROOF PLANS OF ZURICH ARCH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY", dated October lo, 2007, prepared by Kroskin Design Group which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department ("Elevations)". Pli PREPARED BY: M SYKES, BOURDON. MB AHERN & LEVY, P.C. 4. 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 the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and 3 PREPARED BY: .50 SYK£S, BOURDON, M AHI RN & LEVY, P.C. (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the Grantor and the Grantee. n WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. �2 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: tit (SEAL) K. M • an III, Executive Director The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24th day of October, 2007, by John K. Morgan III, Executive Director of South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. Notary Pu lic My Commission Expires: August 31, 2010 Notary Registration No.: 192628 PREPARED BY: SYKES, BOURDON. W AHERN & LEVY, P.C. k, EXHIBIT 'W ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, belonging, lying, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as "PARCEL B" as shown on that certain plat entitled "Subdivision of Lynnhaven Woods, Section Four, Virginia Beach, Virginia," which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in map book 199, at page 55 et seq., which parcel is further identified by the GPIN number 1487-93-9540- 0000. GPIN: 1487-43-9540 ConditionalRezone/HabitatforHumanity/Proffer2_Clean Rev.10/23/07 PREPARED BY: SYKPS, BOURDON, 1011 AHERN & LEVY. P.C. 0 # � � ■ �,��� � �f � % � it/to � � "K- ■ ! � e $ � 4 �% u t SZ, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: In the matter of closing, vacating and discontinuing a portion of that certain street known as "15' x 50' PORTION OF ALLEY TO BE CLOSED (750 SQ. FT.)" as shown on that certain plat entitled "STREET CLOSURE PLAT PORTION OF 15' ALLEY ADJACENT TO LOTS 1 & 13 BLOCK 20 CROATAN BEACH M. B. 24 P. 37 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" District 6 — Beach. MEETING DATE: November 27, 2007 ■ Background: The applicant, Beach Investment Corp., requests the closure, discontinuance and abandonment of an unimproved alley so it may incorporate the right-of-way into its adjoining residential lots. The fifteen (15) foot wide platted alleyway runs parallel to the Atlantic Ocean between Lots 1 and 13 of Block 20 in Croatan Beach. ■ Considerations: Similar requests to close alleys within this block have been granted during the past 15 years. The zoning history map within the attached staff report identifies the specific properties that were granted street closures for the alleyway. The portion of the alley requested for closure is one of the few remaining City -owned portions of the alleyway along this block. The Viewers met and determined that the proposed closure will not result in a public inconvenience; therefore, they recommend closure of the right-of-way. City Council has adopted a policy aimed at disposing of undeveloped right- of-ways to adjoining property owners in the Croatan community. All funds generated from such closures are directed to a Croatan Beach Access account and ultimately the funds collected are to be used by the City to purchase additional public accesses to the beach in the Croatan area. Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the closure will not result in any public inconvenience and there was no opposition to the closure. Beach Investment Corporation Page 2 of 2 ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of- way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of- way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of- way this approval shall be considered null and void. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Location Map Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Ordinance Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agenc : Planning Department City Manager. BEACH INVESTMENT CORPORATION Agenda Item 6 October 10, 2007 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Leslie Bonilla REQUEST: Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of an alley located between Lots 1 and 13, 668 S. Atlantic Avenue. ram Ow �K'.:` Street Closure ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located between Lots 1 and 13, 668 S. Atlantic Avenue GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: Between 2426389623 6 - BEACH 750 square feet and 2426480645 SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests the closure, discontinuance and abandonment of an unimproved alley so they may incorporate the right-of-way into their adjoining residential lots. The fifteen (15) foot wide platted alleyway which runs parallel to the Atlantic Ocean is located between Lots 1 and 13 of Block 20 in Croatan Beach. There have been several street closure requests granted along the subject alleyway during the past 15 years. The zoning history map identifies the specific properties that were granted street closures for the alleyway. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped vacant site SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single-family dwelling/ R-10 Residential District USE AND ZONING: South: . Single-family dwelling/ R-10 Residential District BEACH INVESTMENT CORPORATION Agenda Item 6 Page 1 East: . Atlantic Ocean West: . Single-family homes / R-10 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND This site is located in the Croatan residential community. The site is on CULTURAL FEATURES: the landward side of the coastal primary dune. 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): Aqua Lane and South Atlantic Avenue are two-lane collector roads. There is currently no Roadway Capital Improvement Program projects scheduled for either road. The Master Transportation Plan does not show future plans for Aqua Lane or South Atlantic Avenue. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Aqua Lane Not Available 8,700 ADT (CAPACITY / No Changes Expected Level of Service "D") 460 Peak Hour No Changes Expected S. Atlantic Not Available 8,700 ADT' (CAPACITY / Avenue Level of Service "D") 460 Peak Hour Average Daily Trips WATER AND SEWER: No issues. PUBLIC SAFETY: Police and Fire Departments have no issues. PRIVATE UTILITIES: Preliminary comments from the private utility companies indicate there are no private utilities within the subject right-of-way. Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. BEACH INVESTMENT CORPORATION Agenda Item 6 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area of the city as Primary Residential. The objective of the Primary Residential Area is to protect the predominantly suburban character that is defined, in large measure, by the stable neighborhoods of the Primary Residential Area. Evaluation: The portion of the alley requested for closure is one of the few remaining City -owned portions of the alleyway along this block. The Viewers met and have determined that the proposed closure will not result in a public inconvenience; therefore, they recommend closure of the right-of-way. The request is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations as other portions of the alley have also been closed by individual homeowners. City Council has adopted a policy aimed at disposing of undeveloped right-of-ways to adjoining property owners in the Croatan community. All funds generated from such closures are directed to a Croatan Beach Access account and ultimately the funds collected are to be used by the City to purchase additional public access to the beach in the Croatan area. The proposed street closure is recommended for approval with the following conditions. CONDITIONS 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. 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 and Standards. 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. BEACH INVESTMENT CORPORATION Agenda Item 6 Page 3 p oo SF� 3Wk7 Y 4 4 ot tom' telwf NSA 3 v a S XV F' CII �+aAto� I � 'TO$E c►-QSED URVEY OF AREA p� s Tl EST AE�yT CpR enda�jtem BEPOA1 NV A9 Page # 1 Date 08/22/00 Description Street Closure Action Approved 2 06/23/92 Street Closure Approved 3 08/11/92 Street Closure Approved 4 12/17/96 Street Closure Approved 5 02/26/02 09/27/05 Street Closure Street Closure Approved Approved 6 02/11/97 Street Closure Approved 7 10/24/06 Street Closure Approved ZONING HISTORY BEACH INVESTMENT CORPORATION Agenda Item 6 Page 6 0 a V 11 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 11 APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Beach Investment Corp.: Jeanne S. Johnson, President; Scott Taylor, Vice President; Jeanna Gould, Secretary 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. & ` See next page for footnotes Street Closure Application Page 12 of 13 Revised 9/1/2004 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT BEACH INVESTMENT CORPORATION Agenda Item 6 Page 7 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. Ahern & Levy, P.C. Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd. "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. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions in this package. The undersigned also consents to entry upon the subject property by employees of the Department of Planning to photograph and view the site for purposes of processing and evaluating this application. Beach Investment Corp. By: ;C ^ vi-&LC..i l`.LtL k�C Applicant's Signature Print Name Fresident Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Street Closure Application Page 13 of 13 Revised ?;11,2006 Print Name O a (am) DISCLOSURE STATEMENT BEACH INVESTMENT CORPORATION Agenda Item 6 Page 8 Item #6 Beach Investment Corp. Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of an Alley located adjacent to Lots 1 and 13, Block 20, Croatan Beach District 6 Beach October 10, 2007 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next matter is agenda item 6. This is an application of Beach Investment Corp. It is for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of an alley located adjacent to Lots 1 and 13, Block 20, Croatan Beach, off of Atlantic Avenue, in the Beach District. Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you again madam Vice Chair. Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicant. We appreciate being on the consent agenda also. The four conditions as recommended on this street closure or alley closure are standard, and we agree to all of them. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Is there any opposition to this item being placed on the consent agenda? Seeing none, the Chairman has asked Dave Redmond to review this application for us. David Redmond: Thank you. The applicant, Beach Investment Corp., requests a closure, discontinuance and abandonment of an unimproved alley so they may incorporate the right-of-way into their adjoining residential lots. There have been several street closure requests granted along the subject alleyways during the past 15 years. The portion of the alley requested for closure is one of the few remaining City -owned portions of the alleyway along this block. This request is also compatible with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations as other portions of the alley have also been closed by individual homeowners. In fact, City Council has adopted a policy aimed at disposing of undeveloped right-of-ways to adjoining property owners in the Croatan community. The Commission is unaware of any opposition to this application. The Planning staff supports the application, and the Commission supports it as well by consent. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Janice Anderson: Thank you Dave. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion for the approval of the following agenda item. It is agenda item 6. Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor by Jan Anderson and seconded by Gene Crabtree. Do I have any discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE II NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE Item #6 Beach Investment Corp. Page 2 BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LI'VAS AYE REDMOND AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 1 I-0, the Board has approved item 6 for consent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN STREET KNOWN AS "15'x 50' PORTION OF ALLEY TO BE CLOSED (750 SQ. FT.)" AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT ENTITLED "STREET CLOSURE PLAT PORTION OF 15' ALLEY ADJACENT TO LOTS 1 & 13 BLOCK 20 CROATAN BEACH M. B. 24 P. 37 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" WHEREAS, Beach Investment Corp., a Virginia corporation (the "Applicant") applied to the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described street discontinued, closed, and vacated; and WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said street be discontinued, closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia: SECTION I That the hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, subject to certain conditions being met on or before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this ordinance: All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and described as "15' x 50' PORTION OF ALLEY TO BE CLOSED (750 SQ. FT.)" shown on that certain plat entitled: "STREET CLOSURE PLAT PORTION OF 15' ALLEY ADJACENT TO LOTS 1 & 13 BLOCK 20 CROATAN BEACH M. B. 24 P. 37 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" Scale: 1"=20', dated July 16, 2007, prepared by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. GPIN: 2426-38-9623 and 2426-48-0645 1 39 SECTION II 40 41 The following conditions must be met on or before one (1) year from City 42 Council's adoption of this ordinance: 43 44 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding 45 ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be 46 determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets 47 Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of said policy are 48 available in the Planning Department. 49 50 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot 51 lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The resubdivision plat 52 shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 53 54 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right -of - 55 way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate 56 that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private 57 utilities do exist, the applicant shall provide easements satisfactory to the utility 58 companies. 59 60 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with 61 the above stated conditions within one (1) year of approval by City Council. If all 62 conditions noted above are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within 63 one (1) year of the City Council vote to close the street, this approval will be considered 64 null and void. 65 66 SECTION III 67 68 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before November 69 26, 2008, this Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City 70 Council. 71 72 2. If all conditions are met on or before November 26, 2008, the date 73 of final closure is the date the street closure ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 74 75 3. In the event the City of Virginia Beach has any interest in the 76 underlying fee, the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute whatever 77 documents, if any, that may be requested to convey such interest, provided said 78 documents are approved by the City Attorney's Office. 0 SECTION IV 81 A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed in the Clerk's Office of the 82 Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY 83 OF VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor" and BEACH INVESTMENT CORP., a Virginia 84 corporation as "Grantee." 85 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this 86 day of , 2007. CA -10322 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\DO22\PO02\00038986. DOC R-1 October 19, 2007 AP PR D S TV CONTENT: Planningpartment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: O,Lk a &�,O—Aj City Attorney Vi o 9�y:j 1 A Ell sy BIT „A,, �'ayv VMV wa lira 43 to DAW ter — gyypp 0 S� �'ayv VMV wa lira 43 to DAW ter — �lRPM RPARPa PaRPARP RP4RP6RPaRPaRPaRP aRP 4RP 8RP ARP nR Modifir-ation of Conditions *r �lRPM RPARPa PaRPARP RP4RP6RPaRPaRPaRP aRP 4RP 8RP ARP nR Modifir-ation of Conditions w» , � �oi'r �u. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: a) Application of Southeast Marine Group, L.L.C. for a Variance to Section 5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations on property located at 2272 Old Pungo Ferry Road (GPINs 2309236398; 2309336649). DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE. b) Application of Southeast Marine Group, L.L.C. fora Modification of Conditions for a request approved by City Council on April 11, 1966. Property is located at 2272 Old Pungo Ferry Road (GPINs 2309236398; 2309336649). DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE. MEETING DATE: November 27, 2007 ■ Background: A Conditional Use Permit permitting recreation facilities, 53 cabins, marina, and marine sales and service was approved by the City Council on April 11, 1966. The applicant wishes to modify that Conditional Use Permit to include dry storage for boats and trailers, a restaurant, and a pool / recreational area for boaters. The existing restaurant will be demolished and replaced with a smaller building. The p4ing areas on the site will be paved and landscaped, and a stormwater management facility will be installed. With the addition of the dry storage building and the paving of the parking areas, a floodplain variance for minor fill and no mitigation, and a variance to the Southern Watersheds Management Ordinance for encroachments into the required 50 -foot buffer are required. ■ Considerations: The submitted plan depicts a 92,307 square foot boat storage facility situated 98 - feet from Old Pungo Ferry Road and 30 -feet from the property to the east. The proposed 3,000 square foot restaurant and pool / recreation area will be located on the foundation of the existing restaurant. Two hundred (200) parking spaces will be provided for customers and staff. Street frontage landscaping, parking lot landscaping and buffering adjacent to the rural residential area is also depicted on the plan. The exterior of the proposed dry storage building will be metal panels with different ribbing width to provide some architectural relief on the building walls. Decorative window -like accent panels are proposed, some with light fixtures and some with awnings, to further break up the mass of the building walls. Raised towers are depicted over some of the double doors of the building and are Southeast Marine Group, L.L.C. Page 2of4 reminiscent of older designs for Coast Guard Stations in the region. The proposed building height is 59 -feet, 2 -inches at the top of the towers. Proposed height at the eaves of the building is 39 -feet, 6 -inches. The overall average height of the building is 49 -feet, four inches. The proposed dry storage facility will accommodate up to 648 boats. The variance request is to allow fill within the floodplain to accommodate the proposed dry storage building, the re -paving of existing parking areas and paving of proposed parking areas, and general rehabilitation of the site. The applicant cannot mitigate at a one for one replacement on the site as there is insufficient area outside of the floodplain to allow mitigation. The applicant's request, therefore, is to allow a variance such that no mitigation is provided on the site. The proposed request to construct a boat and trailer dry storage facility, restaurant, and a pool and recreational area for boaters is a valuable service for the area. The existing facility is a traditional stopping point for many boaters using the Intracoastal Waterway and is in need of rehabilitation. The proposed repaving of existing parking areas, provision for additional parking, installation of a stormwater management facility and landscaping will do much to improve the appearance of the site and provide for stormwater management where none currently exists. Installation of a pump -out facility for remnant sewage will help improve water quality adjacent to the site. The proposed building will be fully sprinkled and have at least one internal fire wall. The fire suppression system will be supplied by an on-site water storage facility that will be completely concealed from public view. There was opposition to the request. Condition 13 was revised during the hearing to address the concern of the opposition pertaining to potential damage to wells in the area. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve the requests with the following conditions: 1. All conditions attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on April 11, 1966 remain in affect, except the applicant may not construct the allowed 53 cabins. 2. The site shall be developed and rehabilitated in substantial conformance with the submitted plan entitled "CUP Exhibit for Pungo Ferry Marina Expansion, Virginia Beach, Virginia," prepared by SIA Site Improvement, Civil Engineers, Surveyors and Site Contractors, dated 7/20/07, except for modifications enumerated in the conditions that follow. Southeast Marine Group, L.L.C. Page 3 of 4 3. The applicant shall use porous pavers or porous concrete in the parking areas adjacent to the proposed restaurant (38 spaces), the existing general store (86 spaces), and the rear of the proposed dry storage (30 spaces). 4. The applicant shall install a four -foot high white PVC picket fence with evergreen trees along the entire length of the eastern property line adjacent to the rural residential homes and 125 -feet westerly along the frontage adjacent to Old Pungo Ferry Road. 5. Within the proposed buffer area adjacent to the eastern property line, the applicant shall plant a row of six to eight foot tall evergreen trees limbed to the ground, such as Leyland Cypress or Deodar Cedar, 10 -foot on center, and a row of three to four -foot tall evergreen shrubs, such as rhododendrons or wax myrtles, four -foot on center. Perennial and /or seasonal annual flowers shall also be planted. 6. The proposed buildings on the site (dry storage and restaurant) shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the submitted plan entitled "PUNGO FERRY MARINA", Sheet A-1, prepared by Martin and Martin Architects, except a third cupola shall be added on the eastern side of the building. The cupolas should be spaced approximately 100 -feet apart on the building. The building shall not exceed 60 -feet at the highest point and at the eave shall not exceed an average height of 39 -feet. Said plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Virginia Beach Planning Department. The primary building colors shall be earth toned, tan and cream with white trim or light and dark gray with white trim. The proposed standing seam roofing shall be blue, gray, white, or green. 7. Before any land disturbing activity takes place, a Southern Watershed Management Plan must be submitted for review and approval. 8. The existing shed(s) adjacent to the eastern side of the site shall be removed before construction of the dry storage building. 9. There shall be no disposal of remnant sewage from users of the site. The applicant shall install a sewage / wastewater pump -out facility sufficient to accommodate users of the site. The applicant shall obtain Health Department approval for the system. 10. The applicant shall submit a photometric lighting plan, with emphasis on the use of full cut-off fixtures for all parking lot lighting and any outside building mounted lighting (wall packs). The building mounted lighting shall have appropriate shielding that directs light downward. The plan shall also include provisions for implementing low-level security lighting for non -business hours. Low-level security lighting shall be implemented along the residential areas adjacent to the site from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. All lighting on the site should Southeast Marine Group, L.L.C. Page 4 of 4 be consistent with the standards recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. 11. Hours of operation for the dry storage building shall be from 7:30 a.m. to dark; for the restaurant (bar, tiki hut) shall be 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday; for the pool and recreation area 9:00 a.m. to dark. 12.All repairs shall be conducted within the building. There shall be no inoperable or junked boats or trailers stored outside. 13. Based on well failures during the construction of the Pungo Ferry Bridge, water samples shall be taken from homeowners' wells west of the "Drainfield Parcel", identified as GPIN 2309-33-6649-0000 and north of Pungo Ferry Road. If such sampling demonstrates any damage to the wells or declines in water potability during construction and rehabilitation of the site, the developer / applicant shall be responsible for replacing impacted wells. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City Manager. lc�)s 6Y71*L SOUTHEAST MARINE GROUP, LLC Agenda Items 16 & 17 October 10, 2007 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie REQUEST: I 1` ll 16) Modification of the Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council on April 11, 1966 17) Variance to Section 5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 2272 Old Pungo Ferry Road GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 23092363980000 7 — PRINCESS ANNE 20.55 acres (19.08 within the floodplain) 23093366490000 and 2.37 acres APPLICATION HISTORY: The request was deferred at the September 12, 2007 Planning Commission meeting so the applicant could address concerns raised by adjacent property owners. The applicant met with adjacent property owners and the concerns have been addressed. The Conditional Use Permit permitting recreation facilities, 53 SUMMARY OF REQUEST cabins, marina, and marine sales and service was approved by the City Council on April 11, 1966. The Conditional Use Permit has two stipulations: • Dedication of 40 -feet from the center line along 1,250 -foot frontage (north side), 2,530 -foot frontage (south side) of Pungo Ferry Road. • Departmental review and approval in accordance with the site plan ordinance. The applicant wishes to modify the existing Conditional Use Permit to include dry storage for boats and trailers, a restaurant, and a pool / recreational area for boaters. The existing restaurant will be demolished and replaced with a smaller building. The parking areas on the site will be paved and landscaped, and a SOUTHEAST MARINE GROUP, INC. Agenda Items 16 & 17 Page 1 stormwater management facility will be installed. With the addition of the dry storage building and the paving of the parking areas, a floodplain variance for minor fill and no mitigation, and a variance to the Southern Watersheds Management Ordinance for encroachments into the required 50 -foot buffer are required. The submitted plan depicts a 92,307 square foot boat storage facility situated 98 -feet from Old Pungo Ferry Road and 30 -feet from the property to the east. The proposed 3,000 square foot restaurant and pool / recreation area will be located on the foundation of the existing restaurant. Two hundred (200) parking spaces will be provided for customers and staff. Street frontage landscaping, parking lot landscaping and buffering adjacent to the rural residential area is also depicted on the plan. The exterior of the proposed dry storage building will be metal panels with different ribbing width to provide some architectural relief on the building walls. Decorative window -like accent panels are proposed, some with light fixtures and some with awnings, to further break up the mass of the building walls. Raised towers are depicted over some of the double doors of the building and are reminiscent of older designs for Coast Guard Stations in the region. The proposed building height is 59 -feet, 2 -inches at the top of the towers. Proposed height at the eaves of the building is 39 -feet, 6 -inches. The overall average height of the building is 49 -feet, four inches. The proposed dry storage facility will accommodate up to 648 boats. Variance to Section 5B of Site Plan Ordinance—Floodplain Regulations Section 5B.5(c): This section of the Site Plan Ordinance does not permit filling within the floodplain subject to special restrictions. A variance to Section 5B of the Site Plan Ordinance (floodplain variance) is necessary to allow the fill of the existing area of the floodplain on the property. Total Surface Area of the site = 894,585 square feet (20.54 acres) • Total Surface Area within the Floodplain = 831,027 square feet (19.08 acres) • Total Surface Area covered by Fill within the Floodplain = 244,160 square feet (5.61 acres) • Percentage of Floodplain Surface Covered by Fill = 29.40% The Site Plan Ordinance also requires that mitigation be provided at a one for one replacement for the flood storage volume of the floodplain filled, and that the areas of mitigation or replacement must be contiguous to the existing floodplain. • Existing 100 -year floodplain storage volume = 3,125,603 Cubic Feet (C.F.) • Volume of fill within the floodplain = 549,360 Cubic Feet (C.F.) • Mitigation Areas for fill volume = "0" Cubic Feet (C.F.) • Post Developed 100 -year floodplain storage volume = 2,576,243 Cubic Feet (C.F). The variance request is to allow fill within the floodplain to accommodate the proposed dry storage building, the re -paving of existing parking areas and paving of proposed parking areas, and general rehabilitation of the site. The applicant cannot mitigate at a one for one replacement on the site as there is insufficient area outside of the floodplain to allow mitigation (only 1.46 acres). The applicant's request, therefore, is to allow a variance such that no mitigation is provided on the site. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION SOUTHEAST MARINE GROUP, INC. Agenda Items 16 & 17 Page 2 EXISTING LAND USE: Marina, convenience store, and vacant former restaurant SURROUNDING LAND North: . A finger of the North Landing River, wetlands and woods / AG -1 USE AND ZONING: Agricultural South: . Old Pungo Ferry Road • Across Old Pungo Ferry Road is a single-family dwelling, farm fields and woods / AG -2 Agricultural East: . A finger of the North Landing River and single-family dwellings / AG -1 and AG -2 Agricultural West: . North Landing River NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is located within the Southern Watershed Management Area, CULTURAL FEATURES: North Landing River watershed. The site has a sandy beach adjacent to the river. There is minimal vegetation on the site. Land records indicate the site was developed in 1919. Residents living in the area before the site was developed crossed the North Landing River, between Pungo and Blackwater, via a barge that was pulled back and forth with an underwater cable. The Pungo Ferry swing bridge was built in 1953 and was replaced in 1992 with a new bridge span. Several historic homes and outbuildings exist in the immediate area. 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)• Old Pungo Ferry Road is a two-lane collector road, and Princess Anne Road, near the site, is a two-lane rural highway. There are no Capital Improvement Program projects scheduled for either roadway. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Old Pungo Ferry Road Not available 8,700 ADT Existing Potential Land Use 2-15,938 ADT Princess Anne 5,100 ADT 8,700 ADT Road (327 peak (460 peak hour) Proposed Land Use 3_ hour)1,037 (Sunday - peak) ADT Average Daily Trips Zas defined by 22.90 acres of B-4 Mixed Use District zoning Sas defined by 22.90 acres Marina, 3,00 square foot restaurant, and 1,500 square foot store SOUTHEAST MARINE GROUP, INC. Agenda Items 16 & 17 Page 3 WATER and SEWER: There is no City water or sewer available to the site. The site relies upon on-site sewage disposal and water supply wells. The applicant will need approval from the Virginia Department of Health for upgrading or replacing these systems. FIRE: An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection is required by the Uniform Statewide Fire Prevention Code. The water supply system shall consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water mains or other approved fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow to a fire hydrant system. An approved automatic water supply is also needed for the fire sprinkler system that will be required for the boat storage facility. Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this requested modification and floodplain variance, as conditioned below. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this site to be within the "Rural Area." The area is characterized as low, flat land with wide floodplains and altered drainage. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as agricultural/rural with uses related to farming, forestry, rural residential and other rurally compatible uses. "Rural areas may be characterized as a balance between the natural environment and human uses with farms, horse boarding, campgrounds, wineries and open space activities" (Pg.164). The Plan recognizes this site's continual use over the years for marine -related uses. Its continued use for such purposes is appropriate within the Rural Area if properly designed to be compatible to the surrounding area. Evaluation: The proposed request to construct a boat and trailer dry storage facility, restaurant, and a pool / recreational area for boaters is a valuable service for the area. The existing facility is a traditional stopping point for many boaters using the Intracoastal Waterway and is in need of rehabilitation. The proposed repaving of existing parking areas, provision for additional parking, installation of a stormwater management facility and landscaping will do much to improve the appearance of the site and provide for stormwater management where none currently exists. Installation of a pump -out facility for remnant sewage will help improve water quality adjacent to the site. The proposed building will be fully sprinkled and have at least one internal fire wall. The fire suppression system will be supplied by an on-site water storage facility that will be completely concealed from public view. The proposed building, while large in size, should blend in with the area once the proposed landscaping is mature. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of the requests subject to the conditions listed below. CONDITIONS 1. All conditions attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on April 11, 1966 remain in affect, except the applicant may not construct the allowed 53 cabins. 2. The site shall be developed and rehabilitated in substantial conformance with the submitted plan entitled "CUP Exhibit for Pungo Ferry Marina Expansion, Virginia Beach, Virginia," prepared by SIA SOUTHEAST MARINE GROUP, INC. Agenda Items 16 & 17 Page 4 Site Improvement, Civil Engineers, Surveyors and Site Contractors, dated 7/20/07, except for the following: 3. The applicant shall use porous pavers or porous concrete in the parking areas adjacent to the proposed restaurant (38 spaces), the existing general store (86 spaces), and the rear of the proposed dry storage (30 spaces). 4. The applicant shall install a four -foot high white PVC picket fence with evergreen trees along the entire length of the eastern property line adjacent to the rural residential homes and 125 -feet westerly along the frontage adjacent to Old Pungo Ferry Road. 5. Within the proposed buffer area adjacent to the eastern property line the applicant shall plant a row of six to eight foot tall evergreen trees limbed to the ground, such as Leyland Cypress or Deodar Cedar, , 10 -foot on center, and a row of three to four foot tall evergreen shrubs, such as rhododendrons or wax myrtles, four -foot on center. Perennial and /or seasonal annual flowers shall also be planted. 6. The proposed buildings on the site (dry storage and restaurant) shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the submitted plan entitled "PUNGO FERRY MARINA", Sheet A-1, prepared by Martin and Martin Architects, except a third cupola shall be added on the eastern side of the building. The cupolas should be spaced approximately 100 -feet apart on the building. The building shall not exceed 60 -feet at the highest point and the height at the lowest eave shall not exceed an average height of 39 -feet. Said plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Virginia Beach Planning Department. The primary building colors shall be earth toned, tan and cream with white trim or light and dark gray with white trim. The proposed standing seam roofing shall be blue, gray, white, or green. 7. Before any land disturbing activity takes place, a Southern Watershed Management Plan must be submitted for review and approval. 8. The existing shed(s) adjacent to the eastern side of the site shall be removed before construction of the dry storage building. 9. There shall be no disposal of remnant sewage from users of the site. The applicant shall install a sewage / wastewater pump -out facility sufficient to accommodate users of the site. The applicant shall obtain Health Department approval for the system. 10. The applicant shall submit a photometric lighting plan, with emphasis on the use of full cut-off fixtures for all parking lot lighting and any outside building mounted lighting (wall packs). The building mounted lighting shall have appropriate shielding that directs light downward. The plan shall also include provisions for implementing low-level security lighting for non -business hours. Low-level security lighting shall be implemented along the residential areas adjacent to the site from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. All lighting on the site should be consistent with the standards recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. 11. Hours of operation for the dry storage building shall be from 7:30 AM to dark; for the restaurant (bar, tiki hut) shall be 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM, Sunday through Thursday, and 10:00 AM to 11:00 PM, Friday and Saturday; for the pool and recreation area 9:00 AM to dark. 12. All repairs shall be conducted within the building. There shall be no inoperable or junked boats or SOUTHEAST MARINE GROUP, INC. Agenda Items 16 & 17 Page 5 trailers stored outside. 13. Given the fact there were so many well failures during the construction of the Pungo Ferry Bridge, water samples shall be taken from homeowners' wells in 4he i.M.Med date aFea west of the Drainfield Parcel identified as 2309-33-6649-000 and north of Pungo Ferry Road, and if any damage occurs or watery potability declines during construction and re -habilitation of the site the developer/ applicant shall be responsible for replacing the wells. 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 and Standards. 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. SOUTHEAST MARINE GROUP, INC. Agenda Items 16 & 17 Page 6 ~lmc"6azi.�a.a�.a�.. ci.s.:.>� m:.�s .� •�•[ �a MAflMA IDYM MOW .'.z'.�<: ca.mm'0 •�"'w.>mow.: _ EpI t N06NYA3 V!!1 1 AMEW 00widwd t K m's 3AObdWI 3115 °•y ire, m'iWi COOV of �' 1 � 2 ;•I X Sr — > = 1 =YT a y, W j O p� NJ; ;■a yy �_. raaT'-,��.Yipgbpr EzP E" �:>�3 L�i`4 0�aa as XGC'�+� �r�.j a•4;`�-,ay.�y�oa' ; �. �ISg�R je"q: �eeparl7 e_E i����a SSI-"^• =Y:4e .- - ti PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN PLAN SOUTHEAST MARINE GROUP, INC. Agenda Items 16 & 17 Page 9 X Sr — 1 l,f ti PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN PLAN SOUTHEAST MARINE GROUP, INC. Agenda Items 16 & 17 Page 9 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION SOUTHEAST MARINE 9 ends GOems 6 & 17 Page 10 1. 4/11/66 Conditional Use Permit (Cabins, marina, marine sales and Approved service 2. 5/9/06 Conditional Use Permit (Alternative Residential Development) Approved 2/22/05 Conditional Use Permit (Communication Tower) Approved 8/14/01 Conditional Use Permit Borrow Pit Denied ZONING HISTORY SOUTHEAST MARINE GROUP, INC. Agenda Items 16 & 17 Page 11 Kounno Noil-laK03 10 K011Y311luo" O c E C oa o no N N 7. L U N ? � O V R N i C N V ''_• � y O N - C y y U a F a R= 6 N d N o iG U y � N N A y O. � •+ c j O C C U C oo,u ���o_aaNNOC O 2 > G Oto E a E C y t N G •C O R v" E d% mCL o cc x 0 m07 0 03 �� C N N o. 'rJ V C C 9 R � rpi R V 0` E arl CO y 7 N L � >, C U tl .O. N R O U S C E •� N t O O r C O� �• > •O• A C U N N O N a1 T. 6 a' .�_' � aJ O as x m o c c c a.n :J .gin"rn �> O ,O m C C U N ? d N y O N - � N N A y O. � •+ c j C C U C 2 O ,O m U II C d N a 7 � - � N y N y j C C U C 2 L C C jG G y I N •'+ (LO• 1' O O G p I> �` O a � V � 1^• R O J S G � U a d V R � s _. O. �_ '.� � � C C ✓) of r .G O N� U� j 0 CL C �'3 •- O a L m a: I - _ C > Kol,�r�aa� Kosar�o�aor�ou�ia►aow DISCLOSURE STATEMENT SOUTHEAST MARINE IGRmOs 6 & 17 Ag Page 12 ZI 2 _ V C C U y r n j V c u�c�c Lu - c n p O d = r U C U U O y U - 7 Q v O U :_ Q C- C T N - L` G U Kolj,,v3IZdd� aA c J _ r C ac; G c: U, ,, v - r F O ✓: v 0 r1-5 - ' C: � Z• N� � f 4: u U : v cc >G C c^ .co a�U U N U m L Ti c - � c L r X c- Q U C v U= mC^ U C it L C � id y C �^ T= C O U N C O p C C. •- 01 U d _ o=m�3=�Ovmr O Q j m L C c o m G � V R O m cmc¢=�c�'occ `"- Z 11.4 2 411 Q V) W Of Z) U) O J U D p r m v m c d = U C C C = c- N t U _ ^ ^ 'ccr r � w O. _ O 2 2 o E RE 0- v T IL = Ll �. R y J C v N C- _ -p ` ._ U r m W °_� ins c Z�E-- i c 2= a c= r O° c d 3c'; �' e= L U o h- cL n - ¢000�O=ccCL -� o oL `p r-� it T= ti L c o = c - •m ✓ c-- a Q = C r (n 1. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT SOUTHEAST MARINE GROUP, INC. Agenda Items 16 & 17 Page 13 Items #16 & 17 Southeast Marine Group, L.L.C. Flood Plain Regulations Modification of Conditions 2272 Old Pungo Ferry Road District 7 Princess Anne October 10, 2007 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next items are items 16 and 17. Southeast Marine Group, L.L.C. An application of Southeast Marine, L.L.C. for a Variance to Section 5B of the Site Plan Ordnance, Floodplain Regulations on property located at 2272 Old Pungo Ferry Road and an application of Southeast Marine, L.L.C. for a Modification of Conditions approved by City Council on April 11, 1966. The property is located at 2272 Old Pungo Ferry Road, District 7, Princess Anne, with 13 conditions. Barry Knight: Welcome Eddie. