HomeMy WebLinkAboutAUGUST 11, 2009
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
"COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME"
CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR WILLIAM D. SESSOMS, JR. At-Large
VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bay..ide - DlS/ric/4
GLENN R. DA VIS, Rose Hall - Dmrict 3
WILLIAM R. DeSTEPH, At-Large
HARRY E. DIEZEL, Kempsville - District 2
ROBERT M DYER, Cenlerville - District I
BARBARA M HENLEY. Prmcess Anne - D,strIct 7
JOHN E. UHRIN, Beach - Di..trict 6
RON A. VILLANUEVA. AI-Large
ROSEMARY WILSON, AI-Large
JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -Di..trict J
CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES
CITY MANAGER - JAMES K. SPORE
CITY ATTORNEY - MARK D. STILES
CITY ASSESSOR - JERALD BANAGAN
CITY AUDITOR - LYNDON S. REMIAS
CITY CLERK RUTH HODGES FRASER, MMC
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
11 AUGUST 2009
I.
CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING:
- Conference Room -
A. HEALTH CARE CLAIMS AUDIT
Lyndon Remias, Auditor
II. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING:
A. BEACH CENTER PROJECT
Barry Frankenfield, SGA Manager
III. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
IV. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
V. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REVIEW
VI. INFORMAL SESSION
- Conference Room -
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr.
B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
II
CITY HALL BUILDING
2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE
VIRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA 23456-8005
PHONE (757) 385-4303
FAX (757) 385-5669
E-MAIL: Ctycncl@vbgov.com
3:00 PM
4:30 PM
VII. FORMAL SESSION AGENDA
- Council Chamber -
6:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr.
B.
INVOCATION:
Reverend William Dyson
Presiding Elder - African American Episcopal 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
I. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS
July 14, 2009
G. FORMAL SESSION AGENDA
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. AMEND FY2009-10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Additional funding for various site acquisitions
2. AMEND CITY CODE ~36-172
Hourly Rate of Waiting Time re: taxi cabs
3. INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Acquisition of Agricultural Land Preservation (ARP) Easement
448 Princess Anne Road
4. LEASE OF CITY PROPERTIES
a. Rudee Inlet parcel
b. 1400 Laskin Road
I. CONSENT AGENDA
J. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
1. Ordinances re City Code:
a. ADD 921-600 re: Highway Medians
b. AMEND 91-12 re: fees for High Constable's Service of Process
2. Ordinances to TAX EXEMPT certain organizations:
a. From Real and Personal Property Taxes:
1. Mercy Medical Airlift
2. Virginia Baptist Children's Home and Family Services
b. From Personal Property Taxes:
1. Faith Works Coalition
2. National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) - Virginia Beach
3. Recovery for the City International
4. Tidewater Memorial Bicycle Park Fund, Inc.
5. Virginia Wild Horse Rescue
DEFERRED, BY CONSENT, FROM JULY 14,2009
3. Resolution to DIRECT the City Manager re: the City's Health Care Offering for Plan
Year 2010.
4. Resolution to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the City and the Virginia Beach Parks and Recreation Foundation re:
support of the mission of the Parks and Recreation Department
5. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the Development Authority's acquisition of the former Circuit
City property; AMEND the FY2009-1O Capital Budget; and, APPROPRIATE $5.05 -
Million for the purchase of the property.
DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN
6. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute Leases:
a. a parcel of land at Rudee Inlet to the United States of America (Coast Guard) re:
navigational aid purposes
b. a temporary residence to John Charalambous at 1400 Laskin Road
7. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute an Installment Purchase
Agreement re: Agricultural Land Preservation (ARP) Easement for the Spence property at
448 Princess Anne Road.
DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
8. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE Temporary Encroachments into a portion of City owned
prope:rty at 2401 Broad Bay Road for William George Bachsmith to construct and
maintain a bulkhead, an existing wood privacy fence, boatlift, mooring piles, steps and a
wharf.
DISTJUCT 5 - L YNNHA VEN
9. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $881,256 the Edward Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant from the United States Department of Justice re: Public Safety and
Criminal Processing as follows:
a. $282,636 to the Police Department re: the purchase of driving course vehicles
and tasers
b. $203,000 to the Sheriff's Department re: a biometric access system, security
control center and Accurint law enforcement search software
c. $184,800 to the Commonwealth's Attorney re: case management softw~e
d. $88,864 to the Youth Opportunities Office re: temporary youth positions,
program coordinator, prevention specialist, skills teacher and supplies associated
with the Summer youth employment program
e. $58,331 to Community Corrections re: a temporary pretrial investigator,
substance abuse services and the purchase of a printer/scanner
f. $46,000 to the Circuit Court re: a temporary office assistant and media evidence
display system
g. $17,625 to the Court Services Unit re: a temporary clerical position and the
purchase of software
10. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $100,000 Grant from the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security through the Virginia Department of Emergency Management to the
FY2009-10 Operating Budget of the Fire Department re: tactical rescue equipment and
training costs of the Tidewater Regional Technical Rescue Team
11. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $124,100 Grant from the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security through the Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency
Medical Services to the FY2009-1 0 Operating Budget of the Emergency Medical Services
(EMS) re: "ToughBook 19" computers to equip thirty-four (34) permitted ambulances
belonging to the ten (10) Volunteer Rescue Squads
,I I I
12. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $1,200,400 from the u.s. Department of
Criminal Justice Services through the 2008 State Homeland Security Grant to the FY2009-1 0
Operating Budget of the Police Department re: the purchase of equipment to react and
respond to potential acts of terrorism.
13. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $18,750 Grant from the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security through the Virginia Department of Emergency Management to the
FY2009-1O Operating Budget of the Fire Department re: the Southside Regional Haz-Mat
Team.
14. Ordinance re Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
re: the Rescue Squad Assistance Fund (RSAF) State Grant:
a. ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $152,680 to Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
FY2009-10 Operating Budget re: purchase of defibrillators and suction units
b. TRANSFER $135,638 from the FY2009-10 Operating Budget of the Department of
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) re: the local match
c. TRANSFER $17,042 from the FY2009-1 0 Operating Budget of the Department of
Fire re: the local match
1~. Ordinance to TRANSFER $650,000 from Fire Training Center Improvements- Phase III to
FY2009-10 Operating Budget of the Fire Department re: protective turnout gear.
K. PLANNING
1. Application of BROOKS and DARCEL STEPHAN for a Subdivision Variance re: the
reconfiguration of two (2) existing lots into three (3) lots at 3040 and 3052 Little Haven
Road.
DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVAL
2. Application of 1000 NORTH GREAT NECK ROAD LLC for the Modification of
Condition No.1 (approved by City Council on October 14, 2003, re: a self-standing sign
Virginia Beach Christian Life Center) at the corner ofN. Great Neck Road and Old
Donation Parkway.
DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN
RECOMMENDATION
APPROV AL
3. Application of OCEAN A CHURCH OF CHRIST/MONARCH PROPERTIES, INC. for
a Conditional Use Permit re: a church at 1789 London Bridge Road
DISTRICT 6 - BEACH
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVAL
4. Applkation of NEPTUNE FINTESSIMOUNT AIN VENTURES, VIRGINIA BEACH
LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit re: an indoor recreational facility (gym) at 3352 Princess
Anne Road, Suite 905.
DISTJUCT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
RECOMMENDA nON
APPROVAL
5. Application of EN DE A VOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District
Classification from AG-l and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional B-IA Limited Business and
P-l P:reservation District at Chestnut Oak Way (deferred by City Council on July 14,2009).
DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDA nON
RECOMMENDA nON
DENIAL
APPROVAL
6. Ordinance to ESTABLISH City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) regulations re: wind energy
systems, including definitions, application requirements, location, other requirements and
Zoning Districts where permitted.
M. APPOINTMENTS
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
BA YFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMUNITY MEDICAL ADVISORY COMMISSION
HEALTH SERVICES BOARD
PARKS AND RECREA nON COMMISSION
PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
REGIONAL TASK FORCE
REVIEW AND ALLOCATION (COG)
WETLANDS BOARD
WORKFORCE HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD
N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
O. NEW BUSINESS
P. ADJOURNMENT
**********************************
PUBLIC COMMENT
Non-Agenda Items
Each Speaker will be allowed 3 minutes
and each subject is limited to 3 Speakers
**********************************
COUNCIL SCHEDULE FOR AUGUST
August 18th Workshop
August 25th Briiii1l11, Informal, Formal, including Planning
Virginia Beach City Council
Will Host a
PUBLIC MEETING
7:00-8:30 PM
THURSDAY, AUGUST 13TH
Virginia Beach Convention Center
Purpose: 2010 General Assembly Legislative Agenda
Thursday, November 12th
ANNUAL JOINT MEETING
General Assembly, City Council and School Board
***********
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 8/ II /09afb
www.vbl!ov.com
I.
CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING:
- Conference Room -
3:00 PM
A. HEALTH CARE CLAIMS AUDIT
Lyndon Remias, Auditor
II. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING:
A. BEACH CENTER PROJECT
Barry Frankenfield, SGA Manager
III. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
IV. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
V. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REVIEW
VI. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room -
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr.
4:30 PM
B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
VII. FORMAL SESSION AGENDA
- Council Chamber -
6:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr.
B.
INVOCATION:
Reverend William Dyson
Presiding Elder - African American Episcopal 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
July 14, 2009
G. FORMAL SESSION AGENDA
.tsnluttnu
CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION,
pursuant to the atllrmative 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.
-,:
II,
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. AMEND FY2009-10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Additional funding for various site acquisitions
2. AMEND CITY CODE ~36-172
Hourly Rate of Waiting Time re: taxi cabs
3. INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Acquisition of Agricultural Land Preservation (ARP) Easement
448 Princess Anne Road
4. LEASE OF CITY PROPERTIES
a. Rudee Inlet parcel
b. 1400 Laskin Road
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Amendment of FY 2009-10
Capital Improvement Program to
Provide Additional Funding for
CIP # 3-368, Various Site
Acquisitions
On Tuesday, August 11, 2009. the Virginia Beach City
Council will hold a Public Hearing on a proposed
amendment to the City's FY 2009-10 Capital Budget.
The Public Hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chamber, second floor, City Hall Building,
Municipal Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
At this Hearing, tile City Council will be voting on an
amendment to appropriate $5.050.000, backed by
Public Facility Revenue Bonds, to Capital Improvement
Project # 3-.368, Various Site Acquisitions, to purchase
tl1e fonner Circuit City property on Independence
Boulevard. adjacent to the Town Center.
This Hearing is open to the public, and all interested
citizens Will have an opportunity to be heard. Individuals
desiring to provide written comments may do so by
contacting the City Clerk's office at 385-4303. If you
dre physically disabled or visually impaired and need
assistance at. this meeting, please call 385-4303.
lip.aring Impaired, call TOO only 711.
Ruth Hodges Fraser, MMC
City Cler~
VP Augu,t 2. 2009
20442248
I, I I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
An Ordinance to Amend City Code
Section 36-172 to Eliminate the
Hourly Rate for Waiting Time
On August 11, 2009, the Council of the City of Virginia
Beach, Virginia will hold a public hearing on an
amendment to City Code section 36-172. The
amendment would eliminate the hourly rate for waiting
time that taxi cab operators may charge.
The public hearing will be conducted at 6:00 p.m. in
Council Chamber on the second floor of the City Hall
Building, Municipal Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia. A
copy of the proposed amendment shall be available in
the City Clerk's office for review. Individuals desiring to
provide written comments may do so by contacting the
City Clerk's office at 385-4303. If you are physically
disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at
this meeting, please call 385-4303. Hearing impaired,
call: TOO only 711 (TOO telephone device for the deaf).
Ruth Hodges Fraser, MMC
City Clerk
Beacon August 2, 2009
20404063
"1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
EXECUTION AND DELIVERY'
OF AN INSTALLMENT PURCHASE
AGREEMENT FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF DEVELOPMENT'
RIGHTS ON CERTAIN PROPERTY BY
THE cln OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
VIRGINIA
Notice Is hereby given that the city Council of the City of
Virginia Beach, VllJlnla, will hold a Public Hearing with
respect to the execution and delivery of an Installment
Purchase Agreement for the acquisition of an agricultural
land preservation easement with respect to land located at
448 Princess Anne Road In the City of VIrginia Beach,
Virginia. pursuant to Ordinance No. 90.2319. as amended.
known al th8 AgrIcultural Lands Preservation Ordinance,
. which establishes an agrtcultural reserve program for the.
southem portion of the City designated to (a) promote and
encourage the preservation of fannland. (b) preserve open
spaces and the area's rural character, (c) conserve and
protect environmentally sensitive resources, (d) reduce and
defer the need for major infrastructure Improvements and the
expenditure of publiC funds for such Improvements. and (e)
assist in shaping the character, direction and timing of
community development. Such easement wtll be purchased
pursuant to an Installment Purchase Agreement for an
estimated maximum purchase price of $1.077 ,994. The
City's obligation to pay the purchase price under the
Installment Purchase Agreement Is a general obligation of
the City, and the full faith and credit and the unlimited taxing
power of the City will be Irrevocably pledged to the punctual
payment of the purchase price and the Interest on the unpaid
principal balance of the purchase price as and when the
same respectively become due and payable. The Public
Hearing, which may be continued or adjourned. will be held
by the City Council on August 11, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. In the
City Council Chamber located on the 2nd floor of the City Hall
Building. 2401 Courthouse Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Any person interested In this matter may appear and be
heard.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
Ruth Hodges Fraser, MMC
City Clerk
Beat.:on lulv 26 & Aug. 2, 2009
20404350
PUBLIC HEARING
LEASE OF CITY PROPERTY
The Virginia Beach City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING
on the proposed leasing of City-owned property on Tuesday,
August 11, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the
City Hall Building (Building #1) at the Virginia Beach
Municipal Center. Virginia Beach, Virginia. The purpose of
this Hearing will be to obtain public comment on the City's
proposal to lease the following property:
6' x 6' parcel of land located on the north side of Rudee
Inletg utilized for navigational aid purposes
If you are physically disabled or visually Impaired ane'
need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY
CLERK'S OFFICE at 38&-4303; Hearing Impaired, call
TDD 711. (TOD Telephone Device for the Deaf).
Any questions concerning this matter should be directed to
the Department of Management Services - Facilities
Management Office. Room 228, Building 18, at the Virginia
Beach Municipal Center. The Facilities Management Off.ce
telephone number is (757)385 5659.
Ruth Hodge Fraser, MMC
City Clerk
Beacon August 2. 2009
20427113
PUBLIC HEARING
LEASE OF CITY PROPERTY
The Virginia Beach City Council will hold a PUBUC HEARING
<)n the proposed leasing of City-owned property on Tuesday
I\ugust 11, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of thE'
City Hall Building (Building #1) at the Virginia Beacr.
Municipal Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia. The purpose of
thiS Hearing will be to obtain public comment on the City's
proposal to lease the following property:
1400 Laskin Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23451 (GPIN
2417-19.7442)
If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and
need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY
CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303 ; Hearing impaired, call
711 the Virginia Relay.
;\ny questions concerning this matter should be directed to
tile Department of Management Services - Facilities
Management Office, Building 18, Room 228. at the Virginia
Beach Municipal Center. The Facilities Management OffiCE
telephone number is (757)385 5659.
Beacon August 2, 2009
20427399
I, i i
I. CONSENT AGENDA
J. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
1. Ordinances re City Code:
a. ADD 921-600 re: Highway Medians
b. AMEND 91-12 re: fees for High Constable's Service of Process
2. Ordinances to TAX EXEMPT certain organizations:
a. From Real and Personal Property Taxes:
1. Mercy Medical Airlift
2. Virginia Baptist Children's Home and Family Services
b. From Personal Property Taxes:
1. Faith Works Coalition
2. National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) - Virginia Beach
3. Recovery for the City International
4. Tidewater Memorial Bicycle Park Fund, Inc.
5. Virginia Wild Horse Resc~e
DEFERRED, BY CONSENT, FROM JULY 14,2009
3. Resolution to DIRECT the City Manager re: the City's Health Care Offering for Plan
Year 2010.
4. Resolution to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOD) between the City and the Virginia Beach Parks and Recreation Foundation re:
support of the mission of the Parks and Recreation Department
5. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager's acquisition of the former Circuit City
property; AMEND the FY2009-1O Capital Budget; and, APPROPRIATE $5-Million for the
purchase of the property.
DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN
6. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute Leases:
a. a parcel of land at Rudee Inlet to the United States of America (Coast Guard) re:
navigational aid purposes
b. a temporary residence to John Charalambous at 1400 Laskin Road
7. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute an Installment Purchase
Agreement re: Agricultural Land Preservation (ARP) Easement for the Spence property at
448 Princess Anne Road.
DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
8. Ordimmce to AUTHORIZE Temporary Encroachments into a portion of City owned
property at 2401 Broad Bay Road for William George Bachsmith to construct and
maintain a bulkhead, an existing wood privacy fence, boatlift, mooring piles, steps and a
wharf.
DISTJUCT 5 - L YNNHA VEN
9. Ordimmce to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $881,256 the Edward Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant from the United States Department of Justice re: Public Safety and
Criminal Processing as follows:
a. $282,636 to the Police Department re: the purchase of driving course vehicles
and tasers
b. $203,000 to the Sheriff's Department re: a biometric access system, security
control center and Accurint law enforcement search software
c. $184,800 to the Commonwealth's Attorney re: case management software
d. $88,864 to the Youth Opportunities Office re: temporary youth positions,
program coordinator, prevention specialist, skills teacher and supplies associated
with the Summer youth employment program .
e. $58,331 to Community Corrections re: a temporary pretrial investigator,
substance abuse services and the purchase of a printer/scanner
f. $46,000 to the Circuit Court re: a temporary office assistant and media evidence
display system
g. $17,625 to the Court Services Unit re: a temporary clerical position and the
purchase of software
10. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $100,000 Grant from the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security through the Virginia Department of Emergency Management to the
FY2009-10 Operating Budget of the Fire Department re: tactical rescue equipment and
training costs of the Tidewater Regional Technical Rescue Team
11. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $124,100 Grant from the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security through the Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency
Medkal Services to the FY2009-1 0 Operating Budget of the Emergency Medical Services
(EMS) re: "ToughBook 19" computers to equip thirty-four (34) perm.itted ambulances
belonging to the ten (10) Volunteer Rescue Squads
12. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $1,200,400 from the U.S. Department of
Criminal Justice Services through the 2008 State Homeland Security Grant to the FY2009-1 0
Operating Budget of the Police Department re: the purchase of equipment to react and
respond to potential acts of terrorism.
13. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $18,750 Grant from the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security through the Virginia Department of Emergency Management to the
FY2009-10 Operating Budget of the Fire Department re: the Southside Regional Haz-Mat
Team.
14. Ordinance re Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
re: the Rescue Squad Assistance Fund (RSAF) State Grant:
a. ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $152,680 to Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
FY2009-10 Operating Budget re: purchase of defibrillators and suction units
b. TRANSFER $135,638 from the FY2009-1O Operating Budget of the Department of
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) re: the local match
c. TRANSFER $17,042 from the FY2009-10 Operating Budget of the Department of
Fire re: the local match
15. Ordinance to TRANSFER $650,000 from Fire Training Center Improvements- Phase III to
FY2009-10 Operating Budget of the Fire Department re: protective turnout gear.
III i
.~....>l....L'.. '~~..ri.~'''~'
$1:' -~
~" ;il
\~
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Add Section 21-600 to the City Code Pertaining to Highway
Medians
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background: People who stand on, walk on, or otherwise occupy highway medians
cause a potential visual distraction for passing motorists and may inadvertently place
themselves in harm's way. Vehicles occupying highway medians cause similar visual
distractions. These types of distractions raise serious public safety concerns. Code of
Virginia Section 15.2-1102 authorizes the City to enact ordinances necessary to
promote the safety of its citizens.
. Considerations: This amendment prohibits persons and vehicles from
occupying a median. Pedestrians may still utilize the median to immediately cross from
one sid!3 of the street or highway to the other side. Exceptions are made for
governmental purposes, emergencies, utility companies, and when the adjoining street
is closed (such as for parades or marathons). A violation of this section will constitute a
Class II misdemeanor, which is punishable by a maximum fine of $1500, a maximum jail
sentence of six months, or both.
. Public Information: This ordinance will be advertised in the same manner as other
Council agenda items.
. Recommendations: Adoption
. Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval .Jj.-f
Submitting Department/Agency: Police Departmen~
City Manager~ t . ~lI"L
1 AN ORDINANCE TO ADD SECTION 21-600 TO THE CITY
2 CODE PERTAINING TO HIGHWAY MEDIANS
3
4 WHEREAS, City Council has determined that unrestricted use of highway
5 medians poses a threat to public safety; and
6
7 WHEREAS, City Council has concluded that restrictions on the use of medians
8 would promote the general welfare of our citizens and would further the City's goal of
9 maintaining peace and good order in and around our roadways;
10
11 THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
12 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
13
14 That Sel:;tion 21-600 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia is hereby
15 added and ordained to read as follows:
16
17 Sec. 21-600. Hiahwav medians: exemptions: penaltv.
18
19 @l No person or vehicle shall OCCUpy a hiahwav median.
20
21 llll For the purpose of this section. "hiahwav median" shall be that paved or
22 landscaped strip of around dividina a hiahwav into lanes accordina to
23 direction of travel.
24
25 ~ This section shall not applv:
26 ill to a pedestrian traversina a median while in the immediate Drocess of
27 crossina the hiahwav:
28 {gl to any aovernmental emDlovee or authorized aaent while in the
29 m~rformance of official duties;
30 !ID a1 any time the adiacent hiahwav is closed to traffic:
31 ~ to aovernmental vehicles oDe rated in the course of official business:
32 @ to utilitv emDlovees or vehicles when necessary for utilitv installation.
33 maintenance or reDair: and
34 iID in the event of a mechanical breakdown. or an emeraencv reauirina a
35 Q!Jblic safety resDonse.
36
37 @ A viollation of this section shall constitute a Class" misdemeanor.
38
39 COMMENT
40
41 Except as provided in paragraph (c) above, this section makes unlawful for any person or
42 vehicle to occupy a highway median. The term "highway" includes all City streets and roadways.
43 Exceptions are m.ade for (1) pedestrians who are crossing a street; (2) City/governmental employees
44 performing official duties; (3) when the adjacent roadway is closed to traffic (such as during
45 marathons or parades); (4) City/governmental vehicles operated in the course of official business;
46 (5) utility emploYI~s and vehicles; and (6) in the event of a mechanical breakdown or emergency. A
I, I,
47 violation of this section constitutes a Class II misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine of up to
48 $1,500 fine, up to six months in jail, or both.)
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
CA11238
R-3
July 21,2009
III I
,{.~~
~(-;I' .~l'
\,.~/jJ
~...
1..'" .'
. ~
~ uu......
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM:
An Ordinance to Amend Chapter One of the City Code Pertaining
to Fees for Service of Process
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background: The Code of Virginia provides a schedule of fees for service of
process. The General Assembly updates the Code of Virginia's fee schedule from time
to time. This housekeeping ordinance will make the City Code's recitation of the state
fee schedule match the fees set forth in the Code of Virginia.
. Considerations: Amending the City Code will provide the citizens an up-to-date
and accurate pay scale of all fees and services.
. Recommendation: Approve attached Ordinance.
. Public Information: Public information will be provided through normal
advertisement of the Council Agenda Process.
. Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Sheriff's Office
City Manager: ~ k..~
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
39
40
41
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER ONE OF
THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO FEES FOR
SERVICE OF PROCESS
Section Amended: ~ 1-12
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
VIRGINIA:
That Sel:tion1-12 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia is hereby
amended and rl:!ordained to read as follows:
Sec. 1-12. Feeu for service of process.
(a) The high constable shall charge and collect the following fees for the service
of process:
(1) For service on any person, a direct declaration in ejectment, order, notice,
summons or any other similar process, except as herein otherwise provided, and
for serving on any person any process, when the body is not taken, and making
return thereof, the sum of three dollars and fifty cents ($3.50) twelve dollars
~12.00)..
(2) For serving a witness or serving a garnishee on an attachment, three dollars
and fifty Icents ($3.50) twelve dollars ($12.00).
(3) For serving on any person an attachment or other process under which the
body is tflken and making a return thereon, t\4:elve dollars and fifty cents ($12.50)
twelve dollars ($12.00>.
(4) For serving any order of court not otherwise provided for, thr.ee dollars and
fifty cent!) ($3.50) twelve dollars ($12.00>.
(5) For service of a writ of possession by execution, six dollars ($6.00) twenty-
five dollars ($25.00).
(6) For serving an execution or distress warrant or attachment by levying, teA
dollars (~;1 0.00) twenty-five dollars ($25.00>.
(7) For serving any papers returnable out of state, fifteen dollars ($15.0.0)
seventy-'flve dollars ($75.00).
(b) Such fees as set forth above, collected by the high constable, shall be
deposited in the treasury of the city for use in the general operation of the city
government.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the
_' 2009.
day
of
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
s~~~f-~-'~
CA11240
R-1
July 15. 2009
1d~~
I, I I
City Hall
Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9002
Commissioner of the Revenue
Philip J. Kellam
Commissioner
VBgov.com/cor
July 7, 2009
The Honorable William D. Sessoms Jr., Mayor
Members of City Council
Subject: fuitial Report en Applicants for Exemption from Property Taxes
Dear Mayor and Councd Members:
Effective January 1,2003 the General Assembly transferred its sole authority to grant exemptions by designation from
personal and real propelty taxes'. The City Council accepted this authority and ordained a policy utilizing the
Community Organization Grant Committee (COG) to administer the review of applicants for tax exemption2. On May
6, 2008 the City Council revised and re-ordained the process providing for the Commissioner of the Revenue to
review and report to City Council on such applications3.
After reviewing each application, I can report the following applicants qualify for exemption from real and personal
property taxes:
Mercy Medical Airlift
Virginia Baptist Children's Home and Family Services
The following applicants qualify for exemption from personal property taxes:
Faith Works Coalition
National AllianGe on Mentallllness (NAMI) - Virginia Beach
Recovery for th,~ City International
Tidewater Memorial Bicycle Park Fund, Inc.
Virginia Wild Horse Rescue
I am available if you have questions or concerns regarding the recommendations.
Sincerely,
p~&1L .
Commissioner of the Revenue
Enclosures
1 Code of Virginia 58.1-3651
2 ORD-2798I
3 ORD-3009K
III I
~1A.a~~
~. ...",.C<\;
"<< ~.\
l5r~, '~\~
~,i~ . ..,
~{:~. Mt'
~.t ~ -......:r
~~
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM:
Ordinances Designating Organizations as Being Exempt from Local Real
and Personal Property Taxation
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background: Article X, Section 6 (a)(6) of the Virginia Constitution provides that
property used by its owner for religious, charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural,
or public park and playground purposes may be exempted from taxation by classification or
designation by an ordinance adopted by the local governing body. Prior to January 1, 2003,
such exemptions could only be granted by the General Assembly.
Section 58.1-3651 of the Virginia Code sets forth the process for designating specific
organizations as being exempt from local taxation, and a list of factors for the local
governing body to consider is set forth. They are:
1. Whether the organization is exempt from taxation pursuant to ~ 501 (c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954;
2. Whether a current annual alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic
beverages has been issued by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
to such organization, for use on such property;
3. Whether any director, officer, or employee of the organization is paid
compensation in excess of a reasonable allowance for salaries or other
compensation for personal services which such director, officer, or employee
actually renders;
4. Whether any part of the net earnings of such organization inures to the
benefit of any individual, and whether any significant portion of the service
provided by such organization is generated by funds received from donations,
contributions, or local, state or federal grants. As used in this subsection,
donations shall include the providing of personal services or the contribution
of in-kind or other material services;
5. Whether the organization provides services for the common good of the
public;
6. Whether a substantial part of the activities of the organization involves
carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation and
whether the organization participates in, or intervenes in, any political
campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office;
7. The revenue impact to the locality and its taxpayers of exempting the
property; and
I I
8. Any other criteria, facts and circumstances that the governing body deems
pE~rtinent to the adoption of such ordinance.
The City Counc:il adopted a revised policy regarding applications for Tax Exemption by
Designation on May 6,2008 (attached).
. Considelrations A public hearing for these items was held at the July 14, 2009,
Council Formal Session, and an announcement was made that the vote on these items
would be defermd to August 11.
The Commissioner of Revenue has received 7 applications in this reporting period. The
Commissioner mviewed each application.
The Commissioner finds the following applicants qualify for exemption from real and
personal property taxes:
. Mercy ME~dical Airlift
· Virginia Baptist Children's Home and Family Services
The Commissioner finds the following applicants qualify for exemption from personal
property taxes:
. Faith WOI"ks Coalition
· National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) - Virginia Beach
. Recovery for the City International
· Tidewatel" Memorial Bicycle Park Fund, Inc.
. Virginia VJild Horse Rescue
. Public Information: A public hearing for these items was held at the July 14, 2009,
Council Formal Session. An advertisement for the public hearing appeared in the Beacon
five days prior to that hearing as required by statute. These items were also advertised with
the normal Council Agenda Process prior to the July 14 Council Meeting. At the July ~4
Council Formal Session the public was informed that the vote for these ordinances would
be held at the first Council Formal Session of August. These items will be advertised with
the normal Council Agenda Process for the August 11 Council Meeting.
. Attachmtmts: 7 Ordinances, City Council Policy Regarding Applications for
Tax Exemption by Designation, Commissioner of Revenue Letter, Commissioner of
Revenue Summiuy for Each Application
Recommended Action:
Approval of Ordinances for:
Faith Works Coalition;
Mercy Medical Airlift;
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) - Virginia Beach;
Recovery for the City International; and
Tidewater Memorial Bicycle Park Fund
Virginia Bi:lptist Children's Home and Family Services
Virginia V\iild Horse Rescue
Submitting DepclrtmentlAgency: Commissioner of the Revenue
City Manage~~~}L · C6~
III I
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
AN ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE MERCY MEDICAL
AIRLIFT AS BEING EXEMPT FROM LOCAL REAL
AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION
WHEREAS, in accordance with 9 58.1-3651 of the Code of Virginia, the Council of
the City of Virginia Beach has advertised and conducted a public hearing on the issue of
granting an exemption from local real and personal property taxes to Mercy Medical Airlift.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
1. That the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, hereby designates Mercy
Medical Airlift as a charitable organization within the context of 9 6(a)(6) of Article X of the
Constitution of Virginia.
2. That real and personal property owned by Mercy Medical Airlift located within the
City of Virginia Beach that is used exclusively for charitable purposes on a nonprofit basis
is hereby exempt from local property taxation.
3. This exemption is contingent on the following:
(a) continued use of the property Mercy Medical Airlift for exclusively charitable
purposes;
(b) that each July 1, Mercy Medical Airlift shall file with the Commissioner ofthe
Revenue a copy of its most recent federal income tax return, or, if no such
return is required, it shall certify its continuing tax exempt status to the
Commissioner of the Revenue;
(c) that every three years, beginning on July 1,2012, Mercy Medical Airlift shall
file an exemption application with the Commissioner of the Revenue as a
requirement for retention of the exempt status of the property; and
(d) that Mercy Medical Airlift cooperate fully with the Commissioner of the
Revenue with respect to audit of its financial records, compliance with the
terms of this ordinance.
4. That the effective date of this exemption shalf be January 1, 2010.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the
July, 2009.
day of
Requires an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members of the City Council.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
<Z?~~
CA11165
R-1
June 18, 2009
2
Ii' I,ll I
OVERVIEW OF NONPROFIT APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
MERCY MEDICAL AIRLIFT
4620 Haygood Road Ste 1
Virginia Beach, VA 23455
SUMMARY OF NONPROFIT BUSINESS ACTIVITY:
MMA's mission is to ensure that no needy patient is denied access to distarit specialized medical
evaluation, diagnosis or treatment for lack of a means of long-distance medical air transportation.
They also ensure the provision of urgent transportation in situations of compelling human need
and homeland security emergencies.
This organization provides medical air transportation to needy individuals throughout the
Hampton Roads area and the country. It manages several other programs that benefit the families
of those in need of medical air transportation. They also work with many other local, state and
federal agencies to provide services during times of disasters.
Mercy Medical Airlift does not own any airplanes; they have volunteer pilots who use their own
aircraft. This organization operates from donations and contributions.
TAX IMPACT:
Personal Property:
Business Property Tax
Real Estate:
None
$4,419.81 (year)
$3,994.32 (year)
Commissioner of the Revenue Recommendation:
~
Approval
Disapproval
,-~._--_..-_......
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
39
40
41
AN ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE VIRGINIA BAPTIST
CHILDREN'S HOME AND FAMILY SERVICES AS
BEING EXEMPT FROM LOCAL REAL AND
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION
WHEREAS, in accordance with ~ 58.1-3651 of the Code of Virginia, the Council of
the City of Virginia Beach has advertised and conducted a public hearing on the issue of
granting an eXl3mption from local real and personal property taxes to Virginia Baptist
Children's Home and Family Services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
1. That the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, hereby designates
Virginia Baptist Children's Home and Family Services as a charitable organization within
the context of ~ 6(a)(6) of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia.
2. That (eal and personal property owned by Virginia Baptist Children's Home and
Family Services located within the City of Virginia Beach that is used exclusively for
charitable purposes on a nonprofit basis is hereby exempt from local property taxation.
3. This E~xemption is contingent on the following:
(a) continued use of the property Virginia Baptist Children's Home and Family
Sorvices for exclusively charitable purposes;
(b) that each July 1, Virginia Baptist Children's Home and Family Services shall
filE~ with the Commissioner of the Revenue a copy of its most recent federal
income tax return, or, if no such return is required, it shall certify its
continuing tax exempt status to the Commissioner of the Revenue;
(c) that every three years, beginning on July 1,2012, Virginia Baptist Children's
Home and Family Services shall file an exemption application with the
Commissioner of the Revenue as a requirement for retention of the exempt
status of the property; and
(d) that Virginia Baptist Children's Home and Family Services cooperate fully
with the Commissioner of the Revenue with respect to audit of its financial
records, compliance with the terms of this ordinance.
4. That the effective date of this exemption shall be January 1, 2010.
Adopted iby the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the
July, 2009.
day of
Requires an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members of the City Council.
Iii Iii I I
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
J2~
CA11179
R-1
June 26, 2009
2
OVERVJ[EW OF NONPROFIT APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
ENTITY NAME:
Virginia BSLptist Children's Home & Family Services
T/A HopeTree Family Services
SUMMARY OF NONPROFIT BUSINESS ACTMTY:
Property at 1204 Ewell Road in Virginia Beach was given as a restricted gift for their
Developmental Disabilities Ministries (DDM) program. DDM is a ministry that mainly
provides group homes for adults with intellectual disabilities. Their expectations for the
property include the following:
· Obtain a license to house up to four adults.
· Maintain one or two organization vehicles.
· Estalblish a local home office with office equipment.
Based upon the review of the history of the organization, the mission of the
Developmental Disabilities Ministries (DDM) program (see attached documents), the
audited financial statements and Attorney General's Opinion 02-126, Virginia Baptist
Children's Home & Family Services, T/A HopeTree Family Services could be classified
as a "religious association." Pending the receipt of the license to house up to four adults
with intellectual disabilities, Virginia Baptist Children's Home & Family Services, T/A
HopeTree F:unily Services should be exempted from the local real and property taxation
in accordanc:e with Section 58.1-3617 of the Code of Virginia. .
TAX IMPACT:
Personal Property: none at this time
Real Estate: Assessed - $321,992
Tax - $2,865.74 (year)
RELEVANT INFORMATION:
III 1,11,-1
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
AN ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE FAITH WORKS
COALITION AS BEING EXEMPT FROM LOCAL
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION
WHEREAS, in accordance with 9 58.1-3651 of the Code of Virginia, the Council of
the City of Virginia Beach has advertised and conducted a public hearing on the issue of
granting an exemption from local personal property taxes to Faith Works Coalition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
1. That the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, hereby designates Faith
Works Coalition as a charitable organization within the context of 9 6(a)(6) of Article X of
the Constitution of Virginia.
2. That personal property owned by Faith Works Coalition located within the City of
Virginia Beach that is used exclusively for charitable purposes on a nonprofit basis is
hereby exempt from local property taxation.
3. This exemption is contingent on the following:
(a) continued use of the property Faith Works Coalition for exclusively charitable
purposes;
(b) that each July 1, Faith Works Coalition shall file with the Commissioner of the
Revenue a copy of its most recent federal income tax return, or, if no such
return is required, it shall certify its continuing tax exempt status to the
Commissioner of the Revenue;
(c) that every three years, beginning on July 1,2012, Faith Works Coalition shall
file an exemption application with the Commissioner of the Revenue as a
requirement for retention of the exempt status of the property; and
(d) that Faith Works Coalition cooperate fully with the Commissioner of the
Revenue with respect to audit of its financial records, compliance with the
terms of this ordinance.
4. That the effective date of this exemption shall be January 1, 2010.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the
July, 2009.
day of
Requires an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members of the City Council.
I I
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
CA 11164
R-1
June 18, 2009
2
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
~-~
/' y' Ice
II
OVERVIEW OF NONPROFIT APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
FAITH WORKS COALITION
905 HORSESHOE COURT
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451
SUMMARY OF NONPROFIT BUSINESS ACTIVITY:
Faith Works Coalition repairs homes for the elderly, low income and working families. The work
is performed by a group of volenteers and is funded through private donations and :from Virginia
Beach Church Outreach Ministries.
Public Benefit - repairs homes owned by senior citizens and low income families which
improves quality life and preserves neighborhoods.
TAX IMPACT:
There is no tax impact at this time, the volenteers use their own tools and own vehicles to
transport material needed for the repairs. They are hoping to eventually buy a work truck and
tools.
Commissioner of the Revenue Recommendation:
~
Approval
Disapproval
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
39
40
41
AN ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE NATIONAL
ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS (NAMI) - VIRGINIA
BEACH AS BEING EXEMPT FROM LOCAL
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION
WHEREAS, in accordance with 9 58.1-3651 of the Code of Virginia, the Council of
the City of Virginia Beach has advertised and conducted a public hearing on the issue of
granting an exemption from local personal property taxes to National Alliance on Mental
Illness (NAMI) - Virginia Beach.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
1. That the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, hereby designates
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) - Virginia Beach as a charitable organization
within the context of 9 6(a)(6) of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia.
2. That personal property owned by National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) -
Virginia Beach located within the City of Virginia Beach that is used exclusively for
charitable purposes on a nonprofit basis is hereby exempt from local property taxation.
3. This E!xemption is contingent on the following:
(a) continued use of the property National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) -
Vil"ginia Beach for exclusively charitable purposes;
(b) that each July 1, National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) - Virginia Beach
shall file with the Commissioner of the Revenue a copy of its most recent
federal income tax return, or, if no such return is required, it shall certify its
continuing tax exempt status to the Commissioner of the Revenue;
(c) that every three years, beginning on July 1, 2012, National Alliance on
Mental Illness (NAMI) - Virginia Beach shall file an exemption application with
the Commissioner of the Revenue as a requirement for retention of the
exempt status of the property; and
(d) that National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) - Virginia Beach cooperate
fully with the Commissioner of the Revenue with respect to audit of its
financial records, compliance with the terms of this ordinance.
4. That the effective date of this exemption shall be January 1, 2010.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the
July, 2009.
day of
Requires an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members of the City Council.
II ii,
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
~------
Con y's Ice-
CA11166
R-1
June 18, 2009
2
OVERVIE\V OF NONPROFIT APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
NAMI - Virgi:l1ia Beach (National Alliance on Mental Illness)
281 Independence Blvd Ste 414
Virginia Beach, V A 23462
SUMMARY OF NONPROFIT BUSINESS ACTIVITY:
NAMI -Natiom~ Alliance on Mental Illness is the nation's largest grassroots mental health
organization dedicated to improving the lives of individuals and families affected by mental
illness. NAMI provides support, education, and advocacy for people affected by mental illness.
They are dedicated to increasing public understanding of mental illness to reduce stigma; to
improve the quaJity of life for individuals diagnosed with serious mental illness; to provide
support and education to families of the mentally ill and to persons with mental illness; and to
promote research.
Local services include:
. A local office is open 3 hours a day to answer questions or give out information on
mental illness.
. They have a 24 hours day phone answering service through a call forwarding service.
. They provide written material on mental illnesses upon request.
. Sponsors support groups for families with a dependent diagnosed with a serious mental
illness.
TAX IMPACT:~
Personal Property
Business Property Tax
Real Estate:
None
$24.72
None
Commissioner of the Revenue Recommendation:
~
Approval
Disapproval
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
39
40
III1 i
AN ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE RECOVERY FOR
THE CITY INTERNATIONAL AS BEING EXEMPT
FROM LOCAL PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION
WHEREAS, in accordance with 9 58.1-3651 of the Code of Virginia, the Council of
the City of Virginia Beach has advertised and conducted a public hearing on the issue of
granting an exemption from local personal property taxes to Recovery for the City
International.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
1. That the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, hereby designates
Recovery for the City International as a charitable organization within the context of 9
6(a)(6) of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia.
2. That personal property owned by Recovery for the City International located
within the City of Virginia Beach that is used exclusively for charitable purposes on a
nonprofit basis is hereby exempt from local property taxation.
3. This exemption is contingent on the following:
(a) continued use of the property Recovery for the City International for
exclusively charitable purposes;
(b) that each July 1, Recovery for the City International shall file with the
Commissioner of the Revenue a copy of its most recent federal income tax
return, or, if no such return is required, it shall certify its continuing tax
exempt status to the Commissioner of the Revenue;
(c) that every three years, beginning on July 1, 2012, Recovery for the City
International shall file an exemption application with the Commissioner of the
Revenue as a requirement for retention of the exempt status of the property;
and
(d) that Recovery for the City International cooperate fully with the
Commissioner of the Revenue with respect to audit of its financial records,
compliance with the terms of this ordinance.
4. That the effective date of this exemption shall be January 1, 2010.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the
July, 2009.
day of
Requires an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members of the City Council.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
CA11167
R-1
June 18, 2009
2
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
~----
C A ey's Office
'1'1 ,II I
OVERVIEW OF NONPROFIT APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
Recovery for the City International
3333-28 Virginia Beach Blvd
Virginia Beach, VA 23452
SUMMARY OF NONPROFIT BUSINESS ACTIVITY:
Recovery for the City is a faith based organization that exists to promote and develop spiritual
recovery around the world.
Recovery for the City's vision is to help both the individual and cluster groups o'rganize
leadership for recovery.
They provide group meeting for adults with addictions or compulsive behavior and they provide
a similar program for children of parents who suffer from addictions or compulsive behavior.
They sell books, produce seminars and give apprenticeships.
They believe God has called us to reproduce the "Recovery for the City" model internationally in
order to help as many people as possible
TAX IMPACT:
Personal Property:
Business Property
Real Estate:
$58.82 (year)
$131.85 (year)
None
Commissioner of the Revenue Recommendation:
./
Approval
Disapproval
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
39
40
41
AN ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE TIDEWATER
MEMORIAL BICYCLE PARK FUND, INC. AS BEING
EXEMPT FROM LOCAL PERSONAL PROPERTY
TAXATION
WHEREAS, in accordance with ~ 58.1-3651 of the Code of Virginia, the Council of
the City of Virginia Beach has advertised and conducted a public hearing on the issue of
granting an eXE!mption from local personal property taxes to Tidewater Memorial Bicycle
Park Fund, Inc..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
1. That the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, hereby designates
Tidewater Memorial Bicycle Park Fund, Inc. as a charitable organization within the context
of ~ 6(a)(6) of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia.
2. That personal property owned by Tidewater Memorial Bicycle Park Fund, Inc.
located within the City of Virginia Beach that is used exclusively for charitable purposes on
a nonprofit basis is hereby exempt from local property taxation.
3. This t~xemption is contingent on the following:
(a) continued use of the property Tidewater Memorial Bicycle Park Fund, Inc. for
e>t:clusively charitable purposes;
(b) that each July 1, Tidewater Memorial Bicycle Park Fund, Inc. shall file with
tht3 Commissioner of the Revenue a copy of its most recent federal income
ta:< return, or, if no such return is required, it shall certify its continuing tax
exempt status to the Commissioner of the Revenue;
(c) that every three years, beginning on July 1, 2012, Tidewater Memorial
BiGycle Park Fund, Inc. shall file an exemption application with the
Commissioner of the Revenue as a requirement for retention of the exempt
status of the property; and
(d) that Tidewater Memorial Bicycle Park Fund, Inc. cooperate fully with the
Commissioner of the Revenue with respect to audit of its financial records,
compliance with the terms of this ordinance.
4. That the effective date of this exemption shall be January 1, 2010.
day of
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the
July, 2009.
Requires an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members of the City Council.
11,11 I
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
12~~
CA11180
R-1
June 26, 20Q9
2
OVERVIEW OF NONPROFIT APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
ENTITY NAME: Tidewater Memorial Bicycle Park Fund Inc.
SUMMARY OF NONPROFIT BUSINESS ACTIVITY:
Tidewater Memorial Bicycle Park Fund Inc. is a non-profit charitable organization
incorporated in May 2003, provides bicycling activities for school age kids and adults to
help develop fundamental cycling skills in a safe setting through instruction, racing and
games.
. Promotes individual heath
. Promotes cycling as a transportation alternative
. In the past they have had weekly training races at the sportsplex. Open to the
pubhc
. Apri12008 in partnership with Parks & Rec. ran the Tour de Beach. (ages 5-14)
TAX IMPACT:
BPP
PP
Real Estate N/A
RELEVANT INFORMATION:
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
39
~_l~".__~__j, 1___.,11.1
AN ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE VIRGINIA WILD
HORSE RESCUE AS BEING EXEMPT FROM LOCAL
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION
WHEREAS, in accordance with ~ 58.1-3651 of the Code of Virginia, the Council of
the City of Virginia Beach has advertised and conducted a public hearing on the issue of
granting an exemption from local personal property taxes to Virginia Wild Horse Rescue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
1. That the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, hereby designates
Virginia Wild Horse Rescue as a charitable organization within the context of ~ 6(a)(6) of
Article X of the Constitution of Virginia.
2. That personal property owned by Virginia Wild Horse Rescue located within the
City of Virginia Beach that is used exclusively for charitable purposes on a nonprofit basis
is hereby exempt from local property taxation.
3. This exemption is contingent on the following:
(a) continued use of the property Virginia Wild Horse. Rescue for exclusively
charitable purposes;
(b) that each July 1, Virginia Wild Horse Rescue shall file with the Commissioner
of the Revenue a copy of its most recent federal income tax return, or, if no
such return is required, it shall certify its continuing tax exempt status to the
Commissioner of the Revenue;
(c) that every three years, beginning on July 1, 2012, Virginia Wild Horse
Rescue shall file an exemption application with the Commissioner of the
Revenue as a requirement for retention of the exempt status of the property;
and
(d) that Virginia Wild Horse Rescue cooperate fully with the Commissioner of the
Revenue with respect to audit of its financial records, compliance with the
terms of this ordinance.
4. That the effective date of this exemption shall be January 1, 2010.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the
July, 2009.
day of
Requires an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members of the City Council.
. I
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
CA11168
R-1
June 18, 2009
2
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
:V~~
III I,
',u ",~_i--,
I 1--1-1-1
OVERVIEW OF NONPROFIT APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
VIRGINIA WILD HORSE RESCUE
1624 N Muddy Creek Rd
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
SUMMARY OF NONPROFIT BUSINESS ACTIVITY:
Virginia Wild Horse Rescue, is a non-profit charitable organization incorporated in May 2006, to
protect and preserve the free roaming wild horses, that roam into Virginia from North Carolina
and is dedicated to "Saving Our American Heritage For Future Generations'~ through the
enhanced education and preservation of the wild horses. These wild horses are true descendants
of the Colonial Spanish Mustangs (Banker Ponies) that have roamed the coast of Virginia and
North Carolina for over 400 years.
. Promoting and enhancing public awareness through educational programs that give their
history and the importance of saving the wild Spanish Mustangs as our American
Heritage for future generations.
. They establish sanctuaries for rescued wild Spanish Mustangs who can no longer remain
in the wild, to maintain herds with feed and hay as necessary in preparation for the
sanctuary and while in the sanctuary stay.
. To create a horse rescue unit that would not only serve the wild Spanish Mustangs, but
also act as a rescue unit for trailer accidents, search and rescue of horses or other large
animals in Virginia Beach, the state of Virginia and neighboring states after major natural
disasters.
TAX IMPACT:
Personal Property:
Business Property
Real Estate:
$106.56 (year)
$37.24 (year)
None
Commissioner of the Revenue Recommendation:
../
Approval
Disapproval
. I
~,
~~~.<<",
~T~".' ~
((&~
\~1jJ City Council Policy
Original Proposal
Tide: City Council Polic)' Regarding Applications for Tax Exemption by
Designation
Dare of Adoption: February 3, 2004 I Dates of Revisions: May 6, 200S Page 1 of 4
1.0 Purpose and Need
Purpose: To establish criteria for approval of resolutions by City Council to exempt, by
designation. local nonprofit organizations from real and personal property taxes. '
Need: City Council has requested guidance as to criteria for considering exemptions as well as a
procedure rc)r reviewing requests for exemption from local property taxes. The Commissioner of
the RevenUl~ has offered revisions to Council's policy adopted on February 2, 2004 in an effon
to streamline the exemption review process for local nonprofit organizations and provide
necessary analySis and oversight of the application process. .
Legislative Background: The Virginia Constitution provides that, after January 1, 2003, local
government; may, by designation, exempt the real and personal property of nonprofit
organizations from local propeny taxes if used exclusively for religious, charitable, patriotic,
historical, be:nevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes. However, as provided
in Virginia ('ooe ~ 58.1-3651, the local governing body must adopt an ordinance to exempt the
property.
2.0 Policy
The City Council is not required to designate any organization properly applying for exemption
from taxation, and every designation of an organization is conditioned upon compliance with the
tenns of this policy and any ordinance granting the exemption. If an organization does not
comply with these requirements, the City Council may revoke the tax exemption after providing
notice and a hearing to the organization. Any revocation of an exemption shall be effective at the
beginning of the tax year during which the revocation occurs.
The applicant or a representative of the applicant shall provide the Commissioner of the Revenue
derailed infOlmation necessary to detennine the benefits to the public that will result from
granting tax l~xemption. In considering applications, the Commissioner of the Revenue shan
employ [he following guidelines:
:111 I,
I
Title: City Council Policy Regarding Applications for Tax Exemption by
Designation
Date of Adoption: February 3, 2004 I Dates of Revisions: May 6, 2008 Page 2 of 4
1. The organization must be exempt from federal income tax pursuant to Internal Revenue
Code ~ 50l(c).
2. Personal or real property for which an exemption is sought cannot be used by any member
of the organization or other persons except for non-profit purposes benefiting the non-profit
organization applying for exemption.
3. The organization must be in compliance with all City ordinances and regulations (including
but not limited to building, property maintenance, and zoning codes) and all applicable taX
obligations.
4. The organization must provide a service to the residents of the City that results in a benefit to
the public (tangible or intangible).
The following requirements apply to each entity exempted from local property taxes by the City
Council:
1. Upon obtaining exemption, the organization must annually submit (by July 1 of each year)
its Intema! Revenue Service Form 990 or 990 EZ to the Commissioner of the Revenue. If
not required to file Form 990 or 990 EZ, then the organization must annually certify on
formes) prescribed by the Commissioner of the Revenue its continuing taX exempt stanIS.
Loss of 50l( c) status must immediately be reported to the Commissioner of the Revenue and
City AttOrney, and is grounds for revocation of tax exempt status.
2. Pursuant to Virginia Code ! 58.1-3605, each entity exempted from local property taxes shall,
every three years, file an exemption application with the Commissioner of the Revenue as a
requirement for retention of the exempt status of the property. The application form shall be
approved as to form by the City Anomey.
3. Each entity exempted from local property taxes must cooperate fully with the Commissioner
of the Revenue with respect to audit of its financial records, compliance with the tenns of this
policy, and compliance with any ordinance granting tax exemption.
3.0 Procedure to Accomplish Policy
1. Organizations applying for exemption must request a detennination from the Commissioner
of the Revenue as to whether the organization is or may be tax-exempt by classification,
pursuant to Article 2 (~58.l-3606 et seq.) oroArticle 3 (~58.l-3609 et seq.) of Tide 58.1 of the
Virginia Code. If the organization is not exempt, but meets the criteria of organizations that
can be exempted by designation (see Virginia Code ~58.l-3651), the organization will receive
. I
i ,I
Tide: City Council Policy Regarding Applications for Tax Exemption by
Designation
Date of Adoprio 11: February 3, 2004 f Dates of Revisions: May 6, 2008 Page 3 of 4
an application from the Commissioner of the Revenue. The application form shall request all
information required by Virginia Code ~58.l-3651 and be approved as to form by the City
Attorney.
2. Applkations for exemption shall be considered quarterly. Applications for exemption must
be submitted to the Commissioner of the Revenue. Applications shall be submitted no later
than October 1 of the year preceding the effective date of the exemption. Based on the
criteri~. set forth in section 2.0 of this policy, the Commissioner of the Revenue will review
each application and make a report to City Council regarding whether an organization
quaJifi4~ for exemption under law and City policy. The Commissioner of the Revenue will
not submit applications he deems incomplete to City Council for a determination.
3. The O)mmissioner of the Revenue shall forward copies of the applications along with his
written findings to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare the necessary
ordinances for City Council and coordinate with the City Clerk to ensure that the applications
are properly advertised and placed on the City Council's agenda for a public hearing and
formal consideration.
4. The Cily Council will conduct a public hearing and consider the criteria set forth in Virginia
Code ~:58.l-3651, section 2.0 of this policy, and the findings of the Commissioner of the
Revenue.
5. Any eXEmptions granted shall be effective as of the next January 1.
6. Exemptions, as weJJ as any depanure from these guidelines, shall require approval by three-
fourths (3/4) of the members of City Council.
4.0 Responsibility and Authority
Responsibility for initiating application for exemption and timely providing any information or
application rl~quired by the Commissioner of the Revenue shall rest with the organization seeking
exemption. Responsibility for making available information, application for exemption, verifying
submitted taJ: information and reporting on the initial and continuing stams of the taxpayer shall
rest with the Commissioner of the Revenue.
Responsibility for preparing required ordinances, arranging for the advertising of public hearings,
and placing ilems on the City Council's agenda for a vote on proposed exemptions shall rest with
the City Attomey. Responsibility for the final detennination of the public benefits resulting from
tax exemption shall rest exclusively with the City Council.
III
II,-l-
Tide: City Council Policy Regarding Applications for Tax Exemption by
Designation
Date of Adoption: February 3, 2004 I Dates of Revisions: May 6, 2008 Page 4 of 4
5.0 Definitions
PUBLIC BENEFIT- Any benefit or advantage expected to be realized by the public, whether
tangible or intangible, which may accompany the tax exemption.
LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES- Ad valorem taxes levied by the City of Virginia Beach on real
estate or tangible personal property.
6.0 Specific Requirements
In addition to the procedures and responsibilities set forth in paragraphs 3.0 and 4.0, respectively,
documentation forwarded to the City Council shall include submission of an application form in
form and substance substantially as presented in the attached Exhibit A, as well as any additional
information that the applicant wishes to present to the City Council.
II II I
,.
ft:l...~.~
,;.~ iiI
'<<~
~~~
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
"""
\.
~
ITEM: A Resolution Offering Direction to the City Manager Regarding the City's Health
Care Offerings for Plan Year 2010
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background: The City and Schools operate a joint self-insured Health
Insurance Plan which is overseen on a daily basis by the Consolidated Benefits Office.
The Benefits Executive Committee (BEC) is charged with making recommendations to
the City Manager and the Superintendent of Schools on plan design and annual rates
for the various plans offered. The BEC is comprised of members from the City
Manager's Office, the Superintendent's Office, City and Schools Human Resource
Departments, City Budget staff, and City and School Finance Departments, and it is
staffed by the Director of the Consolidated Benefits Office.
. Considerations: The projected number of retirees and employees for plan year
2010 is 14,882. The only significant plan design change recommended for Plan Year
2010 is the inclusion of a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) along with a Health
Savings Account (HSA). This plan will replace the current Basic Preferred Provider
Organization (PPO) plan. There will be an additional employer contribution of $500 to
the Health Savings Accounts (HSA). Until there is experience with this new plan, no
plan design changes for the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Plan, the Retiree
Point-Of-Service (POS) Plan, or the Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) Plan are
advised.
In developing recommendations for the 2010 Plan Year, consideration was given to the
overall economy potentially increasing costs to the plan. Nationwide health care
expenses are expected to increase between 5% to 9%. Seven percent (7%) was used
as a cost trend for 2010. Also of importance is that neither City nor School employees
will receive a general or merit pay increase during the plan year.
Three different scenarios for applying the employer's contribution to the various tiers
were examined:
. continuing the current flat contribution of $5,400 per eligible
employeelretiree;
. using a variable distribution of the employer contribution to the various
tiers - 90% coverage for the eligible employee/retiree and 50% coverage
for dependents; and
. using a variable distribution recommended by the City Manager's Health
Care Committee where the employer contribution would be set to cover
93% of an employee's cost and 85% of a dependant's cost.
. Recommendation: Based on concerns over the economy and the lack of
compensation increases for City and School employees, the following strategy for Plan
Year 2010 is rE!commended:
. Maintain for 2010 the current premium rate structure and flat $5,400 employer
contribution per enrollee. The Health Care Fund can absorb cost increases
not covered by current rates. Emplovees and retirees in existina health
plam; would see no chanae in their costs.
. ImplElment a High Deductible Health Plan with a Health Savings Account.
This will require rates to be established for this plan. There will be an
additlional $500 annual employer contribution to the HSA. This would replace
the current Basic Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) plan.
. Revisit changing the employer contribution strategy in 2011 depending on
overclll economy and total compensation decisions by the City Council and
School Board.
. Public Ilnformation: Public information will be provided through normal
advertisement of the Council agenda process.
. Attachments: Resolution, Rate Sheet
Recommendecl Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager's Office ~
City Manager:C:::~\ k-, ~~
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
II II I
A RESOLUTION OFFERING DIRECTION TO THE
CITY MANAGER REGARDING THE CITY'S HEALTH
CARE OFFERINGS FOR PLAN YEAR 2010
WHEREAS, the next Health Care Plan year takes effect January 1, 2010.
WHEREAS, the Benefits Executive Committee (BEC) has recommended
changes to the health care plan offerings and to the rates for plan year 2010.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA THAT
The City Manager is hereby directed to work with the Consolidated Benefits
Office to implement t~e following with respect to the Health Care Offerings for City
employees:
a) Maintain the 2009 rate structure for the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO)
plan, the Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) plan, and the Retiree Point of
Service (POS) plan for the plan year beginning January 1, 2010.
b) Maintain the City's employer contribution strategy as a flat $5400 per eligible
employee/retiree for plan year 2010.
c) Use the balance of the Health Care Fund to absorb any cost increases not
covered by the 2010 employee rates and employer contribution amount.
d) Implement a High Deductible Health Plan with a Health Savings Account (HSA).