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Chairman. For the record, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing Southeast Marine Group, L.L.C, and also down here this afternoon are Mr. Paul Martin, the architect on the project, and Mr. Claude Lem with Site Improvements Associates, the engineer on the project. I recognize that this application was slated for the consent agenda, and I'll try to keep this very brief. You see the Pungo Ferry Marina site, where Captain's George has operated for many years. It is a nice beach area, and the marina that was approved by a Use Permit 41 years ago, and parts of the property looked like they, and haven't been improved since that application was approved 41 years ago. The applicants have contracted to purchase the property, and have invested some substantial sum of money in upgrading the facility, as they are acquiring and operating other facilities along the Intracoastal Waterway from New England to Florida. The proposal involves the construction of a dry storage building, and a dry storage building is basically a barn for boats. A very attractive one, I would assert, along with taking down the existing restaurant and building a smaller restaurant on the same footprint of the concrete foundation, and also providing a full playground. The property is a jewel in the southern part of the city, and it is certainly in need of some refurbishment, and this what application involves. We have been fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to work with staff, Faith Christie, and the Planning staff, as well as with two of the neighbors to the property, both Mr. Yoder and Mr. Styron, and have come up with the conditions that you see in your staff evaluation. There are a couple of wording issues that I'm going to talk about in just a second. The end result is that you have a marina that's right up to standards and most importantly these improvements are going to include providing a dump station for effluent from the boats, not just at this marina but those that utilize the river, which is very, very, very significant and very needed, and it is an expensive addition that the client has agreed to install. I think that is something that is worth noting especially in terms of water quality. The entire property is in a flood plain. We will minimize those will have to be regrade and upgrade the parking. It involves some minimal to Items #16 & 17 Southeast Marine Group, L.L.C. Page 2 fill the floodplain. That is all summarized, and it is recommended for approval. With that, the only issues that I want to raise, between our issues, and there are two wording questions. The first deals with the fact that during construction of the new bridge, the Pungo Ferry Bridge, that is too tall for Mr. Knight to jump off of, without fear of injury, there were apparently some problems with some well impacts in the area with the driving of those pilings. This building, which is going to be entirely made of non combustible material, is entirely sprinkled. It will be built on pilings, not nearly the same level of construction to put them in as was the case with the bridge, but because of the potential there might be impact, and condition 13 is acceptable. We would ask that the limitation be basically 500 -feet from the restaurant site. What we are trying to accomplish in terms of protecting wells. Could you put up the aerial? The house here and the houses here from the potential that their might be an impact from the well, and we will test their well water and provide the tests to them and to the City before construction. If there are any afterwards, we'll again test for any problems with the wells, and we will replace them. We don't anticipate that at all but as a precaution, we are certainly willing to do that but the idea is to protect everybody's well around, because construction is not anywhere near that intense. The second issue is a slight wording change. Condition 6, the second sentence which begins towards the right hand margin of the fourth line states that "the building shall not exceed 60 -feet at the highest point and the height at the lowest eave shall not exceed an average height of 39 -feet". First of all, the word lowest shouldn't be included in there. It should be the eave height or the height at the eave shall not exceed an average height of 39 feet, and it is 39 feet six inches. And that is referenced over in the write up itself on page 2 of the write up where it says the "height of the eaves of the building is 39 -feet, 6 -inches". That is the average height of the eaves of the building. That is every one's understanding. I've already reviewed that with Ms. Christie. You can certainly speak to her about that. I also want to point out that my clients have agreed to limit the hours of operation of the restaurant, even though it s a by -right use on that piece of property, the marina is the only part that needs a Use Permit. There is no provision here for a facility to do boat repair work. But any minor repair that might be done to a boat will be done inside the building per one of the conditions. But this is not a repair facility. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon at this time? Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Yes. We have one speaker who is signed up to speak in opposition. Mike Yoder. Barry Knight: Do you care to speak or address us? You are more than welcome to. Mike Yoder: Hello folks. I'm not good at speaking amongst a bunch of people. Barry Knight: Welcome. Just state your name for the record. Mike Yoder: Mike Yoder. I live at 2424 Old Pungo Ferry Road. Items #16 & 17 Southeast Marine Group, L.L.C. Page 3 Barry Knight: Mr. Yoder? Just take that laser in the corner and just point over there and show everyone where you live. Mike Yoder: Right there. Barry Knight: Mr. Styron lives in front of you. Mike Yoder: I live here, and Mr. Styron lives there. Barry Knight: Right. Okay. Mike Yoder: The only objection I have is what Mr. Bourdon just said, 500 feet from the old restaurant. My house is more than 500 feet from the old restaurant. Barry Knight: We'll get your house included Mr. Yoder. Mike Yoder: Faith and I were just talking a minute ago. Why don't we say something like, Eddie, from the septic tank field west? Eddie Bourdon: I mentioned that. I apologize. Mike Yoder: That's okay. Barry Knight: Why don't we include the Styron house, the Bright House, and the Yoder house? Eddie Bourdon: Anything west of the drain field. Mike Yoder: That is the only thing west of the drain field. Barry Knight: Sure. We'll make sure that you're noted in the conditions. Mike Yoder: That is wonderful. Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any other concerns Mr. Yoder? Mike Yoder: No sir. Everybody did a great job. They have all done everything they said they were going to do. I don't like the building, but it is better than 50 kids chasing my horses around so, we're in good shape. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Yoder. Are there any other speakers Mr. Strange? Joseph Strange: That concludes our speakers. Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon? Do you have anything to add? Items #16 & 17 Southeast Marine Group, L.L.C. Page 4 Eddie Bourdon: I'm sorry for my lack of measure. Barry Knight: Could you help us structure condition 13? Would you just like to include the three homes and name them by owners? Would that make it as easy? Eddie Bourdon: I think the easiest way to do would be to suggest any wells located to the west of the drain field site of this property, which is this here. All these houses would all be located to the west. And we could say north of Pungo Ferry Road, north of Pungo Ferry Road and west of the drain field for this facility, which is located to the east of the property that is in question. Barry Knight: Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: That way if they change ownership. Barry Knight: Okay. Is there any discussion? Donald Horsley: That map there says Old Pungo Ferry Road over there. Eddie Bourdon: I'm sorry. That's the old one. North of Pungo Ferry Road. Donald Horsley: The only comment that I would like to make is that I think it is an outstanding project, that people in the area have been wondering what is going to happen to this site for the last couple of years since Captain George's closed. The restaurant amenity down there is really being missed by a lot of the local people who like to do. I'm glad that some sort of restaurant is being put back down there. I'm sure it is going to be great. With that said, I'm ready to make a motion that the application be approved, item 16 the Use Permit and item 17 the variance to the floodplain regulations be approved. Barry Knight: Mr. Horsley with the change to condition 6, 39 -feet 6 -inches and scratch out lowest. Donald Horsley: Right. And condition 13. Barry Knight: North of Pungo Ferry Road and west of the draining field. Donald Horsley: Right. Barry Knight: Okay. Mr. Henley seconds it. Is there any discussion? There is a motion on the floor to approve by Don Horsley and a second by Al Henley, agenda item 16 and 17. No discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE Items #16 & 17 Southeast Marine Group, L.L.C. Page 5 CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved the applications of Southeast Marine Group, L.L.C. with the conditions as modified. Barry Knight: Mr. Secretary, are there any more items? Joseph Strange: There are no other items. Barry Knight: The meeting is adjourned. W MI�Sp190�LIp�Yp _._wmusac pi • ooasureu mua µ � °1w� gyp, dWpHA liJtl39 tlI�iJF�A JD NOM"�0xALID " nur m wvaww 000. 7vwa b NOI cD(3 VNMM A OFNJf1d a S = b Id W . =- y►it ^N1� e IN3 3� I ADO ' SS 11M 310 ONI p i� 51 73 e.R Rd♦ S:d � orsy 8 � ��t py �pp8 i -Ha ii � b liftfig i gg""g 0 Mg � 6 E'er it L i of w t _ .fC'StZ � Z • �7cm�a teE ,2 JU •� 'E my4�� Z Z _ Y 4 •' P � - • =o g <o ? I ri U p i� 7Z: No W130 AW rain Xu w lwd . �L-voossv IN3n3AOadm m 1 kvm) 30 A.LtGdObd nos IN, S, INN=w mul WF1554 M• WKISSL -W i�N MOW 1loyas YrAV& LIN SNOUXP= OMMS Egg' P Nli !Ste s 7Z: Map _map Not to Scnle ♦ i l Development LLC do-:. �� � • �•.. r� :i CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: a) Application of Coral Development, L.L.C. for a Variance to Section 5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations on property located at the northwest intersection of Atwoodtown Road and Sandbridge Road (GPINs 2413898033; 2413889744; 2413996091; 2413897501; 2413998154). DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE. b) Application of Coral Development, LLC for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-15 Residential District with a PD -1-12 Planned Unit Development District Overlay on property located at 1628 Sandbridge Road, Parcel B Sandbridge Road, 2741, 2753 and 2797 Atwoodtown Road (GPINs 2413898033; 2413889744; 2413996091; 2413897501; 2413998154). DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE. MEETING DATE: November 27, 2007 ■ Background: The applicant proposes to rezone the existing Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-15 Residential District with a PD -1-12 Planned Unit Development District Overlay, and develop the site with 24 single-family lots. The lots will range in size from 11,128 square feet to 30,767 square feet. The proposed density will be 1.45 units per acre. There will be 2.10 acres of open space area in the proposed subdivision. The applicant is proffering the setbacks and the building materials for the proposed dwellings. The applicant has revised the proposed plan since the Planning Commission hearing, reducing the number of lots from 27 to 24 and almost eliminating any impact to the floodplain. The attached staff report has been revised to reflect the new plan. The applicant's original plan, as presented to the Planning Commission, required fill within the floodplain to accommodate the proposed roadway and to fill and pipe an existing ditch which traverses the property from Sandbridge Road to Atwoodtown Road. The revised plan, however, will require little or no fill, as the revisions have eliminated the need to pipe the ditch and the previously proposed roadway no longer crosses the floodplain. As the plan proceeds to more detailed engineering, there may be a need for fill in a limited number of areas. If fill is necessary, the applicant has provided a mitigation area at the corner of the Atwoodtown Road and the proposed cul-de-sac on Atwoodtown Road. Coral Development, L.L.C. Page 2 of 2 ■ Considerations: The proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The proposed rezoning from AG -2 Agricultural to Conditional R-15 Residential with a PD -H2 Planned Development District Overlay is complementary and compatible to the adjacent established residential neighborhoods. The proposed homes will be compatible in both size and scale, and the proposed exterior building materials reflect the materials used within the residential neighborhood adjacent to this property. The variance request to fill within the floodplain is acceptable, as any fill that may be required will be very limited. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-1 to approve the requests as proffered and with the following conditions: Should it be determined that fill within the floodplain is necessary, a floodplain mitigation plan shall be submitted, including a hydrology study showing no net loss in the flood storage or no net rise in the hydrologic profile. Proposed mitigation areas shall not be located within the floodplain. 2. Before any land disturbing activity takes place a Southern Watershed Management Plan must be submitted for review and approval. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departme City Manager Z�� CORAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC Agenda Items 18 & 19 September 12, 2007 Public Hearing (Report Modified for November 27, 2007 City Council Hearing Due to Revised Plan Submission) Staff Planner: Faith Christie Conditional Zoning Change from AC -2 to R-75 with a PD -1-12 Planned Unit Development Overlay REQUEST: (18) Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-15 Residential District with a PD -H2 Planned Development District Overlay (19) Variance to Section 5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 1628 Sandbridge Road, Parcel B Sandbridge Road; 2741, 2753, and 2797 Atwoodtown Road GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 24138980330000; 7 — PRINCESS ANNE 16.59 acres (12.33 acres outside of the 24138897440000; floodplain) 24139960910000; 24138975010000; 24139981540000. SUMMARY OF REQUEST Conditional Change of Zoning The applicant proposes to rezone the existing Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-15 Residential District with a PD -1-12 Planned Unit Development District Overlay, and develop the site with 24 single-family lots. The lots will range in size from 11,128 square feet to 30,767 square feet. The proposed density will be 1.45 units per acre. There will be 2.10 acres of open space area in the proposed subdivision. The applicant is proffering the setbacks and the building materials for the proposed dwellings. CORAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC Agenda Items 18 & 19 Page 1 Variance to Section 5B of Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations Section 5B.5(c): This section of the Site Plan Ordinance does not permit filling within the floodplain subject to special restrictions. A variance to Section 5B of the Site Plan Ordinance (floodplain variance) is necessary to allow any fill. The applicant's original plan, as presented to the Planning Commission, required fill within the floodplain to accommodate the proposed roadway and to fill and pipe an existing ditch which traverses the property from Sandbridge Road to Atwoodtown Road. The revised plan, however, will require little or no fill, as the revisions have eliminated the need to pipe the ditch and the previously proposed roadway no longer crosses the floodplain. As the plan proceeds to more detailed engineering, there may be a need for fill in a limited number of areas. If fill is necessary, the applicant has provided a mitigation area at the corner of the Atwoodtown Road and the proposed cul-de-sac on Atwoodtown Road. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: A single-family dwelling occupies the site. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single-family dwellings / R-15 Residential USE AND ZONING: South: . Atwoodtown Road / Lotus Drive • Across Atwoodtown Drive and Lotus Drive are single-family dwellings / AG -2 Agricultural East: . Atwoodtown Road • Across Atwoodtown Road is Hell's Point Golf Course / AG -2 Agricultural and P-1 Preservation West: . Sandbridge Road • Across Sandbridge Road are single-family dwellings / AG -2 Agricultural NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site was previously a cultivated field and is now grass covered with CULTURAL FEATURES: several areas of standing water and a ditch, which traverses the site from Sandbridge Road to Atwoodtown Road. Of the 16.59 acres of land area, 4.26 acres are within the floodplain. 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): Atwoodtown Road, next to this site, is a two-lane undivided local collector street. CORAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC Agenda Items 18 & 19 Page 2 Sandbridge Road, in front of this site, is a two-lane minor suburban arterial roadway. It is identified on the Master Transportation Plan as a future four -lane undivided roadway with a bikeway and scenic buffer. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Red Mill Elementary 677 Atwoodtown No Counts 6,200 ADT Existing Land Use —10 1,542 Road 4 4 ADT 2,388 1,798 6(5.4) 3(2.4) Proposed Land Use 2- Sandbridge Road 10,319 ADI 13,600 ADT 230 ADT ADT = Average Daily 1 rips ' as defined by an agricultural use las defined by 24 single-family dwellings WATER: City water does not front the site, but it may be extended to the site for connection purposes provided hydraulic analysis supports the potential demand. SEWER: City sanitary sewer is not available to the site as proposed. Plans and bonds are required for the construction of a new sanitary sewer system. Pump station analysis of Station 620 is required to determine if flows can be accommodated. SCHOOLS: School Current Enrollment Capacity Generation' Change 2 Red Mill Elementary 677 788 7 6 Princess Anne Middle 1,542 1,250 4 4 Kellam High* 2,388 1,798 6(5.4) 3(2.4) "generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school 2 change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). * The School Board approved a redistricting plan for Kellam High that began implementation with the start of the 2006-2007 school year. AGRICULTURE: The property lies within the Southern Watershed Management Area. Any development in this area must adhere to the Southern Watershed Management Ordinance, and before any land disturbing activity takes place a Southern Watershed Management Plan must be submitted for review and approval. PARKS AND RECREATION: The proposed bike path / shared -use pathway should connect to Sandbridge Road in some manner due to planned future bikeway and trail improvements. CORAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC Agenda Items 18 & 19 Page 3 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with the submitted proffers and conditions attached to the floodplain variance. The proffers and conditions are provided below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Map recognizes this area to be within the Primary Residential 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 adjacent stable neighborhoods. Variance to Section 5B of Site Plan Ordinance (Floodplain Variance) Section 5B.8 (a) of the Site Plan Ordinance states: No variance shall be granted unless the City Council finds that: A. Such variance will not create or result in unacceptable or prohibited increases in flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, nuisances, fraud or victimization of the public. B. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental to other property in the vicinity. C. The circumstances giving rise to the variance application are not a general or recurring nature. D. Such circumstances arise from the physical character of the property or from the use or development of adjacent property and not form the personal situation of the applicant. E. The granting of such variance will not be in conflict with any ordinance or regulation of the city. Section 513.8 (f) provides additional guidance in the evaluation of Floodplain Variance applications. The section notes that no variance shall be granted by the Council unless the following performance standards are met: 1. Filling shall be limited to the smallest volume and area possible. 2. Floodplain storage capacity shall be mitigated at a one-to-one ratio of storage capacity created for area filled to ensure no net loss of storage occurs as result of filling. 3. All floodplain mitigation shall be located on the project site and shall be located contiguous to the existing floodplain. 4. The general characteristics and functions of the floodplain shall not be adversely affected. 5. Wetlands protection and buffer area requirements set forth in section 7 of the Southern Watersheds Management Ordinance (Appendix G) are met or a variance there from is granted." Evaluation: The proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The proposed rezoning from AG -2 Agricultural to Conditional R-15 Residential with a PD -H2 Planned Development District Overlay is complementary and compatible to the adjacent established residential neighborhoods. The proposed homes will be compatible in both size and scale, and the proposed exterior building materials reflect the materials used within the residential neighborhood adjacent to this property. CORAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC Agenda Items 18 & 19 Page 4 The variance request to fill within the floodplain is acceptable, as any fill that may be required will be very limited. Staff finds the requests for a rezoning from AG -2 Agricultural to Conditional R-15 Residential with a PD - H2 Planned Development District Overlay and a Variance to Section 5B of Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations, to fill within the floodplain, acceptable subject to the proffers and conditions listed below. 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 developed, the Grantor shall develop the Property in substantial conformity with the concept plan prepared by Burgess & Niple, dated October 13, 2006, and titled "Concept Plan for Ashby's Bridge, Sandbridge Road and Atwoodtown Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia" (the "Concept Plan"), a copy of which is on file with the Department of Planning and has been exhibited to the City Council. PROFFER 2: When developed, all residential lots as shown on the Concept Plan shall meet or exceed the following setbacks and lot dimensions: (a) Front Yard Setback: Twenty -Five Feet (25) (b) Side Yard Setback: Ten Feet (10') (c) Rear Yard Setback: Twenty Feet (20') (d) Minimum Lot Width at Setback: Seventy Feet (70') PROFFER 3: All residential dwellings on the Property shall be constructed in substantial conformity with the following architectural guidelines: (a) All visible exterior surfaces of the residential dwellings, excluding roofs, porches, windows, doors, trim and soffits, shall consist primarily of all or any combination of brick, stone, wood, stucco, Hardiplank, cedar shake or similar quality materials. (b) All fireplace flues, smoke stacks, and spark arrestors shall be completely enclosed and concealed from public view in finished chimneys of materials architecturally compatible with the principal finish material of the exterior walls of the residential dwelling. (c) All residential dwellings shall be constructed with a "crawl space" type foundation. PROFFER 4: Entrance signs for the development shall be monument signs, constructed using materials consistent with those used for the residential dwelling units. The height of the signs shall not exceed eight (8) feet. CORAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC Agenda Items 18 & 19 Page 5 PROFFER 5: On or before the date Grantor records a subdivision plat creating the residential lots shown on the Concept Plan, Grantor shall record a declaration of protective covenants, conditions and restrictions, which shall be administered and enforced by a homeowners' association in which all landowners within Grantor's development shall be members. PROFFER 6: On or before the date Grantor records a subdivision plat creating the residential lots shown on the Concept Plan, Grantor shall record a deed or plat dedicating to Grantee the portion of the Property along Sandbridge Road shown as the hatched area on the Concept Plan labeled "+/- 0.07 ACRE R/W DEDICATED FOR ROAD WIDENING FOR TURN LANE" (the "Dedicated Property") for the purpose of the installation of a left - turn lane along Sandbridge Road. Grantor shall not be entitled to any compensation for the value of the Dedicated Property. PROFFER 7: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits for the residences on the Property, Grantor shall be responsible for the installation of a left -turn lane along Sandbridge Road for left turn movements into the newly -proposed public street within the subdivision, substantially as shown on the Concept Plan, in accordance with the Virginia Beach Public Works Department's Standards and Specifications. PROFFER 8: The areas on the Concept Plan not part of any proposed lot (the "Open Space Area") shall be subject to restrictive covenants recorded which prohibit the use of such areas for any purpose other than recreation and open space use. The restrictive covenants shall run with the land and be in full force and effect for a period of at least fifty (50) years. The covenants shall become part of the deed to each lot or parcel within Grantor's development. The covenants shall be approved by the City Attorney, of his designee, and recorded prior to the date the first building permit in Grantor's development is issued. PROFFER 9: Grantor shall provide for maintenance of the Open Space Area by the homeowners association, whereby all property owners within Grantor's development shall be responsible for the costs ande expenses of such maintenance. PROFFER 10: Grantor shall file and obtain approval of a rezoning petition to rezone the Open Space Area to P-1 Preservation District, as defined in the CZO, prior to the date of the first building permit for any residence in the Grantor's development is issued. PROFFER 11: Further conditions lawfully imposed 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. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are acceptable as they insure the site will be developed with a maximum of 27 single-family dwellings and dedicated open space areas. The proffers further insure that the proposed dwellings will be compatible and complementary to the existing residential structures in the immediate area. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated October 13, 2006, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. CORAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC Agenda Items 18 & 19 Page 6 CONDITIONS 1. Should it be determined that fill within the floodplain is necessary, a floodplain mitigation plan shall be submitted, including a hydrology study showing no net loss in the flood storage or no net rise in the hydrologic profile. Proposed mitigation areas shall not be located within the floodplain. 2. Before any land disturbing activity takes place a Southern Watershed Management Plan must be submitted for review and approval. 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 and Standards. 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. CORAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC Agenda Items 18 & 19 Page 7 �.� NIMJ �� fond 1 00 Y v St' w wi > Q NW1 2 > ZZp u Oy ma„Na Z s- LU p PpS�p SITE PLA PFt© tic �� OF-va.Pe s A S & 1 CoAgenda Page 1. 7/9/91 Conditional Use Permit Retail Sales Denied 2. 11/23/99 Floodplain Variance Denied 1/4/00 Reconsideration of Floodplain Variance Approve ZONING HISTORY CORAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC Agenda Items 18 & 19 Page 10 • O iC �_ m ut ^ i } :� W t G G G Q m U N N N Y N Um a t C�? O N C A p O F G Z) m0 m N Z y C 3 0 'O .' 0 p, O N mOV O Vi�O G'mr .�.d UL 'a _eJ59 C`yS C G•.i1 M�L O zl 'O G m m •• C C i LO 6d O U C i C mp6 `- N Jf Gm G r�'r5 G Epp EL via :o „� L • Q m� N ', ' •I y 0� E O U G G � U m O m -Gm � d cti,C o0 c m'N �moM mdLp� Ewcc �3 r ° d v E� CIES-0'3�gwowc �! N o •E f 4 ° N m $ G N o 0 0 � ceq � � _ O m Om 'aI, 1 me •(Ln� �LNr tnr- r. I mom c' mNo�fpNaJ v! spm Lm LJot Qmo� 2 tuN m'p�3w87U m o Z N mgmO DC= RyL- ,t2U Cpp O V6 11•' WT. UON"''O'GCOGp uEGm Gp>t :n p ic'� N 1gI'•`` { S mQ p�G`�NOO�� pEOp� G ,N Q o avumayGmmm o Oi m76 m o m 1, m �o m a m ©mO WNENuod rmu me'6c omecm oI � � `amour � bmooN3000a U=csJ� N r NO S tl ! m p m C N �• � .N � E H A m m 0 V 9 7 C = L 1 G. tC Wnccc 9 W ifl 44 O O V O O I cyZ m Irl- u me pco > m Uf O ^..tOI i O h 'f I G N '� G'3 m- D H lU n w m O [y TS "L CL c ti ;,;g`Z Z 5 m D U C io m o 0,0 oGo o F O4 G�. N G % Q s m u 'c1 q p o r o'm ©3 I c'a� �o o U '2'm mmco o Q o 3 3 j �� m my Q? o° %,`µ' Ra ' m ou'c�Tm f o ym K c L p~ Q m mS G i G G W, �$ m HI m G 3 CO u $ N fl o�{{ G•� 't :` G d [p3 m m .! @ I t-I�� OQ N _ tE amIr: `w� I aT T aH � p,w <� .J 0) d >,I:. CLOSURE DIS OPN► & COAL Agend items Page 1 Items #18 & 19 Coral Development, L.L.C. Variance to Section 5B of the Site Plan Ordinance Northwest intersection of Atwoodtown Road and Sandbridge Road Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-15 Residential District to PD -H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay 1628 Sandbridge Road, Parcel B, Sandbridge Road, 2741, 2753 and 2797 Atwoodtown Road District 7 Princess Anne September 12, 2007 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next items are items 18 & 19, Coral Development, L.L.C. An application of Coral Development, L.L.C. for a Variance to Section 5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations on property located at the northwest intersection of Atwoodtown Road and Sandbridge Road and an application of Coral Development, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-15 Residential District with a PD -H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay on property at 1628 Sandbridge Road, Parcel B, Sandbridge Road, 2741, 2753 and 2797 Atwoodtown Road, District 7, Princess Anne. Item 18 has 10 proffers and 2 conditions. Barry Knight: Is there a representative for the applicant? Mr. White, would you go wake up Mr. Nutter? Barry Knight: Take your time Mr. Nutter. The clock is running. Ed Weeden: R.J., you got about 7 minutes left. Barry Knight: Welcome R.J. R.J. Nutter: The way we were going, I thought I had plenty of time. Forgive me. For the record, my name is R.J. Nutter. I'm an attorney. I deny that later I guess. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Coral Development. This is an application that we have spent more time on than I can remember in recent memory. And in many ways, it is a simple application and in other ways it is complicated. Let me tell you, I think we've addressed all of the issues. But the comments I'll make really are only going to be complying with staff requests and some of the things that I've told you all. And that is, first of all, this property has been in Gail Levine Higgs family since she was a child. Her father actually purchased the property, and Gail was raised on this property. And so she knows it very well as with much of her life on it. So, it isn't somebody who bought it or it was some contractual desire. It was really looking for how the area around was developed and how Items #18 & 19 Coral Development, L.L.C. Page 2 the property would be developed. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a Primary Residential Area. We are outside all noise zones. We are above the Green Line, and we are adjacent to Lagomar, a R-15 neighborhood. So, we filed an application that would make it R-15 as an infill application consistent with the property right next door. There are, however, on this property, floodplain. A floodplain, as you know, is anything below the 5 foot contour and below. Much of this property, a portion of the floodplain here, is between 4 and 5 feet, with the exception of the ditch. So, this it is technically in the floodplain, however, it is not really wet. So, as a result we try to look at how we would deal with that floodplain, and modify this application so that we could leave a lot of open space, and avoid the floodplain areas. Now, if I could go to the site pian? This is a tough day for us. Thank you Faith. I will show you a portion of the property (pointing to PowerPoint). I'll start with this one. This is the same version. The first request by the city, first of all that we not have access to the property by Sandbridge Road, but that we access it off of Atwoodtown Road, which is just right here. So, that is fine. We did that. But of course, that brought us through having a roadway then through this portion of this portion of the flood water. The part that we are impacting the floodplain is only to accommodate this roadway right here (pointing to PowerPoint) because if you see, we have eliminated lots that ran in here. This is, in fact, I'm just noticing this exhibit is not the same exhibit in your package. Forgive me. As you notice, with the new exhibit in your package, you will see, we have eliminated a lot. And we did that to avoid, quite frankly, having the property within the floodplain. So, as a result, we tried to modify this in every way to eliminate any filling for a lot within that floodplain. So, I can tell you, as requested right now the only activity that will be filling that floodplain will be for this roadway system here, and this ditch that Faith talked about during the early session. Now, this ditch by the way, it actually drains by water to two large pipes. It is city water through Gail's property. No easement through there whatsoever. We said alright, we'll do it. We'll ditch it. We'll pipe it for you. We will put it in, but that still counted for filling even though we were taking City water and running it through our property, and then bringing an easement to it. So, that has been the nature of the floodplain that we requested. Now, we didn't know until staff write up, quite frankly that we were "mitigating" within floodplain area. Now let me tell you what we are trying to do. We are going to modify it so we're going to comply with staff's request so that the only thing we're requesting there would be the variance to fill in the floodplain for the road and the ditch. That is the only thing that we're going to request. Just like staff has recommended to you. But the reason why we wanted to mitigate within the floodplain area, and remember I told you how floodplain we had 4 to 5 feet on the contour of these properties, what we had proposed to do, and it makes perfect sense to me, and that is to propose deepening those areas so they really could act like a floodplain. They really could receive water, if in fact, if that occurred, where water needed to run into those properties. We made efforts to increase the capacity of that floodplain. But that is okay. We won't do that. We'll take out the lots to do that. And so we will comply with staff s request on that. So, then, all of a sudden, you have a lot, a property that complies with your Comprehensive Plan. It has the same exact zoning as the neighborhood next door that would reduce our number of lots by two, but we have been asked to reduce the number of lots to 24. My client doesn't like that, but my clients agreed to do that. So, we could Items #18 & 19 Coral Development, L.L.C. Page 3 down to 24 lots, where we would take our density, quite frankly on this property below the densities of the adjacent neighborhood. Could I go back to the site plan for a second? Okay. I would like to show you one of the features. If I could go to the other one if I could? Thank you. I'll tell you what. Bear with me. Go to the small site plan in your packet. This is actually the site plan that is on file. By the way, there have been so many site plans filed with this. I can understand why staff would just get the wrong one in here. There must have been 15 of these floating around over the course of the last 2 years. But the point that I want to make to you is if you look along the portion of the property here adjacent to the existing Lagomar entrance, there is actually 15 lots adjacent to our property that are in Lagomar. The way that this has been designed, we have reduced the number of lots adjacent from our property to theirs down to seven. So, as you see, we only have seven lots that are contiguous from lot line to their property. So, we tried to minimize any impact on the adjacent property. We have a large amount of BMP and floodplain area, so we really have been a very good neighbor. All of the lots adjacent here are 15,000 square feet so that we would have complete congruity with the adjacent neighborhood. The only reason why we went down to PD -H was because we were trying to get smaller lots to avoid the floodplain variance. That is why we went to PD -H. We go down to 24, and we are still within the PD -H requirements. We can still come down and comply with staff's request for mitigation outside the floodplain, and therefore, have a property that has a density then of 1.4 units per acre, which is below what is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, and below, what is in fact is in the adjacent neighborhood. So, we have an application that complies with your Comprehensive Plan with staff recommendations, and your restrictions in respect to floodplain. We also added a condition to proffers because quite frankly, I rezoned this section of Lagomar for the neighborhood that are there today. At the time, then Lagomar objected to that rezoning unless that neighborhood, which was the Centex neighborhood agreed to the conditions that are in this very proffer, which is our proffer 5. So, as a result knowing that, we put in the exact same proffer here that we did use previously. So, these homes will be consistent with the value, quality and materials identical to the restriction to the restrictions in the adjacent neighborhood. So, my client has really worked hard to make this work, including dealing with changing interpretation to floodplains along the way. But I think if we remove the spotlight from this application and I'm sure you can revisit some of the floodplain regulations down there because we can bountifully improve the capacity of the floodplain here and not just the technical definition of floodplain. If we get the right components, but that is for another day. For right now, we stand ,where we modified the 24 lots. We would agree with staff, and not to do mitigation within the floodplain. We will do it in the upland areas. And, that is what we ask. That you make a recommendation for approval. I will be happy to answer any questions. Barry Knight: Mr. Horsley? Donald Horsley: Where would you lose your share of lots? R.J. Nutter: It is hard to tell with that one because that is the wrong one. There a couple Items #18 & 19 Coral Development, L.L.C. Page 4 of examples where staff has indicated that it's possible. I can't quite tell you yet Mr. Horsley, my sense is that we are probably going to lose some lots at the beginning of this and that is where I see an immediate opportunity, quite frankly. They sort of have a bigger entrance there. Staff actually gave us a preliminary one for 24. We've looked at it and it is really pretty good. So, there would be some modifications, but at the time they gave it to us, we didn't know about the mitigating problem that they cited in the write-up that we got on Friday of last week. So, I can't quite tell you yet, but I can guarantee you that there will be no lot adjacent to that neighborhood that goes below 15,000 square feet in respect. So, I believe what will happen the smaller lots will get bigger. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions of Mr. Nutter at this time? Thank you Mr. Nutter. R.J. Nutter: My pleasure. Barry Knight: I'm going to make an observation. Faith, could you show us the aerial again please? That is the one. Faith Christie: That is not Seaboard Road by the way. Barry Knight: I understand. That is Sandbridge Road. This is an extremely unique piece of property where you have the intersection of three roads. You have traffic counts down there that are tremendously high when the people on Saturdays and Sundays are checking into the rental units at Sandbridge plus going to Little Island Park and everything else at Sandbridge. It gets pretty crowded. I know Al Henley knows, because he lives right off of Sandbridge Road, right down the road, but irrespective of the traffic, if you look on the left hand side there, that is the Transition Area, I believe, and on the right hand side is Lagomar, and then you look at this unique piece of property that, for lack of a better term, is like a horseshoe but it is kind of isolating some people in the middle. They look like they are utilizing all of the property, every single bit of the property. It looks like they're getting all the homes in there that they can possibly get. I do kind of sympathize with the property owner owning this piece of property. It is so unique. But, I'm here supposed to be looking at proper land use planning, and in my particular mind, this isn't the right number of homes in there. I would like to see a lot less density in this area. I would also like to see him try to acquire the middle property, which probably can't be done. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't approached them but it probably can't be done. But still, nonetheless, it is still a unique piece of property. I just don't have a good comfort level with this one. I am personally not going to be able to support this one. But is there any other discussion with the Commission members? Donald Horsley: Is there any opposition? Barry Knight: No sir. If there is no discussion, the Chair will entertain a motion. Items #18 & 19 Coral Development, L.L.C. Page 5 Donald Horsley: The motion would be if we were to approve, it would be for the 24 lots. Is that correct? R.J. Nutter: Correct. And it would be only for the variance to facilitate the ditch and the roadway. We would remove the mitigation from the request for the variance. Donald Horsley: If I might Mr. Chairman. I will elaborate briefly on this. I look at this, and I know that we are on the other side of the Transition Area, but this density is part of the community that is on the Lagomar community the way I see this piece of property. I think that the density is slightly less than it is in Lagomar, so, I think they made some adjustments even though it is a unique piece of property. I'm sure if that center piece of property could be acquired they would have acquired it, but we're dealing with what's in front of us today. I think they have dropped the number down, and I think the number that staff has said it could deal with, and make them larger lots that actually border up to the Lagomar. I think this project could be approved, and I guess I'm going to support the project. So when you get ready for a motion, I'll make a motion that the application be approved with the 24 lots that Mr. Nutter has requested. Barry Knight: We have a motion on the floor by Donald Horsley and seconded by Al Henley. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Whitney? Jack Whitney: Does the motion include the floodplain variance item? There were two items. Donald Horsley: Yes. Barry Knight: Agenda items 18 & 19. R.J. Nutter: As modified, as I will point out Jack, as well. Jack Whitney: Fine, since we have two items. Donald Horsley: Both of the items. Barry Knight: And do you concur, Al on your second? Al Henley: Yes. Barry Knight: There is a motion on the floor to approve Coral Development, agenda items 18 & 19, made by Don Horsley and seconded by Al Henley. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE 10 NAY 1 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE Items #18 & 19 Coral Development, L.L.C. Page 6 BERNAS AYE CRABTRE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Q Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-1, the applications of Coral Development, L.L.C. have been approved. R.J. Nutter: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF -6425 TO: Leslie L. Lilley FROM: B. Kay Wilson CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: November 16, 2007 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application: Coral Development, LLC The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 16, 2007. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated October 13, 2006 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. B KW/ks Enclosure cc: Kathleen Hassen Document Prepared By Troutman Sanders LLP AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made as of this 13th day of October, 2006, by and between CORAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the "Grantor"), the current owner of that certain property located in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, which property is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee, so as to change the classification of the property from AG -2 to Conditional R-15 with a PD -H2 overlay; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes, including mixed-use purposes, through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict, and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the subject Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of the change and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned Conditional R-15 with a PD - H2 overlay are needed to cope with 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 part of the proposed conditional amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for in the existing R-15 and PD -H2 zoning districts by the existing City's Zoning Ordinance (CZO), the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the new Zoning Map relative to the Property, all of which have a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning; and WHEREAS, said conditions having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, such conditions shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the Property covered by such conditions; provided, however, that such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment if the subsequent amendment is part of the comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance, unless, notwithstanding the foregoing, these conditions are amended or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and executed by the record owner of the subject Property at the time of recordation of such instrument; provided, further, GPIN NOS. 2413-89-8033; 2413-88-9744; 2413-99-6091;2413-89-7501 and 2413-99-8154 that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of the ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee advertised pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2204, which said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent. NOW THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion of quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit or subdivision approval, hereby 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 these proffers (collectively, the "Proffers") shall constitute covenants running with the said Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its heirs, personal representatives, assigns, grantees and other successors in interest or title, namely: 1. When developed, the Grantor shall develop the Property in substantial conformity with the concept plan prepared by Burgess & Niple, dated October 13, 2006, and titled "Concept Plan for Ashby's Bridge, Sandbridge Road and Atwoodtown Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia" (the "Concept Plan"), a copy of which is on file with the Department of Planning and has been exhibited to the City Council. 2. When developed, all residential lots as shown on the Concept Plan shall meet or exceed the following setbacks and lot dimensions: (a) Front Yard Setback: (b) Side Yard Setback: (c) Rear Yard Setback: (d) Minimum Lot Width at Setback: Twenty -Five Feet (25') Ten Feet (10') Twenty Feet (20') Seventy Feet (70') 3. All residential dwellings on the Property shall be constructed in substantial conformity with the following architectural guidelines: (a) All visible exterior surfaces of the residential dwellings, excluding roofs, porches, windows, doors, trim and soffits, shall consist primarily of all or any combination of brick, stone, wood, stucco, Hardiplank, cedar shake or similar quality materials. (b) All fireplace flues, smoke stacks, and spark arrestors shall be completely enclosed and concealed from public view in finished chimneys of materials architecturally compatible with the principal finish material of the exterior walls of the residential dwelling. 2 (c) All residential dwellings shall be constructed with a "crawl space" type foundation. 4. Entrance signs for the development shall be monument signs, constructed using materials consistent with those used for the residential dwelling units. The height of the signs shall not exceed eight (8) feet. 5. On or before the date Grantor records a subdivision plat creating the residential lots shown on the Concept Plan, Grantor shall record a declaration of protective covenants, conditions and restrictions, which shall be administered and enforced by a homeowners association in which all landowners within Grantor's development shall be members. 6. On or before the date Grantor records a subdivision plat creating the residential lots shown on the Concept Plan, Grantor shall record a deed or plat dedicating to Grantee the portion of the Property along Sandbridge Road shown as the hatched area on the Concept Plan labeled "+/- 0.07 ACRE R/W DEDICATED FOR ROAD WIDENING FOR TURN LANE" (the "Dedicated Property"), for the purpose of the installation of a left -turn lane along Sandbridge Road. Grantor shall not be entitled to any compensation for the value of the Dedicated Property. 7. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits for the residences on the Property, Grantor shall be responsible for the installation of a left -tum lane along Sandbridge Road for left turn movements into the newly -proposed public street within the subdivision, substantially as shown on the Concept Plan, in accordance with the Virginia Beach Public Works Department's Standards and Specifications. 8. The areas on the Concept Plan not part of any proposed lot (the "Open Space Area") shall be subject to restrictive covenants recorded which prohibit the use of such areas for any purpose other than recreation and open space use. The restrictive covenants shall run with the land and be in full force and effect for a period of at least fifty (50) years. The covenants shall become part of the deed to each lot or parcel within Grantor's development. The covenants shall be approved by the City Attorney, or his designee, and recorded prior to the date the first building permit in Grantor's development is issued. 9. Grantor shall provide for maintenance of the Open Space Area by the homeowners association, whereby all property owners within Grantor's development shall be responsible for the costs and expenses of such maintenance. 10. Grantor shall file and obtain approval of a rezoning petition to rezone the Open Space Area to P-1 Preservation District, as defined in the CZO, prior to the date the first building permit for any residence in Grantor's development is issued. 11. Further conditions lawfully imposed 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. 3 All references hereinabove to zoning districts and to regulations applicable thereto, refer to the City Zoning Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date the conditional zoning amendment is approved by the Grantee. 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, including (i) the ordering in writing of the remedying of any noncompliance with such conditions, and (ii) the bringing of legal action or suit to ensure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages or other appropriate action, suit or proceedings; (2) the failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) if aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator made pursuant to the provisions of the City Code, the CZO or this Agreement, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) the Zoning Map shall show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the subject Property on the map and that the ordinance and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Department of Planning 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. C! IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Grantor executes this Agreement as of the date first written above. GRANTOR: CORAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company Gale Levine Higgs, Manager By: Scott E. Higgs, Manage COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: & IThe foregoing instrument was sworn to and acknowledged before me this /4o day of 2006, by Gale Levine Higgs and Scott E. Higgs, in their capacity as Managers of Coral Development, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 31 301315.5 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel l: (GPIN No. 2413-99-6091-0000) ALL THAT certain tract, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in Princess Anne Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia as shown on the plat entitled, "SURVEY OF PART OF PROPERTY OF HORACE M. BRINSON & VIRGINIA D. BRINSON, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA", recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 942, at Page 94; said parcel containing one (1) acre, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on Atwood Town Road, which point is 854.42' east of the intersection of said Atwood Town Road and Sandbridge Road, and running thence N 12° 30' W 262.18 feet to a point; thence N 77° 30' E 138.58 feet to a pin; thence S 11° 49' E 277.07 feet to the Atwood Town Road; thence along said road S 880 22' 30" 78.70 feet; thence continuing along said road S 770 30' W 58 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel 2: (GPIN No. 2413-89-7501-0000) All that certain piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and is designated as "7.625 AC." on that certain plat entitled "PHYSICAL SURVEY OF 7.625 ACRE PARCEL PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. FOR WILLIAM F. & NAOMI G. BLOODWORTH", made by C. A. Bamforth, Surveyor, dated July 20, 1966, duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Deed Book 1216, page 543, and in accordance with said plat said property is more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the northern side of Atwood Town Road at the dividing line of the property of Y. E. Brinson as shown on said plat, running thence North 11' 49' West 277.07 feet to a point; thence North 590 57' 40" West 568.60 feet to a point; thence South 240 06' 30" West 376.15 feet to a point; thence North 45° 45' 30" West 385.66 feet to a point; thence North 36° 14' 50" East 431.38 feet to a point; thence South 59° 57' 40" East 1196.64 feet to a point in the northern side of Atwood Town Road; thence along the said northern side of Atwood Town Road, South 22° 59' 30" West 77.32 feet to a point; thence South 35° 10' 30" West 60.98 feet to a point; thence South 48° 03' West 97.93 feet to a point; thence South 64° 33' West 82.69 feet to a point; thence South 85° 05' West 100.06 feet to a point of beginning. R Parcel 3: (GPIN No. 2413-99-8154-0000) All that certain piece or parcel of land, situated in Princess Anne Borough, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being shown and designated as "4.00 AC." on a "Survey of Property, Parcel `B', Property of Pat W. Atwood, etc.", which is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 111, at page 32, and in accordance with said plat being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the northeastern side of Sandbridge Road in the dividing line of the property hereby conveyed and the property now or formerly owned by Allen Lester, and from said point of beginning running along the northeastern side of Sandbridge Road, North 200 11' West 35.91 feet to a point; thence running North 28° 08' West 75.00 feet to a point; thence running North 31° 37' 34" West 71.90 feet to a point; thence running North 35° 54' West 80.00 feet to a point; thence running North 36° 58' West 68.43 feet to a point; thence running around a curve to the left with a radius of 785.0 feet, an arc distance of 98.53 feet to a point; thence running North 29° 46' 29" West 92.21 feet to a pin; thence turning and running North 46° 20' 49" East 397.87 feet to a pin; thence turning and running South 38° 06' 33" East 331.00 feet to a pin; thence turning and running South 25° 34' 15" West 506.64 feet to the point of beginning. PARCELS 1, 2 AND 3 BEING the same property conveyed by Deed dated March 8, 2006 from Gale M. Levine to Coral Development, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, which was recorded as Instrument Number 20060526000803570 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Parcel 4: (GPIN No. 2413-89-8033-0000) ALL THAT certain plat or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being shown on that certain plat entitled "PROPERTY OF ALLEN LESTER", which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 23, at Page 87, and being more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a pin in the eastern line of Sandbridge Road (formerly Sigma Road), which point is located North 7° 10' West 372.6 feet from a pin in the center line of a road leading to Atwood Town; and from said point of beginning running North 8° 11' West along the eastern side of said Sandbridge Road (formerly Sigma Road) 254.1 feet to a point in the southern line of a lane known as "Jones Lane"; thence North 34° 22' East along the southern side of said lane 66.2 feet to a pipe in the center line of a lead ditch; thence South 49° 10' East along the center line of said lead ditch 276.2 feet to a point; thence South 59° 09' West along the center line of another ditch 244.8 feet to the point of beginning. 7 Parcel 5: (GPIN No. 2413-88-9744-0000) ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, located in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, as shown on a survey entitled, "SURVEY OF PROPERTY OF JOSEPHINE M. BEECHAM, PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, SCALE: 1" = 60' DATED THE 11' DAY OF JULY, 1980," made by Bruce B. Gallup, Certified Land Surveyor, consisting 3.65 acres, which said survey is recorded in Deed Book 2033, at Page 354, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a pin in the pavement at the intersection at the northern line of Atwoodtown Road and Sandbridge Road, thence North 30 degrees 36 minutes 45" West, 358.38 feet to a pin in the center of a small ditch; thence along the center line of said ditch, North 60 degrees 22' 15" East 244.80 feet to a point; thence South 43 degrees 14' 9" East, 512.6 feet along the centerline of lead ditch to a pin in the Northern line of Atwoodtown Road; thence along the Northern Line of Atwoodtown Road, South 78 degrees 59' 55" West, 551.48 feet to the point of beginning. PARCELS 4 AND 5 BEING the same property conveyed by Deed dated March 8, 2006 from Scott E. Higgs and Gale M. Levine to Coral Development, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, which was recorded as Instrument Number 20060526000803580 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. �3 -15 - Item III-F.1.b PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ITEM i 28329 Upon motion by Councilman Moes, seconded by Councilman Balko, City Council ADOPTED an Ordinance upon application of FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH for a Conditional Use Permit. ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHURCH R011871092 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of First Baptist Church of Virginia Beach for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on certain property located at the southwest intersection of Newstead Drive and Proposed Ferrell Parkway. Said parcel contains 5 acres. Plats with more detailed infomation are available in the Department of Planning. PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH. The following conditions shall be required: 1. No curb cuts on Ferrell Parkway. 2. Category III Screening shall be utilized along Ferrell Parkway. 3. The utilization of best management practices for controlling stormwater runoff which are reasonably applicable to the development of this site and in keeping with the recommendations for the proposed Back Bay/North Landing River Management District. This Ordinance shall be effective upon the date of adoption. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Ninth day of November Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-seven. Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Albert W. Balko, John A. Baum, Robert E. Fentress, Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Robert G. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, John D. Moss, Vice Mayor Meyers. E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and John L. Perry Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None November q. 1087 MMA, SWA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of Virginia Beach Beacon Baptist Church for a Modification of Conditions for a Use Permit for a Church approved by the City Council on November 9, 1987. Property is located at 2301 Newstead Drive (GPIN 2414167704). AICUZ is 65 to 70. DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE. MEETING DATE: November 27, 2007 ■ Background: A Conditional Use Permit allowing this church was approved by the City Council on November 9, 1987. No site plan or physical survey showing the location of the church and related facilities was submitted with the original Conditional Use Permit. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site to be within the Primary Residential 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. ■ Considerations: The applicant requests modification of their Conditional Use Permit to allow two twenty -foot by forty -foot (20' x 40') modular classrooms as a temporary solution on their site until funding is in place for development and implementation of a master plan offering a more permanent solution. The modular classrooms are not an expansion to the church membership, but are additional classrooms for their growing church programs. The location of the modular classrooms allows them to be seen as an extension of the church building and be relatively unobtrusive The proposal for additional facility space is consistent with the land use planning policies of the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood as well as the business areas. The original conditions of the Use Permit will remain in effect. Condition 4 is to be added identifying a physical survey depicting the location of the two modular classrooms in relationship with the existing church on the site. Condition 1 is to be modified because the name of the street referenced in this condition has been changed to Nimmo Parkway. Virginia Beach Beacon Baptist Church Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the addition of the two (2) modular classrooms is a temporary solution for providing space for the church, the proposed location of the trailers reduces their visibility from Nimmo Parkway, and there was no opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. All conditions with the exception of Number 1 attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on November 9, 1987 remain in affect. 2. Condition Number 1 of the November 9, 1987 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: No curb cuts on Nimmo Parkway. 3. When the modular classrooms are installed, the location shall be as depicted on the plan of the existing church and proposed modular classrooms. 4. Applicant shall obtain all required permits and inspections from the Planning Department's Permits and Inspections Division and the Fire Department. A certificate of occupancy shall be obtained form the Building Official before occupancy of the modular classrooms. 5. The modular trailers shall be limited to a period of five (5) years, at which time, if no complaints pertaining to the trailers have been received by the Planning Department, administrative approval may be granted for incremental extensions of two years. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City Manager: Yc , <4 W& VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON BAPTIST CHURCH Agenda Item 8 November 14, 2007 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST. Modification of the Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council on November 9, 1987 for a church. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: 2301 Newstead Drive. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 24141677040000 7 — PRINCESS ANNE 5 acres The applicant would like to modify their Conditional Use Permit SUMMARY OF REQUEST to allow two 20'x 40' modular classrooms as a temporary solution on their site until a master plan has been developed and funding is in place to develop a more permanent solution. The modular classrooms are not an expansion to the church membership but are additional classrooms for their growing church programs. The Conditional Use Permit permitting a church was approved by the City Council on November 9, 1987. The Conditional Use Permit has three conditions: 1. No curb cuts on Ferrell (now known as Nimmo) Parkway. 2. Category III screening shall be utilized along Ferrell (now known as Nimmo) Parkway. 3. The utilization of Best Management Practices for controlling storm water runoff which are reasonably applicable to the development of this site and in keeping with the recommendations for the proposed Back Bay / North Landing River Management District. No site plan or physical survey showing the location of the church and its surroundings was submitted with the original Conditional Use Permit. A Condition 4 is to be added identifying a physical survey depicting the location of the two modular classrooms in relationship with the existing church on the site. VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON BAPTIST CHURCH Agenda Item 8 Page 1 Condition 1 is to be modified because the name of the street referenced in this condition has been changed to Nimmo Parkway. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: A church and associated parking currently occupies the site SURROUNDING LAND North: . Across Nimmo Parkway single family dwellings / R-7.5 USE AND ZONING: Residential District South: . Single family dwellings / R-20 Residential District East: . Across Newstead Drive retail center (Red Mill Commons) / B-2 Community Business District West: . Garden supply center (Atlantic Gardens Center) / AG -2 Agricultural District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The majority of the site is a grass field. There are no significant CULTURAL FEATURES: environmental or cultural features associated with this site. The site is within the Back Bay Watershed. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70 dB Ldn surrounding Naval Air Station Oceana. Church and related facilities are considered conditionally compatible (with required sound attenuation in the construction). IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIE): Based upon the fact that the classroom trailers will not increase membership of the church, Traffic Engineering has no comments regarding the referenced modification to the conditions WATER & SEWER: There are no impacts to city services. There is a 10 inch City water line within the 60 foot utility easement located along the eastern side of this property and an 8 inch City water line crosses this easement approximately 100 feet south of Nimmo Parkway. There is an 8 inch City sanitary sewer along Newstead Drive. HRSD: No problem with the installation of the temporary trailers at the designated location. HRSD would like the owner to be aware that a force main is in a 30 foot easement adjacent to the property line on Nimmo Parkway. A shed is shown located in this easement and should not be permanently anchored in the easement. VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON BAPTIST CHURCH Agenda Item 8 Page 2 Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this requested modification, as conditioned below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this site to be within the Primary Residential 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. For future master planning purposes, preserve mature treed areas where possible and design for landscaping improvements along Nimmo Parkway and Newstead Drive to buffer uses from noise impacts. Additionally, consider the design of internal pedestrian paths on the site to connect proposed structures with existing structures and to external sidewalks or trails. Evaluation: The request to modify the conditions for two (2) temporary modular classrooms to be located on the church property is acceptable. The location of the modular classrooms allows them to be seen as an extension of the church and relatively unobtrusive. The proposal for additional facility space is acceptable with the land use planning policies of the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood as well as the business areas. CONDITIONS 1. All conditions with the exception of Number 1 attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on November 9, 1987 remain in affect. 2. Condition Number 1 of the November 9, 1987 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: No curb cuts on Nimmo Parkway. 3. When the modular classrooms are installed, the location shall be as depicted on the plan of the existing church and proposed modular classrooms. 4. Applicant shall obtain all required permits and inspections from the Planning Department's Permits and Inspections Division and the Fire Department. A certificate of occupancy shall be obtained form the Building Official before occupancy of the modular classrooms. 5. The modular trailers shall be limited to a period of five (5) years, at which time, if no complaints pertaining to the trailers have been received by the Planning Department, administrative approval may be granted for incremental extensions of two years. VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON BAPTIST CHURCH Agenda Item 8 Page 3 AW Apr 4ft - -. jr 4P' ^ ,;fir 4 J t.�,�i" 7. tit„v .a,.f,. • F - a H rd' :2 4 7,. .i I , z-�vP f_ .. •T..': : fc , lis rDOD[n-� 1 � Mw..uN Gua44 i CHURCH SITE IL 3 5.000 AC. b 2 I I I I � i� i i i AI Prnr � R R = 2000 L = 31 %1 0 38: 32 —c' 5 15' 53 49 W NEWSTEAD DRIVE (VAR. RI W) 1 Mrs 11 %u I 'RF RRORFRrr fNowx 'Rf 801LOrR65 ARE rwr SuiLO/RBS f RCROAGRYfRrS OF O r -£HL — /£6P£99 £P 6£Y£rw1 IV . 16%P 10091 LAKESIDE CO - (DB 16, PROPOSED SITE PLAN VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON BAPTIST CHURCH Agenda Item 8 Page 5 PHOTOGRAPH OF CLASSROOM LOCATION VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON BAPTIST CHURCH Agenda Item 8 Page 1 11/22/05 11/23/93 Modification of Conditions Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to 0-1 Granted Granted 2 09/13/00 01/28/92 Conditional Use Permit Communications Tower Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to 0-1 Withdrawn Granted 3 08/08/95 Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to 0-1 Granted 4 08/25/92 1 Subdivision Variance Granted ZONING HISTORY VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON BAPTIST CHURCH Agenda Item 8 Page 7 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) Virginia Beach Beacon Baptist Church, C. Gordon Ellsworth, Pastor Board of Deacons: Willie Dudley, Lee Pearsall 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) NIA ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Same as Applicant 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) NIA ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. & ` See next page for footnotes Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land? Yes No x If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and the nature of their interest? Modification of conditions Appi"trxv Page 10 of 11 Revised 7;3;07 VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON BAPTIST CHURCH Agenda Item 8 Page 8 =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) ' "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. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions in this package. The undersigned also consents to entry upon the subject property by employees of the Department of Planning to photograph and view the site for purposes of processing and evaluating this application. Applica-f s Signature --------------------- - - Print Nam Property Owners Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Modification of conditions Application Page 11 0! 11 Revised 7/312007 VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON BAPTIST CHURCH Agenda Item 8 Page 9 Item #8 Virginia Beach Beacon Baptist Church Modification of Conditions 2301 Newstead Drive District 7 Princess Anne November 14, 2007 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next matter is the application of agenda item 8. It is the application of Virginia Beach Beacon Baptist Church. This is for Modification of Conditions for a Use Permit approved by City Council on November 9, 1987. The property is located at 2301 Newstead Drive in the Princess Anne District. Welcome sir. Craig McManus: Welcome. My name is Craig McManus representing Virginia Beach Beacon Baptist Church. We have gone over the conditions and are in agreement. We appreciate your support. Janice Anderson: Great. Thank you Mr. McManus. Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? Seeing none, Dot Wood will review this application for US. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Jan. This is a five acre site in the Princess Anne District. It is located on Newstead Road. The church was approved by City Council in 1987. They would like now to modify their Conditional Use Permit by having two 20' x 40' modular classrooms that have been donated. These will be a temporary solution on their site until their master plan has been developed and their funding is in place. The modular classrooms are not an expansion of the church membership, but are additional classroom for their growing church programs. There are five conditions. The last condition that was added was with a time limit of five years for the modular classrooms, at which time, administrative approval may be granted for another two years extension until a master plan is completed by the church. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you Ms. Wood. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve agenda item 8. Dorothy Wood: Second. Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor to approve agenda item 8 by Jan Anderson and a second by Dot Wood. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE Item #8 Virginia Beach Beacon Baptist Church Page 2 CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 8. -61- Item VIIJ.B. PUBLICHEARING ITEM # 44874 PLANNING Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Branch, City Council ADOPTED an Ordinance upon application o1`74 COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, LLC,fora Conditional Change ofZoning District Classification: ORDINANCE UPONAPPLICATIONOFZJ COMMERCULPROPERTIES, LLC. FOR A CONDI77ONAL CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICA77ONFROM I --I TOCONDMONALB-2 ZO4991130 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY7HE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Z-1 Commercial Properties, LLC for a Conditional Change of Zoning District Classification from I-1 Light Industrial District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District on certain property located at the northeast intersection oflndian River Road and Military Highway. The proposed zoning classification change to Conditional B-2 is for business commercial land use. the Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for business parks, offices, and employment support uses that are in accordance with other Plan policies. Said parcels are located at 820, 830 do 840 South Miliary Highway and at 6404 Indian River Road and contain 4.2 acres more or less. DISTRICT I - CENTER VILLE. The following conditions shall be required: 1. The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with that certain site plan entitled, ' Proposed Eckerd, Preliminary Site Plan," dated January 1999, prepared by Mmley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (the "Site Plan'), a copy of which Site Plan has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall install and maintain on the property landscaping substantially in accordance with the plan entitled "Proposed Eckerd, Preliminary Site Plan, " dated January 1999, prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc. (the "Site Plan). a copy of which Landscape Plan has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 3. The applicant will construct a six-foot (6J solid wooden fence running between Indian River Road and Alexandria Avenue on the property designated on the Site Plan as "Parcel A in order to provide further screening between Parcel A and the residential property to the East. Subject to the approval of the Virginia Beach Board of Zoning Appeals. the fence shall be constructed in the location depicted on the Landscape Plan. Ifthe Virgin"each location of the fence proposed on the Landscape Plan, the applicant will construct thefence in a location that does not require a vanancefrom the Virginia Beach Board of Zoning Appeals and is the most suitable point between the Easternmost landscape buffer shown on the landscape Plan and the Eastern curb of the drive aisle traversing Parcel A. 4. The esteriorarchitectural design, window placement, building materials and colon of the primary building on Parcel A shall be the same as the exterior design, window placement, materials and colors depicted on the renderingentitled "Eckerd DrugStore,EckerdStoreNo.8331R,Military Highway at Indian River Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia," dated 76 March 1999, prepared by Lyman Davidson Dooley, Inc. (the "Rendering"). a copy of which Rendering has been exhibited to the City Council by the Grantee and is on file in the Planning Department. April 13, 1999 -62 - Item V1IJ.8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 44876 PLANNING S. When developed, the property designated on the Site Plan as "Parcel B" shall be developed subject to the following restrictions: a. Any freestanding sign on Parcel B shall be a monument -style sign rather than a pylon -style sign. b. Applicant shall install and maintain on Parcel B a landscape buffer between Parcel B and the right-of- way of Military Highway with the same width and spacing and comparable species of landscape materials as the landscape buffer between Parcel A and the rightaf--way ofMililary Highway. C. Applicant shall screen the heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment serving the buildings on Parcel B from view from Military Highway. d. The primary colors of external building materials used on Parcel B (excluding roof and accent features) shall be earth tones so that they comport generally with the primary colors ofthe building on Parcel A. and, REVISED, as to thefollowing: 1. Paragraph Four oftheproffer agreement has been revised to state that window placement on the exterior of the Eckerd building will be as shown on the revised rendering. this will providef rra more attractive building face on Military Highway and is a positive change. 2. The site plan has been revised to provide that the drive aisle traversing the East side of Parcel A will permit only one-way. Northbound traffic behind the Eckerd building. Two-way troffc will be permitted roughly from the Northern wall of the Eckerd building to Alexandria Avenue. This change will eliminate several ofthe on-site traffic circulation conflicts generated by the previous plan and is acceptable. 3. The site plan was revised to show directional arrows in the drive aisle on Parcel A, closest to MilitaryHighway, to indicate the route that should befollowedfrom the Military Highway entrance to the drive-through window. This addition helps improve on-site circulation and is acceptable. 4. A notation has been added to the site plan indicating that dumirsters will be enclosed by block walls on three sides, with solid wooden gates on the fourth side. This addition is an attempt to alleviate concerns regarding the appearance ofthe dumpstersfrom Military Highway. it should be noted, however, that the enclosure is required by Code and that landscape screening on any portion ofthe dumpster visible from a public roadway is required. The plant material will be required during detailed site plan review. S. The landscapeplan has been amended to show additional trees on Parcel A in the buffer area on Military Highway, in order to further screen loading activities from view. This is a positive addition to the plan that helps address aesthetic concerns. April 13, 1999 -63- Item VII -I.8. PUBLICHEAMG ITEM # 44874 (Continued) PLANNING This Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 (n of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the Council of the City of Vuginia Beach, Virginia, on the Thirteenth otAoril. Nineteen Hundred and Abero-Nine Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye. Linwood O. Branch, IIl, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Hetschober, Barbara M. Healey, Louis R Jones, Reba S McClanan, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent., None April 13, 1999 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of The Savin Company, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash on property located 820 South Military Highway, approximately 452 feet north of Indian River Road (GPIN 1456253633). DISTRICT 1 — CENTERVILLE. MEETING DATE: November 27, 2007 ■ Background: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow development of the site for a car wash. The site was rezoned in 1999 from 1-1 Light Industrial District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District. That rezoning proposal consisted of two (2) parcels, totaling 4.20 acres, at the corner of Indian River Road and Military Highway. Parcel A, the site currently developed as a drug store, is shaped like a flag lot with the flag at the intersection of the two highways and the flagpole stem extending north to Alexandria Avenue. Parcel B, the subject site for this Conditional Use Permit, fronts Military Highway, just north of Parcel A. A proffer of the 1999 rezoning limits vehicular access to Parcel B from a shared access with Parcel A. ■ Considerations: The proposed structure is oriented parallel to Military Highway, and consists of two (2) 45 foot by 16 foot (45' x 16') automated car wash stations and four (4) 24 foot by 16 foot (24'x 16') self-service stations. A small office and an equipment room are also proposed, as well as five (5) self-service vacuum stations. The site plan depicts 18 parking spaces, which satisfies ordinance requirements. The site plan depicts two (2) ingress/egress points, neither of which is located directly on Military Highway. A shared entry is proposed with the existing drug store to the south and a second access point is located on an existing drive that runs along the northern property line. This drive serves the drug store, this site and industrially zoned properties to the north. The submitted building elevation depicts a one story structure with brown, split - face concrete block on the lower half of the facade that transitions to a beige vinyl siding on the upper half. A royal blue standing -seam metal roof, that matches fabric awnings over the automated car wash bays, is also proposed. The color scheme mimics the color selection of the adjacent drug store building in an attempt to create a coordinated presentation.The columns of the self wash portion of the building will be wrapped with split -face CMU block. A band of The Savin Company, L.L.C. Page 2 of 3 darker brown split -face concrete block is proposed at the water table for architectural interest. Small accents of Exterior Insulation Finishing System (EIFS) are also shown on the plan, again adding architectural detailing. When this site was conditionally rezoned in 1999 from 1-1 Light Industrial District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District, the proffered layout was sensitive to the residential area to the east. Rather than having the existing homes back up to the rear of a commercial site, a drive aisle within a 120 -foot wide ingress/egress easement and a solid fence along the eastern property line was proffered in order to provide further screening from the residential properties to the east. The approximate distance from the closest home to the eastern property line of this site is 150 feet. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the use is appropriate for the site, the provisions of the 1999 conditional rezoning ensure adequate buffering for the residential area to the east, and there was no opposition to the proposal. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request, with the following conditions: When the property is developed, the site layout shall be in substantial conformance with the plan entitled, "Conceptual Plan / South Military Highway Carwash / Parcel B-1 / Virginia Beach, Virginia," dated September 27, 2007, prepared by Massey Design & Associates, P.C. Said plan has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. When the building is constructed it shall be in substantial conformance with the elevation entitled, "South Military Highway Car Wash", prepared by G.M. Frech & Associates. Said elevation has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 3. The hours of operation for the automated car wash stations and vacuum operations shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 4. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property. A photometric lighting plan depicting such lighting shall be submitted to the City of Virginia Beach for review and approval with the final site plan submission. 5. In addition to the landscaping required by the City Zoning Ordinance, an additional row of evergreen shrubs shall be installed along the property line adjacent to Military Highway. The Savin Company, L.L.C. Page 3 of 3 ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen IZ- City Manager: ' &9- THE SAVIN COMPANY, LLC Agenda Item 4 October 10, 2007 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for car wash ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located on the east side of South Military Highway, approximately 425 feet north of Indian River Road GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14562536330000 2 — CENTERVILLE 0.7665 acres The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow SUMMARY OF REQUEST development of the site for a car wash with two (2) 45 foot by 16 foot automated car wash stations and four (4) 24 foot by 16 foot self service wash stations. A small attendant office and equipment room are also proposed, as well as five (5) self-service vacuum stations. The site plan depicts 18 parking spaces. The automated car wash is proposed to be open 24 hours a day and only manned during normal operating hours. The proposed structure is oriented parallel to Military Highway. The site plan depicts two (2) ingress/egress points, neither of which is located directly on Military Highway. A shared entry is proposed with the existing drug store to the south and a second access point is located on an existing drive that runs along the northern property line. This drive serves the drug store, this site and industrially zoned properties to the north. This drive also provides a spatial buffer to the single-family dwellings to the east. Parallel parking spaces are depicted throughout the site. The submitted elevation depicts a one story structure with brown, split face CMU block on the lower half of the facade that transitions to a beige vinyl siding. A royal blue standing -seam metal roof, that matches fabric awnings over the automated car wash bays, is also proposed. The color scheme mimics the color selection of the adjacent drug store building in an attempt to create a coordinated presentation. The columns of the self wash portion of the building will be wrapped with split -face CMU block. A band of darker brown split -face CMU block is proposed at the water table for some architectural interest. Small accents of Exterior Finishing Insulation System (EIFS) are also shown on the plan, again, adding architectural detailing. THE SAVIN COMPANY Agenda Item 4 Page This site was rezoned in 1999 from 1-1 Light Industrial District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District. The rezoning proposal consisted of two (2) parcels, totaling 4.20 acres, at the corner of Indian River Road and Military Highway. Parcel A, the site generally to the south and east, is shaped like a flag lot with the flag at the intersection of the two highways and the stem extending north to Alexandria Avenue. Parcel B, the subject site for a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash, fronts Military Highway, just north of Parcel A. At the time of the rezoning request, the proposed development on Parcel A included a 13,227 square foot drug store with three (3) drive-thru lanes, 83 parking spaces, and a rear drive aisle which extends from Indian River Road to Alexandria Avenue. It was proffered that Parcel B would not have a separate entrance onto Military Highway but rather a shared access with Parcel A. The following proffers were approved by City Council in 1999: 1. The Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with that certain site plan entitled "Proposed Eckerd, Preliminary Site Plan, dated January, 1999, prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., (the "Site Plan"), a copy of which Site Plan has been exhibited to the City Council of the Grantee, and is on file in the Planning Department of the Grantee. 