The BEC will establish rates for this plan. The City would provide a $500 annual
employer contribution to the HSA for those employees participating in the High
Deductable Health Plan. The $500 annual employer contribution to the HSA is in
addition to the $5400 employer contribution discussed above (paragraph b).
e) Revisit changing the employer contribution strategy for plan year 2011,
depending on overall economy and total compensation decisions by the City
Council and School Board.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the
,2009.
day of
Approved as to Content:
Approved as to Legal Sufficiency:
22~~ -
CA11170
R-3
July 28, 2009
:ZO I 0 CITY EMPLOYEE RATES
HEALTH
THIE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES
Type of Coverage Annual Employer Employee Employee PHSA (COBRA)
Rates Monthly Monthly Semi- Monthly
Contribution Contribution Monthly Contribution
(12-months) Contribution (1020/0 of Plan
Cost)
C12-monthsl
HEALTH
Select HMO - OptimaHealth
Employee Only $4,430.00 $450.00 $25.00* $12.50 $376.55
Employee & Child $6,341.00 $450.00 $78.42 $39.21 $538.99
Employee & Children $8,877 .00 $450.00 $289.75 $144.88 $754.55
Employee & Spouse $8,535.00 $450.00 $261.25 $130.63 $725.48
Family $11,409.00 $450.00 $500.75 $250.38 $969.77
Double Employee (City/City) $8,535.00 $900.00 $50.00* $25.00 $725.48
Double Employee (City/School) $8,535.00 $900.00 $35.00* $17.50 $725.48
Double Family (City/City) $11,409.00 $900.00 $50.75 $25.38 $969.77
Double Family (City/School) $11,409.00 $900.00 $50.75 $25.38 $969.77
Premier PPO - Optimaliealth
Employee Only $8,892.00 $450.00 $291.00 $145.50 $755.82
Employee & Child $10,461.00 $450.00 $421.75 $210.88 $889.19
Employee & Children $14,645.00 $450.00 $770.42 $385.21 $1,244.83
Employee & Spouse $14,122.00 $450.00 $726.83 $363.42 $1,200.37
Family $18,916.00 $450.00 $1,126.33 $563.17 $1,607.86
Double Employee (City/City) $14,122.00 $900.00 $276.83 $138.42 $1,200.37
Double Employee (City/School) $14,122.00 $900.00 $276.83 $138.42 $1,200.37
Double Family (City/City) $18,916.00 $900.00 $676.33 $338.17 $1,607.86
Double Family (City/School) $18,916.00 $900.00 $676.33 $338.17 $1,607.86
Equity High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) - Optima Health
Employee Only $3,798.00 $450.00 $5.00* $2.50 $322.83
Employee & Child $4,482.00 $450.00 $7.00* $3.50 $380.97
Employee & Children $6,275.00 $450.00 $72.92 $36.46 $533.38
Employee & Spouse $6,055.00 $450.00 $54.58 $27.29 $514.68
Family $8,076.00 $450.00 $223.00 $111.50 $686.46
Double Employee (City/City) $6,055.00 $900.00 $10.00* $5.00 $514.68
Double Employee (City/School) $6,055.00 $900.00 $5.00* $2.50 $514.68
Double Family (City/City) $8,076.00 $900.00 $10.00* $5.00 $686.46
Double Family (City/School) $8,076.00 $900.00 $5.00* $2.50 $686.46
* If the employer contribution exceeds the annual rate, an employee contribution may still be required.
II
II I
20 I 0 CITY RETIREE RATES
(lriI!! employer contribution) *
HEALTH RATES FOR RETIREES OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
Type of Coverage Annual Employer Monthly Retiree Monthly PHSA (COBRA)
Rates Contribution Contribution Monthly
(12-months) Contribution
(1020/0 of
Plan Cost)
HEALTH
imaHealth
$5,874.00
$6,606.00
$9,248.00
$9/240.00
$12/427.00
$9,240.00
$9/551.50
$12/427.00
12427.00
o n Access POS - 0
Employee Only
Employee & Child
Employee & Children
Employee & Spouse
Family
Double Employee (City/City)
Double Employee (City/School)
Double Family (City/City)
Double Famil C" School
Select HMO - 0 imaHealth
Employee Only $4/430.00
Employee & Child $6/341.00
Employee & Children $8/877.00
Employee & Spouse $8,535.00
Family $11/409.00
Double Employee (City/City) $8/535.00
Double Employee (City/School) $9/136.50
Double Family (City/City) $11,409.00
Double Famil C" School 11 839.00
E u Hi h Deductible Health Plan
Employee Only
Employee & Child
Employee & Children
Employee & Spouse
Family
Double Employee (City/City)
Double Employee (City/School)
Double Family (City/City)
Double Famil Ci School
Premier PPO - 0 tima Health
Employee Only
Employee & Child
Employee & Children
Employee & Spouse
Family
Double Employee (City/City)
Double Employee (City/School)
Double Family (City/City)
Double Famil Ci School
$8,892
$10,461
$14/645
$14,122
$18/916
$14/122
$14,122
$18,916
18916
$450.00
$450.00
$450.00
$450.00
$450.00
$900.00
$900.00
$900.00
900.00
$39.50
$100.50
$320.67
$320.00
$585.58
$79.00**
$79.00**
$135.58
135.58
$499.29
$561.51
$786.08
$785.40
$1,056.30
$785.40
$811.88
$1/056.30
1 056.30
$450.00
$450.00
$450.00
$450.00
$450.00
$900.00
$900.00
$900.00
900.00
$25.00
$78.42
$289.75
$261.25
$500.75
. $50.00**
$50.00**
$50.75
86.58
$376.55
$538.99
$754.55
$725.48
$969.77
$725.48
$776.60
$969.77
1 006.32
$450.00
$450.00
$450.00
$450.00
$450.00
$900.00
$900.00
$900.00
900.00
$5.00**
$7.00**
$72.92
$54.58
$223.00
$10.00**
$5.00**
$10.00**
5.00**
$322.83
$380.97
$533.38
$514.68
$686.46
$514.68
$514.68
$686.46
686.46
$450.00
$450.00
$450.00
$450.00
$450.00
$900.00
$900.00
$900.00
900.00
$291.00
$421.75
$770.42
$726.83
$1/126.33
$276.83
$276.83
$676.33
676.33
$755.82
$889.19
$1/244.83
$1/200.37
$,1607.86
$1/200.37
$1,200.37
$1,607.86
1 607.86
* Retirees that retired under VRS guidelines with 25 combined years or more of service with the City of Virginia Beach and/or Virginia Beach City
Public Schools, or retired under VRS guidelines with 5 years or more of service with the City of Virginia Beach with a work related disability,
** If the employer contribution exceeds the annual rate, retiree contribution may still be required.
20 I 0 CITY RETIREE RATES
(~'ithout employer contribution -less than 25 years o/service)*
HEALTH RATES FOR RETIREES OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
Type of Coverage Annual Retiree Monthly PHSA (COBRA)
Rates Contribution Monthly Contribution
12-months 102% of Plan Cost
HEAL TH
o n Access POS - 0 timaHealth
Employee Only
Employee & Child
Employee & Children
Employee & Spouse
Famil
Select HMO - 0 tinlaHealth**
Employee Only
Employee & Child
Employee & Children
Employee & Spouse
Fa mil
E u' Hi h Deductible Health Plan
Employee Only
Employee & Child
Employee & Children
Employee & Spouse
Famil
Premier PPO - 0 tilmaHealth **
Employee Only
Employee & Child
Employee & Children
Employee & Spouse
Famil
$7,080
$8,020
$9,360
$14,058
16 425
$11/658
$13,208
$15,416
$23,150
27 047
.. Plans are not available to City Retirees that retired on or after June 25, 2008.
$590.00 $601.80
$668.33 $681.70
$780.00 $795.60
$1,171.50 $1,194.93
1 368.75 1 396.13
$582.33 $593.98
$659.75 $672.95
$770.00 $785.40
$1,156.33 $1,179.46
1 351.08 1 378.11
$380.42 $388.03
$427.50 $436.05
$489.83 $499.63
$711.00 $725.22
882.67 900.32
$971.50 $990.93
$1,100.67 $1,122.68
$1,284.67 $1,310.36
$1,929.17 $1,967.75
2253.92 2 299.00
SUMMARY OF TERMS
Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Virginia Beach
and the Virginia Beach Parks and Recreation Foundation ("MOU")
Parties:
City of Virginia Beach, through Department of Parks and Recreation
("Department")
Virginia Beach Parks and Recreation Foundation ("Foundation")
Purpose:
To memorialize the relationship of the parties
Term:
5 years; may be renewed for additional 5-year periods
Foundation's Responsibilities:
· Foundation will secure, manage and invest privately raised funds, gifts and
bequests in support ofthe Department's programs, services and facilities.
City's Responsib:llities:
· Provide a staff liaison to the Foundation.
· Provide a staff member to record Foundation meetings.
· Provide graphic design assistance for marketing materials.
· Suggest potential donors.
· Allow use of the name and images of the Department.
Other Terms:
· Termination: MOU may be terminated by either party with 90 days written
notice.
· Governing Law and Venue: Virginia law governs agreement, and venue is in
City of Virginia Beach.
Modification: MOD may only be modified by writing, executed by both
parties.
· Independent Contractors: Parties are acting in individual capacity and are not
agents of one another.
II 'II
,
iGiA~":'I
k~I'''~ '~.,'...r2,)
rP'f.;' -"..'fJ
~t::: '. ~7.)
~~t.~, ,'r~;
,\::~~~' \~<!j
~~4:<f.,~..~ ..y
....;:~o::,
""
\...
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
~
ITEM: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of
Understanding Between the City of Virginia Beach and the Virginia Beach
Parks and Recreation Foundation
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background: The Virginia Beach Parks and Recreation Foundation
("Foundation") is a non-profit section 501 (c) (3) organization that was formed in 2004.
The purpose of the Foundation is to support the mission of the City of Virginia Beach's
Parks and Recreation Department ("Department"). The responsibilities of the
Foundation include securing, managing and investing privately raised funds, gifts and
bequests in support of the Department's programs, services and facilities,
. Considerations: The City and the Foundation wish to formally memorialize the
responsibilities and obligations of the City and the Foundation in a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU"). A summary of the MOU is attached hereto.
. Public Information: Public Information will be provided through the normal
process of advertising the Council's agenda.
. Attachments: Resolution, Summary, Memorandum of Understanding
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Parks and Recreation ~
City Manag~-.g.~ \L .'"C(3llO'l..
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
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH AND THE VIRGINIA BEACH
PARKS AND RECREATION FOUNDATION
WHEREAS, the Virginia Beach Parks and Recreation Foundation ("Foundation")
is a non-profit section 501 (c)(3) organization that was formed in 2004; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Foundation is to support the mission of the City of
Virginia Beach'::; Parks and Recreation Department ("Department"); and
WHEREAS, the responsibilities of the Foundation include securing, managing
and investing privately raised funds, gifts and bequests in support of the Department's
programs, services and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Foundation wish to formally memorialize the
responsibilities and obligations of the City and the Foundation in a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU"); and
WHEREAS, the initial term of the MOU is for five (5) years, and the MOU may be
renewed for additional five-year terms with the written consent of both parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the
Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach. A copy of the
Memorandum of Understanding is attached hereto.
of
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the
,2009.
day
Approved as to Content:
Approved as to Legal Sufficiency:
-----..
n~
A.~~
City Attorney Office
CA11247
July 27, 2009
R-2
! j,
ill
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
between the
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
and the
VIRGINIA BEACH PARKS AND RECREATION FOUNDATION
This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is made by and between the City
of Virginia Beach, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("City"), and
the Virginia Beach Parks and Recreation Foundation, a not-for-profit Virginia nonstock
corporation located in Virginia Beach, Virginia ("Foundation").
WHEREAS, the City, through its Department of Parks and Recreation
("Department"), owns, operates and maintains real estate, buildings and other
recreational facilities, and operates a wide variety of parks and recreation programs and
services; and
WHEREAS, the Department maintains the stated vision of a balanced,
sustainable and value focused system of parks, recreation and public spaces that
creates a sense of community; and
WHEREAS, the Department's mission is to (1) deliver parks, recreation
programs and public spaces that reflect the priorities of the community; (2) support
tiered levels of service that recognize the diverse needs of the community; and (3)
focus on sustainability of core programs, services and facilities through efficient and
effective business practices; and
WHEREAS, the Foundation was formed in 2004, and has functioned for the
purpose of supporting the vision and goals of the Department; and
WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the Foundation is to secure, manage and
invest privately raised funds, gifts and bequests in support of the Department's
programs, services, and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Foundation operates as a legal entity separate from the City,
and is governed by an independently elected Boards of Directors, none of whom are
employees of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Foundation and the City wish to assure the continued success
and prosperous growth of the Department by memorializing the responsibilities and
obligations of the Foundation and the City.
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual efforts to support the development
of the Department, the City and the Foundation agree as follows:
Section 1. Operating Procedures
A. The Foundation shall communicate the following information to
prospective donors:
1. The Foundation is a separate, legal entity organized for the
purpose of encouraging voluntary, private gifts, trusts, and
bequests for the benefit of the Department.
2. Responsibility for governance of the Foundation, including
investment of gifts and endowments, resides with the Foundation's
Board of Directors.
3. Charitable gifts from donors to the Foundation in support of any of
the Department's programs, services, or facilities should be made
to the Foundation, and not to the City or the Department.
4. Any gift made for a designated purpose will be dedicated in its
entirety to that purpose unless (a) it is specifically understood by
the donor when the gift was made, or subsequently agreed to by
the donor in writing, that an administrative charge will be applied or
that the gift can be used for another purpose if the original purpose
has been satisfied or (b) the Department objects to the designated
purpose of the gift.
B. The Foundation agrees that in accepting gifts of all kinds, the Foundation
shall:
1 , Advise donors that any restrictive terms and conditions the donor
attaches to gifts for the Department are subject to the Department's
approval.
2 Ensure that gifts designated for specific purposes are in
compliance with the Department's master plans, vision, mission
and philosophy before accepting the gift.
3, Coordinate its funding goals, programs and campaigns with the
Department.
4, Receive prior written approval from the City Council or its designee
for any gift, grant, or contract that includes a financial or contractual
obligation binding upon the City.
C. The Foundation shall be responsible for reporting to a donor regarding the
use of the donor's funds.
I III
D. In return for the Foundation's contributions to and support of the
Department and its programs, the City shall assist the Foundation in the following
manner:
1. At the discretion of the Director of the Department, and consistent with
applicable federal, state, and local law, and City policies and administrative directives,
the City shall provide the Foundation with assistance as follows:
a. Department shall provide a staff liaison to the Foundation;
b. Department shall provide a staff member to record Foundation meeting
minutes; and
c. Department's Resource Development Bureau shall provide graphic design
assistance for specific marketing materials, including Foundation stationary, fliers for
the Annual Golf Tournament, sales packages, and sales materials for Bench Buddies,
Tree Buddies, and the Urban Reforestation Fund programs.
2. Assist the Foundation by suggesting potential donors to the Foundation.
3. Allow the Foundation to use the name and images of the Department. The
Foundation shall not be permitted to use the City Seal.
Section 2. Record Keeping
A. The City and the Foundation acknowledge and agree that all Foundation
correspondence, financial records, and all Foundation documents are the property of
the Foundation and shall be kept separate and apart from all City records.
B. The Foundation shall maintain publicly available, updated copies of all of
its enabling documents, including its articles of incorporation, bylaws and any
amendments to thereto. The Foundation shall provide the City with a copy of its IRS
Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax) without accompanying
documentation providing information concerning any specific Foundation donor.
C. The Foundation shall prepare' and reconcile on a monthly basis a
Treasurer's Report. In addition, the Foundation should provide annually to the City a
financial report prepared in accordance with Statements of Financial Accounting
Standards 117 "Financial Statements for Not-for-Profit Organizations." The financial
report shall be provided to the City on or before June 30 of each year during this MOU,
but shall not include any information regarding individual Foundation donors.
Section 3. Independent Contractors
In the performance of this MOU, both the City and the Foundation will be acting
in an individual capacity and not as agents, employees, partners or joint venturers or
associates of one another. The agents or employees of one shall not be construed to
be the agents or employees of the other. City employees shall remain employees of
the City, notwithstanding the fact that they may assist the Foundation.
Neither the City nor its agents, volunteers, servants, employees or officials shall
be responsible or liable for any claim or suit arising from contracts, agreements,
understandings or arrangements made by the Foundation with any person or entity
covering services or goods procured by the Foundation, or for the negligent or willful
acts of the Foundation or those for whom the Foundation acts.
Section 4. T4:!rm
The initial term of this MOU will be for five (5) years, effective July 1, 2009
through June :30, 2014. This MOU may be renewed for additional five-year terms with
the written consent of both parties.
Section 5. Di~spute Resolution
The palties agree that if there is a dispute as to any provision of this MOU or if
either party materially breaches or fails to perform its obligations under this MOU, the
other party may give notice in writing of the dispute or material breach. The parties
agree to meet to resolve the dispute or material breach within thirty (30) days of receipt
of the notice. If the parties fail to resolve the dispute within sixty (60) days of such
notice or such longer period, if agreed to in writing by the parties, the parties agree to
bring in a mediator to resolve the dispute.
Section 6. NClltice
Any notice or notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to this MOU
shall be given by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt required, as follows:
To the City:
To the Foundation:
I I,
------4l",-IH,1
I
Section 7. Termination
This MOU may be terminated by either party by delivering written notice of
termination to the non-terminating party at least ninety (90) days prior to the effective
date of any termination.
Section 8. Governing Law and Venue
This MOU shall be deemed to be a Virginia contract and shall be governed as to
all matters whether of validity, interpretations, obligations, performance or otherwise
exclusively by the law of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and all question arising with
respect thereto shall be determined in accordance with such laws. Regardless of
where actually delivered and accepted, this MOU shall be deemed to have been
delivered and accepted by the parties in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The
Foundation shall comply with all federal, state and local statues, ordinances, and
regulations now in effect or thereafter adopted, in the performance of its obligations set
forth herein. Any and all suits for any claims or for any and every breach of dispute
arising out of this MOU shall be maintained in the appropriate court of competent
jurisdiction in the City of Virginia Beach.
Section 9. Mechanic's Liens
During the term of this MOU, the Foundation will promptly remove or release any
mechanic's or materialman's lien attached to or on the subject property or any portion,
by reason of any act or omission by the Foundation, its contractors or agents in
connection with the activities performed by the Foundation, and hold harmless the City
and its agents, employees, volunteers, servants, and officials from any such lien or
claim of lien. This provision shall survive the termination, cancellation, or expiration of
the MOU.
Section 10. Severability
Any provision of this MOU which is prohibited or unenforceable shall be
ineffective only to the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability without invalidating
the remaining provisions thereof.
Section 11. Entire Agreement
The parties agree that this writing constitutes the entire agreement of the parties
and that there may be no modification to this MOU, except in writing, executed by the
authorized representatives of the City and the Foundation.
As evidenced by their agreement to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the
parties affix their authorized signatures hereto:
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
By
(Name)
(Title)
VIRGINIA BEACH PARKS AND RECREATION
FOUNDATION
By
(Name)
(Title)
Approved as to Content:
Approved as to Risk Management:
Department of Parks and Recreation
Risk Manager
Approved as to Legal Sufficiency:
Office of the City Attorney
WJ
.. J ....
...
1'1 I,
l_""~'rll.l-
I
I
I
SUMMARY OF TERMS
PROPERTY
SIZE AND
LOCATION:
3.168 +/- acre parcel located at 110 South Independence Boulevard and
formerly operated as a Circuit City store GPIN 1477-43-7709 ("Parcel One").
0.571 +/- acre parcel located at 110 South Independence Boulevard
immediately to the west of Parcel 1 GPIN 1477-43-5719 ("Parcel Two").
SELLER:
CC Virginia Beach, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is seller of
Parcel One.
Circuit OP Virginia Beach, L.P., a Texas limited partnership, is seller of
Parcel Two.
BUYER:
City of Virginia Beach Development Authority
ZONING:
B-3
AICUZ:
N/A
SALE PRICE:
$5,000,000
ANTICIPATED
CLOSING COSTS: Approximately $50,000
SPECIAL TERMS
AND CONDITIONS:
· Authority to pay $250,000 deposit upon signing of the purchase contract.
· Authority to pay 1 % early termination fee on existing loan of approximately $30,185.
I Ivbgov.comldJill lapplicationslcitylawprodlcycom321 Wpdocs\D028\POO5100020315.DOC
II I,
II 'II
.c~:IN"~~.... .
~~. -r\\\
{5~_ ~~
\...-= 11
1..'~.4. '*".~
~~
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance Approving the Acquisition of the Former Circuit City Property
located at 110 S. Independence Boulevard in Virginia Beach, Namely (i) a
3.168+/- Acre Parcel from CC-Virginia Beach, LLC and (ii) a 0.571+/- Acre
Parcel from Circuit OP Virginia Beach, L.P. by the City of Virginia Beach
Development Authority and Appropriating Funds for the Purchase.
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background: Cardinal Capital Partners, Inc. ("Cardinal Capital") approached
representatives of the Virginia Beach Development Authority ("Authority") about the
potential purchase by the Authority of the former Circuit City site located at 110 South
Independence Boulevard, immediately south of Town Center.
The property for'sale consists of two parcels (collectively, the "Circuit City Property") (1)
a 3.168 +/- acre parcel owned by CC-Virginia Beach, LLC ("CC-Virginia Beach") and (2)
a 0.571 +/- acre parcel owned by Circuit OP Virginia Beach, L.P. ("Circuit OP"). Both
CC-Virginia Beach and Circuit OP are affiliated entities of Cardinal Capital.
On July 21, 2009, the Authority approved the purchase of the Circuit City Property for
Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000), contingent on City Council approval of the acquisition
and appropriation of the purchase price. In addition to the purchase price, staff
estimates approximately Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) in closing costs will be
incurred by the Authority, including a loan termination fee.
. Considerations: The Circuit City Property's location next to Town Center and
the Norfolk Southern Right-ot-Way makes it a strategically important acquisition that
could potentially serve numerous economic development goals of the City. The City will
fund the purchase through its Capital Improvement Program and the issuance by the
Authority of Public Facility Revenue Bonds backed by annual appropriations from the
City. The Authority and the City have used this arrangement on several occasions for
various economic development projects (e.g., Town Center garages, Convention
Center, etc).
. Public Information: Because the appropriation exceeds 1 % of the FY2010
Capital Budget, a Public Hearing is required. Advertising began on August 2,2009, for
a Public Hearing on August 11, 2009. Public notice is also provided through the normal
Council agenda process.
. Recommendations: Approval of the attached ordinance authorizing the
purchase of the Circuit City Property by the Authority and providing for funds of
$5,050,000 MiHion to complete the acquisition.
.
Attachments:
Ordinance
Location Map
Summary of Terms
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Finance fiNO /
Department of Economic Development ~
City Manager~~ 'l- Q}>~
III I,
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
39
40
41
42
43
II III
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ACQUISITION
OF THE FORMER CIRCUIT CITY PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 110 SOUTH INDEPENDENCE
BOULEVARD IN VIRGINIA BEACH, NAMELY (i) A
3.168 +/- ACRE PARCEL FROM CC-VIRGINIA
BEACH, LLC AND (ii) A 0.571 +/- ACRE PARCEL
FROM CIRCUIT OP VIRGINIA BEACH, L.P. BY THE
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR
THE PURCHASE
WHEREAS, CC-Virginia Beach, LLC, ("CC-VB") and Circuit OP Virginia Beach, L.P.
("Circuit OP", and collectively with CC-VB, "Seller"), approached the City of Virginia Beach
Development Authority ("Authority") about purchasing the property located at 110
Independence Blvd, formerly operated as a Circuit City retail store;
WHEREAS, the property offered for sale consists of a 3.168 +/- acre parcel owned
by CC-VB and a 0.571 +/- acre parcel owned by Circuit OP (collectively the parcels are
referred to as the "Property");
WHEREAS, the Authority has identified the Property as having strategic value for
future economic development opportunities;
WHEREAS, the Authority is authorized to acquire real property for economic
development purposes as set forth in ~15.2-4905 of the Code of Virginia;
WHEREAS, the staff of the Authority and Seller have agreed on a purchase price of
Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) for the Property;
WHEREAS, prior to entering into a contract to purchase the Property, the Authority
requests the City Council approve the acquisition and appropriate funds to fund the
acquisition including an estimated $50,000 in closing costs; and
WHEREAS, City Council is of the opinion that acquisition of the Property is in the
best interest of the City and would further the goals of the Authority.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
VIRGINIA:
1. The City Council approves the acquisition of a 3.168 +/- acre parcel of real
property from CC Virginia Beach, LLC and a 0.571 +/- acre parcel of real property from
Circuit OP Virginia Beach, L.P., each located at 110 South Independence Boulevard,
Virginia Beach, Virginia, and depicted as Parcels 1 and 2 on Exhibit A, attached hereto
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
(collectively, the parcels are referred to as the "Property") by the City of Virginia Beach
Development Authority for the amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000).
2. The City Council hereby amends the FY 2009-10 Capital Budget by
appropriating $5,050,000 to Capital Improvement Project, 3-368 "Various Site
Acquisitions", for the purchase of the Property, with revenue from the issuance of Public
Facility Revenue Bonds increased accordingly.
3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement providing
the Development Authority with up to $5,050,000 from CIP 3-368 to purchase the Property
and pay necessary closing costs, with this amount to be repaid to the City from Public
Facility Revenue Bonds issued by the Development Authority, and such other terms and
conditions del~med necessary and sufficient by the City Manager and in a form deemed
satisfactory by the City Attorney.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day
of August, 2009.
Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of a/l of the Members of City Council
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
~~
Economic Development
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUF~
City Attorney's Office
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
- ~ +,r.. tAfA~/1.1Ijff
Finance Dep tment
CA 11188
IIvbgov .comldfs IlappIications\citflawprodlcycom32\ Wpdocs\D027\P005\OOO20056.DOC
R-1
July 30,2009
I '
SUMMARY OF TERMS
LEASE FOR THE USE OF 6' X 6' PARCEL OF CITY PROPERTY
FOR NAVIGATIONAL AID PURPOSES
LESSOR: City of Virginia Beach
LESSEE: United States of America (Coast Guard)
PREMISES: Thirty-six square feet (6' x 6') of land owned by the City located twenty-five
(:~5') from the end of the breakwater on the North side of Rudee Inlet,
Virginia Beach, Virginia.
TERM:
October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010, with four options to renew
for one year each.
RENT:
Rent shall be One Dollar ($1.00) per annum.
RIGHTS AND I~ESPONSIBILlTIES OF LESSEE:
. May use the Premises for navigational aid operations and no other purpose. Any
unauthorized use of the Property shall constitute a breach of the lease and cause
its immediate termination.
. To the e:<tent permitted by law, assumes the entire responsibility and liability for
any and all damages to persons or property caused by any act or omission of the
Lessee or its officers, invitees, employees and agents associated with the use of
the Premises.
RIGHTS AND FtESPONSIBILlTIES OF THE CITY:
. Assumes responsibility for the maintenance of the Premises and the means of
ingress and egress during the lease term.
. Shall notify the Lessee prior to the placement of any' item onto the structure
which holds the navigational aids and associated equipment.
TERMINATION:: The Lessee may terminate this lease upon giving the City thirty (30)
days' written notice.
I I;
#fJ~~"-.:~.'
~~_:. t )~~
. _. ,,.
~ /
~tU,lIlifI"~"
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
Ir'O''''
i
I
I
I
ITEM: An Ordinance Approving the Lease of an Approximately 6' x 6' Parcel of City
Land located Twenty-Five Feet (25') From the End of the Breakwater on the
North Side of Rudee Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background: Aids to navigation for Rudee Inlet are owned and maintained by
the U.S. Coast Guard (the "Coast Guard").
Pursuant to its current lease with the City, the Coast Guard installed and
maintains a navigation light tower on the extended North Jetty at Rudee Inlet (the
"Property"). The current lease expires on September 30,2009. The Coast
Guard wishes to enter into a new formal lease arrangement with the City to
continue maintaining the light tower and associated navigational aids on the
Rudee Inlet North Jetty.
. Considerations: The term of the Lease is one year, with four options to extend
for one year each. Rent under the Lease is equal to $1 per year. For more
specific information, see the attached Summary of Terms.
. Public Information: Advertisement of Public Hearing
Advertisement of City Council Agenda.
.
Alternatives:
Approve Lease as presented, modify terms of the Lease, or
deny leasing of the Property.
. Recommendations: Approval
. Attachments: Summary of Terms
Ordinance
Location map
Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance /2 /
Submitting Department/Agency: Manageme~S/Facilities Management
Office
City Manager~1 k..~
I
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
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE LEASE
OF AN APPROXIMATELY 6' X 6' PARCEL OF
CITY LAND LOCATED TWENTY-FIVE FEET
(25') FROM THE END OF THE
BREAKWATER ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
RUDEE INLET, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City") is the owner of an
approximately 6' x 6' parcel of land located twenty-five feet (25') from the end of the
breakwater 011 the north side of Rudee Inlet in the City of Virginia Beach (the
"Premises");
WHEREAS, the United States of America (Coast Guard) (the "Coast Guard")
currently leasE~s the Premises from the City, and such lease expires September 30,
2009;
WHEREAS, the Coast Guard would like to enter into a new formal lease
arrangement with the City for the purpose of continuing its maintenance of a light
tower and associated navigational aids on the Rudee Inlet North Jetty; and
WHEREAS, the Premises will be utilized for navigational aid purposes and
for no other uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a lease for a term of one
year (with four one-year options to renew) between the United States of America and
the City, for an approximately 6' x 6' parcel of land located twenty-five feet (25') from the
end of the breakwater on the north side of Rudee Inlet in the City of Virginia Beach, 'in
accordance with the Summary of Terms attached hereto and made a part hereof, and
such other terms, conditions or modifications deemed necessary and sufficient by the
City Manager and in a form deemed satisfactory by the City Attorney.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the
,2009.
day
of
II I,
11-1-
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY AND FORM:
t:~5tcl~
~~y~{~~ 4'
Depaftment
~~
City Attorney's Office
CA11186
\\vbgov.com\dfs 1 lapplicalions\citylawprod\cycom32\ Wpdocs\D029\POOS\OOO20347.DOC
R-1
July 30, 2009
~I
U\
- I
- ,
: I
~I
- ~
- I
-r;,
. !:
~
- ~
_ ll:
~i
- ~;
~
.~
f
. I
-~
- I
- ~
~
J
...~'
1\
?
b
/'
~
\
\
~
~
~
"
a..
<C
~
Z
o
-
t;:
U
o
....
I
SUMMARY OF TERMS
Lease with John Charalambous for the residence
located at 1400 Laskin Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23451
LESSOR:
LESSEE:
PREMISES:
City of Virginia Beach
John Charalambous
TERM:
1400 Laskin Road, Virginia Beach, VA (GPIN 2417-19-7442)
6 months: September 1, 2009 through February 28, 2010.
Lessee may renew for up to four (4) one-year periods.
RENT:
$1300 per month, with annual increases equal to 3% for each
exercised renewal
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LESSEE:
. Use Premises solely for a single-family domicile.
. Pay for all utilities and related service connections.
. Maintain the Premises.
. Procure and maintain public liability insurance with limits of not less than
$1,000,000 combined single limits per occurrence.
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY:
. City not responsible for any maintenance or repairs to the Property.
. ReserveH right to enter upon the Premises without notice to Lessee in
emergency situations, or at reasonable times during non-emergency
situationH.
TERMINATION: City may terminate the Lease for any reason by giving
thirty (30) days' written notice to Lessee.
\\vbgov.comldfs J lapplicaticns\citylawprod\cycom32\ WpdocsID029\POO5\OOO20343.DOC
I
I I II I
,
~~.~IA'~l.>)'
o. ~
~!"!'"'" ~.r ~
\~ ~J.;
~~#
~
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
'"
\...
~
ITEM: An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease for Six Months
with John Charalambous for City-Owned Property Located at 1400 Laskin
Road
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background: The City purchased a parcel of land located at 1400 Laskin Road
(the "Property") in 2002 as part of the City's future development plans for Laskin Road.
The previous owner, John Charalambous, remains a resident of the Property, and has
been leasing the Property from the City on a month-to-month basis since the City
acquired it. The Property is used as a single-family residence.
Mr . Charalambous would now like to enter into a formal lease arrangement with
the City.
. Considerations: The term of the lease is six months (with four options to
extend for one year each). For more specific terms, see attached Summary of Terms.
. Public Information: Advertisement of Public Hearing
Advertisement of City Council Agenda.
. Alternatives: Approve Lease Agreement as presented, change
conditions of the Lease Agreement, or deny leasing of the Property
. Recommendations: Approval
. Attachments: Summary of Terms
Ordinance
Location map
Recommended Action: Approval M ~
Submitting Department/Agency: Manag~rvices I Facilities Management
Office
City Manager~ k- I CelH>-\
1 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY
2 MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LEASE FOR SIX
3 MONTHS WITH JOHN CHARALAMBOUS FOR
4 CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1400
5 LASKIN ROAD
6
7 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach (the "City") is the owner of that
8 certain parcel of property located at 1400 Laskin Road (the "Property") in Virginia
9 Beach, Vin;)inia;
10
11 WHEREAS, the City acquired the Property from John Charalambous
12 ("Charalambous") in 2002 as part of the City's future development plans for
13 Laskin Road;
14
15 WHEREAS, Charalambous has occupied the Property on a month-to-
16 month basis since the City's acquisition of the Property, and would now like to
17 enter into a formal Lease Agreement with the City for the Property;
18
19 WHEREAS, the term of the Lease Agreement is six (6) months with four
20 (4) options to extend for one (1) year each;
21
22 WHEREAS, Charalambous has agreed to pay the City $1,300 per month
23 for the first six months, with rent increasing by 3% per year for each exercised
24 renewal; and
25
26 WHEREAS, the Property will be utilized as a single-family residence and
27 for no other purpose;
28
29 THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
30 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
31
32 That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a lease for the
33 Property for a term of six months (with four (4) one-year renewal terms) between
34 John Charalambous and the City, in accordance with the Summary of Terms
35 attached hereto and made a part hereof, and such other terms, conditions or
36 modifications as may be acceptable to the City Manager, and in a form deemed
37 satisfactory by the City Attorney.
38
39 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the
40 day of ,2009.
II II I
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY AND FORM
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
~
Signature
12~~
Signature
D/Vl.) / ~ !-I/cs /'1g'-
Department
CA11189
IIvbgov.com\dfs llapplications\citylawprodlcycom32\ Wpdocs\D023\POO5\OOO 19774.DOC
R-1
July 30, 2009
1
,},
1.,{-o..1
(/)
~(1)-
"Co
G) ~
g..<t
O -'" _-------C>~
~ '. - - - .- uGn !.!>
~~T
G)~
(.) 1-
-0-
C. ~
~ &LP
(/) (1)
elSe
c
.,... 4 f-~ dJ
G) ~ ~
- (/)~
e<&
~ <.)
'- c
U\"b:
\_~
AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM
INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT NO. 2009.93
SUMMARY OF MATERIAL TERMS
SELLER: BRUMLEY, SPENCE JUDITH and SPENCE, EARL RONALD
PROPERTY LOCATION: 448 Princess Anne Road, Princess Anne District.
PURCHASE PllUCE: $1,077,994
EASEMENT AREA: 116.54 acres, more or less
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: 12 single-family dwelling sites (10 acquired)
DURATION: Perpetual
INTEREST RATE: Equal to yield on U.s. Treasury STRIPS acquired by City to fund purchase
price, but not les;s than 2.9200% (actual rate to be determined when STRIPS are purchased prior
to execution ofI]> A). Rate may not exceed 5.9200% without approval of City Council.
TERMS: Interest only twice per year for 25 years, with payment of principal due 25 years from
IP A date
RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER: IP A ownership may not be transferred (except for Estate
Settlement Transfer) for one (1) year following execution and delivery ofIPA.
I I II I
~~. a
~...~
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM:
An Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of an Agricultural Land
Preservation Easement and the Issuance by the City of its Contract
Obligations in the Maximum Amount of $1,077,994 (Property of Judith
Spence Brumley and Earl Ronald Spence)
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background: In May, 1995, the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the
"Ordinance") was adopted by the City Council for the purpose of promoting and
encouraging the preservation of farmland in the rural southern portion of the City.
Under the Agricultural Reserve Program established by the Ordinance, the City
purchases the development rights of eligible parcels of land, leaving the fee simple
ownership of the land unchanged. These purchases are embodied by perpetual
agricultural land preservation easements pursuant to which only agricultural uses, as
defined in the Ordinance, are allowed on the land.
The subject property has been appraised by an independent appraiser retained
by the City. The appraiser has determined the fair market value of the property, based
upon eleven (11) comparable sales. From the fair market value, the value of the
development rights has been determined by subtracting $900 per acre, which has
previously been established as the farm value (i.e., value of the land restricted to
agricultural uses) for land throughout the southern rural area of the City. The resulting
amount is the value of the development rights of the property.
All offers by the City to purchase the development rights to property are
expressly made contingent upon the absence of any title defects or other conditions
which, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may adversely affect the City's interests, and
other standard contingencies.
. Considerations: The subject property consists of one (1) parcel of land having
approximately 116.54 acres outside of marshland or swampland. It is owned by Judith
Spence Brumley and Earl Ronald Spence. Under current development regulations,
there is a total development potential of twelve (12) single-family dwelling building sites,
two of which will be reserved for future development as a 3-acre building site. Property
owners are no longer required to designate the location of the area reserved for future
building sites, but are required to subdivide such sites prior to building on them. The
site, which is shown on the attached Location Map, is located at 448 Princess Anne
Road, in the District of Princess Anne. The proposed purchase price, as stated in the
ordinance, is $1,077,994. This price is the equivalent of approximately $9,250 per acre
of easement acquired.
2
The terms of the proposed acquisition are that the City would pay interest only for
a period of 25 years, with the principal amount being due and payable 25 years from the
date of closin~,. The interest rate to be paid by the City will be the greater of 2.9200%
per annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS
purchased by the City to fund its principal obligation under the Installment Purchase
Agreement, not to exceed 5.9200% without the further approval of the City Council.
The proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights
pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement, including the purchase price and
manner of payment, are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of the
Ordinance.
. Public Information: The ordinance has been advertised by publication in a
newspaper having general circulation in the City once per week for two successive
weeks.
. Alternatives: The City Council may decline to purchase the development rights
to the property.
. Recommendations: Adoption of the ordinance and acquisition of the
development rinhts, assuming all contingencies are met.
. Attachments: Ordinance; Summary of Material Terms of Installment Purchase
Agreement (full Agreement is on file in the City Attorney's Office); area map showing
location of property.
Recommended ,~ction: Adoption
Submitting Department/Agency: Agriculture Department ~
City Manager: ""'~ 'tc. . ~~
I'
I I II I
1 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF AN
2 AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION EASEMENT AND
3 THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF ITS CONTRACT
4 OBLIGATIONS IN THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
5 $1,077,994. (PROPERTY OF JUDITH SPENCE BRUMLEY
6 AND EARL RONALD SPENCE)
7
8 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the
9 "Ordinance"), Appendix J of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, there has been
10 presented to the City Council a request for approval of an Installment Purchase Agreement
11 (the form and standard provisions of which have been previously approved by the City
12 Council, a summary of the material terms of which is hereto attached, and a true copy of
13 which is on file in the City Attorney's Office) for the acquisition of the Development Rights
14 (as defined in the Installment Purchase Agreement) on certain property located in the City
15 and more fully described in Exhibit B of the Installment Purchase Agreement for a
16 purchase price of $1,077,994; and
17
18 WHEREAS, the aforesaid Development Rights shall be acquired through the
19 acquisition of a perpetual agricultural land preservation easement, as defined in, and in
20 compliance with, the requirements of the Ordinance; and
21
22 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed terms and conditions of the
23 purchase as evidenced by the Installment Purchase Agreement;
24
25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BYTHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
26 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
27
28 1. The City Council hereby determines and finds that the proposed terms and
29 conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase
30 Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment, are fair and reasonable
31 and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance, and the City Manager or his designee
32 is hereby authorized to approve, upon or before the execution and delivery of the
33 Installment Purchase Agreement, the rate of interest to accrue on the unpaid principal
34 balance of the purchase price set forth hereinabove as the greater of 2.9200% per annum
35 or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on United States Treasury STRIPS
36 purchased by the City to fund such unpaid principal balance; provided, however, that such
37 rate of interest shall not exceed 5.9200% unless the approval of the City Council by
38 resolution duly adopted is first obtained.
39
40 2. The City Council hereby further determines that funding is available for the
41 acquisition of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement on
42 the terms and conditions set forth therein.
43
44 3. The City Council hereby expressly approves the Installment Purchase
45 Agreement and, subject to the determination of the City Attorney that there are no defects
46 in title to the property or other restrictions or encumbrances thereon which may, in the
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
opinion of the City Attorney, adversely affect the City's interests, authorizes the City
Manager or his designee to execute and deliver the Installment Purchase Agreement in
substantially the same form and substance as approved hereby with such minor
modifications, insertions, completions or omissions which do not materially alter the
purchase price or manner of payment, as the City Manager or his designee shall approve.
The City Council further directs the City Clerk to affix the seal of the City to, and attest
same on, the Installment Purchase Agreement. The City Council expressly authorizes the
incurrence of the indebtedness represented by the issuance and delivery of the Installment
Purchase Agreement.
4. The City Council hereby elects to issue the indebtedness under the Charter
of the City rathl9r than pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991 and hereby constitutes
the indebtedness a contractual obligation bearing the full faith and credit of the City.
Adoption requires an affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the City
Council.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this
,2009.
day of
CA11187
\\vbgov,com\dfsl\applicalions\:itylawprod\cycom3X1Wpdocs\D022\POO5\OOOl9602.DOC
R-1
DATE: July 28, 2009
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
AL--
Agriculture Department
FICIENCY:
CERTIFIED AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS:
9J-M&(LD~dl~,-
Director of Fina nce
2
." 'J~' ~ ....,.,. "".
'4'; J ...........- ..r ..J"".'
':'>', . ~.i5;~:~~\\."~"
:.....
~ ". ":. .. ~.*. .:" (.
... ..~,;;~::,_.~~,.,~~~'~..~i.~...~..., ~-;~. .
_~.:- ' ;. ,., :.;. 'I' .
'. ......... ,,'t. ..; .. ...:'.
, r, _.l_~:. .-*.. ,_~,~~:,_":.,7.','~;. .#~.:.....,::}.:.
'~h~ - - ~ .
,.' ..,..... ~...".., ., . ~',.J.F
.' .; :....~.. ..."....:' '::. ~ .... ." .. ;,,\..:., .
.:.' .',;'.:'. ,', ~.~:.: M" , . <f' I' t .,:
. ___0'::-' ).... ";';/"4'"
'.. " .' ~ ,;.~'" ....-'.:
'. ~;_' '" ..,....' .,.'~ ',..... .iA",' ; ..........-.
..,- _ :.....::.,..; I:~~"'.': ~ .;.,....:,:J....~..,., ~ .~i~.' 1....t}~.~f''O'''..
.' ~." .-", ", ,..;._t-'" ....
~It\
_8 . .
., '<ti
..-
$
~ s
'= ~
~ ~
~ ct:
>- ~OO i
~ ~~cto~ 1
"0 .... ct 0 l6
8 o..g-~~ fj;
~ 8 4.~~~0) \
N ~ &- &- """ CD 4.
" %2:,o>>"d, 0
;... ow-Om ~
\Ii ~~:;a4.~ ~
a 4~~~% !
\A g~4.coo: ~
.::10~~C) ~
~4o "i
~:J~ j.
~:.J 2
U1~ ~
~
o
u..
(II
<;
(
I
i
g
..
0.
-!
:
-0
e
CU1
at
3
II II
ITEM: An Ordinance to authorize Temporary Encroachments into a portion of City
property known as Island Lake located at the rear of 2401 Broad Bay Road for
William George Bachsmith
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background:
Mr. Bachsmith has requested permission to construct and maintain 128 linear
feet of vinyl bulkhead, a portion of an existing wood privacy fence, a 12' X 12'
boatlift atop four 8" X 30' piles, mooring piles (5), steps, and a 6' X 63' wharf
upon a portion of City property known as Island Lake, located at the rear of 2401
Broad Bay Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
. Considerations:
City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended
approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the Agreement.
There are similar encroachments in Island Lake.
In accordance with the recommendations of City Council to help address water
quality protection in conjunction with Temporary Encroachments onto City
property, the requested encroachments have been reviewed by the Department
of Planning/Environmental Management Center. Staff is of the professional
opinion that the establishment of a 15 foot wide vegetated riparian buffer area
consisting of under story trees and shrubs in a mulched bed running the entirety
of the shoreline adjoining the applicant's property is feasible and warranted to
help reduce long term water quality impacts associated with the existing and
proposed encroachments.
The applicant has submitted a plan for establishing a 15 foot wide vegetated
riparian buffer that has been reviewed and approved by the Department of
Planning/Environmental Management Center.
. Public Information:
Advertisement of City Council Agenda.
. Alternatives:
Approve the encroachments as presented, deny the encroachments, or add
conditions as desired by Council.
. Recommendations:
ApproVI~ the request subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
. Attachments:
Ordinance, Agreement, Exhibit, Pictures and Location Map
Recommended Action:
Approval of the ordinance.
Submitting De~lartmentlAgency: Public Works/Re
City Manager: c~ L ~
II II I
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
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Requested by Department of Public Works
AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE
TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS
INTO A PORTION OF CITY
PROPERTY KNOWN AS ISLAND LAKE
LOCATED AT THE REAR OF 2401
BROAD BAY ROAD FOR WILLIAM
GEORGE BACHSMITH
WHEREAS, William George Bachsmith desire to construct and maintain 128
linear feet of vinyl bulkhead, a portion of an existing wood privacy fence, a 12' X 12'
boatlift atop four 8" X 30' piles, mooring piles (5), steps, and a 6' X 63' wharf, all upon a
portion of City property known as Island Lake located at the rear of 2401 Broad Bay
Road, in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia.
WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to ~~ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107,
Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments upon the
City's property subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in ~~ 15.2-
2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, William George Bachsmith,
his heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct and maintain the
temporary encroachments for 128 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead, a portion of an existing
wood privacy fence, a 12' X 12' boatlift atop four 8" X 30' piles, mooring piles (5), steps,
and a 6' X 63' wharf upon a portion of City property known as Island Lake as shown on
the map marked "EXHIBIT A" and entitled: "ENCROACHMENT REQUEST - "EXHIBIT
A" FOR BILL BACHSMITH LOT 71 SECTION ONE, SUBDIVISION OF BAY ISLAND
(M.B. 45 PG. 37) FEBRUARY 20,2009" a copy of which is on file in the Department of
Publit Works and to which reference is made for a more particular description; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly
subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the
City of Virginia Beach and William George Bachsmith (the "Agreement"), which is
attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee
is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such
time as William George Bachsmith and the City Manager or his authorized designee
execute the Agreement.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day
of 2009.
CA-10744
X:\OID\REAL ESTATE\EncrOllchmenls\PW Ordinances\CA10744 Bachsmilh Ordiance.doc
V:\applications\cilylawprod\cy<:om32\Wpdocs\D018\PO03\00062775.DOC
R-1
PREPARED: 7/1/09
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS
f/fnSJ- {!. ~S~
BLlC WOR~:S, REAL ESTATE
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY AND FORM
~L :jJ(,vl "Y"QJ,,1, ((.l.L.-M..
CITY ATTORNEY I
I I
II III I
PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (BOX 31)
EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES
UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(C) (4)
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 25th day of June, 2009, by and between
the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantor, "City", and WilLIAM GEORGE BACHSMITH,
widower, HIS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even
though more than one.
WIT N E SSE T H:
That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or
parcel of land designated and described as Lot "71" as shown on that certain plat
entitled: "SUBDIVISION OF BAY ISLAND SECTION ONE PRINCESS ANNE, CO., VA.
L YNNHAVEN MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT", and said plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office
of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 45, at page 37,
and being further designated, known, and described as 2401 Broad Bay Road, Virginia
Beach, Virginia 23451;
WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a 128
linear feet vinyl bulkhead, a portion of an existing wood privacy fence, a 12' X 12' boatlift
atop four 8" X 30' piles, mooring piles (5), steps and a 6' X 63' wharf, collectively, the
"Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach;
GPIN: (CITY RIGHT OF WAY - NO GPIN REQUIRED OR ASSIGNED)
1499-98-5801-0000
, I
\NHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary
Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing
City property known as Island Lake located at the rear of 2401 Broad Bay Road,
Virginia Beach, Virginia, the "Encroachment Area"; and
VVHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit the Temporary
Encroachment within the Encroachment Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the
benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One
Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
City hereby grants to the Grantee permission to use the Encroachment Area for the
. .
purpose of con:structing 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 thEl City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications
and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit:
The Temporary Encroachment into the Encroachment Area
as, shown on that certain plat entitled: "ENCROACHMENT
REQUEST - "EXHIBIT A" FOR BILL BACHSMITH LOT 71
SECTION ONE, SUBDIVISION OF BAY ISLAND (M.B. 45
PG. 37) FEBRUARY 20,2009 ," 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.
2
I I
II III'
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary
Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and
that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must
be removed from the Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear
all costs and expenses of such removal.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall
indemnify, hold harmless, and defend 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 obtain
a permit from the Department of Planning prior to commencing any construction with the
Encroachment Area (the "Permit").
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall
establish and maintain a riparian buffer, which shall be a minimum of 15 feet in width
landward from the shoreline, shall run the entire length of the shoreline, and shall
3
consist of a mulched planting bed and contain a mixture of shrubs and perennial plants
(the "Buffer"). The Buffer shall not be establis hed during the months of June, July, or
August, so that it has the greatest likelihood of survivability. Prior to the City issuing a
Permit, the Grantee must post a bond or other security, in an amount equal to the
estimated cost of the required Buffer plantings, to the Department of Planning to insure
completion of the required Buffer. The Grantee shall notify the Department of Planning
when the Buffl3r is complete and ready for ins pection; upon satisfactory completion of
the Buffer as determined solely by the City, the bond shall be released. An access
path, stabilized appropriately to prevent erosion, through the Buffer to the shoreline is
allowed.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain
and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is
deemed" neces,sary 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 comprehelnsive 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 1termination 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 Temporary
Encroachment must conform to the minimum setbacks requirements as established by
the City.
4
I I
II III I
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 1he Grantee, and collect the cost in any
manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the
Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City
may charge the Grantee for the use of the Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what
would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the
Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by
this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars
($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed
to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner
provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, William George Bachsmith, the said Grantee,
has caused this Agreement to be executed by his signature. Further, that the City of
Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf
by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk.
(THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE WAS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK)
5
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
By (SEAL)
City Manager/Authorized
Designee of the City Manager
STATE OF VII~GINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
ThEl foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of
, 2009, 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.
(SEAL)
Notary Public
Notary Registration Number:
My Commission Expires:
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
City Clerkl Authorized
Designee of thEl City Clerk
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGI NIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of
_,2009, by I 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 Public
(SEAL)
Notary Registration Number:
My Commission Expires:
6
I I
,-/e;/
William Geor e Bachsmith
STATE OF VIRGI~' ~
CITY/~ OF t.'~.~~ to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of
~. 0 ,2009, by William George Bachsmith,
~~ ~Q~)
N ry Pul) ic .
Notary Registration Number:
My Commission Expires:
"L~
-. .......- I
C..If. ..d:W -
--
Sl~: C,~~
P w ReJ [tkJi.""
DEPARTMENT
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY AND FORM
(\ ill- ~ijlA()
Nell L. ord, -~v3, ((' W'-:i\.(
for the City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS
G:IUSERSlSHAREDIWPBOIRElReal Estate FormslWORD DOCSIENCROACHMENTSIENCROACHMENT .AGREEMENT.doc
7
EX. CONe. WAU. a
RCP FOR DlWtMGE
APO 3
N/F DANA JACKSON
2400 WINDWARD SHORE DR.
GPIN: 1499-98-6630
APO "
N/F WOLFGANG BAY
2404 WINDWARD SHORE DR.
GPIN: 1499-98-5533
BUlKHEAD TO
BULKHEAD
V~IES FR9M
54 TO 75
MOORING PILES (5)
/
PROPOSED
12'x12' BOAlUFT
ATOP FOUR (4)
8""x30' PILES
ISLAND LAKE
-FLOOD.,
CEBB-
26'
PROPOSED 128 UNFAR FEEl'
VINYl BUlKHEAD
S 58'08'03" W
125.02'
TOP OF PILE ElEVA110NS
LOW WHARF 9.5 ASV MLW
ALL 011-lERS 11.5 AI'N MLW
"" ... ... ..,
.... ~-,,~......... .,
+ '+ ~ ~ <.... +
. '~""'.. ..... .
...
....
....
....
....
...
.... ULW & MHW
REACH EX.
BULKHEAD
...
(.)
~
1S' LANDSCAPE BUFFER
TO INCLUDE: ~
MEXICAN FAN PALMS (7) ~
SNOW WHITE INDIAN HAWTHORNS (4) 0
SPINNEY PALM (1) ~
JELLY PAlM (1)
GARDENIA'S (2) ~
fATZIA (4)
LOW GROWING GRASSES (9)
PAMAPS GRASS (2)
15' LANDSCAPE BUFFER
REMOVE EX. WHARf
(HATCHED AREA)
",......
~
~
I'
".__L-~
~__ . . .' c=r~ WOOD DECK
"0
o
N
"""
I.&J
~
Co
lD
oj
lD
._,
3:
~ _..:;--j--~--~.
b
P") "
II)
STORY BRICK
#2401
.
N
....
;....
""
b
P")
z
~
LIJ
a..
a..
:::i
(.)
1LI
b
U')
.......,
.
N
, E}< ,
. cONe.'
.. DRIIti: ,
'1
L., .
'w
I ..'
-- j>'
~_~.A..--__.-"'-~/
APO 2
N/F' JAMES AlEXANDER
2405 BROAD BAY ROAD
GPlN: 1499-98-3784
..
'. .
.,
'. .
N 59"2' 48" E '25.00'
BROAD BAY ROAD (50' R/W)
REV; MAY 27, 2009
SCALE: '''=30'
ENCROACHMENT REQUEST - ItEXHIBIT A"
DCGlIlEERlNG SSI'I\CtS PRIlWltD \l't:
PROFESSK>>lAl cONSTRUcnON C0N1,UL1ANTS, LLC.
PIlONE: (1&1) 173-81184 EYAIl.: PCcu.coeox.NEI'
FOR BILL BACH SMITH
LOT 71
SECTION ONE, SUBDIVISION OF BAY ISLAND
(M.B. 45 PG. 37)
FEBRUARY 20, 2009 SHEET 1 OF 1
I I
II III I
J:&~~..~~. .~.~.~~
~r.<< . ~~.~~
J._ 0"
_,\. 0'
~~
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Grant Funds for Public Safety and
Criminal Processing
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background: The Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) is a
grant from the United States Department of Justice that is used to assist with law
enforcement and criminal processing programs. The Byrne JAG supports a broad range
of activities to prevent and control crime based on local needs and conditions. The
Criminal Justice Board, which is comprised of City representatives from Police, Sheriff,
Courts, and Community Corrections, agreed upon the best use of this grant funding.
. Considerations: The total award for this grant is $881,256. the Virginia Beach
Criminal Justice Board recommends that the funds be used as follows:
. $282,636 for the Police Department
o $122,636 for the purchase of driving course vehicles
o $160,000 for the purchase of additional tasers
. $203,000 for the Sheriff
o $30,000 for a biometric access system
o $170,000 for a security control center
o $3,000 for Accurint law enforcement search software
. $184,800 for the Office of the Commonwealth Attorney for case management
software.
. $88,864 for Youth Opportunities
o $50,750 to hire 25 temporary summer youth (each being a .88 FTE for 8 weeks)
o $17,292 for a temporary program coordinator position
o $14,536 for a temporary prevention specialist position
. 0 $2,000 for a temporary skills teacher position
o $4,286 for supplies associated with summer youth employment program
. $58,331 for Community Corrections
o $37,440 for a temporary pretrial investigator part-time position
o $20,891 for costs associated with substance abuse services and to purchase a
printer/scanner
, I
. $46,000 to the Circuit Court
o $22,000 for a media evidence display system
o $24,000 for a temporary office assistant (.75 FTE)
. $17,625 to the Court Service Unit
o $16,988 for a temporary clerical position (.75 FTE)
o $637 for Jolly Giant software
. Public Information: Public information will be provided through the normal
Council Agenda process.
. Recommendations: It is recommended that City Council accept and
appropriate thH grant award of $881,256 for the use of funds as suggested by the
Criminal JustiCl3 Board.
. Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval of Ordinance
Submitting Department/Agency: Police Department ~
City Manager;~ 1L,~
I I
'I "I I
AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE
GRANT FUNDS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND CRIMINAL
PROCESSING
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
VIRGINIA:
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
1. That $881,256 is hereby accepted, with federal revenues increased accordingly,
from the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant, through the United States Department of
Justice, and appropriated to the following agencies and departments as set forth below:
a. $282,636 to the Police Department for the purchase of driving course vehicles
and tasers;
b. $203,000 to the Sheriff's Department for a biometric access system, a security
control center, and Accurint law enforcement search software;
c. $184,800 to the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney for case management
software;
d. $88,864 to the Youth Opportunities Office for temporary summer youth
positions, a temporary program coordinator position, a temporary prevention
specialist position, a temporary skills teacher, and for supplies associated with
the summer youth employment program;
e. $58,331 to Community Corrections for a temporary pretrial investigator,
substance abuse services, and to purchase a printer/scanner;
f. $46,000 to the Circuit Court for a temporary office assistant and a media
evidence display system; and
g. $17,625 to the Court Services Unit for a temporary clerical position and to
purchase software.
2. That all positions funded through this grant shall be eliminated when grant
funding expires.
Approved as to Content:
t2~s~i~
of
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the
2009.
day
Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of all the members of City Council.
Approved as to Legal Sufficiency:
~-
Ci ny's Office
~
CA11253
R-2
July 29, 2009
II III
~g~~~f'
~."". i~i L[~
~\f"" Il}
~~~w
.~
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funds from the Department of Homeland
Security to the FY 2009-10 Operating Budget of the Fire Department
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background: The Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) notified the
City that it will provide pass-through funding for localities for heavy and tactical rescue
equipment, practical exercises and training. The Virginia Beach Fire Department is the lead
agency for the Tidewater Regional Technical Rescue Team, which is one of the seven Regional
State Urban Search and Rescue Teams.
The Fire Department will replace and update equipment in their cache ($79,000) and receive
additional training and make improvements in training at the City's regional Fire Training Center
($21,000). The list of items to be funded by the grant includes:
Vehicle stabilization struts/rescue jacks to stabilize vehicles involved in accidents;
High pressure airbags and components to lift heavy objects;
Supplied air breathing systems used in confined spaces;
Trailer mounted light towers to provide light during extended operations;
Personal protective gear;
Trash pump to dewater trenches during trench rescues;
Rescue Challenge annual training event involving all seven teams in Virginia;
Department of Fire Programs Farm Machinery class; and
Additional or expansion of existing training props (confined space/structural collapse) at
the Virginia Beach Fire Training Center.
. Considerations: This grant is awarded through funding from the Department of
Homeland Security's National Preparedness Directorate, FY 2008 State Homeland Security
Grant (CFDA #97.073). The funds provided will be appropriated in the Fire Department's FY
2009-10 operating budget for equipment to improve the Technical Rescue Teams ability to
mitigate technical rescue incidents. No local match is required, The performance period is
September 1, 2008 to March 1, 2011 for obligation of funds, and June 30, 2011 to complete
expenditures and finalize the close-out reporting process.
. Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council
agenda process.
. Recommendations: Accept and appropriate $100,000 to the FY 2009-10 Operating
Budget of the Virginia Beach Fire Department to enhance the capabilities of the Tidewater
Regional Technical Rescue Team.
. Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting DepartmentlAg,~cy: Fire Department @.,
City ManagerG) ~, (j)>llOt
, I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE
FUNDS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY TO THE FY 2009-10 OPERATING
BUDGET OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
VIRGINIA THAT:
1) Funds are hereby accepted, with estimated revenues increased accordingly,
from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the Virginia
Department of Emergency Management in the amount of $100,000; and
2) Appropriations to the FY 2009-10 Operating Budget of the Fire Department
for tactical . rescue equipment and training costs associated with the
TidE~water Regional Technical Rescue Team are increased by $100,000.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the
_' 2009.
day
of
Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of all the members of City Council.