2. The Grantors shall install and maintain on the Property landscaping substantially in accordance with the plan entitled "Proposed Eckerd, Landscape Plan,,dated January, 1999, prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. (the "Landscape Plan"), acopy of which Landscape Plan has been exhibited to the City Council of the Grantee, and is on file in the Planning Department of the Grantee. 3. Subject to approval of the Virginia Beach Board of Zoning Appeals, Grantor will construct a solid fence between the new drive aisle traversing the property designated on the Site Plan as "Parcel A" and the eastern property line of Parcel A, in order to provide further screening from the residential property to the east. 4. The exterior architectural design, building materials and colors of the primary building on Parcel A shall be the same as the exterior design, materials and colors depicted on the rendering entitled "Eckerd Drug Store, Eckerd Store No, 831 R, Military Hwy at Indian River Rd., Virginia Beach, VA," dated January 20, 1999, prepared by Lyman Davidson Dooley, Inc. (the 'Rendering"), a copy of which Rendering has been exhibited to the City Council of the Grantee and is on file in the Planning Department of the Grantee. 5. When developed, the property designated on the Site Plan as "Parcel B" shall be developed subject to the following restrictions: (a) Any freestanding sign on Parcel B shall be a monument style sign, rather than a pylon style sign. (b) Grantor shall install and maintain on Parcel B a landscape buffer between Parcel B and the right-of-way of Military Highway with the same width and spacing and comparable species of landscape materials as the landscape buffer between Parcel A and the right-of-way of Military Highway. (c) Grantor shall screen the heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment serving the buildings on Parcel B from view from Military Highway. (d) The primary colors of external building materials used on Parcel B (excluding roof and accent features), shall be earth tones, so that they comport generally with the primary colors of the building on Parcel A. THE SAVIN COMPANY Agenda Item 4 Page 2 LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped vacant site SURROUNDING LAND North: . Auto related business / 1-1 Industrial District USE AND ZONING: South: . Retail / Conditional B-2 Community Business District East: . Single-family dwellings/ R-10 Residential District West: . Military Highway, office / 0-2 Office District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The majority of CULTURAL FEATURES: the site is a vacant, grass field. There does not appear to be any significant environmental or cultural features on the property. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of Less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): South Military Highway in the vicinity of this application is considered a six -lane divided major urban arterial facility. The Master Transportation Plan indicates an eight -lane divided facility with a 150 foot right-of- way. There are no Roadway Capital Improvement Program projects slated in this area. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic South Military 48,047 ADT 63,900 ADT (Level of Existing Land Use — Highway Service "C") — 74,00 ADT' 422 ADT (Level of Service "D") Proposed Land Use 3— 432 ADT - Weekday 531 ADT - Saturday Average Dairy i nps 2 as defined by typical uses in B-2 3 as defined by car wash facility WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is an existing 20 -inch City water main along South Military Highway. There are two (2) existing 48 -inch water mains along South Military Highway as well. SEWER: This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. There is an existing eight (8) -inch City gravity main and an eight (8) -inch City force main along South Military Highway. Analysis of Pump Station 411 and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. THE SAVIN COMPANY Agenda Item 4 Page 3 Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within the Primary Residential Area. The land use planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. The Comprehensive Plan Policy document reinforces the suburban characteristics of commercial centers and other non-residential areas for this area. The general pattern of land uses along this one and one half mile corridor has remained essentially unchanged for years. The east side of Military Highway consists of and is zoned for light industrial uses. It is surrounded by open space areas and stable neighborhoods. The east side of Military Highway comprises a variety of industrial activities, including truck and automobile oriented land uses, outdoor storage and warehousing. The Plan states "Limited commercial or institutional activities providing desired goods or services to residential neighborhoods may be considered acceptable uses on the edge of established neighborhoods provided effective measures are taken to ensure compatibility and non- proliferation of such activities" (page 91). The long term goal for this corridor is to replace the industrial activities with other uses that are more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. These may include a variety of higher density residential, office, hotel and institutional uses (i.e. education, religion, recreation, health, etc.). Requests for new and redeveloped uses should contribute to improving the aesthetic of this corridor by implementing plans that show high quality building design, signage and landscaping (pages 129-130). Evaluation: The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. Of concern is the existing residential neighborhood to the east. When this site was conditionally rezoned in 1999 from 1-1 Light Industrial District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District, the proffered layout was sensitive to this fact. Rather than having the existing homes back up to the rear of a commercial site, a drive aisle within a 120 -foot wide ingress/egress easement and a solid fence along the eastern property line was proffered. in order to provide further screening from the residential property to the east. The applicant also proffered a landscape plan with the 1999 proposal. The proffered landscaping and minimum 30 -foot wide buffer shown along the drive aisle does mitigate impacts to the residential properties associated with the commercial uses. The plan included a row of alternating Leyland cypress and Andorra juniper along the entire eastern side of the rear drive aisle. The row is set back 15 feet from the property line abutting the residential property due to a utility easement in this location. The approximate distance from the closest home to the eastern property line of this site is 150 feet. The width of the drive aisle is approximately 28 feet within the 120 -foot wide ingress/egress that runs north and south behind this site. Access to the subject site, Parcel B, will be from the interior only, with no direct access to Military Highway. This allows for a more attractive streetscape along Military Highway, full of landscaping. In fact, as the facade of the building facing Military Highway will not be solid due to the wash bays, Staff has recommended a condition that additional plant material be installed along Military Highway to compensate for the inability to install foundation landscaping as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The 1999 proffer agreement also ensures the following: any freestanding sign on this site, Parcel B, be a monument style sign, rather than a pylon style sign; a landscape buffer between Parcel B and the right -of - THE SAVIN COMPANY Agenda Item 4 Page 4 way of Military Highway with the same width and spacing and comparable species of landscape materials as the landscape buffer between Parcel A and the right-of-way of Military Highway be planted; the heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment serving the building on this site be screened from view from Military Highway; the primary colors of external building materials used on Parcel B (excluding roof and accent features), shall be earth tones, so that they comport generally with the primary colors of the building on Parcel A which is now an Eckerd Drug store. Staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions listed below, which are designed to further reduce any potential negative impacts to the existing residential neighborhood to the east. CONDITIONS 1. When the property is developed, the site layout shall be in substantial conformance with the plan entitled, "Conceptual Plan / South Military Highway Carwash / Parcel B-1 / Virginia Beach, Virginia," dated September 27, 2007, prepared by Massey Design & Associates, P.C. Said plan has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. When the building is constructed it shall be in substantial conformance with the elevation entitled, "South Military Highway Car Wash," prepared by G.M. Frech & Associates. Said elevation has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 3. The hours of operation for the car wash and vacuum operations shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 4. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property. A photometric lighting plan depicting such lighting shall be submitted to the City of Virginia Beach for review and approval with the final site plan submission. 5. In addition to the required landscaping, as per the City's Zoning Ordinance, an additional row of evergreen shrubs shall be installed along the property line adjacent to Military Highway. 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 and Standards. 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. THE SAVIN COMPANY Agenda Item 4 Page 5 EVPl UIDINI pPPROSpuTH C.apfS-fopa-ToTHE Dp.k3 THEsp,\VjM CQMpA THEplgeoda paq ti EVPl UIDINI pPPROSpuTH C.apfS-fopa-ToTHE Dp.k3 THEsp,\VjM CQMpA THEplgeoda paq C70t di4k NY^_\ v.1 4 - i 3i.Y.:AY Yitl�KYl(3lY - - APPROVED, PROFFERED PLAN INCLUDING THE DRUG STORE TO THE SOUTH THE SAVIN COMPANY Agenda Item 4 Page 8 11 APPROVED, PROFFERED ELEVATION OF THE DRUG STORE TO THE SOUTH THE SAVIN COMPANY Agenda Item 4 Page 9 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON JUNE 21, 2007, 1 SURVEYED THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON THIS PLAT, AND THAT THE TITLE LINES AND THE WALLS OF THE BUILDINGS ARE AS SHOWN HEREON. THE IMPROVEMENTS LIE STRICTLY WITHIN THE TITLE LINES AND THERE ANE NO ENCROACHMENTS OR VISIBLE EASEMENTS pp ------L.S EXCEPT AS SHOWN. SIGNED --- 01 U� %J4�014 QG ------- 6 VARIABLEWM THPRIVA7FARZPROGIL � CROSS ACCESS ESMNT. REF. M.B. 281 P6.93 565°57'22 E � 18.43' �- — \ 5242'38'W 93.98' / IPF, 'DRAINAGE ESMNT. M.B. 118 P6.7 6' aFJ N/F HAR7SFIELD L C., 110 CPIN 11456254720 D.B. 638 PG. 595 ZONED '! I ' 64.32' C6-6 CURB J 6V77ER PARCEL B-1 0.7665AGRES VN5PRMTED WIDTH VSCO ESMNT. D.B. 387P6.535 3 BSL — — — — 1'P1BLIC PIPEFOf`-,-------- 300't TO ALEXANDRIA AVE. � pi,TH Op Df�' RL GALLORY 'z "11'2s, a NO WIF' £CK£RD DRUGS GP/N x(456253422 D.B. 4 2 PC. 626 ? Z01{ED 'B2' 4y vo v ro 1 j w I IPF 452t TO INDIANRIVERROAD SOUTH MILITARY HIGHWAY (US RTE 13) (160' R/W) SU �4 40 0 40 80 N�06-25-07R��'-{ NOTES scole feet THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY REFERS TO THE SAME LOT OR LOTS RECORDED IN THE CLERKS OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, IN M.B. 281. PG. 93 PHYSrAL SURVEY or PARCEL 8-1 GP/N 114562SY= SOUTH MILITARY HPWAY WRG/NL4 BEACH, WRGIN14 SCALE.- 1'=40' JUNE 25. 2007 THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A CURRENT TITLE REPORT AND MAY NOT REFLECT ALL MATTERS AFFECTING TITLE. THIS LOT APPEARS TO BE LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE 'X' AS SHOWN ON HUD FIRM NO. 515531-0026E. EFF: 12/05/1996. R. L GALLOWAY. L.S. 17226 cO�LAE HTWI D, YWAM 23430 PH: (757) 356-9oob PAL• (757) 356-6066 SITE SURVEY THE SAVIN COMPANY Agenda Item 4 Page 10 cgzS I'[0%1=0HK: PROPOSED SITE PLAN THE SAV1N COMPANY Agenda Item 4 Page 11 a»�::_ c:3:3 VINIOUTA'HOV38 VINIoaIA L -e 133HVd HSVM M AVMH9IH Atl iMW ►linos NVId IVnlMNOO ' cgzS I'[0%1=0HK: PROPOSED SITE PLAN THE SAV1N COMPANY Agenda Item 4 Page 11 a»�::_ c:3:3 QT f "uiN i3iii 1 Ire i cgzS I'[0%1=0HK: PROPOSED SITE PLAN THE SAV1N COMPANY Agenda Item 4 Page 11 L `1':Y , fe€ a� cgzS I'[0%1=0HK: PROPOSED SITE PLAN THE SAV1N COMPANY Agenda Item 4 Page 11 LA c v Q u � U � Q v ti O PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION TOE IN COMPANY pgendpage 12 1 03/13/99 Change of Zoning (1-1 to Conditional B- Granted 2 2 01/27/98 CUP church & school Granted 3 03/14/95 CUP (mobile home sales) Granted 01/22/90 Change of zoning (1-1 to B-2) Granted CUP auto sales Granted 4 12/06/94 CUP (temporary recycling operation) Granted 07/12/94 CUP bulk storage) Granted 5 04/27/93 CUP truck rentals Granted 6 05/01/89 Reconsideration of Conditions Granted 03/14/88 CUP fuel pumps) Granted 7 02/08/88 CUP (sign board) Granted 08/04/84 CUP (sign board Granted 8-1 09/09/85 1 CUP auto service Granted ZONING HISTORY THE SAVIN COMPANY Agenda Item 4 Page 13 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) 'the SCiv;0 CO Dc, y), I L.Lc SG Yylc S C . Say in i 1Re +0 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) ZP 00. 32, LLC. Se�it>e.�r !.. Z�w�imct2 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. ' & See next page for footnotes Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land? Yes _ No If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and the nature of their interest? ConfliUOnal Use Permit AppliCatlon Page 9 of 10 Revised 1 111 6/2 0 0 6 THE SAVIN COMPANY Agenda Item 4 Page 14 ;( DISCLOSURE STATEMENT i' L ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES ust ali known contractors or businesses that have or wdi orovlde services with 'espect to the requested property use including but not iimited to the providers of architectura, services, real estate services. financial services, accounting services. and legal services (Attach list if gecessary) _ ' �____-- Ytr�i•.tc1" Parent-subs:dtary relationship' means a re:attonsh:p :rat exists wher one corporation directly or indirectiv owns shares possessing more t^.an 50 percert of the vcnrg power of another corporation .. See State and Locai Government C.onf'Ct of Interests An! ✓a Code § 2 2-3' 01 Affwatec business entity relationshtp means a re atonsn p c:her than. parer,, - subsidiary re,at.onship. that exists when (i: one business entity has a controlling cwnersh:p interest to the otn.er Duslress entity (!i) a controll-ng owner in one er-ity !S also a cont cihrng owner to the other entity, or (aft there is shared management or coetro; behveer t^e bus Hess entitles Factors that should be considered In determining the existence of ar affiliated business entity relat.onshtp tncluce that the same person or substantially :he same person own or manage the wo entities there are common or conm!r,gied funcs or assets tie business entities share the use of the sarne offices or employees or otherr.,iSe share a36vit!es resources or personnel on a -egular basis or *here is otherwise a cecse wor<:rtg reiattonsh)p between the e.n.~.ties See State and soca Geve'rrner: Conflict of Interes s 4ci '.J@ Code 2 2-310' CERTIFICATION: ! certt`, that the n`orrna:;cr c„r:a:nec herer !s :rite arc accu-ate .de'sta tnaat :o- receipt ofrcttf;caa0 ostcar..• :nat ;ne 2n ItCatta. ^.as neer, sc eeo;e pub".c nearing , a^ esz;ons!ble `a ccta ^.ng a-.. ncs::ng `.E ren red s•,cr or :he sumer-: pro:; -e^ a: eas 3c' „ays :r....., ,re scnecu;ec :unite hear _ a=c-- -.e -s:. , ens m .�s pac•:age -:e ^d a < -c, en!-- : _ emc•!o ee_ :'_ De^artrten. ers,onec .. c . ^se^s :.. e uDc^ ^e s..n;ec: rox^, i_ N arn•r o ,,no,:gran^ arc / ev+ .^.e s to ..noses . ^cess; -c and o a: - s 'ODer,V OWE ..6' S S'^y"'E `d�`fE'En..^.ar %a—E, DISCLOSURE STATEMENT THE SAVIN COMPANY Agenda Item 4 Page 15 Item #4 The Savin Company, L.L.C. Conditional Use Permit 820 South Military Highway District 1 Centerville October 10, 2007 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next matter is agenda item 4. This is an application of The Savin Company, L.L.C. This is for a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash located on property at 820 South Military Highway, Centerville District. Welcome Mr. Gambrell. Bill Gambrell: Thank you Ms. Anderson. Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Bill Gambrell. I'm the applicant's representative today. I've told you this before but I love being on the consent agenda. Thank you very much. Carolyn did give me a copy of the revised condition, and I appreciate that as well. I just want to say thank you. If you have any questions, I'll be here for you. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? Seeing none, the Chairman has asked Gene Crabtree to review this application. Eugene Crabtree: This application is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash. It is actually located right off of Indian River Road on Military Highway. This area has been zoned for light industrial use since 1999. The area has changed very little over the years, but there is a need for this type of facility in this area, and that is an ideal location for it to serve the surrounding community. This is an application that has five conditions to it that the applicant has agreed with. It is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and staff recommended approval of this; so, we consequently put it on the consent agenda. Janice Anderson: Thank you Gene. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion for the approval of the following agenda item. It is agenda item 4. Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor by Jan Anderson and seconded by Gene Crabtree. Do I have any discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE Item #4 The Savin Company, L.L.C. Page 2 KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 4 for consent. CUP for Binge Hall CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of Jeb Tolley for a Conditional Use Permit for a bingo hall on property located at 2644 Barrett Street (GPIN 1497538465). DISTRICT 6 — BEACH. MEETING DATE: November 27, 2007 ■ Background: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a bingo hall in a portion of the existing building located on this site. ■ Considerations: The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area of the city as Strategic Growth Area 6 - North London Bridge Area. This area is characterized by a contrast in commercial quality and activity. In addition, there is a wide variation in the quality and design of landscaping, signage, parking areas, building architecture and other visual attributes. 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/1-264 interchange and along Virginia Beach Boulevard, are suitable for a higher intensity of mixed uses including offices, institutions and limited additional retail compatible with the Joint Land Use Study. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need to provide a range of commercial retail activities and services to meet the needs of all its citizens, it is equally important that this be accomplished in harmony with the concept of providing an attractive and well-maintained physical environment. There was opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 with 1 abstention to approve this request with the following conditions: Bingo games shall be limited to the weekends from Friday beginning at 10:30 p.m. until Sunday ending at 11:59 p.m. 2. A cross access parking agreement shall be submitted to the Current Planning Division prior to commencement of Bingo operations. Jeb Tolley Page 2 of 2 ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City Manager: JEB TOLLEY Agenda Item 5 October 10, 2007 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Bingo Hall. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 2644 Barrett Street. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14975384650000 6 - BEACH Total Site: 1.5 acres or 65,269 square feet Lease Area for Bingo: 10,000 square feet SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a bingo hall in a portion of the existing building at this site. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: A 2 -story office/warehouse building with associated parking occupies the site. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Body shop (auto repair) / 1-1 Light Industrial District USE AND ZONING: South: . Across 1-264 / B-2 Community Business District East: . Indoor recreational facility (Laserquest) / B-2 Community Business District West: . Office (Tidewater Technical Institute) / 1-1 Light Industrial District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The existing building and parking lot covers a majority of the site. There CULTURAL FEATURES: are no known significant natural resources or cultural features on this site as it is almost entirely impervious. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of Greater than 75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. JEB TOLLEY Agenda Item 5 Page 1 IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Barrett Street and Dean Street are two local dead end streets. Traffic engineering has no ADT data for either of these streets. Lynnhaven Parkway in the vicinity of this application is a four lane divided major urban arterial. This site is adjacent to the existing 1-264 right-of-way, and may be impacted by the 1-264 / Lynnhaven Parkway Interchange Improvements Project, Phase Il. This is a VDOT project currently in the preliminary design stage. At this time, Public Works Engineering does not have any comments regarding right-of-way dedications. The trip generation from this site for bingo games between 10:30 p.m. Fridays and 11:59 p.m. Sundays will not affect the Lynnhaven Parkway weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours traffic volumes. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) done in 2002 by URS Corporation for 7 -eleven documented the crash history and safety issues at this intersection. No improvements have been made to this intersection since this study was done. Peak weekday hours maybe affected by the gymnastic facility. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Lynnhaven 31,200 ADT 36,900 ADT (Level of Existing Land Use — Parkway Service "D") 114 ADT Proposed Land Use s No professional data for this use. Average uany i rips 2 as defined by 76 vehicle trips/acre for 1-1 zoning 3 as defined by a bingo hall on weekends & gymnastics training facility WATER and SEWER: This site connects to City water and City sanitary sewer. FIRE: No Fire Department comments at this time. Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area of the city as Strategic Growth Area 6 - North London Bridge Area. This area is characterized by a contrast in commercial quality and activity. In addition, there is a wide variation in the quality and design of landscaping, signage, parking areas, building architecture and other visual attributes. 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/1-264 interchange and along Virginia Beach Boulevard, are suitable for a higher JEB TOLLEY Agenda Item 5 Page 2 intensity of mixed uses including offices, institutions and limited additional retail compatible with the Joint Land Use Study. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need to provide a range of commercial retail activities and services to meet the needs of all its citizens, it is equally important that this be accomplished in harmony with the concept of providing an attractive and well-maintained physical environment. Evaluation: This proposal for Bingo games to be held in a portion of an existing building is compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Joint Land Use Study. CONDITIONS 1. Bingo games shall be limited to the weekends from Friday beginning at 10:30 p.m. until Sunday ending at 11:59 p.m. 2. A cross access parking agreement shall be submitted to the Current Planning Division prior to commencement of Bingo operations. 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 and Standards. 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. JEB TOLLEY Agenda Item 5 Page 3 PRO VIRGINIA BEACH i N06F-oV PROPOSED SITE PLAN JEB TOLLEY Agenda Item 5 Page 5 �h`2:��� •'c•.^c.'F'fl�..;. `�r r � '%�^.y2` q,,, `+`.?�n�� k a� ..�.{�' ;c "� r� x r _ t Y � i lkPH OF EXISTING BUILE 1 12/05/06 Conditional Use Permit Communications tower Granted 2 04/13/04 Conditional Use Permit Church expansion) Granted _ 3 06/25/02 Conditional Rezoning from 1-1 to B-2 & CUP (Fuel sales in conjunction with a convenience store) Granted 4 10/24/00 Conditional Use Permit Fuel sales Withdrawn 5 09/26/95 Conditional Rezoning from 1-1 to B-2 Granted 6 06/27/95 Conditional Use Permit Automobile repair facility) Granted 7 07/11/88 Conditional Use Permit Recreation facility) Granted 8 10/28/85 Change of Zoning from R-8 to 0-1 Granted 9 09/18/85 Change of Zoning from R-8 to 0-1 Granted 10 06/08/81 Change of Zoning from R-8 to 0-1 Granted ZONING HISTORY JEB TOLLEY Agenda Item 5 Page 7 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) ��-a, r,,. 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation. partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) 5 /7"I_ 1. 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm. business, or other unincorporated organization. See next page for footnotes Li I & 2 Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land? Yes No X_ If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and the nature of their interest? Conditional Use Permit Application Page 9 of 10 Revised 7/3/2007 JEB TOLLEY Agenda Item 5 Page 8 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) "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. Z "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent - subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets: the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions in this package. The undersigned also consents to entry upon the subject property by employees of the Department of Plaryning to photograph and view the site for purposes of processing and evaluating this application. Applica is Sig`r�aW Print Name ,/ 46t, a/m/15 Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Conditional Use Permit Application Page 10 of 10 Revised 7/3/2007 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT JEB TOLLEY Agenda Item 5 Page Item #5 Jeb Tolley Conditional Use Permit 2644 Barrett Street District 6 Beach October 10, 2007 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next item is item 5, Jeb Tolley. An application of Jeb Tolley for a Conditional Use Permit for a bingo hall on property located at 2644 Barrett Street, District 6, Beach, with one condition. Barry Knight: Welcome Mr. Nutter. R.J. Nutter: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Planning Commission, for the record, my name is R.J. Nutter. I'm an attorney representing Mr. Tolley on this application. I will tell you that I have known Mr. Tolley personally for close to 15 years. But his business has been in Virginia Beach. He has operated a Gymstrada for thousands of children throughout Virginia Beach for over 33 years to be exact. And what happens here is at various locations. This would be a permanent location for them. They train children in gymnastics, and these children compete. Actually over 110 children are in the program today that compete across the United States, and actually have gone as far as Mexico for International Competition. In process of this, they were looking for a larger permanent site to accommodate them in their growth. At the same time, provide a location that would allow them to raise money for their travel that these children go through, which is quite extensive. I told you about the competition but that doesn't count all the trainings, all of the sessions where they get ready to go to these competitions. So, in an effort to offset the costs of the parents and to provide an amenity, quite frankly to Gymstrada, they look at buying this particular property. Now this property is zoned I-1 Industrial. It is 20,000 square foot building. It is an unusual building. I always thought it was two stories, but is in fact, one-story in height. They have an office component which is structured right here. The rest of the property is in fact is a warehouse operation today. That would be converted into their exercise area, training area, and a portion of it would be used for the bingo. Bingo is restricted in hours as you know, and as Traffic Engineering reported to you earlier, because of the time limitations placed on this application, this is going to be occurring during the complete off peak hours of any traffic that otherwise would occur in this area. As you know, Lynnhaven Parkway is a heavily traffic area particularly during the weekday and all this activity occurs from Friday evening through Sunday at midnight. Now, a couple of things that I would like to tell is that first of all, we have contacted Tidewater Tech, which is located right here (pointing to PowerPoint). They have no objection to the application. We have been to RK Chevrolet, which is their body shop for their cars that is located over here. They have no objection to the application. We have contacted the various auction people, and they no objection to the application. So, we have been to all the adjacent property owners who have no objection to this whatsoever. Finally, we are having in fact working on parking improvements with Tidewater Tech and Item #5 Jeb Tolley Page 2 probably with the auction facility, as well, just so you will know. Quite frankly, because during the day we will have 100 spaces, in which we will probably need about 30. They want to use some of our spaces during the day. And in the evenings, when of course, they have very little parking needs for their businesses, we will be able to use their parking. So, it is really working out quite well. As a result, I want to talk to you about the staff, during the break, gave you a revised condition Mr. Chairman. So there are actually two attached to this. I would like to change one word in this because I'm not sure. The second condition that staff recommended says, "A cross access parking easement shall be submitted to the Current Planning Division prior to commencement of the bingo operations". We would probably want to change easement to agreement. We're not so sure we can get an actual easement with them but we will have agreements that will be in place for cross parking and access between our properties. But otherwise, if that is acceptable, we're very, very happy about this. The neighbors all around it have no objection to it. And, you're really facilitating a program that really brings a lot of attention to Virginia Beach with gymnastic efforts and these children. So otherwise, staff's conditions are acceptable. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have whatsoever. Barry Knight: Are there any questions of Mr. Nutter? Mr. Crabtree? Eugene Crabtree: Mr. Nutter, I presume that if you use it to go in strictly for Gymstrada, you can go on by existing by -rights? So, the only reason you need this is because you want to use it for a fund raising venture? R.J. Nutter: That is exactly right. The Gymstrada activity would be a by -right. One important thing is and staff brought this up to you. As you know, we went meeting with the Navy and the Navy has no objection to this. We're also very excited about that. But you're absolutely right. All those can be by -right activities. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions of Mr. Nutter? Thank you. R.J. Nutter: Yes sir. Thank you. Joseph Strange: Speaking in opposition we have Ron Smith. Barry Knight: Good afternoon sir. Ron Smith: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Ron Smith. I'm Chairman of the Board of the U.S.A. National Karate Federation of Virginia. And, I don't know if you guys received the letter in opposition that we sent to the Commission, but basically there are some simple points here to be addressed. I think the most important thing is there are eleven charities operating in that exact area, running bingo games on those exact two days, and approving this would hurt those charities. It is not rocket science. We don't want to hurt another sister charity. What we want, and currently they are operating a game, I think west of Independence Boulevard. If they locate to a different place, a different day, God bless them but if they're putting a game in exactly the area where eleven charities are Item #5 Jeb Tolley Page 3 operating on the same two days of the week, and there is only one intent for that, which is to hurt those charities. Those halls that are currently in the area, support baseball, aquatics, karate, gymnastics, and softball, just to name a few, and thousands of children benefit from those games right now. So, what we ask is that you disapprove this request for a variance. Encourage the charity to find another piece of property or in the alternative, operate on different days of the week. Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any questions of Mr. Smith? Thank you sir. Joseph Strange: Okay. Also speaking in opposition we have Norman Gantor. Norman Gantor: That's okay. Just don't call me late for supper. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Norman Gantor: Good afternoon Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman and members, my name is Norman Gantor. At the present time, I'm a member of Kempsville Branch 99. I speak in opposition to this plan. We play bingo every Saturday morning at the bingo palace, which is basically a mile and quarter from this plan here. At the same time, as the gentleman before me spoke, you also have Lynnhaven Bingo, Bingo Palace, First Colonial, and at each one of these locations, they use the funds for youth activities in every area that is out there. I think that the program that the gentleman, who wants to put this in is doing it for a very good cause. But it is going to take away from the initial planning and use of the funds that are coming from all of the other bingo people out there. Kempsville Branch 99, just to let you know, we use those funds to support SA contest in the local area here. I don't know how many of you are familiar with the SA contest, but we award monies every year to the students. We also provide scholarship programs with the use of those funds. I thank you for your time, and I do hope you disapprove it. Barry Knight: Mr. Gantor? Norman Gantor: Yes. Barry Knight: Ms. Wood has a question for you. Dorothy Wood: I have a question for the attorney. Barry Knight: Oh, I'm sorry. Are there any questions for Mr. Gantor? Mr. Crabtree? Eugene Crabtree: Norm? Of course, I'm a member of Branch 99 also. Norman Gantor: You poor fellow. Eugene Crabtree: I know what we do and what we do with our money. Do you really Item #5 Jeb Tolley Page 4 believe that the way bingo people are and the way the bingo players are, and almost every time that you hold bingo you are full, are you not? Norman Gantor: When you say full? Eugene Crabtree: Are your seats just at capacity just about anytime you have bingo? Are you not? Norman Gantor: No. Eugene Crabtree: Or close to it? Norman Gantor: Never. Eugene Crabtree: Okay. Norman Gantor: There is one session at Bingo Palace that they 800 and some odd seats. I think the fullest it's ever at Mr. Crabtree is during the New Years session. All the rest of them they run about 250 through 400. Eugene Crabtree: I go by there all the time. I live close to the spot, as you know. Norman Gantor: Yes sir. Eugene Crabtree: I go by there all the time. And my experience with the bingo and one thing or another is that there are enough bingo players out there, enough gamblers in this world that you could put one on every comer and there are going to be enough to play because if they didn't Las Vegas would go broke. And Las Vegas hasn't gone broke, and it is not going broke. I really can't see as where one more venue to make money to support our children in the city is going to hurt the other venues. It may bite just a little bit but I know for a fact it is not going to break our organization if somebody else opens up a little bit. It is not going to break us. I just wanted to clarify that and get that on the record. Barry Knight: Mr. Redmond? David Redmond: I'm not sure you have the answer to this but if you do, it would be helpful. And maybe I should ask Mr. Smith but according to Mr. Smith's letter, which you may or may not be familiar, currently eleven charities that currently use two halls to raise funds, four at Lynnhaven and seven at Bingo Palace. Are these other bingo halls non-profit in nature? In other words, is that there only purpose to raise funds for these charities or are there some other profit making enterprises? Norman Gantor: All bingo is non-profit. David Redmond: Thank you. Item #5 Jeb Tolley Page 5 Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Gantor? Thank you sir. Norman Gantor: You're quite welcome. Barry Knight: Ms. Wood? Dorothy Wood: I just had a question either for Jack or Kay. I thought that we were really just talking about land use and not really whether or not that the competition with bingo. I didn't think that we could really make our decision based on competition. Is that correct Jack? Jack Whitney: Yes ma'am. The staff conducted its review of this application strictly on its impact of land use purposes. Dorothy Wood: We only really talk about land use. Jack Whitney: Yes ma'am. Dorothy Wood: Even though there might be a lot of competition, we cannot base our decision on that? Jack Whitney: Well, I think you can base your decision on whatever factors you receive and what to consider. I can tell you though that the staff limits its review to strictly land use. Dorothy Wood: Land use. Thank you sir. Joseph Strange: The next speaker in opposition is Gerald Martin. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Gerald Martin: Welcome Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I'm Gerald Martin. I'm a game manager with one of the charities that conducts a game each Saturday night at Bingo Palace, and just a little clarification on that, and a couple of comments to some of the questions. Bingo players are a declining crowd. It is ancient declining crowd. The commission that regulates these departmental gaming, and has begun to collect its statistics on that. Our own statistics over four years have shown declining crowds every year, every quarter. In addition to that we play at a bingo hall that by permit can seat 1,200. We average 250. That is not unusual for a bingo crowd. I'm also a CPA. I've looked at the financial aspects of this. Bingo is a highly sensitive game to a volume of players. A reduction of 10 percent in the number of players will cut the profit to that charity 50 percent. A decline of 20 percent makes the bingo game break even. It wipes any profits. That is based on our numbers. That is also not unusual for other charities. I would like to speak in opposition to it and request that the permit be denied because of the damage that would done to other 11 charities that operate on the same days within about 3 or 4 minutes drive of this proposed site. Item #5 Jeb Tolley Page 6 Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr. Martin? Thank you sir. Joseph Strange: That concludes our speakers. Barry Knight: Mr. Nutter. R.J. Nutter: Thank you very much. Again, just to reiterate, I want to add to what Jack spoke to, and Ms. Wood, and namely we have had a number of applications for any number of uses, and only in a few occasions do we have someone raise the issue of competition. It has been rejected repeatedly, consistently and to my knowledge, unanimously by this Commission and Council as well as a basis for concern about whether or not there is sufficient market for anybody. Gymstrada is a charity entitled to do these types of activities just like anyone else. Let me tell you some things that may, and beyond having said that, let me tell you some other things that may address some of their concerns. That is, it is there opinion because they are trying to lease facilities for bingo halls themselves for their own charity and have in the past. And, they have found that they can't get in. So, I will tell you that there are more charities looking for spaces then the other one. If there is a decline in activity at a particular location, I can't speak to that. I don't even know if it is true. But it is true and it may be due to the fact that whatever is occurring there or the specifics of that particular location or game or things that are beyond our control. I can tell you that there is demand for more charities to look for more bingo facilities then there are available on the market today. The second thing is that Gymstrada will take, and in essence, there are only five opportunities for games during the course of a week at this location if it is approved with the time restrictions. Of those five, Gymstrada will take 2 to 3, so it will be only available for two additional charities. So no one necessarily has to move from one bingo location to another but that will be the decision of those charities quite frankly. But it shouldn't be a decision. This is a land use process. It is not a decision on the market. The marketplace decision is left for the marketplace. So, I will urge you to do follow your staff's recommendation because for all the reasons, this is a great application. It has the support of all the adjacent property owners. The U.S. Navy and your Planning Department, and the only opposition is based on fear of competition, which we all must live through, I'm afraid. I'll be happy to answer any questions Mr. Chairman that you might have. Barry Knight: Are there any questions? Mr. Livas? Henry Livas: Is your client operating this for charity also? If so, are they the same charities or are they all different? R.J. Nutter: Of those five opportunities for play, they would be doing this two to three of those five times would be just for Gymstrada, their charity themselves. The one they operate, which is to help their kids play in international competition. It is not play. Believe me. I've seen how they all work, so, having said that, there is opportunity for other charities, at least two other charities a week to come to this facility. It is their experience that there are more than sufficient charities looking for locations then there are locations. Item #5 Jeb Tolley Page 7 Barry Knight: Mr. Crabtree? Eugene Crabtree: I understand that at end you will be available to rent to other charities. R.J. Nutter: Yes sir. Eugene Crabtree: We had the one that was over on Baker Road recently had to go the other way that did not try to buy the building. They are still looking for a place, I know for bingo. So, but you do plan to rent this space like that. R.J. Nutter: Yes sir. It is open for at least two or three. Eugene Crabtree: We just had one application recently. R.J. Nutter: Yes sir you did. I know that application very well, as a matter of fact. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Nutter? Thank you sir. R.J. Nutter: Yes sir. Thank you very much. Barry Knight: Ms. Wood. Dorothy Wood: Yes. I understand that the other charities certainly don't want the competition nor would I if I were in the business. If we were looking at this from the competition standpoint, perhaps we could vote differently but since we are just looking at land use, and Gymstrada owns their buildings. I don't know how many groups do own their own buildings or how many they lease but I think it would be very difficult for them to move if they do own their building, and because of that, I would like to make a motion that we approve it. Barry Knight: There is a motion. Dot? That motion is with the change in language from "easement" to "agreement"? Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. It is. Barry Knight: Okay. There is a motion on the floor and a second by Jan Anderson. Ms. Katsias? Kathy Katsias: I'm sorry. I have to abstain from this application. My company does business with the applicant. Barry Knight: So noted. There is a motion on the floor by Dot Wood to approve and a second Jan Anderson. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. Mr. Whitney? Item #5 Jeb Tolley Page 8 Jack Whitney: Just for the record Mr. Chairman, I would say that the proposed wording change that Mr. Nutter has suggested is acceptable to the staff. Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. I'll call for the question. AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 1 ABSENT 0 ABS Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0 and one abstention, the application of Jeb Tolley has been approved with the wording change. VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL October 9, 2007 3:43 p.m. INFORMAL SESSION CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING CELL TOWERS VERBATIM CITY COUNCIL Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor Louis R. Jones, Vice -Mayor William R. DeSteph Harry E. Diezel Robert M. Dyer Barbara M. Henley Reba S. McClanan John E. Uhrin Ronald A. Villanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood CITY MANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: At -Large Bayside - District 4 At -Large Kempsville - District 2 Centerville - District 1 Princess Anne - District 7 Rose Hall - District 3 Beach - District 6 At -Large At -Large Lynnhaven - District 5 James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Fraser, MMC DEPUTY CITY CLERK SARAH DEAL JENKINS 1 2 MAYOR OBERNDORF: Next, we have at the request of Mrs. Henley the briefing on cell towers. I believe, Mr. Spore, Jack Whitney, the Director of Planning, and Stephen White, the Planning Evaluation Coordinator -- CITY MANAGER: They're waiting in the wings, I hope. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Here they are. JACK WHITNEY: Mayor, Members of Council, nice to be with you. Cell phones, about everyone has one these days. They've changed the way we work. They've changed the way we live. They've also changed the landscape. In order to make those little gadgets operate requires a fairly extensive infrastructure of towers, antennas, and related equipment throughout the city. We've currently got about 138 active cell towers in Virginia Beach, 5 more in the pipeline for your consideration. They require a Conditional Use Permit, and we have one on your Agenda this evening. We've got two more tomorrow at the Planning Commission. We thought that it would be very opportune at this point to brief you. We briefed you several years ago about cell towers and technology. We thought that given the number that are about to come forward that we would provide you a briefing, hopefully answer frequently asked questions and provide you a context within which to review these permits as they come forward. Stephen White from the Planning Department has got a Power Point to go through with you. We've invited members of the industry to be here to answer questions, if you have them for them. With that, let me turn it over to Stephen. STEPHEN WHITE: Thank you, Jack. What I want to go through with you today is four main points, go over the regulations that are in place right now in the City Zoning Ordinance, the locations that we are aware of where towers are located, the increase in applications. Why are we seeing this increase all of a sudden? We've had three applications a couple of years ago, and we had four or five last year. We're up to six to ten so far for this year, so I wanted to take a few minutes and explain that, and then go over quickly alternatives to your traditional tower, and these are called Stealth Applications for towers. Section 232 of the Zoning Ordinance is what regulates communication towers. Towers need a Conditional Use Permit. 3 There's also the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, which impacts what we, as -- or you, as the City Council, can actually do in the review of these towers. For example, the health and safety aspects of towers in terms of radiation and that kind of thing is a specific item that the Act mentions that you shouldn't consider in your determination of whether the location is adequate or not. When we get an application, the Ordinance requires a site plan drawn to scale with the details of the tower, a report from a registered engineer, and a statement from a registered engineer that the non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation doesn't exceed the Federal standards, then satisfactory evidence from the applicant that there is a lack of space on towers in the immediate area for them to locate on. For example, this is a couple, maybe three years old. This is a propagation map for a tower that was proposed but not approved. Down here, this is Pungo Ferry Road. This is Princess Anne Road. That's the proposed tower. And these are various circles where the towers that were in place are proposed could reach. Service would be good. It's just like a stoplight almost. The green are the best, yellow, so-so, red, you're getting in trouble, you're going to fade out and lose the person you're talking to. And we ask for these to show that there really is a need for a tower in a certain location and then we'll work with the applicant to figure out whether there's some other structure within that circle to locate on rather than the tower. COUNCILMAN WOOD: Mayor? MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yes, Mr. Wood? COUNCILMAN WOOD: Just a specific question. But that is just for one particular carrier? STEPHEN WHITE: Right, yes. COUNCILMAN WOOD: So, for instance, this could be Verizon but not necessarily Sprint or AT&T or something? STEPHEN WHITE: Right, that's true. Requirements that are in the Ordinance deal mostly with the setbacks and the height. If it's adjacent to a residential structure or close to a residential structure, the distance has to be 125% of the height of the tower. They have to be painted and illuminated in accordance with FAA Regulations. 4 And landscape plannings are required, and specific types of landscape plantings are required for different types of towers. What we look for and what we're reporting to you when we say "this tower meets the criteria of Section 232", is whether the application is for multiple use of a tower. We want to try to encourage co -location on the towers. Some towers can have two, some three, some four; depends on the height of the tower. And the one thing about towers, they've got to be above the trees. We don't have the topography here, so everything is flat, as you know, so the towers have to be able to get past the trees because the trees interfere with the signal. Report potential users have been contacted; they're supposed to tell us if they've contacted the other users in the area and either can't locate on their towers or else those users don't want to or have no need to locate on their tower. We look to see if it's going to be in an area where it's unobtrusive. What we try to do, particularly in areas that are like a rural area, is locate the tower back in the trees. Now, of course, the tower, itself, is going to stick up out of the trees, but there's all that equipment down at the base of the tower that we try to obscure from view. So, we always try to push it back in the trees as much as possible. There's an application on tomorrow's Planning Commission Agenda, for example, that is going to be deferred because we've been working with them to push it back farther into the trees so that the base equipment would be less visible. This is a map, and I think you got a map in your package on Friday, and I'm not sure if this is the same map or not. I think the map you got is a little different from this. This shows the existing tower sites within the city where cell antennas are located. The blue dots that you see on there are proposed towers that have been submitted to us, applications, and most of them are in the southern part of the city. And there's one more up here, which goes to the Planning Commission tomorrow, on Cardinal Drive at the Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club, and I'll explain that one to you in a second so you can see why that tower has been proposed. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Wood has a question. COUNCILMAN WOOD: Is there any way you can tell us how many of these have co -locations on them? STEPHEN WHITE: Yes. Well, I've got this map that ComIT did, and unfortunately there 5 was no way to reduce it, because it was so busy, and give it to you so you could actually look at it, but this is the towers that are within the city, plus the water towers that are within the city, some of which have antennas on them. And then down here in this table is the key to each of these numbers, and each of these dots are co -located antenna users. You've got Alltel, AT&T, Ntelos, Sprint -Nextel, T -Mobile, and Verizon Wireless. COUNCILMAN WOOD: Then I guess my question is, without going through each individual tower, what percentage would you say have co -locations on them? STEPHEN WHITE: 80o to 900 of them are co -located. That's the first thing we do when we get an application or they come in to talk to us, is we look for co -location. COUNCILMAN WOOD: So, there's very few that are just one user, then. STEPHEN WHITE: The one user ones are usually like a mono -pole that's got antennas internal to it that's for a specific user for the purpose of filling in a gap. Like at the Little Neck Swim and Racquet Club, you've got those two poles there; those are just mainly intended to fill in that gap in coverage. COUNCILMAN WOOD: I think there's four users there. STEPHEN WHITE: Probably, yes. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. White, I have a number of Council Members, Mr. DeSteph, Mrs. Henley, who have questions, if you don't mind. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: My question is on co -location. And this shows some of the City Water Towers or all of the City Water Towers? STEPHEN WHITE: This one actually does. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: That shows, is it, some or all? STEPHEN WHITE: That's all of them. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: So, on all of the City Water Towers, we currently have cell phone antennas now? I STEPHEN WHITE: No. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: Okay. Because with the height of our City Water Towers, if we had cell phone towers on them, I think it would allow elimination of other cell phone towers because of line of sight and right-of-way propagation on the ground. STEPHEN WHITE: And I'd have to say we agree with you. We've got some that have antennas on them because we were looking for just that. I think you'd have to talk to the Director of Public Utilities. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: I think I talked to him last week on this. STEPHEN WHITE: Okay. Because he has expressed to us concerns about keeping our water towers secure, potential acts of terrorism, etcetera. They've had issues, too, with the maintenance of antennas that are on existing towers and the upkeep with those. Some of them have not been kept up and are causing problems. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: I had a long conversation with him on that, and he's expressed or his opinion was that they will try to work more with the cell phone companies wherever possible to put them up on water towers and then we have our Police antennas, I believe, Insect Control or Vermin Control or something like that, has in some of the remote areas towers, as well, that I think would be a good opportunity to co -locate cell phone antennas on. I think that would even further eliminate overpopulation. Have we looked at, up in New Jersey, as you drive around the New Jersey Turnpike when you get close to New York, I think it is, there's a couple of Evergreen trees that are really cell phone towers, and they're really tall but they look like Evergreen trees. Do we do things of that nature? STEPHEN WHITE: We have not -- I've got a picture of a tree in here -- we have not tried the trees here, and the reason we haven't tried it is because what we've found out is the height of the towers they desire, most of the trees around here are 70, 80 feet tall, and these towers are almost 200 feet tall. So, what you end up with is this one tree that sticks up above all the other trees, particularly since we've got this flat topography; whereas, if it was hilly here, you could stick one of those taller trees in there and there would be green behind it. We haven't actually had anybody that wanted to go forward with one of 7 those. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: Okay. I'm sorry, I'm almost finished. My last point is, when we sat down today we received a letter, and I don't believe this is true, but I'm going to read a statement out of here, and I'd like for you to please quantify or qualify this. It says, "Carriers do not like --" it talks about "co -location should be practically mandatory. Several Virginia Beach locations have towers within throwing distance of each other. Carriers do not like doing this, as they have to lease space on the towers. It is cheaper for them to build them", referring to build towers, "rather than lease space. Whether a tower would be next to another is not part of their financial equation". I find that hard to believe that if you look at this from a financial aspect that it would be cheaper to build a tower than lease space on a tower or on a water tower or co -locate with some of the other City towers or facilities that are out there. I think if we put some kind of a policy out there stating that where possible, wherever possible and practical, co -location on existing towers or City -owned towers, being Water towers, Insect Control towers or our Police towers, because Police have coverage throughout the city, that that would probably assist the cell phone companies with making it easier and allowing more coverage for the little cell phones all over the city, which I think there's more cell phones out there now than true point of residence phones in somebody's house. But if you can, address the question here? STEPHEN WHITE: Yes. I can't -- like you, I find that statement hard to believe, because any time one of the providers come in and talks to us, they'd rather find a location that they could lease some space on, because building that tower, like you said, is expensive for them. And the places where we have two or three towers that are very close together, that is a function more of us, as the customer, than it is anything else. Because as we continue to carry our cell phones and use them for roaming the web, all that kind of activity, it increases, the bandwidth they need to provide increases, so they have to build more capacity. So, where they have one tower, they're going to have to build another tower beside it because the customer is increasing and demand has gone up. So, I'd have to talk to a representative to see what their thought on that is, but I don't -- my experience in talking to them, I don't think that's an accurate statement. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: I had asked for the map that was sent around to everybody on Friday, and one of the things was a table on how many 911 calls come via cell phone and how many come via land line. I thought it was interesting, it's almost 660 of the 911 calls come from cell phones, where a third come from point of residence, a telephone on the wall. STEPHEN WHITE: Right. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: But I thought it was interesting, and I think we really need to look at this from both Public Safety coverage, the whole -- from a holistic approach. STEPHEN WHITE: And I'll take your suggestion about co -locating on, say, the Police towers back to them. One of the problems we've had within the last two years, and it's just something we're going to have to sit down and talk to the Police and ComIT about, is we route all of these applications to all of the departments. And one of the comments we get frequently from ComIT is that the frequency that's being used, is it going to interfere with our radio, 911, and Emergency communications. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: I think if you could get a good RF engineer to look at that, because I can tell you there's ways to filter that out, I mean, it's done with the Military, it's done throughout the frequency spectrum across the country, around the world. So, I wouldn't really buy that very well, if I was getting a professional opinion from a good RF engineer. STEPHEN WHITE: We'll go back and talk to them. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Henley? She's been waiting very patiently. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: These, I guess, then are just cell phone towers, because I know the Cox tower is not on here? STEPHEN WHITE: Yes, ma'am, these are cell phone towers. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: And these are the City's towers. STEPHEN WHITE: Yes. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: These are just individual private -- STEPHEN WHITE: Any of the City towers that have cell E phones on them are on here, cell antennas. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Because I know the City's tower on Pleasant Ridge Road, which I learned a bad experience from, is a total monstrosity, and it's much taller than anything else around, extremely visible to every place, and that's not on here. Last night at the Ag Advisory Commission, Max Bartholomew actually approached me before I had a chance to ask him to tell me that they would be more than happy to work with the City using, they have a very large, new, transmission line that comes into the southern part of the city, and he said they have a telecommunications division that he would be the contact for it. And they have a lot of capability within these transmission lines and even at the substations to site these facilities. And I know we have this new one that just opened this summer that goes from, I guess, Dam Neck Road in the Princess Anne Commons area all the way through West Neck and across the creek and over into the Pungo side probably at a mile due west of the one that we have before us today. If we've got that kind of capability, I noticed we approved one for Sprint on North Landing Road just a couple of months ago, and that's right in the area where the transmission line has gone through. I really think, and then, of course, we have transition lines in other places, as well, but this is a new one that just has come in this year, and that should give us a lot of capability that I hope you'll look at. STEPHEN WHITE: I agree with you. I think you'll be happy to hear that somebody came in probably about three weeks ago and wanted to put a tower close to the Municipal Center here just down on North Landing Road and approached the property owner. One of the first things I told him was, "Virginia Power just installed that transmission line. You're only talking about a half a mile. Why don't you just go down the street and call Virginia Power and talk about co -locating there?" So, hopefully, they will follow through on that, but I think your idea is right on target. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: I thought we had this policy long ago to require co -location, require that we look at facilities that might be available; haven't we put them on stadium lights in high schools and those kinds of things? STEPHEN WHITE: Yes, I've got a photograph of that. Yes, ma'am. 1.0 COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Are we proactive, as a City, or are we just taking whatever comes to us and saying "well, this is what we're going to go with"? STEPHEN WHITE: I think we're being pretty proactive. I've got a couple of planners who are very tough on the providers they won't even take an application until they're absolutely sure that everything has been attempted. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: But when I look at the Cox thing, and it's not even on any maps and it's sitting there in an area that's 'here we are', I wonder, you know, I just have to wonder if we're really exhausting all other possibilities before we're using a new tower. STEPHEN WHITE: I'll admit to you, there are towers out there that we're not aware of. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: I know. STEPHEN WHITE: It's almost like staff or it would be a good internship project for somebody to go out there and do an inventory and try to find all of these towers, whether they're functional or abandoned or whatever, that we could use. But you're right, there are some out there, but we do our best. We bend over backward. I'm sure we have a representative of the industry here right now that will tell you, it takes a fairly long time to get through the Conditional Use Permit process, because even before you submit the application we're going to make sure that there are no alternatives out there that we're aware of. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. McClanan, followed by Mr. Wood. COUNCIL LADY MCCLANAN: The one I think that kind of borders on this is the power line up here at Landstown that just in the last transmission line that Dominion ran down this way, and there's supposed to be several attached to that. I don't know how many are. But the problem is, this is an extremely political -- and what we have here, AT&T and Singular, I read the article in The Economist when Mr. McCaw, who's wife is an Ambassador appointed by the President to some country in Europe, I think it's Austria or somewhere, but when he borrowed, what was it, $500 million this last year to expand the world of cell phones with AT&T and Singular, it was very interesting, the article, and how it went about how political all these things have become. 11 And it makes it extremely difficult for a locality to try to encourage people to do things that are right, because the arguments we used to get were that as you get more towers they don't have to be quite as tall. And so, then, because I used to get over there because it was the middle of the city, and before we had the one on Little Neck we had one there behind the Plaza, you know Sam's and all that, that's supposedly the ideal height. When you hear about the ideal height and we're not going to ask for any more any taller than this, and then you come down here out in the middle of, you know -- you can't miss it. You'd have to be blind. And then they seem to think that they are right or entitled to put these things anywhere they want to, and the bottom line is it puts people, makes Barbara look like the bad guy, or whoever happens to be the Council Member for that District, or if your department happens to say "well, you know, we want you to be reasonable", and we don't want our city to have these everywhere. But some of the things that I've heard said from people who are associated with the Federal level and other things about this bother me. It's kind of like the other communications things that we are supposed to just provide the means to accomplish the end and shut up and keep our mouth shut and let them put them where they want to. Because a man told me that I met with one time here in this city he had a plan for running them all the way down to North Carolina and into South Carolina and just straight down and nobody was going to stop him. The thought that we, lowly Council Members, could stop him was just totally beyond his thought. He may be right. I'm not saying that, but I've learned that it's a tough thing. But if we're going to make these policy decisions, we have to kind of, if our citizens assume we're looking out for them, we really do have to have something to base them on. Because, can you say that we're not going to have any poles any higher than 195 feet? STEPHEN WHITE: COUNCIL LADY MCCLANAN: STEPHEN WHITE: I cannot tell you that. Or 150 feet? No. COUNCIL LADY MCCLANAN: The water tower down there behind my house came up first, and we ended up the Schools can use the money from putting them on the water towers and all sorts of good things to make it more palatable. The bottom line is, when it's your house and your neighborhood and the pole is next to you, you're the one that's affected, and it's tough. 12 STEPHEN WHITE: It's difficult, the whole thing is difficult, because unlike other kinds of utilities that locate in our right-of-way, this is not a public utility. But yet everyone that's in this room probably has a cell phone, and so as we keep using the cell phone and keep demanding that the cell phone do more, they have to keep adding the towers. That's why five or ten years ago they said "we're only going to need this one tower". Well, here they come back and they need another tower because we keep demanding more service. And you're right about the political end of it, because that's what the Federal Telecommunications Act of '96 was all about was trying to take you out of the process. Fortunately, you still have some say in the process, but I'm sure Kay Wilson could give you a separate briefing, or Bill Macali when he gets back, on what that Act tells you you can and can't do. So, there are a lot of factors, and we, as staff, try to do the best we can in working with the industry to make sure there are as few towers as possible, but yet they get the service that they need to serve the customers. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Wood, followed by Mr. Villanueva, followed by Mr. DeSteph. COUNCILMAN WOOD: I think Stephen hit the nail on the head when he's talking about that it is customer driven. For example, I won't say what carrier, but the cell phone I have now gets no coverage here whatsoever, except when I stand by the window or something like that, and that's why I'm switching carriers because I spend a lot of time down here. But a couple of weeks ago we had that group, and I can't remember, was it -- remember, we talked about putting the boxes on the telephone poles? STEPHEN WHITE: Repeaters. COUNCILMAN WOOD: Is that for wireless internet; was that was that was for, for wireless phone companies for the data capability? STEPHEN WHITE: I really don't remember. COUNCILMAN WOOD: I don't recall. I don't know if Dave was here, if he remembers that. STEPHEN WHITE: Do you remember what the repeaters were for, Gwen came in and gave a briefing to the Council about two months ago? 13 DAVE HANSEN: I know we have a road capacity issue related to our current towers. We're also supporting the Orion System. We just got another $6 million grant associated with that. COUNCILMAN WOOD: No, but this was a private sector thing. This wasn't for Public Safety. COUNCIL LADY MCCLANAN: It had those things that looked like -- COUNCILMAN WOOD: I mean, because we talked about it, there was a box, but I -- COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Next G. COUNCILMAN WOOD: Next G, that was the name of it. STEPHEN WHITE: And I think you're right. I think what they were doing was they were, like, a sub for one of the providers, and their purpose was to go in and install repeaters that would then increase the coverage for the provider. COUNCILMAN WOOD: But it was for -- DAVE HANSEN: You're talking about Next G, Mr. Wood? COUNCILMAN WOOD: Yes. I'm kind of interested because a lot of this new tower stuff is driven by not so much voice communication but data communication, which is what people are using phones for nowadays. DAVE HANSEN: Next G is a cell phone infill business strategy. In other words, in the areas where cell towers, and they've really found a niche in large metropolises that have town centers where they don't have the cell tower coverage down amongst the high rise, so they're able to hang these devices, which you saw some of the pictures in your Friday packet that we handed out to you. They'll put them on utility poles, they'll hang them on the side of buildings, at intersections so that they can reach down this avenue and down that avenue at the intersection, and they will infill. What they do is they repeat off each. They'll go to a download. They'll try to and get into a consolidated transmission switch and then sometimes on a fiber network and then enter into their transmission system that 14 way. COUNCILMAN WOOD: Could that possibly minimize requirements for new towers, I guess, then, from the provider side? DAVE HANSEN: I don't know that I can answer what the business model of Verizon and all the other uplinks are, but I don't think that in our type of topography where we're fairly flat and you can get above the trees, and we don't have a large metropolis center, I mean, working down, as you know, wireless Wi-Fi down in the Resort areas seems to be added service that a lot of the hotels are bringing. But as far as Next G filling in-between there, I think some of the towers that they've got down in the Resort area is picking up most of that coverage, so I'm not sure there's a real profitability for Next G to make a lot of money in this town. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Villanueva? COUNCILMAN VILLANUEVA: Thank you, Mayor. Steve, I'm probably going to have to agree with Bill and Barbara that we need to rectify the existing infrastructure with these cell towers. I noticed, jumping ahead, and since Bill brought it up earlier about the water towers, is there somebody from Public Utilities here to address those terms? STEPHEN WHITE: They're going to be coming to you soon. I'm not sure when. I had a discussion.with them. They are drafting a policy on just this issue, and they're going to be bringing that to you so you have some say in how they view this. They really feel it is a security issue, and if it's a last resort, everything has been exhausted, then they might consider letting a provider install an antenna on a water tower. But due to the problems they've had in the past and the advice they're getting from Homeland Security about insuring that our water towers are secure, they just haven't been open to it, but they're going to be coming back to you to talk about that. COUNCILMAN VILLANUEVA: Walk me through how security is lapsed on the cell towers. Don't they coordinate with Public Utilities on maintenance? STEPHEN WHITE: That, I can't answer. Just from what I understand, the providers have been coming to do maintenance, and I think that's just the issue; they haven't let Public Utilities know that they're coming. 15 We'll talk to them more. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. DeSteph? COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: My former firm did the Drinking Water Vulnerability Assessments for most of the large metropolises in the country. So, we had a pretty good discussion over that in the fact they said "well, they have access to our water towers, the ability to taint it there". Well, there are many other easier ways to tamper with a water source than climbing a 300 foot water tower. So, we went through that whole aspect of it and came to a consensus at the end that, well, I was pretty accurate in the fact that there are many other easier ways to do it, I mean, where there's no exposure, whatsoever, to being seen or anything like that. So, once we established that, then it was we really do need to look at adopting this policy of using our water towers, which are 200 -plus, 300 -plus, feet in the air. And I've got to tell you, my cell phone, my computer, I can turn it on anywhere in this city and it works. My cell phone, obviously, I guess, I'm with a carrier that does have a lot of coverage, but whether it's in Blackwater, whether it's over in Sandbridge on the beach, anywhere I can get pretty good coverage. And people like me, and I'm probably one that's a catalyst behind this, I've got my computer on it, I've got my cell phone, I've got my Blackberry, I'm a heavy user of this, and I know for a fact that I'm tying up bandwidth. But for people like me, when you want access, you're going to get it. There are cities, there are colleges, there are entire campuses all over the country and counties that actually now are wired, and you can turn on your computer anywhere and get a wireless signal. So, I use the Aircard, but without that there are places in the middle of Mississippi, Oklahoma, Missouri, crossing the country I flipped it on and I had a wireless signal not using my Aircard. So, there are just cities that are wired, and going through a lot of airports and stuff. So, that's where the future is going, whether we catch up later or we try to go with the infrastructure now. But I think what we're trying to say is, if we could put it on our tallest structures, the water towers, if we can put it on, as Barbara said, the monstrosities, our towers that are already up there and have a lot of stuff on it, well, we'll get a better way to conceal it, but overuse everything you have that's existing and just do a better job concealing it. The demand is not going to go down. Like the demand in your house, when you had a T-1 line, and today you look at a T-1 line and you laugh. That's not enough bandwidth. So, that's 16 why we have fiber to the house. That's why we have fiber to the desktop in a lot of companies. So, the demand is not going to go down. It's always going to increase, and we need to look at a proactive way to go into the future on this, in my humble opinion, only. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Well, thank you. Mr. White, have you more to add? STEPHEN WHITE: If you'd like to see the rest? MAYOR OBERNDORF: Please? STEPHEN WHITE: This is a map that was just recently provided to us by Singular, AT&T, and it shows their existing towers that are active and then some proposed towers that they have that are designed to fill in the gaps that they currently are experiencing. And AT&T, most of the applications you've got right now are from AT&T, and it has a lot to do with the money that they have available now. It also has a lot to do with the fact that the iPhone, AT&T is the sole provider for the iPhone, so they need to improve and increase their network. These are the kinds of maps that we ask for from the providers. Some are ready, they'll just hand it over. Some are very reluctant to hand it over, because they feel it's a trade secret. It would be like Wal-Mart handing you a map. But we either have a map or we've talked to them and they've told us "this is where we're headed, this is our general location". This is just something, I've got these websites in here for you to play with when you get home in your spare time, if you have any. But what you can do with these, these are the main tower builders. You can go to these websites. This is the one for American Tower, for example. You can just plug in the Zip Code. I plugged in 23456. It gives you the map and then these blue triangles are American Tower's locations. You take your mouse and you hover over one of these triangles, and a pop-up comes up. It's a site brochure. It just tells you everything you need to know about the tower. And then if you click on "photos", it gives you all the photographs, the antennas, the equipment boxes, everything you want to know about that tower. So, this one is the best that I found out there for the tower construction companies. The other question we were asked is, "why is there this increase in applications?" I think Mr. DeSteph told you, 17 himself, as one of the reasons. I'm one of the reasons. Most of you are one of the reasons. We've got an increasing number of users. Everyone has got a cell phone, including the kids now, and they're all using the cell phones all the time, particularly kids who sit around texting, so the minutes are going up. There's also new equipment being installed that's utilizing spectrum that they bought at the last FCC auction, which was designed to increase the bandwidth; again, the bandwidth, increased demand for video and other services. This one, that 4th bullet, there's a new emphasis now on the residential customer. They want to get into your homes. The commercial base, they've sort of gotten ahold of, but now they want to get into the residential base. That's their last frontier. And then, of course, the increase in the funding; the money sort of dried up at the end of the 1990's, and now we've got more money available. This is an example of filling in the gaps. This is an application that goes to the Planning Commission tomorrow. This is at the end of Cardinal Lane, and this is at the Golf and Yacht Club. This is a tower that's proposed right here, I think it's next to the swimming pool, and this is designed to do one thing. This white area is area that has no coverage. That's Mr. Wood. He's standing right there. He's got no coverage. The brown area is where you can get coverage if you're outside or maybe beside the window. The green area is where you get coverage inside. So, the purpose of this tower is to fill in that gap. So, now you've got all these people who previously had no coverage can get coverage inside. These guys over here, these folks over here, still have to go outside to get some coverage. But that's the filling in the gaps that we have right now. That's a monopole and I think it's 90 feet tall. And then there's 911, wireless 911; 700 of the population, probably more now, have a cell phone, and the wireless providers are required to ensure that we can dial 911 and get somebody. The next slide shows a chart table that has that breakdown that we were talking about earlier. As you can see, there are more wireless 911 calls. Now, I've got to quantify this or give you a caveat that you may have three or four people that drive by an accident and all make a call, so they're all making a call about that same incident. So, that number, that 70,000, is probably lower, but the point is there are just as many 911 wireless calls as there are hardline calls. These are just some photographs of examples of what I call "Stealth" technologies. You've got the fake windmill. That 18 silo is actually fake. It just encloses a tower. And this one down here, that's a repeater that Mr. Wood was talking about earlier. I see this as being how the companies are going to break into the residential market a little bit more and fill in the gaps there, because just like Next G is doing, they can do this. They're only going to do it, though, when it is profitable, just like Dave said. If they're not going to be able to make that profit, they're not going to install these repeaters. This is, I think, this is Cox High School, and this is where the lights for Cox are right there, and then the antenna is up on the top. And that's an Osprey nest up there. There's antennas inside this church steeple, and then we have a couple of these, these are flag poles with the antennas internal. We have a huge one up at Northampton and Diamond Springs. Here's the wonderful fake tree. That's the only photograph I can get. It's sort of unfair because it's in the western part of the United States, but you can see that most trees would stop about right in here, so this thing is going to pop up a little bit higher, and in a flat terrain it's going to be very visible. This is a fake water tower. So, rather than using the real water towers, we can always dress them up to be pretty water towers. We've already talked about this, so I won't even burden you with going through that slide. At the end of the report, there's just some websites you can go to, if you feel inclined to be more educated about cell towers. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. White, Mr. DeSteph has been waiting. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: Can you go back to the map of the Cavalier Country Club, please? STEPHEN WHITE: Yes. Before or after? COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: Either one. Is there a water tower? Isn't there a water tower in that area down there? STEPHEN WHITE: Yes, there is. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: If we went on that water tower, wouldn't we be able to eliminate that huge cell tower? The water tower would be -- STEPHEN WHITE: The water tower would probably -- yes. We're just going to 19 have to sit down and have a discussion with Public Utilities. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: I'm more than willing to do it. I'd share with everybody the Water Vulnerability Assessment reports, just not open on a camera because of the sensitivity of providing what accesses there are. But I think, in this instance, if you put it on the water tower and allowed it for multiple ones, you'd increase your coverage of the entire area around there and be able to hit the increase in demand that we're going to see in the next, well, today and for the next five years. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Well, I'm sure that none of us have any objection to your talking, as you do so often, with staff, but I do want to make it clear that Public Utilities is looking at this problem, is discussing it with the Water Task Force, and it is not going without study and without consideration. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: MAYOR OBERNDORF: COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Wilson? I did address it with Public Utilities, as well. What did I say? That I discussed it with staff. I said you had, yes. Well, the staff is Public Utilities, also. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: It does seem to make a lot of sense because I know where that water tower is that Bill's talking about, and it would cover that entire Bay Colony area, which they seem to be the ones who are suffering the most. Lisa, have y'all talked to them about putting it there? LISA MURPHY: That one has been off limits for a while, that particular water tank. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: From the City side? LISA MURPHY: From the City side. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: But what if that changed? LISA MURPHY: Yes, I think that would be something worth looking into. I shared with 20 some of the others -- CITY CLERK: Would you go to the podium, please, and state your name? LISA MURPHY: I'm sorry. I'm Lisa Murphy, and I represent AT&T. That, actually, if you look at, and that might not be a good one, if you look back at the network map of what AT&T has in the city, there are three active sites that they originally planned for water tanks, and this is going on eighteen months ago. There's the Witchduck water tank. There's a big, beautiful, water tank along Shore Drive that they'd love to get on. There was a water tank down in Sandbridge where you see that 302, the blue dot there; they were looking in that area. Bay Colony, actually, that water tank is shorter than a lot of the rest of the water tanks, but that is one that's been off limits for a while. There's a water tank on Great Neck that doesn't have any antennas on it, either. And you know, to a certain extent, I guess, we haven't really gotten mixed messages in the sense that it's been up to each department and the answer in the near term from Public Utilities has been no, but, historically, for some of these sites like the Bay Colony water tank, the answer was no, historically. Now, it may be that they don't have enough land at the bottom, because you've got to have space for the base station equipment, too, and it may be that that's just too tight, that there's not enough room. But they do need, each carrier needs, at least a 12 by 20, at least, space on the ground to put the equipment and the cabinets that run the antennas that are on top. So, it does take up quite a bit of ground space. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. Mr. Spore, the recommendation has been made by Mr. Villanueva, and I don't know if Public Utilities is prepared today to come and talk in response to the issues that have been raised by Mr. DeSteph and others on the Council. CITY MANAGER: I don't think they're here today, but I know, as you have mentioned, we have been working at the Water Task Force level to try and revise the policy to encourage that co -location and yet solve some of the issues with security and access to the site and performance of the companies just not doing a good job and not taking care of the condition of the tank and so on. So, there's a lot of issues there, but we've asked them to redraft that policy and that was, I think, they're about a month into 21 that. MAYOR OBERNDORF: COUNCIL LADY WILSON: MAYOR OBERNDORF: COUNCILMAN WOOD: Mrs. Wilson? Mr. Wood had his hand up. Mr. Wood? Madam Mayor. Just a stupid question, because I don't know the technology, but is it basically a function of the height? I mean, if you're at a certain height then you're going to get the coverage; is that how the propagation works? COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: 900 megahertz and 1.2, 1.6 gigahertz, yes, just line of sight. LISA MURPHY: Sort of. And you talked about the taller towers, where you've got vast areas of the city with no coverage, your basic network we're looking at just under 200 feet, because you can get the farthest signal distance; it also encourages co -location. When you get into, like, parts of, if you put up the map that shows all the towers in the rest of the city, if you get into parts of the Great Neck corridor, I counted from Cox High School down to the Boulevard, there's a structure every mile. Now, they can be shorter, but that's where you're kind of filling in the gaps where you've got the most users. So, there's a difference between your basic network where you just get basic coverage, and then when you've got your concentrated users in populations you then have to go back and fill in. So, you can do shorter. In areas like Little Neck, they would have loved for those towers to have been taller, but that was sort of a balance between the community and getting the signal, which as a lot of folks know the signal isn't carrying quite as well. COUNCILMAN WOOD: But I guess my question is, if you've got a 300 -foot tall water tower that you can put an antenna on top of, that would solve a lot of issues? LISA MURPHY: Yes, but -- COUNCILMAN WOOD: If it's in the right location. LISA MURPHY: -- but you couldn't, let's say, cover the city with one 1,000 -foot tower. COUNCILMAN WOOD: LISA MURPHY: frequency. The PCS very high frequency, ideal of conditions there's going to be Then when you've got capacity with users, lot of in our area, far that signal can 2.2 Sure. It is a line of sight issue, as Mr. DeSteph said, and it's a high users are at 1,800 and 1,900 megahertz, very low wattage. So, even in the most at the most ideal height, that signal, a limit to how far that signal travels. capacity issues where you're sucking up with foliage, with water, which we have a that's going to shrink that, sort of, how go. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Well, today, Mrs. Henley is it your recommendation that we defer this until we have a chance to have Public Utilities and others come back to see how viable some of these suggestions have been? COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: I would like to do that, because as I look at this, and this was going to be my question, I mean, one of my questions, I've got many, we're looking here at this map of proposed AT&T coverage, but we've got a number of other carriers, too. And if we do this same for four or five different companies, what really have we done? And I think there are a lot of questions out there. We've got the questions with the water tanks. We've got my very real feeling that we could utilize the Virginia Power transmission lines a lot better than we're doing, as well as other opportunities to hide these, as Bill DeSteph has been saying. And I think, really, you know we recognize we need the coverage, we recognize we need to provide these facilities for the demand of the market, but I think we have a responsibility to look at the city as a whole to determine how we can do this in a fashion that's going to be the least negative impact to our particularly residential areas. And I think we need to be in the proactive sense, rather than reactive, and we seem to be reacting as each of these applications come to us. And I would really like to see us get an overall broader feeling for exactly where we're going with all of this, rather than having to do it every Tuesday one at the time. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Is it the desire of the Council to want to defer this until we have a briefing back from Public Utilities and from the engineers who can give us some idea of how readily they can work with the transmission lines of Virginia Dominion Power? 23 VICE -MAYOR JONES: You're talking about the Zoning Item? MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yes. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: We do have one today, and that one's right here, and I know that there are a couple of things that are not on the map. Plus, this one I would really like to see if it wouldn't have the opportunity to be on this transmission line, because that's right here, that ends right there, and here we are at this facility. So, I'm not so sure we've totally exhausted this. I wanted to ask Mr. White, these pictures of the Stealth Alternatives, I know the tree is not local, but are these others local? For example, the antenna within the church steeple, is that in this area? Don't we also have these towers on buildings a lot? Of course, that's in the northern part of the city. STEPHEN WHITE: Yes. If somebody comes in and wants to put a cell antenna structure or really any kind of antenna, communications antenna, on a building, that's permitted in certain districts, most of the business districts, the 0-2 and RT Districts where there are high structures, I think, was the thought. So, there are some on buildings and they are permitted. These photographs, although, Mrs. Henley, were taken from a company that's located in the midwest that specializes in doing this. And I think that's been part of the problem, is trying to -- there's not a lot of companies that specialize in doing this. So, asking a provider to do this causes them some issues, because they've got to figure out how to make it happen. It's easier for them just to go with the towers. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: But this one that you mentioned is at Cox; I mean, that is a local one. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Yes. STEPHEN WHITE: Yes. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: I knew there was one at Cox, but this is, is there something different about the light tower at the high schools that would make them candidates but are different from, say, the towers that we might have at our parks or other -- COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Could I say something about this? 24 MAYOR OBERNDORF: Please? COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Because I was on the School Board when we approved the one at Cox High School, and at that time we opened up a Special Fund so that all the monies derived from the cell towers went into a technology fund that served the school to help pay for technology. And we were a little concerned when we voted on that, thinking that the people in the Great Neck corridor were going to complain, and they didn't. Because of the way it was placed, it really didn't seem to offend anyone or bother anyone. And it was a really good thing because it does help the schools with the funding of technology. STEPHEN WHITE: To answer your question, for example, we've had a couple of providers approach us about locating on the tall light poles in our parks. And we investigated that with our Parks and Recreation folks, and the answer we got was "we're not interested". COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Why? STEPHEN WHITE: I'm guessing it's the same thing. It's a security issue. So, if Council wants to pursue locating on City facilities, the water towers, light poles in our parks, the Police Department facilities, I think it's going to take some discussion amongst the department heads and the City Council, Mr. Spore, the Chiefs, and a policy may have to be instituted for us to be able to go that direction because we've tried and we haven't gotten a lot of cooperation. I'm not saying anything against the other departments, but I think they have some legitimate concerns that need to be addressed before they're open to it. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. DeSteph? COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: On the Parks being a security risk, I'm not quite sure where you're going with that or where they're coming with that. That doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense, to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Jim, any idea? CITY MANAGER: It's the first I've heard of it. We will check it out. It doesn't sound right to me. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: I think that if there is something 25 that's available like that, we should utilize it. CITY MANAGER: That's what I thought our policy was, that we were trying to push co -location to the maximum extent possible. And I'm really surprised to hear departments aren't cooperating, and I'll put an end to that tomorrow. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: Perfect. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: I do think I would ask to have this deferred until we have a little more discussion and flesh it out a little bit more. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Madam Mayor raised the question, whether we wanted to wait. I think that we've found that we've got a lot of unanswered questions here, and these things, once they go up, they're permanent. And I remember when Barbara was on Council before, and I'll never forget this expression, she said, "If we're not careful we're going to become a martian city." And that sort of stuck with me with all these. It's just given me a mental image, thinking about that. I think we've raised so many questions here today that I think it's important to us as a city that we should go ahead and explore. So, I would support waiting and getting some of these questions answered. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Mr. DeSteph? COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: If we do, can we put a time line on the deferral of this so people don't push it out for a year? If we could, say, let's defer it 30 days or 45 days, so there's some sense of urgency to get it done so we're not leaving businesses in flux. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I support that. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Henley? COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Well, maybe, is 60 days too long, because I'm thinking of a couple that we have pending that are pretty -- and I want to give plenty of time to really do it, but I do think it should have a definite time. I don't think it should be indefinitely, because I think we need to work on it. COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: What's reasonable on this, Jim, 45 days, 30 days, 60 days? 26 CITY MANAGER: Forty-eight hours, as far as I'm concerned. We can get to it. Certainly, 60 days is fine. MAYOR OBERNDORF: And perhaps Mr. Bartholomew can come and explain to us what he's told the Farm area about. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Yes, that should be an easy call. He said he would be a contact person, but they have a telecommunications division that actually works on this and probably bring a lot of expertise. COUNCIL LADY MCCLANAN: And if there are other people in the community who have some thoughts and ideas, because this is not going to go away, and while we're looking at it we might as well hear everybody. Because I think that if we don't take charge of it, it's going to happen to us if we're not ready to work with it. I think what Barbara's done is good. I think what you all have done is good. STEPHEN WHITE: If anybody has an idea, feel free to e-mail me, swhite@vbgov.com. I'll consider the ideas. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: All right. Thank you. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you very much. (Whereupon, the discussion of this matter was concluded.) 4-.4,11 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of New Cingular Wireless PCS, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower on a portion of property located at 1052 Cardinal Road (GPIN 2418246584). DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN. MEETING DATE: November 27, 2007 ■ Background: The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower to be located adjacent to the swimming pool area for the Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club. The proposed communication tower will host three carriers, is 95 -foot tall, and is a stealth or "slick stick" style of monopole. This application has not been through the two new steps for review of communication towers presented by staff at City Council's November 6 meeting. Those steps consist of (1) the submission of an affidavit from the applicant pertaining to their attempts to collocate on another structure or existing tower, and (2) review of the application by the internal staff working group. ■ Considerations: The submitted site plan depicts a 525 -square foot lease area adjacent to the maintenance facility and behind the pool area. A proposed 12 -foot by 20 -foot (12' x 20) shelter for equipment and the tower are proposed within the lease area. Fencing and landscaping will enclose the lease area. A 20 -foot access easement for the roadway to the lease area will be recorded. Staff determined that the proposed tower meets the criteria specified in Section 232 of the City Zoning Ordinance. The City of Virginia Beach Department of Communications and Information Technology (COMIT) reviewed the request and found it acceptable in regard to potential for interference with City communications. ■ Recommendations: Due to the need for this application to be reviewed through the two new process steps established on November 6, a deferral of this application is recommended. The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: New Cingular Wireless PCS, L.L.C. Page 2of2 1. The site shall be developed substantially in accordance with the submitted development plans entitled "BIRDNECK POINT, site number NF304A", prepared by ALLPRO Consulting Group, Inc., and dated 2/2/07. The tower shall be developed in accordance with the submitted plan entitled "Tower Elevation", prepared by Thompson and Litton, and dated 10/4/07. Said plans have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file in the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. 2. The proposed tower shall not exceed 95 -feet in overall height. 3. 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 original tower and for all subsequent users. 4. In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from the user(s) 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 cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference. 5. In the event that antennae on the tower are inactive for a period of two years, the tower shall be removed at the applicant's expense. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends deferral to January 8, 2008. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning, Department City Manager: NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, I.I.C. Agenda Item 7 October 10, 2007 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a Communication Tower ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 1052 Cardinal Road GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 24182465840000 5 - LYNNHAVEN 525 square feet (lease area) The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit for a SUMMARY OF REQUEST communication tower to be located on the site. The proposed communication tower will host three carriers, is 95 -foot tall, and is a stealth or "slick stick" style of monopole. The submitted site plan depicts a 525 -square foot lease area adjacent to the maintenance facility and behind the pool area associated with the Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club. A proposed 12 -foot by 20 -foot shelter for equipment and the tower are proposed within the lease area. The equipment shelter will be 9 -feet, 10 -inches in height and made of metal. Fencing and landscaping are proposed to enclose the lease area. A 20 -foot access easement for the roadway to the lease area will be recorded. The applicant states a thorough search of the area was conducted without success for the purpose of attempting to find an existing tower or structure with antenna space that would provide the coverage needed. Since the search was not successful, the applicant is requesting this use permit to allow a communication tower on the site. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: The Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club clubhouse, tennis courts, pool, and maintenance facilities occupy the site. SURROUNDING LAND North: The Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club clubhouse / R-40 Residential NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC. Agenda Item 7 Page 1 USE AND ZONING: South: . The Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club maintence facility and tennis courts / R-40 Residential East: . Cardinal Road Across Cardinal Road is the Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club marina / R-40 Residential West: . A portion of the Cavalier Golf and Yacht golf course / R-40 Residential NATURAL RESOURCE AND The existing subdivision and golf course were platted and recorded in CULTURAL FEATURES: the County Clerk's office in June 1926, with the golf club opening in 1930. Mature landscaping and trees exist on the site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of Less than 65-70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES There is no impact to City services. Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area 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. Limited commercial or institutional activities providing desired goods or services to residential neighborhoods are considered acceptable uses provided effective measures are taken to ensure compatibility and non-proliferation of such activities. Evaluation: The request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Communication Tower is acceptable. The applicant searched the area for collocation availability and was unable to locate an existing tower or a structure tall enough to meet the network needs. The applicant provided maps of the existing AT&T network in the city, the existing network coverage, and the proposed network coverage maps to demonstrate tower locations and network needs. The applicant also provided a structural report confirming the tower will be designed in accordance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and will accommodate one carrier. Additionally the submitted NIER (non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation) report states "...the proposed operation at this site would not result in exposure to the Public excessive levels of radio-frequency energy as defined by the FCC Rules and Regulations, specifically 47 CFR 1.1307, and that Cingular Wireless' proposed operation is completely compliant". The City of Virginia Beach Department of Communications and Information Technology (COMIT) reviewed the request and found it compliant. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC. Agenda Item 7 Page 2 CONDITIONS 1. The site shall be developed substantially in accordance with the submitted development plans entitled "BIRDNECK POINT, site number NF304A°, prepared by ALLPRO Consulting Group, Inc., and dated 2/2/07. The tower shall be developed in accordance with the submitted plan entitled "Tower Elevation", prepared by Thompson and Litton, and dated 10/4/07. Said plans have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file in the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. 2. The Director of Planning may allow the installation of a type of antenna different from that shown on the plans described in Condition 1 if the Director determines that the proposed antenna type will not result in any undue impact beyond the antenna type shown in the plan described in Condition 1 and a structural report is submitted from a licensed structural engineer stating that the tower, with the proposed antennas, meets the structural standards established by the Electronics Industry Association and the local building code. 3. The proposed tower shall not exceed 95 -feet in overall height. 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 original tower and for all subsequent users. 5. In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from the user(s) 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 cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference. 6. In the event that antennae on the tower are inactive for a period of two years, the tower shall be removed at the applicant's expense. 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 and Standards. 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. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC. Agenda Item 7 Page 3 U O x RS o� S t3'46'SY E i r n ' 11 IISED SITE PLAN PROPO LESS PCS, LLC. NEW CINGULAR WIRE Agenda Item 7 Page 5 PROPOSED TOWER ELEVATION NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC. Agenda Rem 7 Page 6 i EXISTING PROVIDER COVERAGE NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC. Agenda Item 7 Page 7 PROPOSED PROVIDER COVERAGE NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC. Agenda Item 7 Page 8 OM[NL1NI I►I_1N:ZSP_ AT&T wire QF " - VA- Aems-Henw A _ueannt- at yv Legend Sitas Status On Air Sites Planned Sites HF851- 71- .0 48 NFOW OFF wainfa a R092 C�WF06S NFM �SNF093 8tP7' LVO NF306 W097- NF1701 rim NF338 005 FIT5 Chesapeake City',, NF665 - C&N*098 NF021 IN Vi7ki Virginia'Beach city r"" rte': NF -159 o3wm -J1 NF 53 t C3NM4 *156 Qj -&NF328A NF309 NF32413 A Wn7 68 NF026 NETWORK MAP NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC. Agenda Item 7 Page 10 The existing subdivision and golf course were platted and recorded in the County Clerk's office in June 1926, with the golf club opening in 1930. The golf club recently was denied a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a golf club maintenance facility. ZONING HISTORY NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC. Agenda Item 7 Page 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) Cingular Wireless is a publicly traded company 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. blow: (Attach list if necessary) Cavalier Golf &Yacht Club, Inc. 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity, relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. 8 See next page for footnotes Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land? Yes No x If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and the nature of their interest? Conditional Use Permit Application Page 9 of 10 Revised 11/1612006 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC. Agenda Item 7 Page 12 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) SAI Communications, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, ALLPRO Consulting Group, LeClair Ryan ' "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. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions in this package. The undersigned also consents to entry upon the subject property by employees of the Department of Planning to photograph and view the site for purposes of processing and evaluating this application. i Lisa M. Murohv, Esa. Applidgnt's Signature I Print Name 5 . 44,Avson Pro erty wnelr Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Coo/Cr �r Conditional Use Permit Application Page 10 of 10 Revised 7/3/2007 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC. Agenda Item 7 Page 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) SAI Communications, New CingWar INtretess PCS, LLC. ALLPRO Corsuiltng Group, LeClair Ryan i `Parent -subsidiary relationship' meens''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 S 22-3101. :"Affiliated business entity relationship' means 'a relationship, other than parent - subsidiary relationship that exists when (0 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 dose working relationship between the entities.' See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I cet tdy that the information contained herein Is true and actuate. 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 reWred sign on the subtect property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public heanng according to the instructions in Chis package The undersigned also consents to entry upon the subject property by employees of he Department of Planning to photograph and y,Ww Lhe site for purposes of processing and evaluating this application Appticanfs Signharure Print game Property Owners Signature if different than applicant) Pnnt Name ::Cr.�rpGf131 USB Fer'ni: }:P0iC3!hDr Page 7 c of 1C Rev,sea'.'b2rV DISCLOSURE STATEMENT NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC. Agenda Item 7 Page 14 The new at&t Ywr worms. Delim Cd. Jay Perez - Executive Director - LP - Legal • phone 973-637-9379 fax 973-637-9830 August 8, 2007 Department of Planning Municipal Center Building #2, Room 115 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 To Whom It May Concern: I am in-house counsel for your applicant, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC. This letter confirms that pursuant to company's Schedule of Authorization, ; ina Harris, Real Estate and Construction Manager, has the requisite authority to sign the zoning applications on behalf of the company. For New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Q aQJym Jay Perez a AT&T • 5 Wood Hollow Road • Parsippany, NJ 07054 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC. Agenda Item 7 Page 15 Item #7 New Cingular Wireless PCS, L.L.C. Conditional Use Permit 1052 Cardinal Road District 5 Lynnhaven October 10, 2007 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next item is item 7, New Cingular Wireless PCS, L.L.C. An application of New Cingular Wireless PCS, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower on a portion of property located at 1052 Cardinal Road, District 5, Lynnhaven, with six conditions. Barry Knight: Welcome Lisa. Lisa Murphy: Good afternoon Chairman and members of the Commission. For the record, my name is Lisa Murphy, and I'm a local attorney, and I'm here today on behalf of AT&T, which is formerly Cingular Wireless. The application itself, again, unlike some of the applications that you heard today, and at other times is really driven by technology. And the primary issue here is the need for the radio frequency engineer and the network to fill a hole that they have in their coverage. This is a whole lot like the situation at Little Neck, only on a smaller scale because you have a situation where you have a peninsula largely or almost entirely residential. You will see in the center is 304s site location, but this is all Birdneck Point over here. Some of the surrounding sites over here, you have a site at the hospital is actually only 72 feet tall. It is limited because it is on a rooftop. Along here, obviously, you have a couple of high rises at the Oceanfront where they are getting coverage at the Oceanfront and somewhat away from the Oceanfront. Those high rises, I think are 160 some odd and 170 feet. Unfortunately, as we're starting to see, and again which is the case at Little Neck, there have been some spots on Great Neck Road in the residential areas, but now that we have, I think the numbers are 233 million users, and we've gone essentially from the technology that is really limited to drivers and folks using them in their cars on the highways and on the major roadways, we've got an industry now that has matured and almost all users expect to use their phones inside their homes. So what this map shows is the coverage on this Birdneck peninsula. There aren't any facilities around it. They have been looking for awhile to site a facility. There were some controversy on this, but for the carriers, it is cheaper and easier to go to a structure that is already there. You know, there is a great deal of certainty. There are no public hearings. Unfortunately, they don't need folks like me. They can locate on the site. So, in this situation, you got the unique problem of being a highly residential peninsula, which is really the majority of our users. The site itself, after meeting with the neighborhood, and what we did at the outset knowing there was a prior application on this property that was controversial, we sent a post card to all 250 residents of Birdneck Point, set up a meeting at the country club, which they did very nice job hosting for us. And we shared with them the application that we had. What makes this application different, and I think you got a photo, and it is not the exact photo, but this particular design Item #7 New Cingular Wireless PCS, L.L.C. Page 2 and what it shows is the design as a pole design. What we had originally proposed, much like at the high schools, is the flush mounted antennas, where the antennas are right on top of the pole. In meeting with the neighbors, we talked about a variety of designs. Stealth designs, flag pole was thrown out. That might be something that would look good. Tree was thrown out. But largely, what the folks decided was the design where you have a slick -stick stealth, meaning unfortunately, it is unlike this picture. But you have everything internalized in that pole. And that is the design they felt most comfortable with. They didn't want a flag on it because that would flap in the wind. They wanted just to see a pole. The height of this is right at 90 feet. You've got some new plans, I think. This is still the older plan. But the new plan shows the top of the structure. You have antennas that are internalized. So there was some discussion about that in condition 2. The plan itself will be the revised plan that shows the internalized. We got a picture of that which I can show you. There is actually opaque material at the top of the pole, the antennas are put inside, so you really wouldn't know by looking at this what it was designed for. This one is 90 feet. I think the light poles at Little Neck are 110 feet. Just to give you some frame of reference. There is a pole at the Wave Church at Great Neck Road that is actually 130 foot pole, again all with internalize antennas. And what we said to the folks was, you know, take a look at the design at the Wave Church, which is actually 40 feet taller. And they were comfortable with that design. So, that was the design that we decided on. And unfortunately, as a result of some engineering issues we were a little bit slow getting that to Faith, but that was the commitment that we made to the community. Again, we met with the folks and they felt comfortable with the design. I don't think there is anyone here today. We respectfully request that you approve this given that it is a stealth design slick -stick and it is limited to 90 feet. I think, the staff report says 95 feet, but it is actually a 90 foot structure. And, I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Barry Knight: Are there any questions of Ms. Murphy at this time? Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: So Ms. Murphy you would be happy with the deletion of the old number two condition? Lisa Murphy: Yes. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Barry Knight: Mr. Whitney, if you would, in our informal session today, we know there is a study going on most cell towers, and specifically the ones in rural areas. Can you kind of summarize for us our thoughts and your thoughts about why it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to forward with this one today? Jack Whitney: Yes sir. As you mentioned, staff has briefed the Commission last month, and yesterday we provided a similar briefing to City Council. There are five Use Permits applications for cell towers in the process. We thought it was helpful to both the Planning Commission and City Council to provide information about the latest technology and answer some of the frequently asked questions about such towers in terms of why they need to be Item #7 New Cingular Wireless PCS, L.L.C. Page 3 located where they are and why they need to be as tall. Can they be more stealthy? And some of the land use impacts to the landscape and the surrounding neighbors have been raised. There was one cell phone tower application, which was heard by City Council yesterday. In lieu of that, and those issues, the City Council deferred that application for 45 days and directed the staff to look at alternatives including collocation of these facilities, this infrastructure on other public infrastructure such as water towers, light poles, and so forth, and private infrastructures such as private utilities power transmission lines for example. The item yesterday was in the southern part of the city. There had been some opposition to it. I believe this one can be differentiated from those. First off, there is no opposition that I'm aware of. It is not in the southern part of the city. Alternatives for collocation are drastically reduced, if even present for this particular application. And, they are proposing a stealth type technology. Slick -stick is a new term for me. So, I think that the fact that they're using stealth technology, which was one of the issues raised by Council, it is not in the southern part of the city, there are relatively few, if any, alternatives for collocation here, and there is no opposition, I think differentiates this from some of the other similar applications that are in the process right now. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Whitney. Is there any discussion? Ms. Katsias? Kathy Katsias: In accordance with Mr. Whitney's comments, I think I would like to make a motion to approve this application. Barry Knight: Is that with the deletion of condition 2? Kathy Katsias: With the deletion of condition 2. Dorothy Wood: I would like to second it. Barry Knight: Okay. There is a motion on the floor to approve by Kathy Katsias and seconded by Dot Wood, also noted the deletion of condition 2. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE STRANGE AYE WODO AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Item #7 New Cingular Wireless PCS, L.L.C. Page 4 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved the application of New Cingular Wireless PCS, L.L.C. with the deletion of condition 2. Barry Knight: Thank you. (_Uf'70T 7 ( 1 `4 pjJ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of Cingular Wireless for a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower on property located at 4021 Charity Neck Road (GPIN 2411550252). AICUZ is Less Than 65 dB DNL. DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE. MEETING DATE: November 27, 2007 ■ Background: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow development of a portion of a site zoned AG -1 Agricultural for a wireless communications tower, antennas, and associated equipment building. The proposed lease area will be developed with a 195 -foot tall communications tower and equipment cabinet. The proposed tower will accommodate up to four (4) wireless communication carriers. On October 9, 2007, this application was deferred by the City Council for 45 days. This application has not been through the two new steps for review of communication towers presented by staff at City Council's November 6 meeting. Those steps consist of (1) the submission of an affidavit from the applicant pertaining to their attempts to collocate on another structure or existing tower, and (2) review of the application by the internal staff working group. ■ Considerations: The proposed tower location provides approximately 400 feet from the lease area to the closest residential property line. The location is beside an existing, tree - lined buffer along the northern property line, which will be less obtrusive and not as detrimental to surrounding properties as other locations. An additional buffer will be planted adjacent to the non-residential uses on the site, consisting of 50% indigenous. grasses and shrubs and the remaining 50% with a mixture of 25% deciduous and 75% evergreen. The applicant submitted the required structural report indicating that the proposed tower's design meets the requirements of the International Building Code and a Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Report (NIER) indicating that emissions do not result in ground level exposure at any point outside the facility and is within compliance with all regulatory agencies and standards. In sum, staff concludes that the proposed tower is consistent with the standards provided in the City Zoning Ordinance for wireless communication towers. Also of importance in staffs evaluation is the need for wireless communication service in the southern portion of Virginia Beach, particularly as it pertains to enhanced Cingular Wireless — Charity Neck Road Page 2 of 3 emergency response and 911 communications. There are still portions of this part of the city that are not adequately covered by wireless service, rendering use of wireless devices for emergency calls moot. There was opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: Due to the need for this application to be reviewed through the two new process steps established on November 6, a deferral of this application is recommended. The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: The tower shall be constructed substantially in adherence to the site plans entitled "NO60XC833-C VEPCO Structure # 27/289 Sprint, Co -Location Transmission Tower", prepared by Alcoa Wireless Services, Inc., and dated 9/14/05 (issued for construction). 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 195 feet. 3. The tower shall not be lit. 4. The applicant and / or owner shall plant Leland Cypress behind the existing trees on and along the along the portions of the property line shared with the adjacent property owner to the east of the tower. 5. The portion of the subject property between the tower and the adjoining property to the east will remain undeveloped and used only for agricultural purposes except as shown on the site plan. 6. The applicant shall install a board on board style privacy fence in lieu of the chain link fence. No barbed wire shall be permitted. Landscaping around the tower shall comply with the City of Virginia Beach requirements. 7. No signs indicating the location of this facility are allowed. 8. 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. Cingular Wireless — Charity Neck Road Page 3 of 3 9. In the event interference with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities arises from the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference. 10. Should the antennae cease to be used for a period of more than one (1) year, the applicant shall remove the antennae and their supporting tower and related equipment. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends deferral to the January 8, 2008 meeting. Submitting DepartmentlAgency: Planning Department City Manager: CINGULAR WIRELESS - CHARITY NECK ROAD Agenda Item 25 September 12, 2007 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a communications facility. CUP for Communications Facility ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 4021 Charity Neck Road. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 24115502520000 7 — PRINCESS ANNE Total site 69 acres Lease site10,000 square feet SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow development of a portion of the proposed site for a communications facility and its associated equipment building. The proposed lease area will be developed with a 195 -foot tall communications tower and equipment cabinet. The proposed tower will accommodate up to four (4) wireless communication carriers. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Rural cultivated farmland with a single-family home. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Agricultural land/ AG -1 and AG -2 Agricultural District USE AND ZONING: South: . A church and single-family rural residential is directly adjacent to a portion of the southern property line. Across Gum Bridge Road is rural residential and agricultural land / AG -1 and AG -2 Agricultural District East: . Across Charity Neck Road is rural residential and agricultural land / AG -1 and AG -2 Agricultural District West: . Agricultural land / AG -1 and AG -2 Agricultural District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site consists of farm fields and a single-family residence with CINGULAR WIRELESS - CHARITY NECK ROAD Agenda Item 25 Page 1 CULTURAL FEATURES: associated farm buildings. Along the perimeter to the north and west are mature stands of trees. 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): Charity Neck Road is a rural local street. No improvements are currently planned. WATER & SEWER: Water and sewer are not available. The proposed use does not require service. FIRE: No comments at this time. COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: The proposed site design is acceptable. A frequency spectrum (MHz) report is required to ensure that inference is not encountered with a City -owned facility located on Pleasant Ridge Road. Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this site to be within the "Rural Area" with uses related to farming, forestry, rural residential and other rurally compatible uses. "From providing a legacy for a future generation of farmers, to providing habitat for wildlife, keeping taxes low, and maintaining the rural community, the vision for our rural landscape is important." (Pg. 161) Evaluation: The proposed tower at a height of 195 feet has been designed to accommodate up to three (3) additional providers, for a total of four (4) antennas. The application, when originally submitted, located the tower at 202 feet from the rear property line of the adjacent dwelling to the east, which was not in keeping with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for these types of towers. Section 232(b)(1) of the City Zoning Ordinance stipulates no communication tower be located closer to an existing residential structure than the distance equal to 125 percent of the total height of the tower. The applicant worked with staff and relocated the proposed lease area for the tower to a point further west from the original location. The revised tower location provides approximately 400 feet from the lease area to the residential property line. The revised location is beside an existing, tree -lined buffer along the northern property line, which will be less obtrusive and not as detrimental to surrounding properties. It is recommended, however, that an additional buffer be planted adjacent to the non-residential uses on the CINGULAR WIRELESS - CHARITY NECK ROAD Agenda Item 25 Page 2 site, consisting of 50% indigenous grasses and shrubs and the remaining 50% with a mixture of 25% deciduous and 75% evergreen. The applicant submitted the required structural report indicating that the proposed tower's design meets the requirements of the International Building Code and a Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Report (NIER) indicating that emissions do not result in ground level exposure at any point outside the facility and is within compliance with all regulatory agencies and standards. In sum, staff concludes that the proposed tower is consistent with the standards provided in the City Zoning Ordinance for wireless communication towers. Also of importance in staff's evaluation is the need for wireless communication service in the southern portion of Virginia Beach, particularly as it pertains to enhanced emergency response and 911 communications. There are still portions of this part of the city that are not adequately covered by wireless service, rendering use of wireless devices for emergency calls moot. The wireless communication providers are required to provide 911 connectivity, and the antennas located on this tower will assist in meeting that requirement and ensuring the safety of those living or traveling in this area of the city. CONDITIONS 1. The tower shall be constructed substantially in adherence to the site plans entitled "N060XC833-C VEPCO Structure # 27/289 Sprint, Co -Location Transmission Tower", prepared by Alcoa Wireless Services, Inc., and dated 9/14/05 (issued for construction). 