Approved as to Content:
Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency:
&a~~lSe-Ni~S
~~~'6ifr~
CA 11-242
R-2
July 13, 2009
I I
II III I
~2f\\
ti}
\,~Q
~
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funds from the Department of
Homeland Security to the FY 2009-10 Operating Budget of the Department of
Emergency Medical Services
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background: On April 1, 2009, the Virginia Office of Emergency Medical
Services (OEMS) announced a grant opportunity that would provide non-profit,
volunteer and governmental licensed EMS agencies portable Panasonic "ToughBook
19" (ToughBook) computers for use in completing the newly upgraded EMS Registry
data for Pre-Hospital Patient Care Field Reporting. The main goal of this grant is to
increase the use of electronic patient care reporting in the prehospital setting.
Each EMS agency operating in Virginia must participate in the pre-hospital patient care
reporting (PPCR) program by providing data to the OEMS. The PPCR Program is
Virginia's patient documentation, data submission, data storage and data reporting tool.
Each ToughBook computer that is awarded must be used in completing this PPCR
information. The City of Virginia Beach submitted an application, and, on July 1, 2009,
was awarded 34 ToughBook computers to equip 34 permitted ambulances belonging to
the ten Volunteer Rescue Squads.
. Considerations: The grant requires no local matching funds. This is a
reimbursement grant; the 34 ToughBook computers must be purchased, made
operational and the subsequent purchase invoices submitted to the state for 100%
reimbursement no later than October 30,2009.
. Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal
Council agenda process.
. Recommendations: It is recommended that the city accept this grant and
appropriate to the Department of Emergency Medical Services FY 2009-10 operating
budget $124,100.00 to purchase 34 Panasonic "Tough Book 19" computers.
. Attachments: Ordinance
...
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Emergency Medical Services v/~ ~
City Manager:~ k ~
, I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE
FUNDS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY TO THE FY 2009-10 OPERATING
BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
VIRGINIA THAT:
1) Funds are hereby accepted, with estimated revenues increased accordingly,
from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through Virginia
Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services in the amount
of $124,100; and
2) Appropriations to the FY 2009-10 Operating Budget of the Department of
Emargency Medical Services to fund the costs of 34 Panasonic 'Tough Book
19" computers to equip 34 permitted ambulances belonging to the ten
Volunteer Rescue Squads are hereby increased by $124,100.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the
,2009.
day
of
Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of all the members of City Council.
Approved as to Content:
Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency:
H~ilr,~~
Management S~
~---
Ity Att mey's Office
CA11241
R-2
July 10, 2009
I I
III I
A'A-atr'~
f1~." ....~o\i",
r1 . ".:.:;
E . >:J,;'\'<i:
~u~. _'.,.,~s:.
\~~j
~.,~fi
~4
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Grant Funding to the FY 2009-10
Operating Budget of the Police Department
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background: The United States Department of Criminal Justice Services,
through the 2008 State Homeland Security Grant Program, has awarded the Virginia
Beach Police Department with a grant of $1,200,400. This grant will be active from
7/1/2009 through 3/31/2011.
The funding will be used to purchase equipment needed by the Police Department that
was not funded through the annual budget process. This equipment will assist the
Police Department to prevent and respond to potential acts of terrorism. Specifically, the
funding will provide equipment to be used by the Bomb Unit to enhance response
capabilities.
. Considerations: The City is not required. to provide a match for this grant.
Because of the substantial cost of these items, the ordinance provides that the City
does not guarantee that it will replace the items purchased with these grant funds.
. Public Information: Public information will be provided through the normal
Council Agenda process.
. Recommendations: It is recommended that Council accept and appropriate the
grant award of $1,200,400.
. Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval of Ordinance
Submitting Department/Agency: Police Department C~
City Manager:~~ V- .~bcnz..
1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE
2 GRANT FUNDING TO THE FY 2009-10 OPERATING
3 BUDGET OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
4
5 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
6 VIRGINIA, THA.T:
7
8 1. $" ,200,400 is hereby accepted, with federal revenues increased
9 accordingly, from the U.S. Department of Justice Services through the 2008 State
10 Homeland Security Grant and appropriated to the FY 2009-10 Operating Budget of the
11 Police Department.
12
13 2. Grant funds will be used for the purchase of equipment to be used when
14 reacting and responding to the potential acts of terrorism. The items purchased with
15 these grant funds are not guaranteed to be replaced by the City of Virginia Beach.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the
day of 2009.
Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of City Council.
Approved as to Content:
Approved as to Legal Sufficiency:
BG^^)IQb~
Management SE!rvices
J?~'
CA11254
R-3
July 30, 2009
I I
II III I
~#iii~IA. .~.~
!If; -. ~
(0 ,";t.
\;~, . Jj/
~, ..~~51
~
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Federal Grant Funds to the FY 2009-10
Operating Budget of the Fire Department
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background: The City was notified that the Virginia Department of Emergency
Management would be providing pass through funding for localities for Haz-Mat Team
Equipment, Exercise, and Training. The Virginia Beach Fire Department's Hazardous
Materials Team is a member of the Southside Regional Haz-Mat Team along with the Cities
of Portsmouth, Norfolk, and Chesapeake.
The Fire Department proposes to use this grant to provide tank truck emergency response
and mitigation training to enhance the Haz-Mat Team's response to chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear, and explosive incidents, and basic certified service technician training
for three team members on the RAE Systems multi-sensor chemical and radiation detection
monitors. RAE Systems is a leading global provider of rapidly deployable, multi-sensor
chemical and radiation detection monitors and networks for industrial applications and
homeland security.
. Considerations: This grant is awarded by the Virginia Department of Emergency
Management through funding originating from the Department of Homeland Security's
National Preparedness Directorate, FY 2008 State Homeland Security Grant (CFDA
#97.073). The funds provided will improve the Hazardous Materials Team's ability to mitigate
hazardous materials incidents. There is no local match required for this program. The
performance period is June 1, 2009, to December 31, 2010, for obligation of funds, and
March 31, 2011, to finalize the close out reporting process.
. Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council
agenda process.
. Recommendations: Accept and appropriate $18,750 to the FY 2009-10 Operating
Budget of the Virginia Beach Fire Department to provide additional training for the Hazardous
Materials Team. .
. Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department e-
City Manage~ k, ~lX>J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE
FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS TO THE FY 2009-10
OPERATING BUDGET OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
VIRGINIA THAT:
1) Funds are hereby accepted, with estimated federal revenues increased
accordingly, from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the
Virginia Department of Emergency Management in the amount of $18,750.
2) Appropriations to the FY 2009-10 Operating Budget of the Fire Department
for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive response
training costs associated with the Southside Regional Haz-Mat Team are
incmased by $18,750.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the
,2009.
day
of
RequireS' an affirmative vote by a majority of all the members of City Council.
Approved as to Content:
Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency:
1:12e~
J)~Cl
Management Service's
CA11251
R-2
July 23, 2009
I I
II III I
~~.~~~~\
<<r~.II
~
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate State Grant Funds to the FY 2009-10
Operating Budget of the Department of Emergency Medical Services and to Transfer
Funds for the Required Local Match
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background: The State's "Four-for-Life" program provides financial assistance to
volunteer rescue squads and municipal Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agencies to fund
EMS program and projects. Each year, the Virginia Beach Department of Emergency
Medical Services applies for grants from the Rescue Squad Assistance Fund program
(RSAF). Some projects and initiatives are possible solely through the assistance of this grant
program.
During the last grant cycle, the Department of EMS applied for and was awarded a 50% grant
of $152,680 to purchase (9) 12 Lead defibrillators, (7) 3 Lead defibrillators and (42) suction
units (for Fire Department). Total cost of defibrillators and suction units is $305,360.
. Considerations: The grant requires a 50% match ($152,680) by local funds. Both
EMS and Fire will funds for the local match ($135,638 and 17,042, respectively) by
transferring funds from their FY 2009-10 Operating Budgets to this new grant. RSAF
guidelines require that the receiving agency must purchase the equipment in advance. Once
the purchase is completed, the department will file for 50% reimbursement.
. Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council
agenda process.
. Recommendations: Acqept and appropriate $152,680 from the Virginia Department
of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services for a State Rescue Squad Assistance Fund
Grant to purchase defibrillators, suction units, and related services, and transfer from the FY
2009-10 Operating Budgets of the Departments of EMS, $135,638 and Fire, $17,042 for their
respective shares of the local grant match for the defibrillators and suction units.
. Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting DepartmentlAgenCt Department of Emergency Medical Services .;:!~.
City Manager:~ ~ · ~~
1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE
2 STATE GRANT FUNDS TO THE FY 2009-10
3 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
4 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND TO
5 TRANSFER FUNDS FOR THE REQUIRED LOCAL
6 MATCH
7
8 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
9 VIRGINIA THAT:
10
11 1) Funds are hereby accepted, with estimated State revenues increased
12 accordingly, from the Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical
13 Services, for ct Rescue Squad Assistance Fund (RSAF) Grant in the amount of
14 $152,680.
15
16 2) Appropriations to the FY 2009-10 Operating Budget of the Department of
17 Emergency Medical Services for the purchase of defibrillators and suction units are
18 hereby increased by $152,680.
19
20 3) Transfer $135,638 from the FY 2009-10 Operating Budget of the
21 Department of Emergency Medical Services to this new grant fund, "RSAF Defibrillator
22 and Suction Units '10" as part of the local match.
23
24 4) Tr;ansfer $17,042 from the FY 2009-10 Operating Budget of the
25 Department of Fire to this new grant fund, "RSAF Defibrillator and Suction Units '10" for
26 the remainder of the local match.
of
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the
,2009.
day
Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of all the members of City Council.
Approved as to Content:
Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency:
B~()L~
Management Se!rvices
~~~ffic;
CA11250
R-2
July 23, 2009
I I
I,
II 11'1
~~~IA'~
{( ~' ~;)'
\~ ..I
~~9
~-
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Transfer Funds from Capital Project 3-133, Fire Training
Center Improvements - Phase III to FY 2009-10 Operating Budget of the Fire
Department
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background: Annually, the Fire Department receives approximately $1.1 million
from the State of Virginia, under the Virginia Fire Programs Fund/Aid to Localities
program, which pays for improvements in fire services, such as training, construction,
improvements or expansions of local or regional fire training facilities, fire prevention
and public safety education programs; emergency medical care and equipment for fire
personnel; personnel costs related to fire and medical training for fire personnel; or for
personal protective equipment, vehicles, equipment and supplies for use to provide fire
services.
. Considerations: As a result of safety concerns, the Fire Department needs to
replace all of the turnout gear for firefighters (roughly 490 sets of gear) totaling
$650,000. Currently, this is an unfunded need in the Fire Department. Funds are
available in capital project #3-133 for this transfer.
. Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal
Council agenda process.
. Recommendations: Transfer $650,000 from Capital Project # 3-133, "Fire
Training Center Improvements - Phase III" to the FY 2009-10 Fire Department
Operating Budget in the Grants Consolidated Fund for the Fire Programs/Aid to
Localities Grant to purchase turnout gear.
. Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department
City Manager~ IL · C86l>t
~
1 AN ORDINANCE TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM
2 CAPITAL PROJECT #3-133, FIRE TRAINING
3 CENTER IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE 11\ TO FY 2009-
4 10 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE FIRE
5 DEPARTMENT
6
7 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
8 VIRGINIA THAT:
9
10 1) Funds are hereby transferred from capital project #3-133, "Fire Training
11 Center Improvements - Phase III" in the amount of $650,000 to the FY
12 20Q9-10 Operating Budget of the Fire Department for the State Fire
13 Programs Grant to replace protective turnout gear.
of
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the
,2009.
day
Approved as to Content
Approved as to Legal Sufficiency
~~}Q
Management Services ]
y~~. ~
City A n~ Office
CA11252
R-2
July 28, 2009
K. PLANNING
1. Application of BROOKS and DARCEL STEPHAN for a Subdivision Variance re: the
reconfiguration of two (2) existing lots into three (3) lots at 3040 and 3052 Little Haven
Road.
DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVAL
2. Application of 1000 NORTH GREAT NECK ROAD LLC for the Modification of
Condition No.1 (approved by City Council on October 14,2003, re: a self-standing sign
Virginia Beach Christian Life Center) at the corner ofN. Great Neck Road and Old
Donation Parkway.
DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVAL
3. Application of OCEANA CHURCH OF CHRIST/MONARCH PROPERTIES, INC. for
a Conditional Use Permit re: a church at 1789 London Bridge Road
DISTRICT 6 - BEACH
RECOMMENDA nON
APPROV AL
4. Application of NEPTUNE FINTESS/MOUNT AIN VENTURES, VIRGINIA BEACH
LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit re: an indoor recreational facility (gym) at 3352 Princess
Anne Road, Suite 905.
DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVAL
. 5. Application of ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District
Classification from AG-l and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional B-IA Limited Business and
P-l Preservation District at Chestnut Oak Way (deferred by City Council on July 14,2009).
DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDA nON
RECOMMENDA nON
DENIAL
APPROVAL
6. Ordinance to ESTABLISH City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) regulations re: wind energy
systems, including definitions, application requirements, location, other requirements and
Zoning Districts where permitted.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Virginia Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber at City
Hall, Municipal Center, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Tuesday,
August 11, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. The following applications
will be heard:
PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Application: ChanD of Zonina
District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to
Conditional B-1A Limited Business and p..1 Preservation at
Holland Road and Chestnut Oak Way (GPINs 1495417336;
-519518; 512696). Comprehensive Plan: PrImary Residential
Area. Purpose: office and retail.
Neptune Atness/Mountaln Ventures, Vlralnla Beach LLC
Application: Conditional Use Permit for an Indoor
recreational facility (gym) at 3352 Princess Anne Road, Suite
905.
BEACH DISTRICT
Oceana Church Of ChrlsVMonarch Properties, Inc.
Application: Conditional Use Permit for a church at 1789
London Bridge Road.
L YNNHAVEN DISTRICT
Brooks & Darcel Stephan Appllcatloli: Subdivision Variance
at 3040 and 3052 Little Heven Road.
1000 North Great Neck Road LLC Application: ' Modification
of Conditions for a request (approved by City Council on
October 14, 2003) re VIrginia Beach Christian Life Center at
1000 N. Great Neck Road
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
Ordinance to establish City Zoning Ordinance regulations
pertaining to wind energy systems, Including definitions,
application requirements, locational and other requirements
and zoning districts where permitted.
All Interested citizens ere invited to attend.
Ruth Hodges Fraser, MMC
City Clerk
Copies of the proposed ordinances, resolutions and
amendments are on file and may be examined In the
Department of Planning or online at
httD:/ /www.vbgfY!l.com/oc For information call 385-4621.
If you are phy8lcal" dIubIecI or vllulll., Impaired and
need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY
CLERK'S OFFICE et 381-4303.
BEACON: JULY 26, 2009 & AUGUST 2, 2009 -1 TlME EACti.
Beacon July 26 & Aug. 2, 2009 20384170
.......
BROOI(S AND DARCEL STEPHAN
Darcel St han
[inkhorn Bay
Relevant Information:
· Lynl1lhaven District
· The iipplicants request a Subdivision Variance for the purpose of
creating a third lot from two existing lots.
· The lots meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with the
exce ption of the width of proposed Lot 3, which is only 15 feet wide.
The required width is 125 feet.
· The l>>roposal has been reviewed and approved by the Chesapeake
Bay I:loard.
Evaluation and Recommendation:
· Planning Staff recommended approval
· Planning Commission recommends approval (11-0)
· TherE. was no opposition.
· Consent agenda.
II II'
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: BROOKS & DARCEL STEPHAN, Subdivision Variance, 3040 and 3052 Little
Haven Road. L YNNHAVEN DISTRICT.
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background:
The applicants seek a Subdivision Variance that will allow the reconfiguration of
two existing large lots (totaling 6.60 acres) into three lots. One of the lots
(Proposed Lot 3) has only 15 feet of frontage. The City's Zoning Ordinance
requires that lots within the R-40 Residential District have at least 125 feet of
frontage along a public street.
. Considerations:
A Subdivision Variance is requested for Lot 3 since that lot is proposed with only
15 feet of frontage; however, the proposed lot will be well above the minimum lot
size of 40,000 square feet (165,481 total square feet with 95,181 square feet
above water, marsh, and wetlands). Lots zoned R-40 are required to have at
least 40,000 square feet with a minimum of 24,000 square feet of land above
water, marsh, and wetlands. All three lots will exceed this requirement, as Lot 1
is proposed with 58,405 square feet of upland and Lot 2 is proposed with 41,529
square feet of upland. Lot 3, which requires a Subdivision Variance, is proposed
as the largest of the lots, and will remain much as it exists today in its natural
state. The applicant has taken great care to keep all proposed development out
of the most environmentally sensitive portion of the property. In fact, the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board noted that the applicants have done
an exceptional job in retaining the site in a natural state and noted lithe applicants
should be commended on their stewardship of the property and the efforts to
reduce runoff by use of rain barrels, recycling pond waste water for compost and
other methods."
Granting this Subdivision Variance request for this lot of unusual size is in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Due to topography and natural
resource constraints, many lots along Little Haven Road vary in size and shape.
Review of the zoning history for this area revealed several similar Subdivision
Variances granted over the last decade for lots in the upper Little Neck area that
are similar to the subject site in their unusual size and configuration. Based on
, I
BROOKS & DARCEL STEPHAN
Page 2 of 2
these findings, Staff recommends approval of the request with the condition
below.
There was no opposition to this request.
. Recommendations:
The Planning Commission placed this item on the Consent Agenda, passing a
motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to recommend approval to the City Council
with thE~ following condition:
'Nhen the property is subdivided, it shall be in substantial conformance
with the plan entitled, "Subdivision of Lots 16 & 17, replat of Subdivision of
Little Haven," prepared by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., dated
March 26,2009, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City
Council and is on file in the Planning Department.
. Attachments:
Staff Review and Disclosure Statement
Plannin~1 Commission Minutes
Location Map and Summary
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Del""tmentlAgency: Planning Department /f . V
City Manage2~ k .~b<01. V
II I
I,
II
III I
8
July 8, 2009 Public Hearing
APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER:
BROOKS &
DARCEL STEPHAN
STAFF PLANNER: Carolyn A.K. Smith
REQUEST:
Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet
all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance
ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: 3040 and 3053 Little Haven Road
GPIN:
14982421950000
14982318480000
ELECTION DISTRICT:
LYNNHAVEN
SITE SIZE:
6.60 acres
AICUZ:
Less than 65 dB DNL
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Existing Lot: There are two existing lots, totaling 6.60 acres,
each with a two-story dwelling. The heavily wooded properties
are zoned R-40 Residential District. Exclusive of the existing improvements, the entire sites have been
left in a natural state. The sites are adjacent to the Eastern Branch of the Lynnhaven River.
Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to shift the property lines and create a third lot on the
property. Lot 3 as proposed does not meet the minimum lot width requirement of 125 feet.
IWn L.gU Lo1..2 Lo1..3
Lot Width in feet 125 143 274 15*
Lot Area in square feet 40,000 79,234 45,360 165,481
24,000** 58,405** 41,529** 95,181**
*Variance required
**Area required above water & wetlands
BROOKS AND DARCEL STEPHAN
Agenda Item 8
Page 1
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING lAND USE: Two single-family dwellings
SURROUNDING ILAND
USE AND ZONIN'G:
NATURAL RESOURCE AND
CULTURAL FEAlrURES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
. Lynnhaven River
. Little Haven Road, single-family dwelling / R-40 Residential
District
. Single-family dwelling / R-40 Residential District
. Single-family dwelling / R-40 Residential District
The property is located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The 6.60
acres is heavily impacted by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area
(CBPA) Ordinance as much of the site is within the Resource Protection
Area (RPA), the more stringently regulated portion of CBPA. The site is
heavily wooded and adjacent to the Eastern Branch of the Lynnhaven
River. The Chesapeake Bay Board reviewed and approved a request for
encroachment into the RPA on May 21, 2009, subject to the following
conditions:
1. All areas outside limits of construction shall be left in a natural
state to include the forest floor (leaf litter) left intact. Said
condition shall be so noted on the site plan.
2, Where mature trees exist adjacent to tidal waters, an arborist
shall be consulted for the select removal of lower tree limbs that
are currently shading the shoreline. Select limb removal shall be
performed, thereby permitting sunlight to interface with the
shoreline. Maintenance of the shoreline shall be performed
prior to the recordation of the subdivision plat. Contact Civil
Inspections prior to commencement of any shoreline
maintenance.
3. Authorized limits of construction for proposed Lot 2 (10 ft) shall
be the only area devoted to turf. All residual area shall be left in
a natural state. The existing driveway earmarked for removal
shall be restored consistent with the Riparian Buffers
Modification & Mitigation Guidance Manual, prepared by Virginia
Dept. of Conservation & Recreation, Chesapeake Bay Local
Assistance.
4. A separate landscape / buffer restoration plan shall be submitted
concurrent with the site plan detailing location, number, and
species of vegetation to be installed. The landscape plan shall
clearly delineate existing naturalized area (forest floor), planting
beds, and turf zones.
5. The proposed gravel driveway shall be constructed of #57
washed aggregate at a minimum depth of 6 inches.
BROOKS AND DARCEL STEPHAN
Agenda Item 8
Page 2
II I
I'
II
III I
6. The conditions and approval associated with this variance are
based on the revised site plan dated March 25, 2009, with a
sealed date of 5-13-09, prepared by Gallup Surveyors and
Engineers Ltd.
7. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Planning, Development Services Center for review and approval
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES
MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Little Haven
Road in the vicinity of this site is a two-lane local street. There are currently no CIPs scheduled for this
segment of Little Haven Road,
TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Generated Traffic
Little Haven Road Not available Existing Land Use ~ - 20
ADT
Proposed Land Use 3 - 30
, Average Daily Trips
2 as defined by the 2 existing homes
3 as defined by a total of 3 homes
WATER: The proposed parcel must connect to City water. There is a four-inch and an eight-inch City water
line in Little Haven Road.
SEWER: The proposed parcel must connect to City sanitary sewer. Analysis of Pump Station 283 and the
sanitary sewer collection system may be required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. There is an
eight inch City sanitary sewer in Little Haven Road.
Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states:
No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that:
A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship.
B. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected.
C, The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably
practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the
ordinance.
D. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions
and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by
BROOKS AND DARCEL STEPHAN
Agenda Item 8
Page 3
the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-
inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance.
E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is
located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance.
-
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Recommendatioll1:
Staff recommend~j approval of this request.
Evaluation:
The request is to reconfigure two existing large lots (totaling 6.60 acres) into three lots, one of which is
proposed with only 15 feet of frontage. The City's Zoning Ordinance requires that lots within the R-40
district have at leelst 125 feet of frontage along a public street. Specifically, a Subdivision Variance is
requested for Lot 3 since that lot is proposed with only 15 feet of frontage; however, the proposed lot will
be well above the minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet (165,481 total square feet with 95,181 square
feet above water, marsh, and wetlands). R-40 lots are required to have at least 40,000 square feet with a
minimum of 24,000 square feet of land above water, marsh, and wetlands. All three lots will exceed this
requirement, as Lot 1 is proposed with 58,405 square feet of upland and Lot 2 is proposed with 41,529
square feet of upland. Lot 3, which requires a Subdivision Variance, is proposed as the largest of the
lots, and will remain much as it exists today in its natural state. The applicant has taken great care to
keep all proposed development out of the most environmentally sensitive portion of the property. In fact,
the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board noted that the applicants have done an exceptional job in
retaining the site in a natural state and noted "the applicants should be commended on their stewardship
of the property and the efforts to reduce runoff by use of rain barrels, recycling pond waste water for
compost and other methods."
Granting this Subdivision Variance request for this lot of unusual size is in keeping with the character of
the neighborhood. Due to topography and natural resource constraints, many lots along Little Haven
Road vary in size and shape. Review of the zoning history for this area revealed several similar
Subdivision Variances granted over the last decade for lots in the upper Little Neck area that are similar
to the subject site in their unusual size and configuration. Based on these findings, Staff recommends
approval of the request with the condition below.
CONDITION
When the property is subdivided, it shall be in substantial conformance with the plan entitled,
"Subdivision of Lots 16 & 17, replat of Subdivision of Little Haven," prepared by Gallup Surveyors &
Engineer~i, Ltd., dated March 26,2009, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council
and is on file in the Planning Department.
NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances.
BROOKS AND DARCEL STEPHAN
Agenda Item 8
Page 4
\'
AERIAL Of SI1E LOCA liON
BROOKS />.1'10 o/>.RCEL SiEPH/>.N
Agenda \tem 8
page 5
i
; I.
~ . !.
,f ~'!'
.. ,,511
! ~ U t
c : i '. i~ I!
a rl.H I
~ I II i" ..
::-:;;;:; ;;
I il!
1~li
; "I'l!
I h~
's
Ui~
jjl'
IS~
I!~
.1 li~
I:' ql
r ,I. ,I
, i .~ :,
t " I'll"
1111,
I '
I
11
3'
......
0::
<>
e
co
<(
o
0::
z
~
~
;i1 L I ~
'-, I! ~ ~ I
~ II~
" fil fi
l
L
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
BROOKS AND DARCEL STEPHAN
Agenda Item 8
Page 6
II I
II II I I
Darcel Ste han
Linkhorn Bay
/.itlkhorn Hay
1
2
08/13/96
08/08/00
Subdivision Variance
Subdivision Variance
Granted
Granted .
ZONING HISTORY
BROOKS AND DARCEL STEPHAN
Agenda Item 8
Page 7
z
o
I I
~
U
I I
~
,::2..c
~
~
u
>
z
o
I I
c:I')
E
~
~
;::J
c:I')
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated
organzation, complete the following:
1. Lis,t the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees,
partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary)
Brooks & Darcel ("Darcy") Stephan
2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiari or affiliated business entit?
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
x 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. Li~.t the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members,
trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary)
2. Lis,t all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entit?
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
o Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm,
business, or other unincorporated organization.
~;ee next page for footnotes
Subdivision Vanance Application
Pagel0of11
ReVIsed: 9/1/2004
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
BROOKS AND DARCEL STEPHAN
Agenda Item 8
Page 8
II I
I'
"...
~
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)
Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd.
Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P,C.
1 "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one
corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the
voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of
Interests Act, Va. Code ~ 2.2-3101.
2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than
parent-subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a
controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in
one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared
management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be
considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship
include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two
entities: there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share
the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or
personnel on a regular basis: or there is otherwise a close working relationship
between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va.
Code ~ 2.2-3101,
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,
/) .
~:~:~'~~~~~~:t;'ature-- Brooks P~~~~~~~
J /,.::. l ,.l ;/ -Xr--- Darcel Stephan
Applicant/Property Owner's Signature Print Name
Subdivision Variance Application
Page 11 of 11
Revised 9/112004
II III I
z
o
I I
~
U
I I
~
~
~
~
U
~
~
Z
o
I I
CI':J
EE
~
~
p
CI':J
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
BROOKS AND DARCEL STEPHAN
Agenda Item 8
Page 9
Item #8
Brooks & Darcel Stephan
Subdivision Variance
3040 & 3052 Little Haven Road
District 5
Lynnhaven
July 8, 2009
CONSENT
Joseph Strange: The next matter is agenda item 8. An application of Brooks and Darcel
Stephan for a Subdivision Variance, Subdivision of Brooks and Darcel Stephan on
property 10l~ated at 3040 and 3052 Little Haven Road, District 5, Lynnhaven, with one
condition.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Strange. Members of the Commission, for the record,
I'm Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing the Stephans. The condition
is acceptabl e and we appreciate being placed on the consent agenda.
Joseph Strange: Thank you.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you.
Joseph Strange: Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent
agenda? If not, "the Chairman has asked Kathy Katsias to review this item.
Kathy Katslas: Thank you. This is a request for a Subdivision Variance that requires all
newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. The request
is to reconfi~gure two existing lots, which total 6.60 acres, into three lots, one of which is
proposed with only 15 feet of frontage. The City Ordinance requires that lots within the
R-40 Distril~t have at least 125 feet of frontage along a public street. Specifically, a
Subdivision Variance is requested for Lot 3 since the lot is proposed with only 15 feet of
frontage; however, the proposed lot will be well above the minimum lot size of 40,000
square feet. Granting the subdivision variance request for this lot of unusual size is in
keeping in with the character of the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval. We
concur with staff, and therefore have placed it on the consent agenda. Thank you.
Joseph Strange: Thank you Kathy. Madame Chairman, I make a motion to approve
agenda item 8.
Janice Anderson: A motion by Joe Strange and a second by Kathy Katsias.
AYE 11
NAY 0
ABSO
ABSENT 0
ANDERSON AYE
BERNAS AYE
CRABTRI:E AYE
HENLEY AYE
HORSLEY AYE
KATSIAS AYE
II I
I'
II III'
I
Item #8
Brooks & Darcel Stephan
Page 2
LIVAS AYE
REDMOND AYE
RIPLEY AYE
RUSSO AYE
STRANGE AYE
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 8 for consent
I \
- 39-
Item V-K.4.
PLANNING ITEM # 51801 (Continued)
5 The appllcant shall submIt a photometrlC llghtmgplan mdlcatmg
the number and types of llghtmg as part of the formal sIte plan
submIssIon for revIew by the PolIce Department to determme
consIstency wIth Crzme PreventIOn through EnvJronmental
DesIgn (CPTED) prmclples and practIces All fixtures shall be
of an approprzate heIght and desIgn so as to prevent any dIrect
reflectlOn or glare towards adjacent uses and CIty streets
Llghtmg should be dJrected down at the ground and not
hOrizontally or up m the azr
6 The recreatIOnal fields shall be gated from sundown to sunrise
There shall be no llghtmg of the recreatIonal fields There shall
be no roadway mstalled along the edge of the recreatlOnalflelds
The recreatIOnal fields shall not be used for overflow par/angfor
any events associated wlth the church
7 The exlstmg stormwater managementfaclllty shall be cleared of
trash and debriS durmg the Phase I constructIOn, and Category
I screenmg shall be mstalled on the top of bank, on the western
SIde of the faCILIty before a Certificate of Occupancy IS approved
for the addltlOn
8 The church shall Install trash receptacles throughout the parlang
lots There shall be one trash receptacle for every 3,500 square
feet of par/ang area
ThIs Ordmanc,~ shall be effectIve In accordance wlth SectIon 107 (j) of the Zomng Ordmance
Adopted by the CounCIL of the CIty of VirgInia Beach, Vlrglma, on the Fourteenth of October , Two Thousand
Three
Votmg
10-0 (By Consent)
CounCIL Membf!rs Voting Aye
Harry E Dlezel, Margaret L Eure, Vice Mayor LOUIS R Jones, Reba S
McClanan, Richard A Maddox, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf. JIm Reeve.
Peter W SchmIdt, Ron A V,llanueva and James L Wood
CounCIL Members Votmg Nay
None
Counczl Members Absent
Rosemary Wdson
October J 4, 2003
I I
I,
I I
II
II I'
I
- 38-
Item V-K.4.
PLANNING
ITEM # 51801
Upon motlOn by V,ce Mayor Jones, seconded by CouncIlman SchmIdt, CIty CouncIl ADOPTED Ordinance
upon applrcatlOn of VIRGINIA BEACH CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTERfor a CondltlOnal Use Penmt
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA BEACH CHRISTIAN
LIFE CENTER FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHURCH
ROJ0033J J 35
BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
Ordinance upon ApplICatIOn of VIrginIa Beach Chrzstlan Life Center for
a CondItIonal Use Permit for a church on property located at the northeast
mtersectlOn of North Great Neck Road and Old DonatlOn Parkway (GPINS
2408135699, 2408243047, 2408232865) DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHA VEN
The follOWing condltlOns shall be required
1 The sIte shall be developed m accordance with the submItted
plans tItled "VIRGINIA BEACH CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER,
VirgInia Beach. VirgInia, CondltlOnal Use PermIt ExhIbit",
prepared by Tymoff & Moss ArchItects and NDI, LLC Basgler
and ASSOCIates DIVISIon. dated May 6, 2003, and reVIsed August
22, 2003 Sazd plans have been exh,bited to the Vlrglma Beach
CIty CounCIl and are onfile with the Vlrgmla Beach Department
of Plannmg The applrcant shall Install a nght-turn lane from
Great Neck Road as part of the Phase 2 Improvements
2 The proposed bUIlding addItIOns and renovatlOn of the exISting
sanctuary shall be constructed In accordance with the submItted
plans tItled "VIRGINIA BEACH CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER,
Vlrglma Beach, Vlrglma, ExterlOr ElevatlOns", prepared by
Tymoff & Moss ArchItects, dated July 8, 2003 SaId plan has
been exh,b,ted to the VIrginIa Beach CIty CounCIl and IS on file
with the VIrgInia Beach Department of Plannmg
3 The applrcant shall Install connecting SIdewalks from Old
DonatlOn Parkway and Great Neck Road to the main entrance of
the bUIlding and to the recreatlOnal fields The 10catlOn of the
SIdewalks shall be determmed during detaIled sIte plan revIew of
each phase of the project
4 The applrcant shall submit a tree preservatlOn / restoratlOn plan
WIth the development of Phase II RecreatlOnal FIelds and Install
Category IV landscapmg. where needed, wlthm the proposed
twellty-foot buffer along the southern boundary of the site
adjacent to the MIchael's Glenn and Great Neck Pmes
reSIdentIal neIghborhoods and the eastern boundary of the sIte
adjacent to the Forest Park reSIdentIal neIghborhood and the
City of VirgInia Beach property
October 14. 2003
1000 NORTH GREAT NECK ROAD, LLC
~OrAiH: Net_~
~
~d. \ \~l('~ \\l\ ~
\ \ ~"T ~ ~....
~ ~ 10 ~
..\ ~ ~~I 0- dB J dn
Map ]--5
Mop Not to Scole
~.., \~
~\t~ ;(
.,,~"~~ x
~;r ~ "\: it~.:\
~~ )fj~..\. ~~
-:;"-, ~~
..\:"11 ~' '\U '"('
'J
\
1\ \.~., I'~ \~\. \
~J\~",-'1it I'\:\'~ _, ~
~ ' r '\ ,- ---
~' " d ~ S t::J
~ . _ ,Jo:; ~ 7, ~ ~~ a~g
~ ~ ~~ ~ "_ o~"--= ~~
""" ~ l ~ ~ ~~Q);;;' '. ~~
'~ '" I r4 ~~~ If) ~ II ~b-;-D"I ~ Q .~ -,. o~
~~~~/~ 1111-_. . '6r ~ ~~~'~fI
~~ ~_~ 8~r.:il'\.."= .
Q t&) ~~ ' ~ ~Ilnr ~ ~~) CJ ~ ~ c1
~/~7.; · 'l. ~T II IJJj,J.. 8 ~.r'[]l~r~~\'?lo<l-~
::""ooo.L. # / !!!II (\... ::J LB LI.ftt: .... 1-1
Modification of Conditions
Relevant Information:
· Lynnhaven District
· Since the site on which this church is located is zoned R-10
Residential, the Zoning Ordinance limits the maximum signage for
the c:hurch to one 24 square foot sign per vehicular entrance and no
signs are permitted on the building.
· Section 211 allows signage for churches to be established through
Use Permit.
· The applicant, therefore, is requesting Modification of the Use Permit
to allow replacement of the existing freestanding sign with a new
sign (with LED faces) and to install a new building sign.
Evaluation and Recommendation:
· Planning Staff recommended approval
· Planning Commission recommends approval (6-5)
· There was opposition.
II I
I
III I
~~#if:l~. '~""'.~}b
ftJ. ,.; \\~
~~ ""'!"!"" . l~$
(\.~ ., ifl
~., .~~)'
\......... ...... ....'~ oJ
-..............."'"
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: 1000 NORTH GREAT NECK ROAD LLC, Modification of Conditions for a
request approved by City Council on October 14, 2003 (Virginia Beach Christian
Life Center), 1000 N. Great Neck Road. L YNNHAVEN DISTRICT.
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background:
A Conditional Use Permit for a church on this site was approved by the City
Council on October 14, 2003. The site is zoned R-10 Residential District, which
allows churches one 24 square foot sign at each vehicular entrance. Section 230
of the City Zoning Ordinance, however, allows signage for churches in
Residential Districts to be altered through the Conditional Use Permit process. At
this time, the church is asking to replace the existing single-sided, non-
conforming marquee sign located at the corner of North Great Neck Road and
Old Donation Parkway with a new sign in the same location.
. Considerations:
The proposed double-sided, self-standing sign will be an electronic message sign
using light-emitting diode (LED) technology. The proposed LED sign is 11 feet -
11 inches in height with each face of the sign measuring approximately 60
square feet.
Additionally, the applicant desires to install a building-mounted sign containing ,
approximately 97 square feet on the newly constructed worship center. The
church also requests two non-LED entrance signs not to exceed twenty-four
square feet each. One of those entrance signs would be located on the eastern
side of the property on Old Donation Parkway at the entrance furthest away from
the intersection of North Great Neck Road and Old Donation Parkway and the
other entrance sign would be located at the entrance at North Great Neck Road.
Staff recommends that the height of the proposed LED sign be reduced to eight
feet.
. Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 6-5 to approve
this request with the following conditions:
1000 NORTH GiREA T NECK ROAD, LLC
Page 2 of 3
1. All conditions with the exception of Number 1 attached to the Conditional Use
Permit granted by the City Council on October 14, 2003 remain in effect.
2. Condition Number 1 of the October 14, 2003 Conditional Use Permit is
delel:ed and replaced with the following:
T he site shall be developed in accordance with the submitted plans titled
"'NAVE CHURCH; Great Neck Road; Virginia Beach, Virginia, SITE
PLAN", prepared by Tymoff & Moss Architects, dated June 26,2008. Said
plans have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on
fille with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning.
3. The following shall be considered an additional condition of the October 14,
2003 Use Permit:
a. The free-standing sign proposed to be installed at the southwest
corner of the site shall be substantially consistent with the submitted
enhanced photo elevations of a light-emitting diode (LED) sign. The
sign shall have no video playback capabilities nor have any audio
capabilities. Said sign shall replace the existing sign at the same
location, and shall be no higher than 8 feet. A landscape plan for
plantings around the base of the sign shall be submitted to the Current
Planning Division of the Department of Planning for approval.
b. The LED sign shall not be used to promote or advertise any other
businesses, institutions, or events other than those related to the
church located on the property.
c. The sign shall include a light-sensitive photocell feature that will reduce
and increase the intensity of the LED output commensurate with the
external ambient light level (LED output reduction for night and cloudy
conditions and LED output increase for daytime sunny conditions).
d. No portion of the material displayed by the free-standing sign, including
backgrounds, colors, pictures, lettering, or other graphics, shall be
changed more frequently than once every eight (8) seconds. This shall
not prohibit a single element on any static image from movement (as in
a butterfly or bouncing ball moving across the screen during a static
image message).
e. One building-mounted sign consistent with the submitted photo
enhanced elevation shall be allowed. The lighting method for the sign
shall be submitted to the Current Planning Division of the Department
of Planning for approval.
II I
I,
II III I
,
1000 NORTH GREAT NECK ROAD, LLC
Page 3 of 3
f. The two (2) existing LED signs located on the site shall be removed.
Said signs may be replaced with one (1) free-standing sign (in addition
to the sign described in paragraph (a) above). The sign shall be
without ele.ctronic display, shall meet sign ordinance requirements, and
shall be installed at the Old Donation Parkway entrance into the
parking area, at the entrance furthest away from the intersection with
Great Neck Road. An elevation drawing and location plan of such sign
shall be submitted to the Current Planning Division of the Department
of Planning for approval. There shall be no pulsating or flashing lights
on said sign.
. Attachments:
Staff Review and Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map and Summary
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Depart~ent/AgenCY: Planning Department /\vJ~
City Manager~~. ~ <>+{
Modification of Conditions
16
July 8, 2009 Public Hearing
APPLICANT I PROPERTY OWNER:
1000 N. GREAT
NECK ROAD, LLC
STAFF PLANNER: Karen Prochilo
REQUEST:
Modification of the Conditional Use Permit for a church approved by the City Council on October 14, 2003.
ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: 1000 North Great Neck Road.
GPIN:
24081377690000
ELECTION DISTRICT:
LYNNHAVEN
SITE SIZE:
21.513 acres
934,296 square feet
AICUZ:
65 to 70 dB Ldn and 70 to
75 dB Ldn surrounding
NAS Oceana.
APPLICATIOI" HISTORY: This application was heard on April 8, 2009 and deferred by Planning
Commission. The staff report recommended approval with revisions to the conditions. Upon hearing
presentations from all parties, Planning Commission deferred the case for 90 days to allow time to complete
the LED sign ordinance.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The Conditional Use Permit for a church was approved by the
City Council on October 14, 2003. The Conditional Use Permit has eight conditions (see below).
This church site is zoned R-10 Residential District, where churches are allowed one 24 square foot sign
at each entrance. Section 230 of the City Zoning Ordinance, as amended on March 10, 2009, allows
signage for chJrches in Residential Districts to be altered through the conditional use permit process. At
this time, the church is asking to replace the existing single-sided, non-conforming marquee sign located
at the corner of North Great Neck Road and Old Donation Parkway with a new sign in the same location.
The existing sign face is approximately 53 square feet (SF). The proposed double-sided, self-standing
1000 GREAT NECK ROAD,LLC
Agenda Item 16
Page 1
II I
I:
II II I I
I
sign will be an electronic message sign using light-emitting diode (LED) technology. The proposed LED
sign is 11 feet -11 inches in height with each face measuring approximately 60 SF.
Additionally, the applicant desires to install a building mounted sign containing approximately 97 square
feet on the newly constructed worship center. The church also proposes to install two non-LED entrance
signs not to exceed twenty-four square feet each. One of the entrance signs will be located on the
eastern side of the property on Old Donation Parkway at the entrance furthest away from the intersection
of North Great Neck Road and Old Donation Parkway and the other entrance sign will be located at the
entrance at North Great Neck Road.
Conditions of the 2003 Use Permit:
1. The site shall be developed in accordance with the submitted plans titled .VIRGINIA BEACH
CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Conditional Use Permit Exhibit", prepared
by Tymoff & Moss Architects and NDI, LLC Basgier and Associates Division, dated August 22,
2003. Said plans have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the
Virginia Beach Department of Planning. The applicant shall install a right-turn lane from Great
Neck Road as part of the Phase 2 improvements.
2. The proposed building additions and renovation of the existing sanctuary shall be constructed in
accordance with the submitted plans titled .VIRGINIA BEACH CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER,
Virginia Beach, Virginia. Exterior Elevations., prepared by Tymoff & Moss Architects, dated July
8, 2003. Said plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the
Virginia Beach Department of Planning.
3. The applicant shall install connecting sidewalks from Old Donation Parkway and Great Neck
Road to the main entrance of the building and to the recreational fields. The location of the
sidewalks shall be determined during detailed site plan review of each phase of the project.
4. The applicant shall submit a tree preservation I restoration plan with the development of Phase II
Recreational Fields and install Category IV landscaping, where needed, within the proposed
twenty-foot buffer along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the Michaels's Glenn and
Great Neck Pines residential neighborhoods and the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the
Forest Park residential neighborhood and the City of Virginia Beach property.
5. The applicant shall submit a photometric lighting plan indicating the number and types of lighting
as part of the formal site plan submission for review by the Police Department to determine
consistency with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and
practices. All fixtures shall be of an appropriate height and design so as to prevent any direct
reflection or glare towards adjacent uses and city streets. Lighting should be directed down at the
ground and not horizontally or up in the air.
6. The recreational fields shall be gated from sundown to sunrise. There shall be no lighting of the
recreational fields. There shall be no roadway installed along the edge of the recreational fields.
The recreational fields shall not be used for overflow parking for any events associated with the
church,
1 000 GREAT NECK ROAD, LLC
Agenda Item 16
Page 2
7. The eixisting stormwater management facility shall be cleared of trash and debris during the
Phasl3 I construction, and Category I screening shall be installed on top of the bank on the
westem side of the facility, before a Certificate of Occupancy is approved for the addition.
8. The church shall install trash receptacles throughout the parking lots. There shall be one trash
receptacle for every 3,500 square feet of parking area.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: Church and associated parking occupy the site.
SURROUNDII~G LAND
USE AND ZONING:
North:
. Princess Anne Memorial Park (cemetery) / R-10 Residential
District
. Across Old Donation Parkway, single-family dwellings I R-10
Residential District
. Single-family dwellings / R-10 Residential District
. Across Great Neck Road, single-family dwellings / R-20
Residential District
South:
East:
West:
NATURAL RE:SOURCE AND
CULTURAL FEATURES:
The majority of the site is impervious. as it is developed with a structure
and parking lot. There are no known significant natural resources or
cultural features on this site.
IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES
MASTER TIU~SPORTATION PLAN (MTP} I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP}: North Great
Neck Road is a four-lane suburban arterial in the vicinity of this site. North Great Neck has a variable right-of-
way width, and the Master Transportation Plan shows a divided highway with a bikeway and an ultimate right-
of-way width of 120 feet. There are currently no CIP projects scheduled for this segment of North Great Neck
Road. A reservation of 5 feet is requested, such that the ultimate R/W of 120 feet, in accordance with the
Master Transportation Plan amended 10/12/04 is achieved.
Old Donation Hoad is a four-lane collector in the vicinity of this site. Old Donation Road has a right-of-way
width of 110 feet. This roadway is not included in the Master Transportation Plan. There are currently no CIP
projects scheduled for this segment of Old Donation Road.
TRAFFIC: In order to not impact intersection site distance, the new sign should be located a minimum of 14
feet back from the edge of pavement from North Great Neck Road and Old Donation Parkway.
The request to replace the monument sign, add one building mounted sign and two entrance signs will have
no additional impact on traffic.
1000 GREAT NECK ROAD, lLC
Agenda Item 16
Page 3
II I
I
II III I
OTHER CITY SERVICES: The replacement of the monument sign, addition of one building mounted sign and
two entrance signs will have no significant impact on City services.
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this requested modification with revisions as conditioned below.
Evaluation:
Staff recommends that the height of the proposed LED sign be reduced to eight (8) feet. The location of
this sign was initially recommended to be in close proximity to the existing sign location and include a
redesign of the landscaped area. During the April 8, 2009 nearby residents requested the sign be shifted
further away from the intersection to reduce distraction. The location of the sign should not impact sight
lines.
The request for the 97 square foot building-mounted sign on the newly constructed worship center will not
have any negative impacts on the surrounding area, as the size and placement of the sign on the building
is complementary with the contemporary architecture. If the site was zoned for office use, a 150 square
foot building sign would be allowed. The building-mounted sign is recommended for approval with a
condition requiring review by staff of the lighting of the sign prior to installation.
Staff finds that the request for two non-LED entrance signs at twenty-four square feet is excessive, One
additional non-LED sign meeting sign ordinance requirements at the Old Donation Parkway entrance into
the parking area furthest away from the intersection assists those traveling west on Old Donation
Parkway to the church, but the second sign at the entrance on Great Neck Road will be close to the new
double-faced LED sign and is not necessary. The fourth sign would allow for a greater number of signs
than permitted for a similar development in the Office Districts, where a maximum of two signs are
allowed, or in the Business Districts, where a maximum of three signs are allowed.
CONDITIONS
1. All conditions with the exception of Number 1 attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the
City Council on October 14, 2003 remain in effect.
2. Condition Number 1 of the October 14, 2003 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the
following:
The site shall be developed in accordance with the submitted plans titled "WAVE CHURCH; Great
Neck Road; Virginia Beach, Virginia, SITE PLAN", prepared by Tymoff & Moss Architects, dated
June 26, 2008. Said plans have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file
with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning.
3, The following shall be considered an additional condition of the October 14, 2003 Use Permit:
a. The free-standing sign proposed to be installed at the southwest corner of the site shall be
1000 GREAT NECK ROAD, LLC
Agenda Item 16
Page 4
substantially consistent with the submitted enhanced photo elevations of a light-emitting diode
(LED) sign. The sign shall have no video playback capabilities nor have any audio capabilities.
Said sign shall replace the existing sign at the same location, and shall be no higher than 8
feet. A landscape plan for plantings around the base of the sign shall be submitted to the
Current Planning Division of the Department of Planning for approval.
b. The LED sign shall not be used to promote or advertise any other businesses, institutions, or
events other than those related to the church located on the property.
c, The sign shall include a light-sensitive photocell feature that will reduce and increase the
intensity of the LED output commensurate with the external ambient light level (LED output
reduction for night and cloudy conditions and LED output increase for daytime sunny
conditions).
d. The interval of time between one image and the next image shall not exceed eight seconds.
This shall not prohibit a single element on any static image from movement (as in a butterfly or
bouncing ball moving across the screen during a static image message).
e. One building-mounted sign consistent with the submitted photo enhanced elevation shall be
allowed. The lighting method for the sign shall be submitted to the Current Planning Division of
the Department of Planning for approval.
f. One additional free-standing sign, without electronic display, meeting sign ordinance
requirements may be installed at the Old Donation Parkway entrance into the parking area,
but shall be located at the entrance furthest away from the intersection. An elevation drawing
and location plan of such sign shall be submitted to the Current Planning Division of the
Department of Planning for approval.
NOTE.: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances.
Plans submitted with this use permit application may require revision during detailed site plan review
to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards.
1 000 GREAT NECK ROAD, LLC
Agenda Item 16
Page 5
II I
II II I I
AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION
1000 GREAT NECK ROAD,lLC
Agenda ltern. 16
Page 6
~
m=:
.t
--..
s
z
<(
f_
~ .
L/1 ~
1',,,.
,
m
HS
ltt
\-;
Entrance sign
(non-LED)
location
Monument
sign (LED)
location
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
1000 GREAT NECK ROAD,l.LC
Agenda IteTl16
Page 7
II I
I,
II II I I
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED LED SIGN and
EXISTING SIGN
1000 GREAT NECK ROAD, LLC
Agenda Item 16
Page 8
PROPOSED LED SIGN - FRONT view
1000 GREAT NECK ROAD,I;.LC
Agenda Itel116
Page 9
II I
I'
II III I
PROPOSED LED SIGN - SIDE VIEW
1 000 GREAT NECK ROAD,lLC
Agenda Itert 16
Page 10
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION
1000 GREAT NECK ROAD,l.LC
Agenda lterli16
Page 11
II I
II III I
1000 N. Great Neck Rd.. LLC
~..\. ~ ~\ rJ ..... -.-.r ~~'~~~ ----=.I-W
. '"" I~ IIII!I (J I' ....~..
r\' ~ ... ? ~ IlI\ >--:l.~ I{ '.
11\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
l\'~'1~ ~ ~~, ~ t ~~ ~\ ~~ I'""
~~ '\~ \. ~~ ~ \ ",... ~\\;ltJ "". \. ~~
~.~ x,~~ ~v, ,\\J~~~
s::~ ''l ~ " n RS..n' J"
\ J '\ \. \ ta ~ 1\"'" ~ ~
~D \J., \t... '\ )...~ '/}Q
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \. ~~ ~
~r~\.1'\
~~.~ "Vi:
"1l
, . .
~ 'tli ~ I),:;; ~ .. o..;vp (I ~
;~~ ~~~) . .~ ~~ti.
~ ~ ' ~ . ~~Q ~~~.::?
~~..~ ~~~~r.-a Q1, -~.'{:~~
~ t!:JO ~/~.. '8flB~~~~~
~ -. ZIJij, <<I 11' J:"'{J ;B'\I!rlJl_~ ~~
~-;; QJ ~ ~ ~~I ~ '''"llI!" ~
. ~ . !:::I ~ } I 8 _~ '[] I(?~ c;a~or<!!!t.... ~
~t!!!:Jlr!!!J7(\... J " "-.III' .lI.....If;J1 S I '~M1 1-1 l....R~!::
Map J-5
Mop Not to Scale
\\
.~
~
0-
~~
10 ~
dB Ldn
~~
~~~
Modification of Conditions
1 11/22/05 Conditional Use Permit (Communications Tower) Granted
10/14/03 Conditional Use Permit (Church Expansion)
12/05/95 Conditional Use Permit (Church Expansion)
07/13/93 Conditional Use Permit (Pre-school)
OS/21/84 Conditional Use Permit (Church Expansion)
08/09/82 Conditional Use Permit (Church Expansion)
04/26/76 Conditional Use Permit (Church)
1a 05/15/78 Conditional Use Permit (Cemetery) Granted
2 09/14/93 Subdivision variance Granted
3 07/07/92 Conditional Use Permit (Pre-school) Granted
ZONING HISTORY
1000 GREAT NECK ROAD, LLC
Agenda Item 16
Page 12
~
I I
~
C-'
I I
~
s:::a...
ea
cI:)
~
I I
H
Q
~
c. ~
~
o
Z
o
I I
8
I I
~
I I
Q
o
~
~
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)
Please see attached
2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary' or affiliated business enti~
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
Please see attached
0 Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or
other unincorporated organization.
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant.
If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other
unincorporated organization, complete the following:
1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members,
trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary)
2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
o Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm,
business, or other unincorporated organization.
, & 2 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?
Modification 01 Conditions Application
Page 10 of 11
Revised 7/3107
1 000 GREAT NECK ROAD, LLC
Agenda Item 16
Page 13
II I
II
I DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
II
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)
Tymoff & Moss Architects
Hourigan Construction Company
NnI RR""iAr An A""nr.iRtA"
1 "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one
corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting
power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va,
Code ~ 2.2-3101.
2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent-
subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership
interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling
owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business
entities, Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated
business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person
own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the
business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities,
resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship
between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code ~
2.2-3101.
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.
. ~ z;: =:: ~4/,
-""or, go:'.. - k.
It>>> ~. 6,...r t iii' Lf.-L ~
~ - .~ ..D , l~/Jiz- fs~
~me '
Pri~i~~.tJ k,,!}. rr t?
Property Owner s Signature
Modification of Conditions Application
Page 11 of 11
Revised 71312007
II III I
I
z
C~~
I I
~
~~
I I
,,1
~
~
Z
c~~
I I
F--4
I I
~
o
c ~
~
o
Z
o
I I
E
I I
~
I I
Q
o
~
1000 GREAT NECK ROAD,LLC
Agenda Item 16
Page 14
Disclosure Statement
1. Apolicant Name and officen:
10.00 N. Great Neck Road, LLC.
Managing Member: Wave Holdings, Ine,
President: Stephen G. KelIy
Vice President: Sharon B. KelIy
Secretaryffreasurer: Josh Kieker
2. List all Businesses that have a oarent-subsidiary or
affiliated business entitv relationship with aoolicant:
a. Wave Church,Inc.
b. Wave Holdings, Inc.
c. Seaboard Road, LLC.
d. Wave Children's Learning Centers, LLC.
e. Wave Leadership Institute, LLC.
f. Wave Transportation, LLC.
g. Wave Publishing, LLC.
h, Wave Trademarks, LLC.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
1000 GREAT NECK ROAD. LLC
Agenda Item 16
Page 15
II III
Item #16
1000 N. Great Neck Road, L.L.C.
Modification of Conditions
1000 N. Great Neck Road
District 5
Lynnhaven
July 8, 2009
REGULAR
Donald Horsley: The next item is item 16. 1000 N. Great Neck Road, L.L.C. An application of
a Modification of Conditions approved by City Council October 14, 2003 (Virginia Beach
Christian Life Center) on property located at 1000 N. Great Neck Road, District 5, Lynnhaven.
Janice Anderson: Welcome Mr. Lentz.
Stephen Lentz: Madame Chairman, members of the Commission, Mr. Macali and Mr. Whitney.
Members of the Planning staff, I am Steve Lentz. I'm an attorney practicing in Virginia Beach
and represent 1000 N. Great Neck Road, L.L.C., which is item 16. Before my time starts though
can I say just one thing. We just finished Independence Day and as I'm sitting here, I never
cease to be amazed at the commitment of both Planning and City Council. You guys have a
tough job. You balance a lot of different interests and this is an example, I think of what we just
celebrated, and that's good government. I just want to thank you. You guys work hard, and
sometimes it is a thankless position regardless of how you vote on what we're getting ready to
talk about. I hesitated even saying this because I felt like it would be misinterpreted but I
generally mean that. Thank you for all of us. We have a great city and it is because of the focus
and the hard work, and the reasoning and the good faith that you represent that we have it. So, I
just want to thank you. I really couldn't come forward without saying something. Wave
Church, a vibrant charitable member of the Virginia Beach community serves thousands of
Virginia Beach citizens each week through its religious services, its community outreach and
other charitable programs. If you would permit me to just expand that for just a minute. I read
the petitions and some of the comments by neighbors. The size of this particular client keeps
coming up. One of the things that I just wanted to address is in the charitable service to the
community. Sometimes when we're before the committee for any commission and we're asking
for specific modifications, we lose the story. And, really this particular church is a Virginia
Beach success story. This is a chance to celebrate and actually affirm the accomplishments of a
vibrant and growing church that started with just a few people, and now has many, many
hundreds of people. And more importantly is what the growth represents. There are hundreds of
families that are being helped every week at this particular site. That is why it has grown. There
are over 1000 youth on Saturdays, high school and middle school that come to that site to be
helped, and to be encouraged and to be inspired. And what you may not know there is 1000 18
to 34 year olds that come on Wednesday nights. They are no longer in college but on a career
track looking for significance and looking for a way to contribute. All of that is going on at this
particular site. As far as a charitable member of the community, you may not be aware but there
is a supplemental food distribution that this particular size of an organization is able to
participate in. Just last month, 25 families in Atlantis every Saturday are being helped. There is
a food kitchen, a soup kitchen. There over 304 hot meals were served in the Atlantis community
by 21 volunteers from this particular group. There is an angel food ministry where 182 boxes of
Item #16
1000 N. Great Neck Road, L.L.C.
Page 2
food were distributed just last month. Fifty-two volunteers helped on one particular day
including 19 soldiers from Fort Story. There is a Feed the Children program and over 400
Norfolk families came to get groceries, and the particular facts really touch me that over 200
people showed up on the site with expandable shopping carts, baby carriages, little red wagons,
suitcases to carry their food home. Forty-eight volunteers helped on that day including people
from Wave Church, Star ofthe Sea, Calvary Revival, three church buses helped deliver boxes to
neighborhoods of Diggs Town, Oak Leaf, and Calvert's Square, and 75 boxes of food were
delivered to Potters House here in Virginia Beach. And just last month, this 18 to 34 year old
group that meets on Wednesday night, nine buses, 500 volunteers went and renovated and
updated the Discover Life Center, which is a local rehabilitation center that helps release
convicts back into the society, and that serves all of Tidewater, Virginia Beach, Norfolk,
Chesapeake, Portsmouth, and Suffolk. So, when we reference the size of the church, it is not a
building. The building is a symbol of what is happening inside. There is something significant
that I think that entire city can be proud of, and we need to celebrate. The church is located at
the corner ofN. Great Neck Road and Old Donation, and Wave Church has been in the process,
as you know building a state of the art award winning facility, and to be used by the church as its
Phase II Convention Center and its meeting place, and its Family Center. It has a 24 million
dollar main auditorium that was just completed in December. Wave Church d/b/a as 1000 N.