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 195 feet. 3. The tower shall not be lit. 4. The applicant and / or owner shall plant Leland Cypress behind the existing trees on and along the along the portions of the property line shared with the adjacent property owner to the east of the tower. 5. The portion of the subject property between the tower and the adjoining property to the east will remain undeveloped and used only for agricultural purposes except as shown on the site plan. 6. The applicant shall install a board on board style privacy fence in lieu of the chain link fence. No barbed wire shall be permitted. Landscaping around the tower shall comply with the City of Virginia Beach requirements. 7. No signs indicating the location of this facility are allowed. 8. 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. 9. In the event interference with any City of Virginia Beach 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. CINGULAR WIRELESS - CHARITY NECK ROAD Agenda Item 25 Page 3 10. Should the antennae cease to be used for a period of more than one (1 ) year, the applicant shall remove the antennae and their supporting tower and related equipment. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. 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. CINGULAR WIRELESS - CHARITY NECK ROAD Agenda Item 25 Page 4 !IJ r•IMal �K-iMidmMral'", | ' Vi F Lo PROPO SIT VOND ss 2E A J Agenda Item page c! d Wis ¢ g It a � ..—�" CK FLOP ESS _ CHP• k Agenda Item CINGVLAR W IRELPa9 PAYPDSm (6) PANET. $64MMAS (B) FRTI*E AUBNAS FOR (2) PANEL ANTEWS PER SECTOR SECTOR A. t0' 0 T85 RAG CMD SECTOR % TBG' 0 YW RAG COW SECTOR C, 27W 0 IW RAG CENTER FUTURE CARRIER ti n n FUTURE CARRIER PROPOSED 7' NRIN CNAMNR rENa MIR+ (3) smu�5 of tiARBEO telt[ ` MITYEO CX Ift 1 vRLITY RACK rmt+ 111 3'rs NCrro" M PRDPMM TRY MONOPOLE PRCPDSED o+GttAR 7T'-rr2V EWPWNT MTER CINGULAR WIRELESS - CHARITY NECK ROAD Agenda Item 25 Page 8 NolIfuiriaav�s� nlvnio I 1� ME C 4 �� N O - Z > a N O a D m N U m m 0 m m wS d w m w a 1 N yDN ! aO.0 OJ�pG!a�O $o .5 moi y `t'moo LCC�o���-pp-; 4L O m 1 L^aci o TOOm Oc mm� Y13 O D 1 I Z+ R a O N w O a V m E m r Ny C m u 9 C V C ho- i Q> maC7 ,m O C� ccImE 000mE V V m m I :°ao Ea'TEm EE oci iii; �' NLc� C Wg s No^ , .ccmc .o��m�WEoro coo`momua�oc� _ Z QN Lw T ` U mR G Eoc aQ 3 a•NN M'21 Ula, o o' m^a=muWo .2 w d U m 7 C vi G m m- ^ W cW d; i m 0 i^ Q m ''+ o=oma r � O SOI y - VOmu �`o CL Z. _ � v -s .. m p^m G m �$ V Q N L R O w¢ G� y '.0 mN N N A i`. m U c x n w p m M �� D OAC mC N C O7 Z'=- o�coo�m�o8 w a'cw yEU 0 t CD. ^_a m3wac Nto w4 aCL 1 7.LjI V I O. wCD V S O m O m y GCO p� J r U P y� mG�p mL O•m O c m`^ m y N z in O ci O w N EOy N u N U C m=0 m L_ m m y � m0 pO�mr Gm IS � y. CIS 0.+ �� �� a�g; 3. 0 C C a a C' m M e2 C.� N C N y N CN -NI bCm O�'Df� y= u6V NolIfuiriaav�s� nlvnio C r w C R D QK03 NECK ROAD CINGULAR WIRELESS - CHARIAgenda Item 25 Page 10 I 1� ME C 4 �� N O - R o -CE c E m a d w m w a 1 ccE.a r y R Y13 O D 1 I Z+ R a O N w O V C Du f s Op W y N@ =E- Q Z C W O m + V 1 0.0'1' z _ Z QN Lw T ` U mR G R OyyO OO F -t O� O`C aQ 3 Ula, o R > .2 w d U R �p >o NN E G n a C L L i^ Q m ''+ o=oma r R. �o O SOI y - VOmu �`o CL Z. _ � v 6 `iaR L R O w¢ I fC Q 1 r m a C O N N� w G.m. c O i C 1 02 U C e= w N cp w a'cw yEU H. C 4. ^_a m3wac Nto w4 aCL 1 7.LjI V I O. wCD y 7•�V' in O ci O w N i cc m U 4: O E- IS � y. CIS 0.+ �� �� a�g; V C N '1 a CN C r w C R D QK03 NECK ROAD CINGULAR WIRELESS - CHARIAgenda Item 25 Page 10 ROAD FtELESS _ CHA Agenda Item 25 CINGULARW' Page 11 i v ao I a c �' t � d� �v J ci V -E w Y G i y ai _ tr= u dl ROAD FtELESS _ CHA Agenda Item 25 CINGULARW' Page 11 v a c �' t � J ci V D m c N c _ m yy N � � Lm�F o � � 0 7G = y �•G 330 co .�`ob.4 oSc c c_o. d �O O m '[1 i •"�' m u L.. c uxf jtl j cJ GE`' G•o � J ,r o� �� ROAD FtELESS _ CHA Agenda Item 25 CINGULARW' Page 11 \ / ± / § DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CINGULAR WIRELESS - CHARITY NECK ROAD Agenda Item 25 Page 12 � f T ) _ \ z_J\ / -000 \ � � { \ \ / ( \ $ § DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CINGULAR WIRELESS - CHARITY NECK ROAD Agenda Item 25 Page 12 AT&T Wireless N-et!wQ.rk-.m VA Beach City,, VA EN Q!p NF6057 �,NF1085 VE fjpoNF315AjkNr.tjl-4A 50 �"!2117i r -I NF152 __w ___4. . NF28 ,* NF157 NF058 NF34 I B '�NF667(--/ SNF158 It NF340B ,:S NF338 NF159 NF089 it NF300A Legend Sites Status raj On Air Sites Planned Sites 19 NF054 I NF051 0 NF301411A Mies N F, -1 VI F 1 14A m N0056 9-1 6d. -A 5i NF092 (� NF063 a Beach City NF320 CP CBNF076 .;, NF093 IA 6b NF097 ,S NF170 ION NF068 ,�NF322 Chesapeake C NF175 -C�, NF 153 NF156 Cj NF031 lz NF327 cs- NF065 NF021 it NF323B N ,�3 NF324 ,S NF098 '.5- NF309 NF36 NF302C 8C1. ,ZNF306 r NF307AWFO9 F 4 NF30 foo If NF325B NF310 Currituck CoLjAty Item #25 Cingular Wireless Conditional Use Permit 4021 Charity Neck Road District 7 Princess Anne September 12, 2007 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next item is item 25, Cingular Wireless. An application of Cingular Wireless for a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower on property located at 4021 Charity Neck Road, District 7, Princess Anne with seven conditions. Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am. Lisa Murphy: Good afternoon. I would say good evening but it is not quite that late. My name is Lisa Murphy. I'm a local attorney and I'm here today on behalf of the applicant. I've got to commend Stephen White. He did a great job earlier this morning in trying to explain to you why you're going to be seeing so much more of myself and the other folks who do wireless work. And, I thought the best way to kind of give you a sense of what is going on, and you all have that map. If you look at the map that you have you will notice all of the white, sort of triangles or existing sites that are on the air. And you will see they are predominately in the northern part of the city. That is also really where most of the population is. Where you have those sites you got already your basic network built out, and what you're starting to see in the northern part of the city is really sort of fill in and capacity sites. So areas where they find there is a lack in coverage, they come back and try to complete the coverage. And you will notice, if you look at your maps, if you look along the interstate just how close those towers are, and somebody has asked the question, "well how many, how close"? And it really depends on whether or not you're talking about your basic network, which is what we're talking about in the southern part of the city or you're taking about filling in sites. So, if you look down to the area where we are and the site that we're talking about in particular is noted in purple as a proposed site, and that is 308. If you look around that there are very few of these white existing sites that are already turned on. There just a lot in there. And that is really going to mirror what the prorogation maps show on this map. On this map or just sort of spotty coverage, white is very limited to no coverage, especially none inside buildings and the green is that good solid coverage. So, as you would expect from the map that shows the great distance of the existing towers from this particular location, there is a huge area that is white with no coverage or just spotty coverage in that area. With this particular tower, we're able to fill in a great deal of that with the green, which is a very good coverage, and also pick up a whole lot of orange to get us to connect with those other sites that are on the air. The biggest difference, I think between the heavily populated cities and the southern parts is that the network just hasn't been built out. Your basic backbone of sites, and I was thinking about it this morning and it is almost like your power. You start out with a big transmission towers and as they get into the certain heavily populated area, Item #25 Cingular Wireless Page 2 they can get lower and lower with the poles. Somewhat similar to that but except for with antennas the way they work they have to be up higher than what they are trying to communicate with on the ground. So, it is not a perfect analogy but that's basically the technology. The other reason why you're seeing so many of these, interestingly, after September 11, when the capital markets tanked, so did funding for the wireless companies. And those of us who do this type of work saw a real dip in the work. And instead of continuing to build out their networks, the carriers told their engineers that "hey, we have every limited funding, tell us what your top ten sites are in all of Hampton Road or all of Richmond, and we'll try to plug in those holes". So, we're now seeing the funding come back around and that's part of the reason why you're starting to see more of these applications. The particular application, again, is off of Charity Neck Road just to sort of orient you. There is Charity Neck Road (pointing to PowerPoint). The tower site is over here. There is a nice natural buffer of trees in through here. And actually, a ditch, sort of a water line, that comes in through there, so it actually makes a pretty good buffer. There are floodplains that run in through here. And, what we've tried to do over the course of months and working with the property owner, is to try and get this tower back into an area where we can get some of the benefit of those trees but yet stay out of the floodplain, and stay far enough off that canal that goes through there and the area where we can't campus the tower. So, we picked this particular location for the tower, as it is mentioned in your staff report. It is a 195 foot tower. This drawing shows it a little bit but there is actually where the sort of tree line comes out. It jets out a little bit here and then goes back in and jets out again there. So, there is a benefit of a little jet out of trees right in that area. The tower itself, they're going to put to the absolute corner so it can make the most use out of that tree line. That shows you that point right there would be the tower. So, it is far enough off of the tree line to get away from the water issues there but yet, you see this, where the tree line jets out here, we get some of the benefit of that putting the tower right in that particular location. The proposed tower is 195 feet. It is a monopole design, which you all discussed somewhat. The monopole design is actually fairly standard. It allows for collocation, in this case at 195 feet, we can get four carriers on it. The carriers all work very closely together. AT&T is the carrier who is building this particular tower with Cingular Wireless. But there will be others who will come on and will be able to share that tower. A monopole design is one of the least visually intrusive types of designs because you got a pole which is essentially 6 to 8 feet in diameter at the base, and then and you see it tapers as you get to the top, and it can taper up to 3 feet in diameter at the top. And, then you got the antennas attached there. So, as far as the pole portion of it, as was mentioned this morning, that tends to blend in with the background. In the area of, as was mentioned, to the north of this site, there is actually a City owned tower at the Mosquito Control Center there at Pungo. That tower, as was mentioned is over 400 feet tall, and it can be seen really quite a distance. So, we're talking about a tower that is twice the height of our tower. It is a lattice design and it is painted orange and white, which is required by FAA. So, by comparison, our monopole will be half the height essentially. We've added as a condition, I think, Ms. Prochilo provided to you that it will not be lit. I've got a FAA determination that I can give you that indicates that the tower itself will not pose any type of threat or hazard to air travel. I think there was initially a question that came in. We got the determination Item #25 Cingular Wireless Page 3 from the FAA that indicates no hazard, no lights required. And, I met with the gentleman in charge of the local airport and he was very comfortable once I had explained to him and provided him with a copy of that report. In meeting with and communicating with the directing adjacent property owner, there is a home on this property over there and a trailer, a one-story structure on that property. And the concern was the view shed to the tower, and again, as it was mentioned this morning, we've gone back a distance of 409 feet, so it is quite a distance away. But the concern was what would be seen from that one-story structure. So, what we've done is added conditions that would essentially add tree plantings. You see, your access is going to come along through here. We've added a conditional indicating that there will be Leland Cypresses planted along this property line and then most importantly along this property line. Also, we've added a condition that the area between the tower and the property will not be used for anything but agricultural and access, and then the tower itself, in addition to the city required landscaping around the base, we've actually added a board on board fence. So what will be seen will be very heavily screened and very heavily buffered from the ground level. And, I'm happy to answer any questions. Barry Knight: Are there any questions at this time for Ms. Murphy? Lisa Murphy: I'm sorry, one other thing. We actually have a petition of folks who are in support of the tower. I'll pass that out as well. Barry Knight: Are there any questions of Ms. Murphy? Okay. Thank you. Lisa Murphy: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Speaking in opposition we have James Diersen. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. James Diersen: Good afternoon to the Commission. My name is James Diersen. I live at 1780 Gum Bridge Road, which is the house that you see just to the left of the blue line. And, I just have a couple of concerns about this. Since no one bothered to come to the homeowners around the property and address this, and not to take up my whole three minutes but I didn't receive my notice about the meeting until yesterday at noon also, although it was dated August 28, 2007. It is my understanding that the purpose of the zoning regulations is to protect the health, safety, well being, and property values of the community. I don't see where this is going to do many of those. I feel that the current residents are being forced into an involuntary exposure of RF radiation hazards. I have serious concerns about the flooding issues where they're proposing to put this tower. I'm happy to have the luxury of having waterfront property several times a year from right here all the way to here (pointing to PowerPoint). And, I've actually seen this entire area, which doesn't drain very well now, completely under water. My barn sits right here and the horses have a high flat area to stand in my yard right there. So, they stand on the hill and all of this has ducks in it swimming around. I'm concerned that when they put this Item #25 Cingular Wireless Page 4 roadway in and they build this tower, it is definitely not going to be below the floodplain, and all of this that you see right here and this tree line going back drains this way across this road and out towards Newbridge. When they put this road in this isn't going to anything to enhance that drain. It is actually going to hurt it. So, I'm questioning on what's being looked at for that? Has the Army Corp. of Engineers been contacted? The DEQ? Has there been any environmental impact study done on what this is going to do in that area? Also, it wasn't really answered by the previous presentation but I'm wondering in the rural section of Virginia Beach that were supposedly not developing, is this going to serve existing customers or are they simply putting this tower up with the idea they will be the first people with tower that can sell space on it, and then that way when they do start to develop below the green line, they will be the first people with the tower up and ready to service or are they putting it up for the people already there now because we don't have good coverage? That is all that I have. Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Diersen at this time? Donald Horsley: The only comment that I will make is probably putting it up the hill helps us to keep coverage and get coverage. James Diersen: I have Verizon. I get great coverage at my house. I don't know very much about this and I wasn't going to be involved in it until I was drug into it by local residents that I talked to oppose it. No one came to and said this is what we're planning to do. How do you feel about it or anything else? I did Google it. I got 1.2 million hits on cell phone towers and RF radiation and things of that nature. It is constantly being studied. There is a lot of stuff going on with it. I was diagnosed with cancer two years ago. I moved out to the country. I don't particularly want to live next to a cell phone tower. I don't see where that adds any value to my property. It is going to take away and you're going to have all these other concerns with flooding and everything else. It is not just "I don't want it in my backyard" situation. There is a lot of area out there in Pungo. The airport has opened up. I have planes flying low over my house all the time. Ultra lights fly over the house. They fly close enough that they can see us wave in my pool. So, I have concerns, also. Before they said there is no concern with the air traffic, yet the planes fly very low. It doesn't bother me. They are old planes. They're nice to look at. But, the tower would definitely be sticking out above the tree line and it will cause a hazard. Barry Knight: Are there any questions of Mr. Diersen? Thank you. James Diersen: Thank you very much for your time. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker in opposition is Maria Benetz. Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am. Maria Benetz: Thank you. Hello. Thank you very much. Item #25 Cingular Wireless Page 5 Barry Knight: Please state your name for the record. Maria Benetz: Maria Benetz. Dear Members of our Planning Commission and all people present. Thank you for this moment. My name is Maria Benetz and I'm speaking for my dear mother Elizabeth Benetz, who just turned 85 years young September 7, 2007. My mother is the landowner of 4001, and my little cottage of 3973 Charity Neck Road. I'm not only speaking for myself and my mother but for many, many residents of our dear Pungo. These are residents of beautiful homes on Pleasant Ridge, Charity Neck Road and new homeowners across from historic 1789 Charity United Methodist Church, and the residents on and off of Gum Bridge and Dawley Road. All of these residents, taxpayers and voters of the City of Virginia Beach who have signed this petition against this 195 foot monopole cell tower on the property of 4021 Charity Neck Road. I am speaking for all of these undersigned residents who do not wish to walk out of their front or back doors and look up into the sky and see this 195 foot monopole of Cingular Wireless because we chose this field and landscape in their natural beauty. God Bless you! Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any questions of Ms. Benetz? Ms. Benetz, you live in the top right hand corner just outside the blue? Is that correct? Maria Benetz: Yes. Barry Knight: Are there any questions? Dorothy Wood: I would like to thank Ms. Benetz for spending her day with us. She was here when we arrived this morning. You are certainly a lovely lady and I watched you with your mother today. You're a very lovely lady. Maria Benetz: Thank you. God Bless you! Barry Knight: Are there any questions? Okay. Thank you. Joseph Strange: That concludes our speakers. Barry Knight: Ms. Murphy? Lisa Murphy: Just a couple of points. One that I wanted to really discuss especially sitting through today's applications, the type of use that we're talking about is an incredibly passive use. There is no parking. There are no crowds. There are no traffic issues. It is essentially but for the stroke of Congresses' pen, a public utility, although it is not really a public utility. Once the tower is actually built it will be visited maybe once or twice a month by each carrier that is on it and that is just to go out and make sure that the antennas are still working properly. So, as far as the other types of planning uses that you consider an impact, it is a very low impact use frankly. The added benefit, again, towards being able to on a large piece of farm land, and this happens so many times in Item #25 Cingular Wireless Page 6 rural applications especially, this is farmland that will remain in agricultural use. Most of the folks that end up becoming landlords, they have large pieces of property. They do it so they can keep from developing that property. The development is really coming all around us. And we mentioned to Ms. Benetz when we met with her and to others this really prohibits this property from being developed in any other way. It is not going to be a neighborhood. It will be as you see it now for a very long time. That is predominately because the commitment that the landlord has to the tenant can get up to be a 15 to 20 year commitment. So, that really locks in the use and this very passive use, which I think is a benefit to the area because it is something again, that won't add traffic. Cingular Wireless, which is now known as AT&T is licensed by the Federal Government, as you know to provide wireless services. There are other carriers who are also interested because they're licensed by the federal government, they have to go through a higher level of scrutiny, if you will, as far as environmental review, need for review, so they have to comply with all the federal laws, in addition. When we met with Ms. Benetz, we offered and asked her to invite the other folks who she said had interest to come to the meeting at her home, and it was just herself and a relative and another gentleman. So, we did try to reach out to the group. And again, this is really an amenity and a public utility for the folks in the area who don't have the coverage and service at this point. I thank you. Again, staff recommends approval of the application and it does comply with your Zoning Ordinance. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions? Ms. Wood? Dorothy Wood: Lisa, we couldn't read your signatures. Lisa Murphy: I have a better copy. Dorothy Wood: Maybe you could just tell us. We have a lot of signatures on Charity Neck that are opposed to it, so where are the people? Lisa Murphy: There are about 50 in support. They are on Pleasant Ridge, Princess Anne Road, Morris Neck, Gum Bridge, Muddy Creek, Pleasant Ridge, Charity Neck, Mill Landing, Charity Neck, Charity Neck. Dorothy Wood: It is hard to believe that there are this many people there that have signed both. I mean looking around. Lisa Murphy: Well it is interesting because my assistant, her family lives very close by and she looked at the list and she said that was one of my teachers in elementary school. I know that person and sort of a who's who. But I will give staff the original written copy so that you can see much more clearly. As you all probably know from sitting through a lot of these, the people who want the service are usually the people who don't show up at these hearings. I mean it is very rare that folks come to speak in support other than the carrier who is doing the application, and then the other carriers. I can tell you that we are actively marketing this site to Verizon and to some of the other carriers to see Item #25 Cingular Wireless Page 7 if there is interest. And on some of our tower applications, there will be one or two other carriers that will be involved. Dorothy Wood: Thanks. Barry Knight: Ms. Wood, I asked Ms. Murphy to email me her petition because I had the opposition petitions so I can try to compare them. And, I recognize a lot of names on both of the petitions. I'm not going to say that it is equally divided but there are a lot of names on both petitions. Dorothy Wood: Thanks. Barry Knight: They are from within the area too. Lisa Murphy: You know the most striking thing and the thing that folks ask me the most was "what about the orange and white tower to the north"? Because it is really sort of stand -out feature that you can see from many directions. My clients have spoken with the City about that. I confirmed with the City that this isn't a tower that there isn't leasing space on. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions of Ms. Murphy at this time? Mr. Horsley? Donald Horsley: The revised conditions that we have here, I saw you meeting with the Benetz after our informal session this morning, and did you address these with the opposition, and are they comfortable with these conditions? Lisa Murphy: I won't speak for Ms. Benetz but I think she was more comfortable because this obstructs the view but I don't know that she would ever be comfortable. Donald Horsley: But you did go over these because they are different then the ones in our packets. Lisa Murphy: Yes. The last, I think starting from the tower won't be lit down. Karen Prochilo: Excuse me. I just want to bring up that the conditions are similar to what you had provided Lisa Murphy with but we incorporated them into the report and the numbers are not the same. Lisa Murphy: Okay. So, I think there was originally a condition about the landscaping around the base of the tower and to that was the board on board fence. The Leyland Cypress along the property lines. That was added. The commitment to keep the area between the tower and the property line in either agricultural use or just as shown on the site plan, which would essentially be the road. Those were all added. And, also since we know that the tower will not be lit we added that as a condition as well that it will not Item #25 Cingular Wireless Page 8 have a light on it. But those were all things that we offered up and discussed with that with the property owner. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Ms. Murphy? Thank you. I'll open it up for discussion. Is there any discussion? I'll add a little postscript on it I guess. Mr. Chaplain, it is nice to see you sitting here today. I know that you're the property owner. I see down at the bottom right hand corner where Charity Neck Church is and Charity Neck Cemetery is, and you're well aware of it because you live across the street. But I don't go to Charity Neck Church. It is not going to affect my vote whatsoever. But, sure it would be nice if they could expand there cemetery into your property. So, I just thought I would put a plug in for the church. Is there any discussion? The Chair will entertain a motion. Donald Horsley: I spoke with Benetz earlier on a couple of months ago as they called me in concern and I told them at the time, and I wasn't being facetious, I said I'm looking out my back window and where there is a tower and I really don't see a tower. And, I think the perception and rightfully so, these people just don't know what to expect when one of these are put up. But, we got use to having a tower, very close and close proximity to where we live. Unless you really walk out your backdoor and look up in the air, you really don't even know it is there. A lot of people walk around their yard and they don't really realize a tower is there unless you look up. Quite often, they have a tendency to blend in with the sky depending upon the atmospheric conditions. There are needs for these. The city is changing technology that we have. It is more and more prevalent everyday so there is a need for more towers in our area. This may not be the perfect site. It is a site that the applicant chose and that is the one that is before us today and that is the one we have to vote on. It may be another site that would be a little bit better and even more easier to pass, but there wouldn't be as much opposition or it may not have any opposition, but that is not here today. This is the one to pass. I know we appreciate the concerns of the neighbors but I think the applicant has done all that it can do to make this thing less intrusive on their property. So, at this time, I make a motion that we approve item 25, Cingular Wireless Charity Neck Road application. Barry Knight: And I have a second from Al Henley. So, there is a motion made to approve the application by Don Horsley and a second by Al Henley. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE Item #25 Cingular Wireless Page 9 LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved the application of Cingular Wireless on Charity Neck Road. 1 03/24/80 Conditional Use Permit for 18 single family homes Granted 2 10/12/92 Conditional Use Permit for 1 single family home Denied 3 04/16/84 11/12/02 Conditional Use Permit for church addition Conditional Use Permit for church expansion and preschool Granted ZONING HISTORY CINGULAR WIRELESS - CHARITY NECK ROAD Agenda Item 25 Page 9 r Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW -520 l ., 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 07/30/2007 Carol Murphy Cingular Wireless LLC 4801 Cox Road Glen Allen, VA 23060 Aeronautical Study No. 2007 -AEA -3524 -OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Antenna Tower Pleasant Ridge Road-NF308C Location: Virginia Beach, VA Latitude: 3640-41.77 N NAD 83 Longitude: 76-0-5.53 W Heights: 195 feet above ground level (AGL) 197 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking and/or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission if the structure is subject to their licensing authority. Pagel of 3 If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (817) 838-1995. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2007 -AEA -3524 -OE. Signature Control No: 528183-100595439 Alice Yett Technician Attachment(s) Frequency Data Page 2 of 3 (DNE) Frequency Data for ASN 2007 -AEA -3524 -OE LOW HIGH FREQUENCY FREQUENCY FREQUENCY UNIT ERP ERP UNIT 1850 1910 MHz 1640 W 1930 1990 MHz 1640 W Page 3 of 3 Jul 20 07 01:48p Dan Bendl 866-805-1428 p.l 07/09/2007 14:16 8042739225 SAI COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 03 _HARVEY L. PARKS, INC. LAND SURVEYWG P.O. Bax 3695 4509 W. HUMMED ROAD CRESTER, VA 23831 Pii. ($04)-748.8641 FAA 1-A SURVEY CERTiWICATION Applicant: Cingular Wireless Site Name: PLEASANT RIDGE ROAD NF308C 4021 Cbm ity Neck Road Virginia Beach, VA 23457 Structure fie: Proposed 195' Monopok Latitude: North 36°4041.771" (NAD 83) Longitude: West 07600'05.536" (NAD 83) Ground Elevation: 1.5f NAVD 88 C tine: I certify that the latitude of North 3640'41-771" and the longitude of West 076000'05.536" are accurate to within :t 20 feet horlmntally, and that the site ekvatkm of. 1.5* NAVD 88 is acme -ate to within * 3 %et valieally- Surveyor. Harvey L. Parkq Date: May 29, 2009 9ARVEY 4 PARKS No. 1243 ue,q We the undersigned residents, taxpayers, and voters of the City of Virginia Beach due here by PROTEST this proposal CINGULAR WIRELESS 195 foot monopole cell tower on the property of 4021 Charity Neck Road in Pungo, VA. 'SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS &A 2 2. , �•� �a��L �� S� 3. 4(7\(3 5.'3 77 05 G�� 5" r:7 10 C1 ' L - �� 7. -� 8. - 13.14. rt,/z S � � C elk 15. ' 16. 7. v Al� .. 18.Uw 19. '{ 20. i A j t Z 2-3 21. 22. 23. 24. 7 25.- 5 to 1f -7& 6�- 227. Cz/ 28. 29. _ %� • , w_ .. - .__ !�_ `S `' c'%� ALJ. Ab r i Al ( A 23, --- 7- I SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS 30. dr7 vod G V� V� 3 S'"1 06 L :'kZc�3 eAS c.– 5-2U -C( q1ol i C.r,., C� Vac�ei 23 32. j ��Rb !i C 4 34. �',( �U o7 L(/U� C/Ir '�� C4- � t i i 51 X010-) 1-2.60 r -P ifs 23 36.i' ,Zo ( & wvn iu� -0 37. c. 38. S -ad -07 40. 41.6 .� 42. .1,96,6 7 (IX� 43. - 5 oo D-� cs Gh \fU-� =23g5 : 44. 45. �, �,�J 3SSC� 1.�1z llc lt�dLO (� L3qs 47. 48 1 ti�-2 ✓`3� �� �, K �° 49. 31 ell //V 0. tf 51L� 52. i n a 4 i% C. 53. 54.E O 3 S` A 55..-, 5 36 j� j0 23�5-/ 56. 59. 6 i t�7 rl J 4 S 7 SIGN DATE ADDRESS 61.E 6- 63..- 4 ci� `4 64, CXj 65.L4 tn 66.C. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 7 SFGNAT. U' RE DAT. E ADDRESS 92.on 2 a /o 7 27.. �� as GD z4) 14. 95. ti ick t Uq- ,� 2 96. Y-,Kj 7 Z S 97. 98. l if 0-7 3 Pi 5 } 100. 1� 101. 7 `% 102. 12 M&q 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. t57 4S7 -P—a z:l � --fC7 67 Y - �Iec��S7- IV& L) i,,iik. r SS �-zx� 1Y� SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS 123. �� BLL °� / -41?Goat 10W p ' 125. �� �7'G �rrr► 126. 127. 128. 129. 130F. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. Pagel of 2 Karen Prochilo From: George J. Piccillo [George. Piccillo@VBSchools.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 12:36 PM To: Karen Prochilo Subject: RE: Cingular Wireless Thank you for the information. Unfortunately, since classes at school would have resumed by September 12, 1 will most likely be unable to attend the hearing without taking leave and missing one of the first days of school. For what it's worth, please note that my wife and I are in opposition to the current location of the tower. George Piccillo From: Karen Prochilo [mailto:KProchil@vbgov.com] Sent: Wed 8/8/2007 11:29 AM To: George J. Piccillo Subject: RE: Cingular Wireless Dear Mr. & Mrs. Piccillo — The Cingular Wireless at Charity Neck is deferred from the August meeting. They are regrouping with some revisions and will be on the September Agenda. Sorry if there was an error in the delivery. If you are an adjacent property owner, there should be another notice coming concerning the September hearing date (which would be September 12th). Thank you for emailing. If you do have opposition it is always important to try to attend the hearing to voice your concerns. Sincerely --Karen %rock ilo Department of Planning Municipal Center - Bldg 2 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, Va 23456 voice 757-385-4298 fax 757-385-5667 kprochil@vbgov.com From: George J. Piccillo [mailto: George. Piccil lo@VBSchools.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:3S PM To: Karen Prochilo Subject: Cingular Wireless Dear Ms. Prochilo: Due to a delivery error to our new home on 4036 Charity Neck Road (GPIN 2411-64-2658) we did not receive notification of the hearing regarding the proposed wireless tower located at 4021 Charity Neck Road until today. Please be notified that we are opposed to the location of the tower as currently proposed. It is our belief that at the very least the tower should be moved further back into the adjacent woods to a less intrusive position so that the current resident next to the tower location would not have such an eyesore immediately behind their home. We are also concerned regarding the amount of low-flying air traffic from the Virginia Beach Airport which is due west of the proposed tower. It would appear that this towers' location may pose a safety threat to the operations of the airport. Finally, we are opposed to this proposed location as it causes the intrusion of a more commercial influence in the agricultural atmosphere of this community which was the very reason we purchased our lot on Charity Neck Road five years ago, built our home there this spring and moved here from the Kempsville district. I will make every effort to attend the Planning Commission hearing. R/7.7/9007 Page 2 of 2 Thank you, George and Lisette Piccillo Page 1 of 1 Karen Prochilo From: IAM3X@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 11:23 AM To: Karen Prochilo Subject: Fwd: Cingular Wireless application for a communications tower at 4021 Charity... Attachments: Cingular Wireless application for a communications tower at 4021 Charity Neck Rd Karen, Attached is the email to Mrs. Henley I mentioned in our telecon this morning. If you have any questions do not hesitate to give me a call. Take Care, Cecil E. Nichols Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. Qi')7i')nm Page 1 of 2 Karen Prochilo From: IAM3X@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:32 PM To: Barbara Henley Subject: Cingular Wireless application for a communications tower at 4021 Charity Neck Rd Attachments: CECILE-2.DOC Dear Mrs Henley, I am writing this to express my opinion on the Subject Application for a Cingular Wireless Tower at 4021 Charity Neck Road. I had hoped to present my views at the Planning Commision Hearing on Wednesday August 8th but unfortunately I cannot attend due to a previous commitment. My property and home is at 1789 Gum Bridge Road across from the proposed site. I feel that this Application should be rejected for several reasons: (1) The proposed site is adjacent to Charity United Methodist Church which although it may not be on the registry of historic sites is nevertheless a historic site and House of Worship. (2) My home at 1789 Gum Bridge Road is also a historical property. Although my house is covered with conventional vinyl siding, it is actually a very old log house made from hand-hewn timbers. As such, I have had numerous opportunites to register my home as a historic site. (3) The presence of a communications tower will undoubtedly adversly affect property values in the immediate area and destroy the historic beauty and simplicity of this important historical neighborhood. (4) There is a health hazard for those whose homes are in the immediate vicinity of said proposed communications tower. Back in May 1990 a proposal by AMERICAN EAGLE COMMUNICATION to build a Broadcast Tower on Gum Bridge Road was denied by City Council. At that time I presented to City Council evidence based on prior studies that living in close proximity to Broadcast Towers is hazardous to human health. The Cingular Tower will be for the transmission of microwaves which on the surface seem to present no problem; however, said microwaves are modulated which bring them down to the ELF Frequency Range which is where the health problems occur. You were our Council Representative at that time so I attach a copy of my notes from that meeting which give a full explanation of the facts. To my way of thinking one of the duties of All Government is to insure the health and tranquility of its citizens. Another important duty is to preserve the historical areas of our city for future gernerations. I thank You for your continuing service to the Citizens of Virginia Beach. Sincerely and with Best Wishes, Cecil E. Nichols NASA/Langley Research Center, Retired 1789 Gum Bridge Road telephone: 721-3864 email: IAM3X aol.com 8/27/2007 Page 1 ot2 Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. 8/27/2007 t HL --e- obaect to the tatin� that 1 do 'lot e� at 4021 am s is petition 1 locatedo ns pr �� si�ins th �, dell �' o`Ner l p,T & OTIS ax se �°ad' # Charity' Phone J., ame Xddress t n� c, ell y - t z 110 M e A FIs 1 By signing this petition I am stating that I do not object to the Cingular/AT&T Cell Tower located on my property at 4021 Charity Neck Road. Name Address 2-i C \ 2 nuc /c rJ 5 Phone # 16 I t,-, JA.^7 l6y ak &eek, L-"==4- ? )-1--D) 7 By signing this petition I am stating that I do not object to the Cingular/AT&T Cell Tower located on my property at 4021 Charity Neck Road. Name Address Phone # 161 By signing this petition I am stating that I do not object to the Cingular/AT&T Cell Tower located on my property at 4021 Charity Neck Road. Name Address Phone# APPOINTMENTS RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS I. ABSTRACT OF VOTES and CERTIFICATION OF WRITE-INS November 6, 2007, General Election O. ADJOURNMENT I i I I I ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 6, 2007 General Election, for: MEMBER SENATE OF VIRGINIA 5th ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT Yvonne B. Miller TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED (IN FIGURES) Total Write-in Votes [COMPLETE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION, IF NEEDED] [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ............ 26 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 6, 2007, 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 9th day of November, 2007. A copy teste: % r F .i i Electoral Board Seal F�. � ,Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 6, 2007 General Election, for: MEMBER SENATE OF VIRGINIA 6th ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES) Ralph S. Northam - D 455 D_ Nick Rerras - R 416 Total Write -In Votes [COMPLETE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION, IF NEEDED] [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ............ 0 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 6, 2007, 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 9th day of November, 2007. A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal Chairman , Chairman Secretary �� —� Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 6, 2007 General Election, for: MEMBER SENATE OF VIRGINIA 7th ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES) Frank W. Wagner - R ................. 15,426 ................... ................... ................... Total Write -In Votes [COMPLETE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION, IF NEEDED] [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ............ 517 Total Number of Overvotes for Office ................... 1 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 6, 2007, 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 9th day of November, 2 A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal77 i i Chairman a� Vice Chairman Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 6, 2007 General Election, for: MEMBER SENATE OF VIRGINIA stn ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES) Kenneth W. "Ken" Stolle - R 13,137 Total Write -In Votes [COMPLETE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION, IF NEEDED] [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write-in Votes] ............ 606 Total Number of Overvotes for Office ................... u 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 6, 2007, 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 9th day of November, 2007. A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal Chairman Chairman Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 6, 2007 General Election, for: MEMBER SENATE OF VIRGINIA 14th ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED (IN FIGURES) Harry B. Blevins - R ................. 2,800 Total Write -In Votes [COMPLETE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION, IF NEEDED] [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ............ 25 Total Number of Overvotes for Office ................... 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 6, 2007, 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 9th day of November, 2007. A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal Chairman Chairman Secretary ��-�-�•�----�.' Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 6, 2007 General Election, for: MEMBER HOUSE OF DELEGATES 21 st ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES) R. W. "Bobby" Mathieson - D ................. 4,443 Total Write -In Votes [COMPLETE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION, IF NEEDED] [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ............ 31 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 6, 2007, 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 9th day of November, 2007. A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal Chairman Chairman Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 6, 2007 General Election, for: MEMBER HOUSE OF DELEGATES 81 st ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT Terrie L. Suit - R Total Write -Irl Votes [COMPLETE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION, IF NEEDED] [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ............ Total Number of Overvotes for Office ................... TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED (IN FIGURES) 2,786 127 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 6, 2007, 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 9th day of November, 2007. A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal Chairman Chairman Secretary -� Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 6, 2007 General Election, for: MEMBER HOUSE OF DELEGATES 82nd ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES) R. R. "Bob" MacIver - D .................. 4,066 Total Write -In Votes [COMPLETE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION, IF NEEDED] [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ............ 22 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 6, 2007, 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 9th day of Novemberr2-00,7. A copy teste: hairman Electoral 1 s oc,�-�./� , Vice Chairman Board Seal %�� �✓ �, �-�' ' - _ �-�, Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 6, 2007 General Election, for: MEMBER HOUSE OF DELEGATES 83rd ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN RGURES) Joseph F. "Joe" Bouchard - D ................. 4,824 Total Write -Irl Votes [COMPLETE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION, IF NEEDED] [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ............ Is 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 6, 2007, 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 9th day of November, 2007. A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal Chairman Vice Chairman Ir V Secretary ✓� hi Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 6, 2007 General Election, for: MEMBER HOUSE OF DELEGATES 84th ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES) Sal R. laquinto - R ................. 4,419 Total Write-in Votes [COMPLETE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION, IF NEEDED] [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ............ 147 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 6, 2007, 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 9th day of November, 2007 A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal an an 3ry ��.t.K Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 6, 2007 General Election, for: MEMBER HOUSE OF DELEGATES 85th ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES) Robert "Bob" Tata - R .............. . .. 6,100 ................... ................... Total Write -ICI Votes [COMPLETE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION, IF NEEDED] [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ............ 230 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 6, 2007, 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 9th day of November, 2007. A copy teste: z __�-, Chairman Electoral Board ,Vice Chairman Seal / Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 6, 2007 General Election, for: MEMBER HOUSE OF DELEGATES 90th ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED (IN FIGURES) Algie T. Howell, Jr. - D 253 ................... ................... ................... Total Write -In Votes [COMPLETE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION, IF NEEDED] [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write-in Votes] ............ 5 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 6, 2007, 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 9th day of November, 2007. A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal Chairman Chairman Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the County/City of City of.Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the November 6, 2007 General Election, for: SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIRECTOR Virginia Dare District ENTER DISTRICT NAME NAMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT Sally P. Griffith TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED (IN FIGURES) ................... 110 Total Write -In Votes [COMPLETE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION, IF NEEDED] [Valid Write -Ins + Invalid Write -Ins = Total Write -In Votes] ......(Other) 1,282 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 6, 2007, 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 persons have received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election: Cynthia J. Pridmore Sally P. Griffith Given under our hands this 9th day of November, 201071 I r A copy teste: r T , Chairman Electoral ot.� , Vice Chairman Board I Seai 1 / _�✓ . ,Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board COMPLETE THIS FORM ONLY IF (i) TOTAL NUMBER OF WRITE-INS IS 5% OR MORE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST FOR OFFICE OR (ii) A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE WAS ELECTED TO THE OFFICE. WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION Virginia Beach 11 General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY iX CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 1 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED (IN FIGURES) WRITE-INS - SUMMARY 1. Invalid Write-Ins........................................................................... 215 ENTER TOTAL INVALID 2. Valid Write-Ins............................................................................. 1,067 ENTER TOTAL VALID 3. Total Write-Ins...iOt4r)............................................................. 1,282 [ENTER THIS FIGURE ON LINE FOR TOTAL WRITE-IN VOTES ON ABSTRACT FOR THIS OFFICE.] ADD LINES 1 AND 2 VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON CONTINUATION PAGES, TOTAL VOTES AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED RECEIVED ON LINE 2 ABOVE. (IN FIGURES) Fred Adams .............. 1 Vinod Agarwal .............. 1 Andrew Aiden .............. 1 Rosie Albertson ... • ......... • 1 CONTINUED ON PAGES 2 THROUGH 38 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Cour` of the election held on November 6, 2007, do hereby certify that, with the continuation pages indicated, the above is a.true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast at said election for the office indicated above. Given under our hands this qth day of November, 2003 A copy teste: I� a Electoral Board Seal Chairman Chairman Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION - CONTINUATION Virginia Beach 0 General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY Yili CITY ❑TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 2 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Mario Albritton ............ 1 Arren Allen ............ 1 Gerald A Anderson ............ 2 Marcia Andrews ............ 1 Mike Arlo ............ 1 Lisa Armistead ............ 3 Margret E H Armour ............ 1 R Shane Arnold ............ 1 Nick Arrears ............ 1 Samuel T Arrington ............ 2 Michael Atkins ............ 1 Melvin Atkinson ............ 2 Bryan Ault ............ 1 Jack Austin ............ 1 Don Avellino ............ 1 Bill Ayres ............ 2 Kenneth W Bailey ............ 1 Michele Baird ............ 1 James Baldwin ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach M General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY 55 CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Page 3 Of 38 Virginia Dare District g DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. Drummond Ball ............ Nick Balovich ............ Kirk Barley ............ Charles Barnes ............ Hannah W Barnes ............ Jeremy Barnes ............ Mark A Basemore ............ Edward G Batkins III ............ Daniel Baux ..... . . .... . John Beaver ............ D Bechr ............ Monica Beck ............ Albert Becker ............ Duncan Bell ............ Leonard B Bennett ..... • • • ... . Gregg Benshoff Antionette Berduce ..... . . . ... . Steve Bergfield . .......... . A J Billings ............ TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED (IN FIGURES 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach ra General ❑ Special Election O COUNTY 5D CITY 13 TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 4 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VAUD WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES Lynne Bischel ............ 1 Charles Blair . . . . . . . ..... 1 Dalton Rex Blake Jr ............ 2 Bryan Blanchard ............ 1 Frank Blanchard III ............ 1 A E Bloomer Jr ............ 2 Michael M Blume ............ 2 David P Bogardus ............ 1 Larry Bolin ............ 1 David Ellis Bosley ............ 4 Richard J Bowen ............ 1 Bruce C Bozman ............ 2 Nicky Branes ............ 1 Hakam S Brar ............ 1 Pat Brickner ............ 1 David N Brown III ............ 1 James Brown ............ 1 Kisha Brown ............ 1 Nina Brown ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach U5 General u Special Election ❑ COUNTY W CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 5 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ONLINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Shannon Brown .......... • . 1 Roy Brun ......•..•.• 1 Jack Bryan .. • ......... 1 Joe Buchanan ......... • .. 1 Gwen Buck ... • .. • • . • .. 1 Calesta Bullock . • • • . • - - .. • . 1 Allaire Burke ............ 1 Edmond Burke .. • ..... • ... 1 John K Burnham • • ... • • • .... 1 Joe Bush ...... • • ... • 1 Mike Buss ............ 1 Sean Christopher Bussiere .... • • • • • • • . 2 Larry Byrd • ........... 1 Robert Michael Caley ............ 1 Robert Calimer ............ 1 Christopher D Campbell • • • . • • • • • • • • 1 Joe Canada ............ 1 Jeff Cantrell ............ 1 Edwin Earl Capps ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach w General a Special Election ❑ COUNTY 21 CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 6 of 38 9 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VAUD WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Jim Carl • ..... • • .... 1 Ian Carlson . • • • .... • • • • 1 Bob Carr ......... • .. 1 Howie Carr • ........... 1 Leda Carr ............ 1 Norman W Carrick ......... • • • 1 Nikki Casta ...•.•.•.... 1 Mark RCerrone .•.••.••.... 1 Steve Christenson ............ 1 Taylor Cimbalist •..•••••.... 1 Doris R Clark • . • • • • • ..... 7 Roger Clemens ....... • • ... 1 Bill Clinton ............ 2 Hillary Clinton ............ 3 John Coffren ......... • .. 2 John Coggeshall ............ 1 Stephen Colbert ...•..•..... 7 Troy Cole ............ 1 Chris Colley ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach m General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY W CITY Ek TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 7 of 38 g DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Debby Collins .... • ....... 1 Gene Colvin ............ 1 Mary V Combs ............ 1 Michael Combs • • • ... • .. • .. 1 Larry Conner ............ 1 Edward L Cooper • . • ......... 1 Vilma Corbin . • ... • ...... 1 Glenn Corillo ....•...••.. 1 Sarah Costen ............ 1 David Cote •••••....••• 1 Timothy L Cottle ....... • • . • • 56 Albert R Crawford • ...... • • • • • 1 Arleen Crawford ...•••••.••• 2 Patrick H Crawford ... • ........ 2 Steven R Crawford ........... • 4 David Creswell ••••••...... 1 Timothy Creswell ....•••••.•• 1 Tom Crews .. • .. • ...... 1 Scott Crocker ..... • • .. • • • 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach ca General ❑ Special Election D COUNTY 5D CITY El TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE Page 8 of 38 VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VAUD WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Andrew Cronin ............ 1 Scott Crotsley . • .......... 1 Leo V Crowley .......... • . 2 Raymundo L Cuenca ............ 1 Richard Clay Culbreth Jr ............ 1 Louis Cullipher ............ 1 George W Culver ............ 1 Murray Curtis ............ 1 Nicholas Cusmina .. . . . . ... . . . 1 Mona Daferdtein ............ 1 Greg Dalle-Tezze ............ 1 Mike Daniels ............ 1 Peggy Daniels ............ 2 Wendy Daniels ............ 1 George F Darden Jr ............ 1 Virginia Dare ............ 1 Nancy Leigh Dauer ............ 1 Michael Davia ............ 1 Bill S Davis ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach M General a Special Election ❑ COUNTY W CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE Page 9 of 38 VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ONADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Jason Dawley ••.••••.•... 3 Robert Dean .... • • • ..... 1 Arthur Deangelis ............ 1 Susan Deaton ............ 1 Anthony Decook ........... • 1 Eric ADegroff ....••...••• 2 ADail Dekker .•••••.••••. 1 RoseDelumpa .•••..•••••• 1 Anthony George Denice • • .......... 1 Kathy Dennehy • .. • .... • • • • 1 Morgan B Dickerson • • .......... 1 Walt Disney ...... • .. • .. 1 Timmie N Dmith ............ 1 Lou Dobbs ............ 1 J John Doe ......... • • • 2 Jane Doe ......•••••. 1 Joseph Domozick ............ 1 David Kim Donnelly ............ 1 Jeffrey Dorsogna ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach w General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY W CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 10 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Gary T Dowdell ............ 1 Ben Drause ............ 1 Brian Dresen ............ 1 Doug Dubois ............ 1 D Duck ............ 1 Jon Duckworth ............ 1 Gregory Dudley ............ 1 James B Duff ............ 1 Bill Dunn ............ 1 Daniel Dunn ............ 1 Danielle Dunn ............ 2 John Dupont ............ 1 Edward Durant ............ 1 Gillian L Durham ............ 1 Leigh Dyer ............ 3 Waly Eab ............ 1 Rob Eastland ............ 1 Michael T Eberhardt ............ 1 Daryl Lee Ecklund ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach w General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY 00 CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE Page 11 of 38 VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Eryck Ecks ............ 1 Boyd Edmunds . . . . . . ...... 1 Larry Edwards • . • ..... • ... 1 Eve Ekberg ........... • 1 Ron Ellis ••....•••••• 1 Hope Ellison ...... • .... • 1 Richard Elloit .. • • • • . • .... 1 Samuel Epstein .........••• 1 Wally Erb ............ 62 MJefferson Euchler .......••••. 1 Jack Evartt ............ 1 Robert Fanning ........ • • .. 1 Charlie FFarr Jr ••...••..... 1 Antonio Febres . • ..... • . • • • 1 Joseph Federico . . . • . . . • • . • . 1 Frederick P Felini ..... . . . . . . . 4 John Fenter • ........... 1 Paul Fergeson .....•••.... 1 Mark Ferguson ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach w General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY ® CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 12 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VAUD WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Ronert R Ffrazier • • • • • . - - ... • 1 Luther Fincham • . • • ....... • 1 Herman B Finkelstein • • • • . • • • • • • . 2 Kelly Finkelstein • ........... 1 Deirore Fisher ...... • .. • . • 1 Joel Fisher ...... • . • . • . 1 Roy Flanagan ...•••.....• 2 Russell B Fleeger Jr .. • . • • ...... 1 Hondo Fleisher ............ 1 Jim Fletcher ......••.••• 1 Paul Fletcher • • ........ • • 1 Robert Flournoy Jr ...... • • • • • • 3 Karen Forget ...... • • .... 1 Carol Forte ........•••• 1 Paul EFortney ......•••••• 1 JPFortson ••••••.••••. 1 Kenny Fraley IV ............ 1 Thomas Frederick •••••.•.•... 1 Eileen Frey ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach General ❑ Special Election Q COUNTY W CITY ❑TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Pae 13 of 38 9 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VAUD WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ONLINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Elmer Fudd ...... • • • • • . 1 Charles Futch ... • • • • .. • • • 1 John Gabor ......... • • . 2 Alan R Galgano ............ 1 Carroll Lee Gallup Jr ••••••..•••. 1 John Galt ••••....•.•. 1 Jerry Garcia ..•••••..... 2 Tom George ••....•....• 1 John Giattino ••.••••....• 1 Allen Gibbs ........... • 1 Melvin Gibson Jr ............ 1 Kathy Leigh Giddens .. • • .... • • • . 1 Raymond J Giernic • . • • • • ...... 1 Lillie Gilbert ...... • .. • .. 1 Randall Gilbert ....•...•••• 1 Jim Gilmore ..... • • ..... 1 Jane Glover ............ 2 James Goen ............ 2 Joseph Gordon ....••.••..• 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach 0 General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY ® CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Pae 14 of 38 g DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Al Gore •.•......... 1 Mario P Granger ............ 1 George Grant ............ 1 EvonW Grant ............ 1 Frank Gravitt ....... • .... 1 William J Green ............ 1 R H Greene ............ 1 Katherine Greenmun ............ 1 Beth Greer ............ 1 Dave Gresens ............ 1 Sally Griffin ............ 6 Sandy Griffin ............ 1 Tommy Griffiths ............ 3 Jane Grimsley ............ 1 Jack Gunter ............ 1 John Gunter ............ 1 Paul Hagerty ............ 1 Guy Jeoffrey Hall ............ 1 Jeff Hall ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach 50 General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY W CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 15 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ONLINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Amber Hallett ............ 1 Denise Halsey ............ 2 Sami Hamad ............ 1 Paul Hamaker ............ 1 John E,(Jack) Hamilton ............ 36 Bobby Hamilton ............ 1 Joe Hamilton ............ 1 Jack Hamiton ............ 1 Dave Hanan ............ 1 Timothy Hardy ........ • ... 1 Janez Hargrove ............ 1 Jack Harman ............ 1 KynnHarned ••••.•...... 1 John D Harris • • • • ........ 1 Karen J Harris • .. • ........ 1 Russell W Harris . . . . . . ..... . 1 Tonnie G Harrison ............ 1 Gary Hartman ............ 1 Kathy Hartman .. • ......... 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach ca General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY 5D CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 16 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VAUD WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Robert P Hawks III ............ 1 Karger Heasley ............ 1 Jason Heinz ............ 2 Andrew West Hendley ............ 3 William R Henry Jr ............ 1 Kevin Hermann ............ 1 Diiasha Hicks ............ 4 Gay Hill ............ 1 Bill Hodges ............ 1 Scott Holl ............ 1 Ronald Holmbeck ............ 1 John B Holton ............ 1 Frank Scott Hovatter ............ 1 Dorothy Howard ............ 1 Gene Hubbard ............ 1 Jeff Huber ............ 1 Nick Huff ............ 1 Earlean Scott Hughes ............ 1 Whitey Hunt ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach Fxi General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY W CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 17 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Diane Humey . • • • ........ 2 Shawn J Hutchings • ......... • • 1 Shelly Evans Jackson . • . • ........ 1 Tyhesha Jackson ....... • .... 1 Brent James • • . • .. • .... • 7 Bret James . • • ......... 1 Rick James • • • • .. • • .... 1 Michael Jaret ............ 1 Neal B Jefferis .... • • • ..... 1 Bruce Jenkins ..•.•.•••.•. 1 Pam Jennings ..•.••••••.. 1 Jomes John ............ 1 Calvin Johnson • ......... • • 1 Dana Johnson •.••••••.••• 1 Ernest L Johnson III ..••••••.••. 3 Latica Johnson ........ • • • • 1 Lyn Johnson ...... • • • • • • 1 Mike Johnson ............ 1 Richard Johnson ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach ca General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY ®CITY El TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 18 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS -DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Tommy Joel Johnson Sr ............ 2 Xgreta Johnson ............ 1 Cunthia Jojhson ............ 1 Alex Jones . . . . . ....... 1 Clinton Jones ............ 1 Donald A Jones . . . . . ....... 1 Michael Anthony Jones . • .......... 1 Janis Joplin ............ 1 Joseph E Jordan Jr ............ 5 Dante Jordon ............ 2 Jeff Juckson ............ 1 Deloris Judd ............ 1 Paula Kalban ............ 1 Anne Kane ............ 2 Greg Kapa ............ 1 Jean M Karch ............ 3 Allen W Karst ............ 1 Theodore Katana ............ 2 Lawrence J Kates ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach 5o General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY W CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 19 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS -DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Phil Kellam Mike Kellard Doug Keller ............ Betty B Kennedy ............ Reggie Kennerly ............ Keith A Kephart ............ Richard Kephart ............ John William Kern ............ Robert P Kerry James G Kincaid Elizabeth King ............ Nora King ............ David J Kinsey Sr ............ Amgela Klaverkamp ............ Matt Klein ............ Kenneth Klinger ............ Louisa J Kniffin ............ Robert Knight ............ Rick Koch ............ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach M General o Special Election ❑ COUNTY 53 CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Page 20 of 38 Virginia Dare District g DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOWAND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Debra Koehler ............ 1 Patrick Koehler ............ 1 Carrie Konche ............ 1 0 Jerry Kooiman .. • .. • ...... 1 Paul Kopera ............ 1 John Kowalski ............ 1 Ben AKrause ............ 2 Bob Kroll ............ 1 John P Kuchta Jr ............ 1 Bob Kugler ............ 1 Christopher Kundert . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 David Kunhardt ............ 1 Jay Kunkle ............ 1 Stephen Lafond ............ 1 Dick Lamb ............ 1 Penny ILane ............ 1 Aaron Lang ............ 1 Hazel Lang ............ 1 Andrew Lankford ...•.....••• 2 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach CA General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY ®CITY ❑TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 21 of 38 9 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Nat Lasley ......••••.• 1 Andrea Latham • .. • .. • ..... 2 Paul Coleman Lawson ..... • • • • • • . 1 Andy Le ........... • 1 Dennis Leahy ......... • • • 1 Myrl Lemburg ............ 1 Jerry Lewis ......•••••• 1 Ryan Light •••••.••••.. 1 Tom Lindsey ........... • 1 Henry Livas • • • ......... 1 Gerald W Lombardi .. • ........ • 1 Daniel London • .... • • .... • 1 Robert ELong ...••••.•..• 1 Michael Longworth Sr ...... • • • • • . 1 Kirby Lott ....... • • .. • 1 Sue Love .........••• 1 Gerald Lucas ............ 1 Tony Macrini • • • • • ....... 3 Christine Mahl ......•••••• 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach w General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY W CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 22 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Sheryl -Lynn Makela ............ 1 Matthew G Malesk ............ 1 Stephen Maloney ............ 1 Pat Manley ............ 1 Charles E Mann ............ 1 Heath L Marcus ............ 1 Jeffrey L Marks ............ 2 Marcia Marshall ............ 1 Edward Martin ............ 1 Robert C Martin Jr ............ 1 Mike Mason ............ 1 Thomas C Massaro ............ 1 Robert G Mastros ............ 1 Bernadette A Matson ............ 1 John Matson ............ 1 Cory Mayo ............ 1 F Dawn Mayo ............ 1 Geralld McDonnell ............ 1 Paul McGovern ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach w General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY 91 CITY a TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE Page 23 of 38 VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (Continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Diane Bloom McCabe Peter McCoy ............ Ray McCoy ............ Tony McCrini ............ Ryan Patrick McDonald ............ Peter J McDonough ............ James McElligott III ............ Phillip C McGinnis ............ Steele McGone al ............ I McC'jnvPrn ............ John P McGrath Nathan McGrath Scott McGraw ............ Danny McGregor . .......... . Mary G McGregor ............ Rick McKenzie ............ E W McLaughlin . . . . . .... . . Daniel McLaughlin ............ John McMullen ............ 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach 50 General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY 0 CITY ❑ TOWN (IN FIGURES) Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 24 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE 1 VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS INALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOWANDONADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Charles McNeff ............ 2 Brinkley McRee ............ 1 Tony McRiney ............ 1 Frank Mears ............ 1 John Meravy ............ 2 Jenny Merriman ............ 1 Steven Merriman ............ 1 Gigi Meyer ............ 1 Chazz Michael Michael ............ 1 Shawn Michaels ............ 1 Joel Michello ............ 1 Alfred Midgett ............ 1 Bill Miller ............ 1 David Miller ............ 1 Gary Miller ............ 1 Jay Miller ............ 1 John Miller ............ 1 Sunnie Miller ............ 1 William R Miller III ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach m General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY ® CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE Page 25 of 38 VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOWANDONADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Earnest Minns ............ 1 Marshale Mitchell ............ 1 Steven Miyares ............ 1 Renee Modzelewski ............ 1 Joseph Mohon ............ 1 Richard Montgomery ............ 1 Peter Mooz ............ 1 Nancy Morgan ............ 1 Paul Morissete ............ 2 Pete Morrison ............ 1 Walsh Motsuko ............ 1 Micky Mouse ............ 1 W C Moxley ............ 1 Anthony S Mulford ...•.•.•.••• 7 Ellen Murphy ............ 1 Mary Murphy ............ 1 Richard Murphy ............ 2 Douglas S Murray ............ 1 Jessica Murray ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach U0 General D Special Election D COUNTY 10CITY ❑TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 26 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Deb Myrick ............ 1 Michael Nerino ............ 1 George Nestor ............ 1 Alfred E Neuman ............ 2 Raymond A Newlon ............ 1 Hung Ngo ............ 1 Katherine Nichols ............ 1 Robin Nichols ............ 2 Ron Noble ............ 1 Dallas Norman ............ 1 Chuck Norris ............ 1 Ralph Northam ............ 2 Jul[ M Norton ............ 1 Daniel Nunn ............ 1 Deborah Odell ............ 1 Bukola Oduyelu ............ 3 John Ogden III ............ 1 Steve O'Neal ............ 1 Kathleen Onufer ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach M General a Special Election J COUNTY 50 CITY J TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 27 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Amy Opp ............ 2 E Ortiz ............ 2 Allen Owen .••...••...• 1 Bill Owens ............ 1 Craig Palmore ••••••..•••• 1 Darrell A Parker ...... • ... • • 1 Dave Parker .. • ....... • . 1 Jason Parker • .... • .... • . 1 Linda Jo Parker ............ 2 Lod A Parker ......•..... 1 Louise W Parker ........ • • • . 1 Lena Parker -Shuler ............ 1 Xavier Parks •.•...••.••• 2 John Parrish ............ 1 John Patrick •..••••.•••. 2 David Patterson .•••.••..••. 2 Charles Patton ............ 2 David Patty ............ 1 Ron Paul •.....••.•.• 7 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach w General a Special Election ❑ COUNTY 50 CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 28 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VAUD WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Christopher Pearson ............ 1 Eduardo M Pearson ............ 1 Mark Pearson ............ 2 James Peele ........... • 1 Ron F Peperak • . • ...... • • • 2 Ross Perot ..••••.•.... 1 Donna Perry •••••.••••.. 1 Jeffrey Kim Peterson ............ 1 Gabbi Piccoli ............ 1 Paul Pierce .••.....••.• 1 WillismPitt ......••••.• 1 Heidi Pocklington ............ 1 Frederick L Polli ............ 2 Samantha Poole ... . ... . .. . . 1 Eric Potter •••••.•..... 2 Michael Thomas Poulin ............ 1 Michele Powell ............ 1 Virginia Powell ............ 1 Adam Ppetran ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach M General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY XI CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 29 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VAUD WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ONLINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Tom Pritchard ............ 1 Fotini Pugliese ............ 1 Mark Qualtieri ............ 1 TJ Quinlan ............ 1 Jon Quinn ............ 1 Kevin Rack ............ 1 Cid Rader ............ 1 Saleem Raja ............ 1 M Ramirez ............ 1 Bob Redford ............ 1 Jacob Reese ............ 1 Ben Rego ............ 1 Ken Reichart ............ 1 Lisa Reik ............ 1 Jennifer Reitz ............ 1 Wendy Rembowski ............ 1 Ashley Renn ............ 1 Andrew Reshefsky ............ 1 Lisa Rice ............ 2 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach m General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY 53 CITY ❑TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE Page 30 of 38 VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Philip J Richter IV • • ....... • .. 1 Mattie Ricks ....... • .... 1 Peggy Ricks • ........... 1 Mitch Riley •.....•••••• 1 Tim Rivas ....••••••.. 1 Gregorio Rivera ...... • • • .. • 1 Gordon Robbertson .. • ... • . • • • • 2 Robert J Robertson ••••.••••... 1 Jeffrey Charles Robinson . . . . • . . • . • • • 2 Macie Romano ............ 2 Nestor L Rosario ............ 1 Sidney Rosenbaum ............ 1 Jack Rossell ... • • • • ..... 1 Earl Royer ••....•.•••. 1 Daniel Rucker ............ 1 Rick Rumble .•..•.••.••. 3 Henry Ryto .. • ........ • 1 Joshua Saadeh ............ 1 Mona Saferstein •••.••..•••• 44 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach M General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY WCITY ❑TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE f Page 31 of 38 VALID WRITE-INS -DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VAUD WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) James Sahli ............ 1 Doris Salmons ............ 1 Mike Salmons ............ 1 Byron Salsbury ............ 1 Norbert Sampson ............ 1 Jo Sanders ............ 1 Lyle Douglas Sanders ............ 1 Yalitza Santos ............ 3 Michael Savvides ............ 1 Tom Sawyer ............ 1 Mitch Scheffler ............ 1 G Douglas Schepp ............ 1 Steven Schlossberg ............ 1 Richard M Schwab ............ 1 James Segers ............ 1 David Seig ............ 1 James Sellers ............ 1 Robert Seltzer ............ 3 James Seymour ............ 2 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach w General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY W CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Page 32 of 38 Virginia Dare District g DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VAUD WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ONLINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Anne Marie Shannon • .. • . • • . • • . • 1 David Shellhammer .. • • • • ..... • 2 Joseph Shorter .•••••...... 1 Cindy Shortridge ••••......•. 1 David Sieg ••••••.••... 2 Thomas Silberberg . • ....... • • . 1 Stephen J Simmons .••••••.•••• 1 Dennis Sipes ...... • .... • 1 Edward A Six . • ........ • . 1 Donald Skinner ............ 1 Michael Slade .. • • • ... • ... 1 Justin Slaughter • . • • • • • • • • . • 1 Alex LSmith ...••.•..••• 2 Joanne Smith • • ....... • .. 1 Ed Smith ••.......••. 1 John Smith •••••...•... 1 Rhodes Smith ..... • • • • ... 1 Sylvester Smith ..••..••••.• 1 Trevor F Smith ........ • ... 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach ca General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY W CITY a TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 33 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VAUD WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Doug Snead ............ 1 Robert J Snead Sr ............ 1 Mark Soccio ............ 1 Bill Solar ............ 1 Todd Soloman ............ 3 Shaheen Soorani ............ 1 William R Sowers ............ 2 Robert Spadaccini Sr ............ 1 C W Sparenberg ............ 1 Robert Spear ............ 1 Sonny Stallings ............ 1 Suzanne Stasulis ............ 4 Gloria Steinem ............ 1 O Glenn Stephens ............ 1 Woody Stephens ............ 3 Howard Stern ............ 1 John Stewart ............ 1 Ken Stolle ............ 1 Michael B Stout ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach ca General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY WCITY CITOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Page 34 Of 38 Virginia Dare District 9 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VAUD WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Berlin Strickland .. • • • • .... • • 1 Gene Strother ...... • • • . • • 1 George Stroud .•..•••....• 1 Richard Stuart •....••..... 1 Jeff Sulla .•...••.•..• 1 Paula Sulla ......•••••• 1 Matthew Sullivan ............ 1 Tony Sumabat .•....•.•••. 1 Richie Summerville ... • • • • • • • .. 1 Barbara Surguga ............ 1 Bob Tata ............ 1 Benjamin Randolph Tate • . • • • • • • • . • • 1 Art Taylor ............ 1 BJ Taylor ......•••••• 1 Bonita Teaford ........... • 1 Marcia Tharp ...... • • . • .. 1 Tammy Theurer ....... • • • . • 1 Amanda Dawn Thimpson .•.•...••... 1 Brian Jeffrey Thomas .. • ......... 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION - CONTINUATION Virginia Beach im General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY W CITY Ell TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Page 35 of 38 Virginia Dare District DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Walter Thomas • ........ • • • 1 Brian Thomasson • .......... . Claude Thompson • .. • . • • • .. • • 1 Douglas Thompson • • ... • .. • • • • 1 Allison Thompson -Chandler • • ... • • ... • . 1 Jon Tierney ............ 1 John Tignor ...... • • • • • . 1 Dennis M Tobin ...... • • • • • 1 Drnnis Toebuvk • ........ • • 1 ArtToehlke ......•••••• 1 James Michael Tompkins • • • . . • • • • • • • 1 Shannon Ton ......•••••• 1 Joseph Tottossy ...... • • • • • • 1 Blake Townsend •-•••••••••• 1 Mat Tsionis • • • • .... • ... 1 Diana Turonis ...... • • • • • • 1 John Uhrin ......•••••• 1 Kennith Umperovitch .. • • ....... • 1 Felix Usis III ...... • • .... 2 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach it General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY W CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE Page 36 of 38 VALID WRITE-INS -DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Joseph Van Putten ...... • ..... 1 Debbie Vanderheiden . . • • • . • . . • . . 1 Tom Vanderheiden • . • • • • .. • • • • 1 Alfio Vasta • • .......... 1 Henderson Vaughan • • ....... • • . 2 Ray LVickers •.•.•.•••••• 2 Robert A Vincent .. • ..... • • • • 1 Pat Volpetti ...••...••.• 1 Carol Voorhees ............ 1 David Wade ............ 1 Michael Matthew Wagner . . . . . . . . . • . . 1 Bruce Walker .. • ......... 1 Jennifer Walker ••••••.•••.• 2 Thomas S Walker •....•...•.• 2 Chris Wallace ..••....••.. 1 Randy Wallace ••.•.••..••• 1 Joseph Walsh . • ... • • ... • . 1 George A Walssh ............ 1 Mark Waner ............ 1 WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach @ General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY R, CITY ❑TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 37 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ONADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Leo Wardrip ............ 1 John Warner ............ 1 Mark Warner ............ 2 Kale Warren ............ 1 George Washington ............ 2 Pat Watkins ............ 1 Matthew Watts ............ 1 Emest Webb ............ 1 Josh Weiner ............ 1 John R Welch III ............ 1 Nolan Wester ............ 1 Rob Westmont ............ 1 Sam Westmont ............ 1 Bryan Wetterlin ............ 1 Kirke White ............ 1 Brandon Whittington ............ 1 Kim Widmer ............ 1 Hope Wilfred ............ 1 Donald Williams ............ I WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION- CONTINUATION Virginia Beach ra General ❑ Special Election ❑ COUNTY R) CITY ❑ TOWN Soil and Water Conservation Director November 6, 2007 OFFICE TITLE Virginia Dare District Page 38 of 38 DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL (continued) CONTINUE TO LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON ADDITIONAL TOTAL VOTES CONTINUATION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST RECEIVED EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON LINE 2 OF PAGE 1. (IN FIGURES) Donna Williams ........ • ... 1 John A Williams .•..••..•••• 1 Tim Williams . • ......... • 1 Beatrice Willis • • ....... • .. 1 Bill Wilson .......... • • 1 Glenn JWilson ......•••.•• 1 William Wilson III ...... • ... • • 1 Lewis Winston III • • • ....... • • 2 Josiah Woodington ..... • • • • • • . 1 Charles Woytowitz ........... • 1 Whitney Wright .••.•.•••••. 1 Winford Wright ...... . . . . . . 1 William Yarborough ............ 1 Joseph Yurso ............ 1 Mark A Zdelar ............ 2 Steven Zeligman ...... • • • • • . 1 Margaret C Zimmerman ........... • 1 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING: SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS A I-264 PROJECT Bill Cashman, Branch Manager, V O I URS Corporation DATE: November 13, 2007 M B L II/ D C E L E D A H Patti Phillips, C R A W PAGE: I S I E J L N U N I T E D N O A D H U L W AGENDA E Z Y L N N O R E S O ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE P E E E E A R I V O O H L R Y S N F N A N D I/ CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING: A I-264 PROJECT Bill Cashman, Branch Manager, URS Corporation II/ CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS: A Patti Phillips, 2007 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL Director, Finance FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR) - 2008 First Quarter Up William Macali, B NOISE ZONE 65-70 dB DNL Deputy City DEVELOPMENT Attorney III/ IV/ V/ VI/ E CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED CERTIFIED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y SESSION F MINUTES Informal/Formal Sessions 11/6/07 APPROVED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y G/1 MAYOR'S PRESENTATION: MAYOR'S YOUTH COUNCIL H/I ADD ON ITEMS: ADDED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Naming the William "Billy" Myers, Sr. Veterans Park 2 DIRECTING Planning Commission to ADDED 8-3 Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y study issue of mobile advertising and transit recommendations to City Council U> PUBLIC HEARINGS: NO SPEAKERS SCHOOL CAPITAL PROJECTS - $7.6 Million in Supplemental Appropriations CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL - Flow Control 14 SPEAKERS SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS J/KI Resolution to AUTHORIZE a $100,000 ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Grant application to Virginia Land/Water CONSENT V O 1 Conservation Fund reLake Lawson/Lake DATE: November 13, 2007 M B L D C E L E D 2 H ADOPTED, BY C R Y A W Y PAGE: 2 S I Y E J L N U N I T E D N O A D H U L W AGENDA E Z Y L N N O R E S O ITEM 4 SUBJECT MOTION VOTE P E E E E A R I V O O Y H L R Y S N F N A N D 2 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL - Flow Control 14 SPEAKERS J/KI Resolution to AUTHORIZE a $100,000 ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Grant application to Virginia Land/Water CONSENT Conservation Fund reLake Lawson/Lake Smith Open Space Acquisition 2 Ordinance to AUTHORIZE Deed of ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Conveyance re Virginia Beach Middle CONSENT School site 3 Ordinance to ACCEPT artwork from Dr. ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Deborah Wood for Central Park at Town CONSENT Center 4 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y $14,690,129 School Reversion Funds CONSENT Operating/Capital Budgets ADDED Resolution Naming the William "Billy" ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Myers, Sr. Veterans Park CONSENT ADDED Resolution DIRECTING Planning ADOPTED, BY 8-3 Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Commission to study issue of mobile CONSENT advertising and transit recommendations to City Council L/1 NEW GENERATION WORSHIP APPROVED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CENTER for a CUP re church at 6200 CONDITIONED, Pardue Court DISTRICT 2 - BY CONSENT KEMPSVILLE 2 J.D. WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION, APPROVED, 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y INC. COZ from R-15 to AG -2 at 2672 PROFFERED, Highland Drive DISTRICT 1 BY CONSENT CENTERVILLE 3/a TROY SCOGGIN at 2310 Princess Anne APPROVED, AS 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Road DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE PROFFERED, BY CONSENT Variance to §5B of Site Plan/Floodplain Regulations, re parking lot improvements b COZ from R-20 to Conditional 0-1 APPROVED, AS 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y PROFFERED, BY CONSENT CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AMEND §§ 111 and 205 of the City ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS Y Y Zoning Ordinance (CZO) to define "major CONSENT recreational equipment" and RESTRICT V O I the locations where such may be stored DATE: November 13, 2007 M B L L D RESCHEDULED B Y C E N L E N S E D H C R A W PAGE: 3 S I E J L N U N I Y Y T E D N O A D H U L W AGENDA E Z Y L N N O R E S O ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE P E E E E A R I V O O H L R Y S N F N A N D 4 AMEND §§ 111 and 205 of the City ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Zoning Ordinance (CZO) to define "major CONSENT recreational equipment" and RESTRICT the locations where such may be stored L APPOINTMENTS: RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION WORKFORCE HOUSING ADVISORY Appointed 4 Year 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y COMMITTEE term expiring 9/30/11 Cheryl Davidson M/N/O ADJOURNMENT 7:40 pm CITY COUNCIL'S SCHEDULE 2007 December 4 Briefing, Informal, Formal, Planning, Open Dialogue December 11 Briefing, Informal, Formal, Planning 2008 January 8 Briefing, Informal, Formal, Planning, Open Dialogue January 15 Location to be Announced — 7:15 pm Stormwater Plans and Funding January 22 Briefing, Informal, Formal, Planning