Great Neck Road, L.L.C. for its property interest comes before you with an application that was
originally submitted in June 2008. It was deferred to Zoning in September 2008. It was
redirected to this Commission in April 2009 and deferred for another 90 days until today. And
so, it is currently requesting permission to update its existing single sided marquee located on the
corner of North Great Neck Road and Old Donation Parkway, which was installed in 1978 with a
new sign in the same location. The proposed double sided sign is self-standing. It will have
electronic message capabilities similar to the ones that are used at Cox High School, First
Colonial High School, Lynnhaven Middle School, all within the Lynnhaven District, and similar
to the LED sign recently constructed in June 2009 for Thalia Lynn Baptist Church right on
Virginia Beach Boulevard, as well as many LED signs throughout the city. I have pictures of
those especially the newest arrival, which is the Thalia Lynn Baptist sign that is on Virginia
Beach Boulevard. It is an LED sign exactly what we've been asking for. The sign will use light
omitting dio-technology. The height will be through proffer has been reduced from 12 feet down
to 8 feet with about 42 square feet being the LED technology. In addition, Wave Church is
requested a building mounted sign on the new constructed worship center. The good
government and the balance that we're here talking about is balancing legitimate needs in
interest of good citizens, who are all property owners and the client through its representatives
have met with the civic leagues. We have met with Michael's Glen, Riverhaven, Laurel Cove,
Great Neck Meadows last week. Listening to them, been reading the petitions and of course,
Wave Church is itB own property owner. And we've attempted to respond in a reasonable way
through many adjustments and conditions that have been made. In addition to the conditions that
have been listed in the staff report, where they are recommending approval, and we appreciate
that very much. These are the kind of adjustments that have been made by the organization to
try to be responsiv,e in the balancing of property owners' interest. The height of the sign as I
mention, even though Cox High School and Lynnhaven Middle are all 12 feet high, they have
reduced their reqm:st down to 8 feet, much lower than the schools in the area. The LED sign has
been reduced from 50 square feet down to 42.6 square feet. The organization has just recently
constructed two 24 square feet LED signs added by driveways. They are brand new and they are
III
Item #16
1000 N. Great Neck Road, L.L.c.
Page 3
by-right according to the current ordinance. The organization is willing to deconstruct those
brand new signs and move them to their other campus on the south side of town in return for the
approval of its one sign on the corner. In addition, listening to the neighbors, the church has
offered to relocate the sign. Take it offthe comer and move it farther north on Great Neck Road
away from the intersection. Again, to help respond to what we are hearing from the neighbors.
The client has offered to add channellighting for its building mounted sign even though that is a
much more expensive type oflighting. It would reduce any splash or any argument there might
be additional ambient light that would come from that. And has also proffered to make sure
there are no flashing lights or flashing messages going on in this particular matter. Some ofthe
comments have said the neighbors are worried about a precedent being sent. And, I just like
them to know that basically there is no precedent. The schools already have established that in
the Lynnhaven District, and there are LED signs all over town, so it is not a precedent to have an
LED sign. Any conforming sign can have LED technology so that is not a precedent being set.
As far as the size of the sign, that is something that brings us before this particular commission
and yet virtually every church sign on Great Neck Road is a non-conforming sign by size. So,
it's a size issue and not an LED issue. Our genuine request is that we be granted the ability to
have a nice sign on the corner close to where the sign has been since 1978. We will remove the
other two signs. We will only construct one other non-message board sign on the property, and
try to accommodate everybody's interest. We have great relationships with our neighbors. We
appreciate the dialogue that we had and several of the civic league representatives will speak
after me in opposition but in spite of that, we have a great relationship with them. We are just
balancing property interests. So, we respectfully ask you" to approve the application that is
before the Commission today.
Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Lentz.
Stephen Lentz: Thank you.
Janice Anderson: Are there any questions of Mr. Lentz at this time? Thank you.
Donald Horsley: Our first speaker is in opposition is Jim Fox.
Jim Fry: It's Jim Fry.
Donald Horsley: I'm sorry Fry. My glasses messed me up.
Janice Anderson: Welcome.
Jim Fry: My name is Jim Fry. And I live in the Michael's Glen neighborhood adjacent to Wave
Church. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before the Planning Commission. I also like to
thank Mrs. Prochilo for her excellent work and assistance with Planning Commission. I would
also like to acknowledge the representatives of Wave Church, Stephen Lentz and Harry Diezel.
They did meet with us on Monday evening with leaders from four area civic leagues. Although
the meeting was informative, we remain in opposition to the LED sign at Wave Church. Like I
said, I am here today to represent membership of opposition of the sign from the following civic
leagues including Michael's Glen, Laurel Cove, Great Neck Meadows and River Haven. In
Item #16
1000 N. Great Neck Road, L.L.C.
Page 4
addition to the civic leagues, who were in attendance at the Monday night meeting Bishop's Gate
and Southern Points have also expressed opposition to the LED sign. I would also like to
provide some representation for the over 4,400 individuals who have signed our petition in
opposition to the Vvave Church LED sign. I believe that comments on the petition were
summarized and presented to the Planning Commission by Chuck Steinberg. I realize the
opposing petitions, one from the community and one from the church. Please recognize that the
local community will be significantly affected of an LED sign on a daily basis where the church
community would only see a sign once or twice a week. We understand the additional
restrictions recommended for the Conditional Use Permit and would like to emphasis all the
limits imposed on potential LED sign at Wave Church be maintained. Number one is that the
height would be limited to eight feet above the ground level. The display would be no greater
than 42.7 square feet. The sign would be moved from the current location north of Great Neck
near the start of the turn lane. Also, the display would be limited to letters, numbers and the
basic graphics. No video. No audio. No flashing displays and the sign will use a photo sensing
audio dimmer. The sign will have a black background. Additionally, we would like the
Planning Commission to add the following additional conditions. Prohibit running lights around
or through the sign to prevent the church from the sign look like a Las Vegas style display. We
would also like to limit the number of messages to three separate distinct messages segment per
each complete message cycle. Also, for the color on the black background, we would like the
number of available colors to be one, and it would be amber, which would be similar to the Cox
High School LED,sign. As an absolute limit, we request a maximum ofthree colors, amber, blue
and green or any combination of three colors would be appropriate except for the color red. The
additional side entrance signs, there will one additional non LED sign will be authorized for the
Old Donation entrance but also noted as Mr. Lentz mentioned there is currently two 24 square
foot signs that are currently being installed at the church entrance, one on Great Neck and one on
Old Donation. The church has committed to remove the signs if the LED sign is approved. We
would like the add.itional condition added that the church be required to remove the sign within
30 days oftuming on the marquee LED sign. The community is concerned that the church LED
sign is being approved without a city ordinance for LED signs. Without a city ordinance for
guidance, what will the church use to govern the display of the message? A LED sign erected
today by the church would be grandfathered by the ordinance and the church would not be
limited by any future any LED sign ordinance, One provision of that LED ordinance that we
would support would be to prevent LED signs from being authorized in residential areas. One of
the underlying reasons for the strong community opposition to the LED sign can be raised to the
size and architecture of the church. Many of the families who live around the church settled here
with the view of the original Assembly of God's Church, which actually looked like a church
with a steeple and a cross. Not everybody appreciates the silver and black edifice of a building
that now exists on the property. And there is still one additional phase yet to be accomplished
that will again increase the church building size by one third. The building has no steeple. No
cross but does have the appearance of a convention center, an office park or a box store, none of
which was anticipated when the families in the communities first moved to the Great Neck
corridor. The most serious opposition to the LED sign is the traffic and pedestrian safety
concern. On Monday night, Mr. Lentz mentioned two scientific studies done by Virginia Tech
and Ohio State, which claim there is no effect on traffic safety. But the studies were funded by
the outdoor marketing lobby with the best interest of promulgating LED signs. We would
request that the Planning Commission conduct a base line survey of recent accidents at the Great
II I
I'
II III I
Item #16
1000 N. Great Neck Road, L.L.C.
Page 5
Neck and Old Donation intersection. A review of police records would document the hazard
state of that intersection. If the LED sign is erected and a survey is conducted the increase in
serious accidents would be a sad reality of latent proof that the LED sign added to that hazard
intersection. A percent of allowing a LED sign greater than 24 square feet at Wave Church
would leave to the promulgation oflarge LED signs at other churches and establishments along
Great Neck Road, all out of character for a residential neighborhood. We realize the Lynnhaven
Middle School has a LED sign in a residential neighborhood but the sign is blocked from actual
residents by a fire station, library and thick wooded lot. The Lynnhaven Middle School should
not be considered as a comparison to any LED sign at Wave Church. It is not that we are trying
to limit the display capability of the new technology of a LED sign, we're just trying to prevent a
LED sign from being placed in a residential neighborhood where no LED sign exists before.
Finally, the LED sign is a marketing device used to increase business at Wave Church. The
church is supposed to be a non-profit, tax exempt organization that engages in charity giving.
And not in advertising for money making propositions. Finally, in summary we like the
Planning Commission to add the following conditions to the Use Permit. Prohibit running lights
around or through the sign to prevent the church from making the sign look like a Las Vegas
style display, limit the number of messages to three separate distinct message segments for each
complete message cycle. As for the color on the black background, limit the number of available
colors to one, that color being amber. As an absolute limit, we would request a maximum of
three colors, amber, blue and green or any combination of three colors would be appropriate
except red. For the additional side entrance sign, we request the two 24 square foot signs that are
currently being installed at the church entrances, one at Great Neck and one at Old Donation be
removed within 30 days of turning on the marquee sign. We also request that the Planning
Commission to conduct a base line survey of recent accidents at the Great Neck/Old Donation
intersection by reviewing police records which would document the hazardous state of that
intersection.
Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Fry. Are there any questions?
Donald Horsley: Our next speaker is Hal Hamberg
Hal Hamberg: I deferred to speak. I think Mr. Fry has covered everything. I would hate to take
up any more of your time.
Donald Horsley: Thank you sir.
Janice Anderson: Thank you sir.
Donald Horsley: No more speakers.
Janice Anderson: Mr. Lentz? Oh, I'm sorry.
Ilona Lenard: Is it possible to say something if! didn't sign in?
Janice Anderson: We'll get you a card ma'am. Come on up.
Item #16
1000 N. Great Neck Road, L.L.C.
Page 6
Ilona Lenard: I didn't get a chance to read this. My name is Ilona Lenard.
Janice Anderson: State your name again.
Ilona Lenard: Ilona Lenard. I live in the neighborhood. I live in Great Neck Meadows. I didn't
see this until I carne here today. I understand what Mr. Lentz is saying, and quite frankly no one
is objecting to the church. First of all, the size of that church and where it is located now should
have never happened because it is a residential neighborhood. But since the church is there,
nobody is objecting to the work that the church does but we are objecting to, as it is almost a
sense of entitlement that Wave Church seems to have. I was there when the helicopter flew in
that shouldn't have flown into the parking lot. I was there when Wave Church had a year ago a
magnificent fireworks display that they did not get a city permit for. They did not notify the
police department about. They did not notify the Fire Department about. It happened at 8:30 at
night while I was Bitting in my living room and all of a sudden all of these big booms are going
on. It was a fireworks display that you would see at the Virginia Beach Oceanfront. It is a sense
of encroachment nJr anybody who lives in that neighborhood. Every time I drive by, I see now
that the parking lot is a little larger. I see where there is another building. And I didn't even
realize that there was another building that is going up on that site. Is that something that the
Planning CommisBion had agreed to when all of this had started? Because that is the case, I
don't think people in the neighborhood are aware of that.
Janice Anderson: If they have another site plan that might have been approved, I am not aware
of that but I believe there is another expansion.
Ilona Lenard: There is another expansion. So, now we're talking about another expansion, and
the other day, yesterday I was driving by the building and all of a sudden these two signs were up
there. I'm reading right here it says that the church site is zoned R-l 0 Residential where
churches are allowed one square foot sign at each entrance and no signage is permitted on the
buildings. So, it is a little disingenuous for Mr. Lentz to stand here and say that we're willing to
take down the two signs that we just put up when they're not even supposed to have a sign on the
building, and they are only supposed to have one sign, one 24 square foot sign on the property.
Now they are asking, basically saying well we want the sign on the building. We want this great
big LED sign. We: want another sign on Old Donation Parkway. Truthfully, people who go to
Wave Church are not there during the week when the rest of us are there. When the traffic is
there on Sunday. Wben the traffic is there on Wednesday night. When the lights are on. There
is something going on there every single night of the week. The lights are on in the parking lot.
I remember when ':he old Assembly of God's church was there and it was a church, There was a
parking lot but there was landscaping so it wasn't upfront to the neighborhood. Now you have
the parking lot that abuts right up to the grass, which is right next to the sidewalk. There is no
landscaping to soflen anything that is going on at that church. The buses are parked there in the
back of the church. Nothing hides that. It is not fair I don't think for the people who live in that
neighborhood. So, I don't want to stand here making it seem like I'm against the church but I
think it is a little dIsingenuous for them to present themselves as doing all of this good work and
anybody who is not in favor of what is going on here, is against the church. It has nothing to with
it. But they really changed the landscape of that corner of the neighborhood. It is a residential
neighborhood. And the last time I was here, I remember Mr. Lentz saying "well, there are LED
II I
I:
I I III!
Item #16
1000 N. Great Neck Road, L.L.C.
Page 7
signs down the street," well it's a shopping center, you expect an LED sign to be there. You
don't expect it to be at the corner where you have Great Neck Meadows, Michael's Glen and
every single area in there is a residential area. So, I guess I really don't have much more to say
than that but it just seems like it is always an encroachment happening where we will do it first
and then we'll ask for permission. And now when I heard there is another building going up,
where is that going up? Does anyone know where that is going up on the site?
Janice Anderson: If you get with Planning, they can probably pull the site plan for you and
review that with you.
Ilona Lenard: Okay. Well, obviously I'm in opposition to what is going on here with this sign
because I think it is just another step towards something else happening on that site. I don't
think it is proper for that neighborhood.
Janice Anderson: Thank you Ms. Lenard. Are there any question? Thank you ma'am.
Stephen Lentz: Thank you Mr. Fry and Ms. Lenard. Thank you for your interest. Just to clarify,
there is a master site plan that has been approved that shows all of the different phases to the
church including one more on the end of that property. The parking lot has been improved but it
is not finished yet. Phase III of the building includes the islands, trees and everything out in the
parking lot. So, that is according to the Master Plan, according to the phasing of the church. I
am sure you all understood the misread that she had on the two signs that we put up there. We
are entitled to a sign at each entrance, and so we put one at the Great Neck entrance and one at
the Old Donation entrance; so we got the proper permits for that and that is by~right. The LED
signage again, is probably going to be a City Council ordinance matter because any approved site
for any compliance sign in the city can have LED technology right now. So, this is not a
precedent setting moment to have a LED sign. Any compliance sign can have that. So, again
the proffers that we made have been genuine and a lot of adjustments, and I think, again the
removal of the current signs within 30 days are certainly we intend to do that. If the marquee
sign is approved when it lights up, the other two go down. The reason why we put those up, and,
I think I explained it the last time I was here, is because we are two years into this discussion.
We have no assurance that we will ever get approval, and so the only two signs that we can have
that we knew that we could have, we went ahead and constructed because even if this is
approved today and we go to City Council, it could be January 2010 before we could actually get
a sign actually constructed. We went ahead and put up the signs that by-right we were allowed to
have but we are willing to deconstruct those. This was not disingenuous. It was just trying to put
signs up at our property, which we have been asking for quite a while. So, again reducing the
sign by eight feet following the conditions that have been suggested by the staff we have agreed
to in addition to that relocating the sign down the street. A little bit further we think takes away
from the traffic congestion. I did bring those two studies, one was a Virginia Tech study and one
was from Ohio State. Yes, they were initiated probably by people who are in this business but
they had a vested interest to find out, and spent a lot of money to find out what is going on. I
think if you review the actual methodology, Jay, even yourself, would be impressed with the
detail and the actual scientific analysis they did to try to figure out is there any linkage between
traffic safety and any LED or digital billboard technology. They could not find any. I am going
to leave those reports with you guys so you can look over them. One was Virginia Tech and one
Item #16
1000 N. Great Neck Road, L.L.c.
Page 8
was Ohio State. So, we respectfully ask for approval of this. We believe we are all working
together on this matter. We do not have a sense of entitlement. We have been requesting for
two years, requestlng a sign, and I think that indicates that we have anything but a sense of
entitlement. We appreciate your deliberation, and we are willing to work with you. We have
been willing to work with staff when the staff pointed us over to Zoning. We went there. That
was a miss call. They pointed us back over to Planning and we came back there. That is not a
sense of entitlement. That's someone who generally appreciates this whole process. We are all
trying to get along here. So, we appreciate your consideration, and we hope for approval. Thank
you.
Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Lentz. Are there any questions of Mr. Lentz? Okay. I'll go
ahead and open it up for discussion. David?
David Redmond: I hate these things. I will just say it right out. I think they are ugly. I think
they look terrible. I think they cheapen the community. I don't think they do anything for any
organization's rep:Jtation. I don't buy it frankly, that they do have a lot more going on in basic
sign. No matter what Virginia Tech or whoever has anything to say about it. I know what my
bones tell me that if you have something that is more aggressive about catching people's
attention, it is going to catch it, and it is not going to be on the road where it belongs. I don't
think passing around photographs of the most recent of these to pop up and having driving past it
more less every da.y, is actually an argument on behalf of this because I think it looks terrible. It
has got a spinning globe and it's got flashing stuff and it looks terrible. The newest McDonald's,
which was constructed on top of the site at the intersection, near Mr. Ripley's project, at the
intersection of Independence and Bonney has one very similar, and in my view it looks terrible.
And I hate the fact that we are really rapidly charging down the road to something in the city that
is going to cheapen our community. I think aesthetics of this place make us something special. I
don't know why anybody would want one of these things and associate themselves with that
unless they do, so we simply have a difference of opinion of that. All of that said, I don't think
we have any of the grounds to delay this any further. We have asked, asked, and asked for an
ordinance. We don't have it. And, we can keep telling them we ought to have an ordinance but
we haven't seen it., and I don't think it is fair to this applicant to put it off any longer. I wish they
would exercise better aesthetic judgment and not do this. And very frankly, I don't think you
were entirely fair, and I don't want to say truthful because I don't think you misrepresented it but
the sign at Cox High School is not that. The sign at Cox High School was the same as they are
popping up at a pawn shop on Lynnhaven Parkway just before you get to Princess Anne Road,
which I think is the most rigorous example. You want to look like pawn shop so have at it. I
don't but Cox High School doesn't look like that. It is not the same. It's not just the same. So,
. being all that it may, if we waited we would all be grey beards, and I don't think that is fair to
any kind of applic:mt. I wish we had it and I don't know why we don't. But we got a job to do
and they keep coming back. They deserve an answer and we ought to act on it today. I'm going
to oppose it becau:;e I can, and I don't like them. But I think we cannot defer it any longer, and I
think we ought to go ahead and get it over with. So, everybody can trust their own judgment on
that. I don't like these things popping up in our community. Once they are there, we got to live
with them forever, and ever, and ever, and ever. But, I guess now is the time to do it.
Janice Anderson: Thanks David. Jay.
II I
I,
II
III!
Item #16
1000 N. Great Neck Road, L.L.C.
Page 9
Jay Bernas: I would like to make a motion to approve the application with the modification to
condition 3d. I think it is backwards. The interval of time between one image and the next
image shall not be less than 8 seconds. I think it needs 8 seconds. So, I would like to make that
motion that modification to 3d.
Janice Anderson: I have a motion. Is there a second?
Joseph Strange: I'll second the motion.
Janice Anderson: A motion by Jay and a second by Joe Strange. Are there any further
comments to be made on this? Yes.
Kathy Katsias: I would like to amend the motion.
Janice Anderson: Okay. Let's see if Jay would amend the motion.
Kathy Katsias: I would like to remove the other two signs on Old Donation and Great Neck
Road, the entrance signs, as well as have the background black and maybe one color rather than
three colors. I don't remember the colors that were mentioned but exclusively not red. That
would be it.
Janice Anderson: What are your feelings on that?
Jay Bernas: I'm just not so sure about the colors. I didn't know. I wasn't really big on
regulating the3 colors.
Janice Anderson: Let's make some more comments and then we will see if we can't modify it.
Go ahead.
Joseph Strange: One comment I would like to make is that my understanding that even though
we don't have an ordinance that the proposed ordinance, there is a draft. Again, it is my
understanding that it conforms to everything that is in the new ordinance. You know, we haven't
had a chance to look at it of course, but the people who drafted the ordinance. I think we have to
have some good faith in most of it is going to be something that is acceptable, most of it, maybe
not all of it. I just want to make note of the fact that it is my understanding that this does
conform to all the information on the ordinance that is going to come before us. So, I don't see
any reason to second guess that at this point.
Janice Anderson: Henry.
Henry Livas: I was thinking the same thing they are complying with what's coming forth. I
would like to get verification on it. Is that true?
Jack Whitney: Yes.
Item #16
1000 N. Great Nt::ck Road, L.L.C.
Page 10
Henry Livas: Okay that is true but that doesn't mean that we have to approve it. It doesn't mean
that we have to approve the new ordinance either. And, I'm probably going to be opposed to that
one, as well as, I am to this one, for the same reasons. I think they are too gaudy. They certainly
distract your attention on the highway, and I think we will eventually we will get some more
studies that will indicate that they are not safe. I think we ought to be out in the fore run and not
approve these things and not having our city look like Las Vegas. So, I'm against it.
Janice Anderson: Okay. David?
David Redmond: Yeah. I just want to quickly clarify why I'm opposing it. That is I think you're
exactly right Joe. And that is what is here conforms to what is the supposedly "draft" ordinance
that we haven't seen. Nonetheless, my interest in the ordinance is that I would like to toughen it.
I frankly, would like to make it more restrictive. I would like to have a debate in the city about
these things and get some consensus about it, and then understand it and not just have these
things popping up all over the place without having really looked at it. I'd hope to be able to
have an ordinance so we could do that. Ultimately, it has to go up to Council and they have to
make the ultimate judgment on that. I think we're long overdue. I think Mr. Lentz and the
church probably thinks that we're long overdue for that very same conversation. They have
probably just as impatient as I am. But my view is sort of what my friend Henry says is, and I
kind oflike to see, frankly be more restrictive. That is why I thought it was important to have an
ordinance, and that is my justification. But your dead right Joe. These conditions do conform to
what the draft is but a draft is a draft. It's not an ordinance until you have it. And ultimately, I
would hope that would come up with something that is a little stronger than that. So, thanks.
Janice Anderson: Okay.
Joseph Strange: We don't have that ordinance though. When are we going to get it? Next
week? Next year? Five years from now?
Janice Anderson: AI?
Al Henley: I have a question on the Thalia Lynn Baptist Church. I've seen that one, and as well
as the pawn shop on Lynnhaven. They are quite eye catchers. I'm assuming that both of those
meet minimum standards and permits with issues on those?
Karen Lasley: They meet what: I didn't hear.
Al Henley: The Thalia Lynn Baptist Church and the pawn shop on Lynnhaven Parkway, do both
of those signs meet the ordinance, and were permits issued?
Karen Lasley: Permits were issued and they meet the existing sign regulations but the sign
regulation we havt: right now do not govern the LED sign, you know the colors but the number
of changes.
Al Henley: Yet we have a draft for a sign ordinance that includes LED signage. Is that right?
II I
I;
II III'
Item #16
1000 N. Great Neck Road, L.L.C.
Page 11
Karen Lasley: We have a draft that puts regulations on LED part of the sign but I can't enforce
those yet.
Al Henley: I think we're premature personally speaking that to approve something that staff is
working on a draft ordinance that is going to come before this body, and then eventually
recommendation goes to Council to vote on that. I just think we need the big picture to realize
what we are getting ourselves into, and it appears to me that we got a snowball effect already
going on in the City. And that snowball is going to get larger and larger, and competition with
the economic times, they're going to do what their next door neighbor is going to be doing, so
where it is going to stop. I'm not in favor of this and I'm not going to be voting for it because I
just don't think it is professional to jump to conclusion and assumptions that it s going to be a
pretty picture. In my opinion, it is not going to be very pretty. Thank you.
Janice Anderson: Okay. Gene.
Eugene Crabtree: For the same thing that Al says is that I don't see how we can have a couple of
applications before us for LED signs and yet we have LED signs all over the city that have
popped up. Apparently, that we haven't seen so is there something in the ordinance or
something somewhere that allows them.
Karen Lasley: Yes. The sign regulations right now do not prohibit them. Therefore, if somebody
comes in and applies for a LED sign by-right, we have to approve it. The only two you have
seen is where; the gas station on Rosemont Road. It had a condition on the signage when it came
through with a Use Permit for a service station; so, therefore they had to come back to you to get
that changed. And this one, of course is not a normal church sign. He could put the LED signs
by-right at the entrances.
Eugene Crabtree: I was just wondering why we see some applications and not others. But if we
do approve this, I don't see whereby limiting colors are going to make any difference. Maybe
the intensity of the colors but it is what type of colors. I think it would be very difficult to do, to
limit the intensity of colors would be a very appropriate thing because you want more subdue. I
think on a church in particular more subdue colors would be better than real bright colors. As far
as some of the other things that have been said, the lady who lives in the neighborhood, and she
is right when that was the Assembly of God, it looked like a church. It was a church. It was a
very viable church, and not it has bloomed into, I'm sorry to say "big business", and
consequently when you get into big business you have to look at things as big business. I think
we are sort oflooking at that from that standpoint of view. From that standpoint of view, I'm not
too sure that I want to be in favor of this either. I think we've drugged them too long about the
sign. Ifit conforms with the draft ofthe ordinance, and that is going to come about or if we
approve it all, I guess at a later date, we can modify it. I don't know whether we can or not. It
would be grandfathered. I guess if we approve this, no matter what the new ordinance comes out
this would be grandfathered. And it wouldn't make any difference. Therefore, I think rather than
just drag them out with this, I think it would be more pertinent just to go ahead deny the
application at this point and wait until the ordinance comes out, and we get that smooth out
Item #16
1000 N. Great Neek Road, L.L.c.
Page 12
before we go forward. So, I agree with some of my fellow Commissioners. I think I'm going to
oppose the approval of this.
Janice Anderson: Joe?
Joseph Strange: So, is it my understating that if they took the two signs that they can have by-
right, they can take and make LED signs out of these and we wouldn't have any say so
whatsoever.
Karen Lasley: That is what they have done. They could actually have four 24 square foot
signs, one at each <entrance.
Joseph Strange: So, because they decide they want to try to improve the situation and try to
make it more acceptable to everybody, they have come before us, and we're saying we're not
going to accept this even though you're trying to improve the situation, which everybody, which
is my understanding again that everybody agrees that this is a better solution than the one they
have right this minute. I haven't heard anybody oppose that. I haven't heard anybody say that
we would rather have the LED signs we got now than the ones that are proposed. I mean haven't
heard that opposition so maybe I missed something.
Bill Macali: Madame 'Chair, may I just make on observation? Given the fact that the two LED
signs they have now are legal, I think really what is in play in this matter is the building sign. I
mean that is the only sign they can't have by-right.
Janice Anderson: They can't have the big sign either by-right.
Karen Lasley: They can't have the big sign.
Bill M~cali: But the two LED signs they can have.
Karen Lasley: Yes. They are 24 square feet. They can actually put up two more.
Janice Anderson: Right. We understand.
Bill Maca1i: Right. You're not really talking about LED signs here. We're pretty much talking
about pretty much the other signs.
Joseph Strange: Well, nobody is complaining about the sign on the building right?
Janice Anderson: I would just like to make some comment. The applicant has been here several
times. We shouldn't hold them up. We should go ahead and vote on this. I'm in approval of it.
I think it is very reasonable for the sign. The sign that is out front is about the sign that is on First
Colonial Road that is in height and width. I think it is very appropriate. I don't think it is too big.
They moved the loeation but I'm not in agreement in cutting down their colors that they can use.
That is fine with me. I'm glad there is a limit on the images that they can put out. Maybe if you
could put in there also just make it clear that no pulsing or flashing that may handle it but I think
II I
I'
II III I
Item #16
1000 N. Great Neck Road, L.L.c.
Page 13
that is the most obnoxious about signs. If that could be included I do agree with the removal of
the two LED signs that are there now to be removed in 30 days. But he has worked with staff on
this. They have really scaled down what they have requested and as Joe said, this is going to be
much better signage out there at that site than what they could put now.
Eugene Crabtree: In lieu to that fact it is better than what they could have. It is the less of two
evils.
Janice Anderson: I would be in support of the motion. Go ahead Phil.
Phil Russo: I'm just a little concerned about the lesser of two evil analysis. I don't want to say
it's distasteful but I'm a little concerned about saying okay, we'll take the two signs away and
give us the one sign. I don't like that. I don't like these signs either. I echo Mr. Redmond's and
Mr. Livas's comments. I tell you that is just a bad corridor. Every year it seems like there is a
fatality that rocks this community. And if something like that happened around that area we are
all going to be wondering was that a result of somebody' s attention being diverted. There is just
too much concern there that we don't have enough information. I'm going to oppose the
application.
Janice Anderson: Are there any other comments? Yes David.
David Redmond: I move the denial of the application.
Bill Macali: There is a motion.
Janice Anderson: There is a motion. We got a motion to approve. Jay, do you want amend your
motion at all?
Jay Bernas: Yes. Amend it to include the no pulsing and no flashing and to remove the two signs
at the entrance within 30 days? Was there another one?
Janice Anderson: Okay.
Karen Prochilo: And exclusively no red text?
Jay Bernas: No color.
Karen Prochilo: You had mentioned something about exclusively not red as a color.
Jay Bernas: No change to colors.
Janice Anderson: Joe, are you in support of those changes?
Joseph Strange: Yes.
Item #16
1000 N. Great N€::ck Road, L.L.C.
Page 14
Janice Anderson: You will still second it? Okay. Do you want to take the alternative motion
now?
Bill Macali: The amended motion is the only one on the floor now since the maker has amended
it and the seconder has seconded the amended motion, so that is the one that is on the floor.
Janice Anderson: Okay.
David Redmond: Which by way, I'm going to urge my colleagues to oppose just so we
understand it., and I would offer a motion after that to deny it.
Ed Weeden: That would include no pulsating lights and a modification of 3d jay?
Jay Bernas: A modification of 3d to change the "exceed to less than 8 seconds". No pulsing. No
flashing and the two signs to be removed within 30 days at the existing entrance.
AYE 6 NAYS ABSO ABSENT 0
ANDERSON AYE
BERNAS AYE
CRABTREE NAY
HENLEY NAY
HORSLEY AYE
KA TSIAS AYE
LIVAS NAY
REDMOND NAY
RIPLEY AYE
RUSSO NAY
STRANGE AYE
Ed Weeden: By a vote of6-5, the application has been approved as amended to 1000 N. Great
Neck Road,
Janice Anderson: Thank you.
II III
*
nEm l ~
Karen Prochilo
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Steve Lentz [sdl@lawlsb,com]
Wednesday, July 08,20099:09 AM
Karen Prochilo
Fw: Petition Information
Sign Comments2,doc; image001.jpg
Fyi: 6 pages of comments in favor. Please distribute to the commission and city council. Thanks
From: Seth Mizelle <seth.mizelle@wavechurch.com>
To: Steve Lentz
Sent: Tue Jul 07 18:22:02 2009
Subject: Petition Information
Steve,
Here is the information regarding the petitions,
Number of Signed Forms '1,067
Number of Internet Signers 692
Total Number of Petition Signatures 1,759
I have attached a list of all comments made by signers of the petition.
Thanks,
&H~~
Operations Manager
~ wave
1000 North Great Neck Road
Virginia Beach, VA 23454
www.wavechurch.com
757.481.5005
757.496.6697 fax
PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS E-MAIL.
1
COMMENTS FROM PETITION SIGNERS
The sign needs to match the architecture and style of the building,
Active member of the business community, and friend of many city employees and local elected officials.
Strongly support this reasonable request.
Please vote to ~Ipprove the new sign for Wave Church as requested by the church
I think this sign will add value to the community and the church property. I am in full support of them.
The sign is a reasonable request and ought to match the look of the building.
Wave Church is a blessing to the community. Thousands of young people are discovering a place where
they can fit in and not be tempted to engage in destructive behaviors.
The overall effect is a safer more vibrant community. A sign in front of the church is hardly going to hurt this
neighborhood. On the contrary, I believe it will enhance the area.
Approve it!!!
I am a VB Resident and am in favor of this sign,
We leave in the Great Neck Meadows neighborhood and support the new sign.
The current marquee is difficult to read, The new marquee would be more reader friendly,
I think the sigh ~;hould match the state of the art building.
If gas stations, Public schools, and other facilities can have LED marquees then why is this a problem for a
church who has not only helped me but our whole community have one?
this city needs tl1is church and the sign is great new advertising that will look beautiful.......
This church has changed my life and I have been an active member since 2007. The least the community
can do is rally b<9hind a sign!
Wave Church is amazing !!
This sign would be a great addition.
A new sign would catch the eye of passer by patrions and possible bring more people to church. Some
people I know who live in the area still dont know about wave churc and they pass it all the time.
A new church d'9serves a new sign to continue the good works in and for the community.
I am a VB Resident and am in favor of this sign.
Please approve the sign.
I would love to ~;ee a new marquee! Thank you
This sign will be an amazing improvement!! Wave church is known world wide and we should feel honored
this church is located here in our city!!
I have attended church on the comer of Old Donation and N Great Neck Rd since 1986, The sign has never
been replaced during these 23 yrs. My residence is in VB. I look forward to the new sign to be approved.
Thank you.
II III
Please allow this sign no be built. If the city makes changes in codes and to build hospitals and such for
profit why not for a church?
I live off of Old Donation Parkway, and would like to see a sign that displays what is going on at Wave
Church and be able to see it as I drive by.
Please approve this request. Thank you!
I was born and raised here in Va beach VA and am excited to see how Wave church is going to impact my
city!
I am a VB Resident and am in favor of this sign.
Wave is an amazing church that I am honored to be apart of.
We need the sign to match the building!
Please Sign This. This will help our community, not hurt it.
I would like to see this sign go up- as it would update the look of the city, showing that virginia beach houses
some of the most innovative technology
LET IT BE DONE !!
I live off Great Neck Road which is not more than a half mile from WAVE church. I feel the sign would
significantly improve the looks on the comer of Great Neck and Old Dominion Pkwy!
Wave church is making a difference in Hampton Roads! Support those who take action and want to make a
difference to help others.
Wave Church has been excellent for a large number of families in Hampton Roads.
Please grant permission for our church to have signage that corresponds to the rest of our beautiful
property.
Unless the city is paying for the sign, which they are not, a private enterprise should have the right to
purchase whatever they wish (within reason) to help promote their organization.
WAVE CHURCH DRAWS PEOPLE IN THE HUNDREDS! THE STRUCTURE MAY BE MASSIVE
COMPARED TO CHURCHES IN THE AREA, HOWEVER, THE POSITIVE IMPACT ITWILL HAVE ON
THE COMMUNITY WILL BE AMAZING!
We want our sign, please.
I believe the sign will enhance the already beautiful building that is there.
My kids and I are blessed to calf WAVE our family!! Give us our sign, PLEASE!!
Please allow the sign to be built. We are the comunity you say you represent. We will also vote in the next
election. Please vote yes for Virginia Beach and not for self interests.
, live within visual view of the sign. It seems that so many of us only think of ourselves and how any change
will affect our own property value or the appearance of our own landscaping. Do people really realize that
every week the individuals at this location affects the lives of over 1,000 children and 2,000 teens? How
many of these families would give more than their opinion about a marquee to change just one thing in the
life of their child or teen? When Jesus wrote in the sand it affected all of the accusers that were ready to
stone someone for their wrongful decision, when God wrote on the wall it changed a nation's future. We will
never know how our opinion or actions affects the lives of another to direct them toward or away from life
changing experiences,
Our family mO\led to Virginia Beach in 2004. The relocation was difficult for our children. My husband has
served 19 years in the United States Navy and we are looking forward to retiring here. Wave Church is the
reason we havl3 chosen to stay. We respectfully request the approval of the Marquee.
Please let us have a beautiful sign for our beautiful church.
I definetly would love to see the city approve our new sign request.
Wave Church has done much good for seven cities, This new marquee would help them contribute to our
community even more so in the future.
yes, do this,....110W
The update of this sign is necessary to accent the establishment it represents.
This church is II great contribution to our community and to Hampton Roads as a whole - why single them
out when other institutions have similar signs?
Wave Church E,hould be afforded the same consideration and approval as other businesses and
organizations. Similar signs have been approved throughout Virginia Beach.
It is deff time to update the sign.
Wave Church i:; a positve influence on the thousands that attend. It is a growing vibrant church. I passed 2
buildings that were installing large new signs yesterday. Please be fair minded and allow us to do the same.
I am for this sign
yes to the sign!!
I have lived in Va. Beach most of my life and believe Wave Church is an asset to this city. Please vote yes
as we need a new sign that is not an eyesore like our present one. It is hard for our large congregation to
understand why this is even an issue,
Approve!!!!!!
Please allow UB permission to build the sign so we can better communicate with the Virginia Beach
community...
May it please the board to allow our sign on our property. I trust the board and its members to do the right
thing. Each of you our in our prayers. Respectfully
We need our sign and this should not be an issue with the local residents, The church has been there for
some time now, its not like this is something new to the community.
I rededicated my life to Christ at WAVE, the community there is absolutely amazing. The deserve any and
everything they planned to do,
Please allow my church to update the marquee in front of the newly updated building thereby adding more
attraction to thEl already lovely City of Virginia Beach!! - Thank You for your Consideration.
We love our new building and we need a new sign - please grant our request. Thank you!
I think this sign would be a huge benefit for the church and the community
Please allow the marquee sign to be installed at Wave Church, let us have this sign to compliment our
beautiful Church of which we are so proud. Thanking you in advance.
please allow UH to have our sign, we are not asking for any special treatment just to be treated as anyone
else
Please let us put this sign up!
II III
Please approve new marquee sign for our church,
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? WHY NOT?
TO DENY THIS TO SUCH A GREAT AND POSITIVE PLACE FOR WORSHIP OF GOD IS A VIOLATION
OF OR RELIGIOUS AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHAT IS SO WRONG ABOUT WANTING TO
ADVERTISE FOR A HOUSE OF GOD AND TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT R SEARCHING OR WANT TO
FIND A HOME CHURCH
We definitely need something that is more fitting to such a vibrant church. I am in full support of this request.
I strongly endorse approval of this sign. It will be a compliment to the building and a much needed
improvement over the old sign.
The old sign is just too old and ugly. Does NOT enhance the neighborhood at alll!
Request approval for these low impact signs as described.
am in favor or this sign, especially since the city has approved LED sign at Thalia Baptist on Virginia Blvd as
well as Princess Anne High School. See no reason for Wave Church to be any different.
We are in favor of LED sign for Wave church,
The Marquee sign should reflect the new building. It would only enhance the building and reaching people in
our community.
Please grant our request to have our sign placed on our church facility.
WAVE CHURCH IS A PART OF VA. BEAeH,VA. LETS KEEP VA,BEACH, VA. GROWING IN PEACE AND
LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER. WE NEED TO UPDATE THE SIGN AS WE GROW, THE CHURCH GROWS.
THE BEST IS YET TO COME..VA.BEACH GET READY!
The Church sign is old and obsolete, With such a beautiful new building, a more modern sign, which
complies to code, would be appropriate and in keeping with the growth and upgrading which is going on
throughout the area.
Wave Church is a wonderful meeting place for everyone in VA Beach, They are clearly impacting the
community and bringing people into relationships with God and I am glad to support them!
I consider Wave Church to be my home church and take a lot of interest in helping more people become
aware of the church. Please approve this for the benefit of the community.
wave church deserves the right to have a sign just like any other place on that road.
Proud to support a great cause!
I support the sign for Wave Church.
McDonalds even as led signs, why not a house of worship?
VIRGINIA WESLEYAN PROVIDES A NICE MARQUEE WHICH IS EASY TO READ FOR
PASSERSBy.....THIS WHAT WAVE NEEDS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN READ IT ON BUSY GREAT NECK
RD, THANK YOU!!!!!
I live in the Great Neck area and would LOVE to see this change made!
Wave Church has done wonders in the Great Neck area, and can only do more good with a sign that really
catches the eye!
Please approve this sign,
Allow authorization for the new church signage.
I live only 0.7 mi. from the church; please permit the proposed marquee sign and building signage for Wave
Church!
Please approve the new sign!
Completely in favor!!
Wonderful growing positive impact on the community church. Please allow them to have a new sign to go
along with the new building,
I have attended this Church since 1984 when it was First Assembly. The new building is an attractive,
modern convention center. It is appropriate for the signs directing people to the Church be in keeping with
the architectural design, Each week, I pass various buildings along the way--including Churches--which
have similar si~,ns to the ones requested by this petition. The first wing built, the EPI Center, was awarded
the Best Public Building the year it opened in 2005. Wave Church received unique recognition from the
Virginia Beach City Counsel upon the opening of the Convention Center, Please consider the support for
this sign and approve the requested signs, Thank you.
We would like for you to approve our sign for our new building. Thanks for your kind consideration
As a member of Wave Church and a taxpayer in this city, I am extremely disappointed that we must go to
these means in order to place a sign appropriate to the newly constructed building on the churches property.
LED signes are located throughout this city and have been deemed appropriate and probably did not have
to go to the extl~nt that Wave Church has had to endure.
We desperately need to replace our existing sign with something more fresh and up-to-date.
This organization is really making an Impact and helping people. I absolutely support this petition.
I fully support Wave Church as a valuable part of the Virginia Beach community and think the sign is a great
way to make sllre more people benefit from its generosity.
How can you say no to this !!
Communication is the foundation of a growing city,
Let there BE LIGHT!!! Let us beautify this city with a BEAUTIFUL invitation instead of the garbage that is out
there now that the city allows, Bring us back to the Church!!!
Wave is a beautiful church and should have a nice sign to go with it. There is no harm in that.
Everyone should see the path to changing their life! Thank you
I stand in approval of the proposed signage. With all the half-clad, provacative signage on our city streets, a
wholesome and attention-getting sign would be a welcome addition to our great city, Thank you in advance
for your considoration,
God bless this transition and all other pursuits of Wave church. Wave is an amazing ministry and has a great
impact on the Virginia Beach community! .
We believe in doing life and doing life well. As WAVE. Church has, is, and will, thru the building of
relationships, be bringing positive change to the VaBeach community one life at a time, it is with great
respect for the community and W AVE Church pastors that I sign this petition for a new sign that will be an
additional means of positive communication to the community.
please allow this message of God to be displayed, our church is growing and the best thing ever for our
community.
Wave Church has provided a place for our entire family to grow and become closer,
I [ I"
let this church grow. The church is the only thing keeping peace on this earth. So dont try to keep it in a iii
box
I truly love this church. It has been such a blessing in my life..... All we want to do is help people.
Thanks for ur approval of the sign for Wave Church. The current sign does not conform to the beautiful
convention Center nor the standards that Virginia Beach residents have come to expect.
The new sign should be allowed.
I wholeheartedly support the proposal, knowing that Wave Church has made great strides over the past
decade on being a positive impact on the citizens of Hampton Roads, The upgraded marquee signage will
increase its capability to communicate any announcements and/or upcoming events effectively to us H/R
citizens and the thousands of people that drive by Wave Church per week and its members. Not granting
them permission will minimize their potential outreach effectiveness, placing a limit on the mission/vision of
Wave Church (or any church at that): providing an environment that encourages and enables people of all
backgrounds to pursue the opportunities that Christianity offers. Witholding this upgrade can be compared to
the removal of ad spaces via television, billboard, internet, and radio. Any business entity needs to
communiCate with its audjence?
You let us build a multi-million dollar church and yet squabble over a sign. LOL
Please allow this sign so more people can benefit from all that Wave church has to offer our community.
This would be a GREAT addition to the beautiful building and will also be an eye catcher to help grab people
and may help to attract them to WAVE,
I support Wave Church in their request to erect a church sign on their church property, Thank you.
The council stresses th~ importance of beautlfylng the City. Please allow Wave Church to replace the
present aged sign with a beautiful new sign that will compliment the state-of-the-art,beautiful architecture,
I see new LED signs being put up all the time at hospitals, churches, Schools and Fast Foods, There are
signs at a Church and School one block apart on busy Virginia Beach Blvd, I dare say VA. Beach Blvd is
much busier than Great neck Road
~
Karen Prochilo
\ 16fl11 +t ( @>
~rom:
dent:
To:
Subject:
Phry@aol.com
Tuesday, July 07, 2009 3:14 PM
Karen Prochilo
Planning Commission Mtg 7/8/09 Ref Wave Church LED sign
Karen,
I just left a voice mail for you on the Plan. Com. line. Basically we wanted to add two additional conditions to the LED
sign:
1) Prohibit "running" lights around or through the sign. Prevent the church from making the sign look like a Las Vegas
stile display.
2) Color: On the black background, limit the number of available colors to one, Amber. If only one color is
disapproved; can we requE,st a maximum of three colors, Amber, Blue and Green. Any color would be acceptable except
RED,
I would like to speak before the Planning Commission in opposition to the LED sign. I plan to emphasize traffic safety
at the intersection, concern for the further propagation of LED signs along Great Neck Road and request that an LED sign
NOT be placed within a re~;idential neighborhood.
VIR
Jim Fry
Michael's Glen
3ummer concert season is here! Find your favorite artists on tour at TourTracker.com.
1
II III
Karen Prochilo
~rom:
dent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Berrios, Erica E CIV USFF, N021C [erica.berrios@navy.mil]
Tuesday, July 07,200910:00 AM
sailracer@verizon.net; Karen Prochilo
Phry@aol.com
RE: Wave Church Mtg 7/6/09 @ Fry's <Michael's Glen>
09 @ Fry's <Michael's Glen> (10.5 KB)
Chuck and Karen,
I had noticed that Southern Points is not overly represented, but I wanted to be sure that
you are aware that this community also does not support the new LED sign at the Wave Church.
Attached is an email that I had sent to Jim Fry this morning, this email is a personal email
from me and does not formally represent my neighborhood. However, I feel confident in saying
that they agree with my thoughts.
Thank you.
>Very Respectfully,
>Erica E Berrios
>Business Planning & Communication Specialist
>Office of the Executive Director & Chief of Staff
>Strategic Planning & Enterprise Management, N821C
>Office: 757.836.691e
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Steenburgh [mailto:sailracen@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 87, 2889 8:29
To: Karen Prochilo
Subject: RE: Wave Church Mtg 7/6/89 @ Fry's <Michael's Glen>
Karen:
As indicated in Jim Fry's email of last night, the communities in the Great Neck Road
corridor still have concerns regarding the Wave Church (18e8 North Great Neck Road, LLC)
request to modify its Conditional Use Permit to allow an oversized LED sign and illuminated
church-mounted sign.
At Wednesday's hearing, Mr. Fry will represent several c~v~c leagues and over 1488 signers of
the petition we originally posted online before the April 8 Planning Commission hearing.
Although we are resigned to the expected approval of the sign by the Commission, Mr. Fry will
emphasize those conditions we request be attached, including those already in your excellent
report.
Because we do not know if the commissioners have viewed our petition on line, we also ask
that you append the attached text file to your report, or make it available to the
1
commissioners at the informal briefing, so that they get a sense of the community's thoughts
and feelings about LED signs in general and this sign in particular.
Thank you for your assistance to us, both now and in the past.
Very respectfully,
Chuck Steen burgh
sailracer~verizon.net <mailto:sailracer~verizon.net>
757-481-5741
2
II II'
Karen Prochilo
":rom:
dent:
To:
Subject:
Berrios, Erica E CIV USFF, N021C [erica.berrios@navy.mil]
Tuesday, July 07, 20099:11 AM
Phry@aol.com
RE: Wave Church Mtg 7/6/09 @ Fry's <Michael's Glen>
Jim,
My name is Erica Berrios and I live in Southern Points. A co-worker of mine sent me the
below email concerning the LED sign at the Wave Church. I came to this area as a Sailor and
after leaving the military decided to make it my home. I have been here for about 10 years
and have finally reached my dream of owning a home in the Great Neck area. My home is
located directly across from the church and although I have a fence, it is visible from my
back yard.
The thought of being able to see a LED sign from my backyard is incredibly concerning to me.
I moved to Great Neck from Shore Drive last September and while the church was there, this
Las Vegas style sign was not. I would be wary of the presidency that this would set for more
LED signs to be ushered in. I noticed that the church is proposing "multiple colors", I just
have the gut feeling than that they are trying to make this sign out to be less than it
actually will be. Great Neck is a community setting, if they wanted this style of
advertisement and need such visibility, then they should have build on Virginia Beach Blvd,
not North Great Neck Road. This church is a business, bottom line. I was a business
administration/marketing major in college, and I can promise you, they will not stop here.
Business is Business, and while they are operating under the name of "church", they are a
wealthy organization who has no plans to stop growing. I know I am a bit late to the
game, and I only wish that I could have possibly done something to stop the huge lights that
will be going up, I can't wait to watch those from my porch at night, but let that be an
example that they are used to getting exactly what they want and will continue to push for
more. First the huge building, clearing of land, lights, signs....it will go on and on.
Shoot, I can barely get in and out of my neighborhood on Sundays and have to plan all outings
around their church schedule!
Additionally, I have 3 small children that play in the neighborhood and I routinely hear
accidents on that corner and have serious safety concerns over this sign. I moved to Great
Neck for the non-commercialized setting, great schools and the safe surroundings that it
offers my children. For this church to try to turn our neighborhood into a high visibility
tourist attraction is upsetting to me and many of my neighbors. There are enough
distractions to drivers today without additional things being put up. With the amount of
people running and biking on those roads this would just add to the danger that they already
face.
I am wondering if there is plan to have a large showing of community support for the
disapproval of this sign by the board. While it would be a long haul from work, I would be
willing to lend my face for this. Please let me know if additional support is needed.
Thank you so much for leading this very important effort.
>Very Respectfully,
>Erica E Berrios
>Business Planning & Communication Specialist
>Office of the Executive Director & Chief of Staff
>Strategic Planning & Enterprise Management, N021C
>Office: 757.836.6910
1
- --:.. -Original Messag,~- - - --
From: Phry@aol. com [mail to: Phry@aol. com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 137, 2009 0: 52
-0: franzitta@cox.netj president@laurelcove.org; SpecialKay@aol.comj wsmith12@cox.net;
sailracen@verizon.netj tvillers@cox.netj popsfour@cox.net; Senchova@aol.comj
Loren.Heckelman@cox.net
Cc: anthony.franzitta@ddlomni.comj hroesen@cox.netj sinbad77@verizon.netj
rmichelini@verizon.nl~tj johnson67@cox.netj findjolson@hotmail.com; john.otoole@hotmail.com;
kprochil@vbgov.comj karen.ulsh@gmail.com; McFadden, Pat A (IV USFF, N44; Brandy1048@aol.com;
paulmurdock10e@hotma:il.com; steve.kelly@Wavechurch.com; sdl@lawlsb.comj
seth. mizelle@wavechul~ch. com
Subject: Wave Church Mtg 7/6/09 @ Fry's <Michael's Glen>
Greeting;
July 6, 2009
Thanks for all thl! participants in tonight's meeting. We had four Civic Leagues
represented in the ml!eting with Steve Lentz and Seth Mizelle of Wave Church. The
participants included:
Lisa Hoesen,
Brandy Fry,
Hal Hamberg,
Michal!l White,
Ray Michelini,
Chuck Steenburgh,
Michael's Glen
Michael's Glen
River Haven
Laurel Cove
Great Neck Meadows
Great Neck Meadows
Information on the proposed LED sign included:
Hieght:
Will be limited to 8 feet above ground level
LED display:
Will be 42.7 sq-ft, (approximately 6' x 7' )
Display:
Will use letters, numbers and graphics, NO video; NO audio.
Message change limited to no faster than 8 sec.
NO "flashing displays"
Sign will use a photo sensing auto dimmer,
Sign will have a black background and use multiple colors.
LOCation: The plan is to move the sign from the current location to North on
Great Neck near the start of the turn lane.
Additional Si.gns: One additional non- LED sign will be authorized for the Old
Donation entrance. Note: Two 24 sq-ft LED signs are currently being installed at church
entrancesj one on Gre!at Neck and one on Old Donation. The church committed to move the signs
to the alternate chur'ch location if the large marquee sign is authorized.
The staff report on the Wave Church sign recommends approval with comment to the
Planning Commission. The proposal must then go to the City Council. The staff report may be
viewed on the Planning Com web site:
http://www.vbgov.com <http://www.vbgov.com/>
A few of the ar'eas that remain of concern are the safety related issues at the Great
Neck and Old Donation intersection; the new president now set by the Wave church large LED
sign and the potential propagation of LED signs at other churches and establishments along
Great Neck.
2
'I
I still plan to attend the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, 7/8/e9. If you
have any additional comment, sent an e-mail and I will bring them up during the meeting.
Very respectfully,
Jim Fry
Summer concert season is here! Find your favorite artists on tour at TourTracker.com
<http://www.tourtracker.com/?ncid=emlcntusmusieeeeeee6> .
3
Karen Prochilo
Subject:
Attachments:
Chuck Steenburgh [sailracer@verizon.net]
Tuesday, July 07, 20098:29 AM
Karen Prochilo
Phry@aol.com; franzitta@cox,net; president@laurelcove.org; Specia1 Kay@aol.com;
wsmith12@cox.net; tvillers@cox,net; popsfour@cox,net; Senchova@aol.com;
Loren,Heckelman@cox.net; anthonyJranzitta@ddlomnLcom; hroesen@cox.net; sinbad77
@verizon.net; rm ichelini@verizon.net; johnson67@cox.net; findjolson@hotmail.com;
john.otoole@hotmail.com; karen.ulsh@gmail.com; patricia.mcfadden@navy.mil; Brandy1048
@aol.com; paulmurdock100@hotmail.com; steve.kelly@wavechurch.com; sdl@lawlsb.com;
seth ,mizelle@wavechurch.com
RE: Wave Church Mtg 7/6/09 @ Fry's <Michael's Glen>
090706 Wave Church Sign Comments.txt
\:rom:
dent:
To:
Cc:
Karen:
As indicated in Jim Fry's email of last night, the communities in the Great Neck Road corridor still have concerns
regarding the Wave Churc11(1000 North Great Neck Road, LLC) request to modify its Conditional Use Permit to allow an
oversized LED sign and illuminated church-mounted sign.
At Wednesday's hearing, Mr. Fry will represent several civic leagues and over 1400 signers of the petition we originally
posted online before the April 8 Planning Commission hearing. Although we are resigned to the expected approval of the
sign by the Commission, Mr. Fry will emphasize those conditions we request be attached, including those already in your
excellent report.
Because we do not know if the commissioners have viewed our petition on line, we also ask that you append the attached
text file to your report, or make it available to the commissioners at the informal briefing, so that they get a sense of the
community's thoughts and feelings about LED signs in general and this sign in particular.
Thank you for your assistance to us, both now and in the past.
Very respectfully,
Chuck Steenburgh
sailracer@verizon.net
757-481-5741
1
II III
090706 wave Church sign Comments.txt
The comments below were posted to an online petition against the LED sign proposed
by 1000 N. Great Neck Road, LLC (wave Church). Although most of the 1,430 signers
live in the Great Neck Road corridor, citizens from throughout the city have
expressed their dismay at the proliferation of LED signs 1n general, and the
inappropriateness of this particular sign in a residential neighborhood.
As a teacher at Trantwood and a "frequent flier" on N. Great Neck Rd., please,
please save our community from this commercial piece of trashy advertising for one
of the most successful churches in the area.
Residential neighborhoods should not be lit up like Las vegas.
it's not necessary - it's a church not a commercial shop
This is virginia Beach, not vegas! The proposed sign cheapens the advertiser, the
neighborhood and the entire community.
It is such a nice church. I think it would be awful to have that bright sign up.
why in the world would they want to trash up our neighborhood.
Not only is this a safety issue with regards to traffic but it detracts from this
surburban setting. This would definitely not add to the BEAUTIFICATION of our city.
Dangerous, ugly, would establish a precident..
such a sign would not only be a eyesore in a very residential neighborhood but would
serve to be the elephants trunk in the tent for the whole area.
Tno5e wno do not live in the Gr@at N@ck area and whose neighborhood is therefore not
affected by the circus atmosphere such a sign would create, should not be allowed to
have their wishes supercede those of the people who live here and who have been here
far lon~er than the wave church.Their illegal use of the helicopter is another
indicat10n that they do not care about the surrounding neighborhoods.
Many, if not most of the pro-sign pet1t10ners supporting the "vegas" style sign in
front of the wave church do not live in the immediate area where this advertizing
sign is to be erected. This sign is an absolute abomination as far as my wife and I
are concerned. This church and it's pastor are not good neighbors. This proposed
sign is just one more indication of this organization trying to flout city laws.
virginia Beach does not need to become the next Las vegas!
please say no to this BAD idea--we are not the vegas strip
(several more comments along these same lines)
we enjoy a nice skyline and flashing neon lights in areas supporting residential
uses 1S not compatible
please do not permit an LED sign that displays numerous messages and times. This is
a definite hazard to people traveling on great neck rd. The intersection of Great
Neck and Old Donation already experiences TOO many accidents. children and adults
walking or riding on the sidewalk already have to be wary of the cars traveling at
or above the speed limit, cars taking uturns as they exit the church, vehicles which
~on't give pedestrians the right of way as they leave the church. The WAVE church
has chosen to locate itself w1thin a residential district and even if the members of
that church live within the neighborhoods of that district they should consider that
people purchased homes here in Great Neck because it is an attractive community. I
wish the WAVE church would consider the community and the future effects of its
decision in its design of the sign. Is the church trying to notify their members of
announcements - if so that is why they have websites & announcements during
services.
sorry that is just to large of a sign, please be good neighbors and do not construct
page 1
090706 Wave Church sign Comments.txt
a sign that large. I understand getting the message out there, but you don't have to
be grandiose with everything.
A sign that size is not needed on that location. It would detract from the
nei!;lhborhood. while Cox HS may have an LED sign, it is not the size that Wave is
asklng for and v~ith the brick surround and monochrome lettering, it is not an
eyesore. The building is enough to attract attention without the sign.
Let's not make Great Neck Rd. look like the car dealerships along va. Beach Blvd.
oh please, no!!
Let this happen, then it sets the stage at their next location that is in the
"country" site. NO changes!
NO to any kind of LED sign - this i s a neighborhood not a supermarket advertising
sales. It is God's house and should act like it.
The LED signage would add to the eyesore we already pass every day. We should also
be concerned with the safety hazard created by its distraction at an intersection
that is already busy and dangerous.
OMG, what do the~y need a si gn that fri gg I n bi g for!? You can't mi ss the pl ace as it
is, it's like having the pavilion in our neighborhood already.
LED lights are considerably more intrusive than regular signage. I am concerned with
the display size, distraction of drivers, etc.
These electronic signs are ugly and I an appaled to see them popping up allover
vi I"!ri na Beacn
There are enough accidents on Great Neck Road a"ready. To allow a large flashing
sign on that corner would recklessly further endanger drivers.
illuminated signs are no longer considered tasteful at the oceanfront and they sure
as heck are not tasteful in a residential area!
That church is large enough and should never have been allowed to be built there. A
sign that large and bright will detract from the neighborhoods surrounding it.
That property is not in a commercial area. It is in good neighborhoods that don't
want the signage
I think all of our signs should be smaller and less obtrusive than they even are
currently
This should never be allowed in a residential area
NO,NO, NO. A sign of this type is totally inappropriate for the neighborhood. The
Church has a sign. One of this magnitude and type does not belong in this
neighborhood or at the corner where children cross the street to go to elementary
school. Do not permit this sign to go up in Great Neck. Confine these signs to
business areas.
please, we dont need a year long carnival.
This is a Church not a shopping center
places of worship shouldn't look like a retail center with lit signs.
(several other comments along these lines)
will set a negative and unsightly precedent
We don't need a big flashing sign in our eyes. It will NOT be the same as Lynnhaven
page 2
'I "I
090706 Wave church sign Comments.txt
and cox's;they are small, one color, and not flashing.
A definite no. A huge LED sign is tacky, intrusive and inappropriate for this
residential area. The place looks like a convention center already and the proposed
sign will complete the look. I am certain that their members know where the church
is located - a sign is not necessary.
The church has been allowed to grow way too big for the neighborhood. It is an
eyeso~e and does not belong in this small neighborhood. Better off near or in a
shoPP1ng center.
No, NO, No. ...these sign modifications are inappropriate for the Great Neck Corridor
Keeping signs that fit in the community. The sign they are requesting is much too
large for our neighborhoods. The parking lot lights are even too much for my likes.
This church is located in a residential area, and should therefore be regulated by
residential guidelines. Large, LED signs have no place in these neighborhoods. With
all due respect, large LED signs posted on the property and/or on the building,
which occupies the corner of Great Neck Road and Old Donation parkway should not be
necessary to insure church attendance. These type of signs would be more suited to a
downtown, congested, commercial city area where they may be required to draw
attention to a building. Most people have been able to locate and embrace their
chosen churches without large, LED si9ns. It's not the size or the flashing lights
of a sign that brings in the flock - 1t is usually what happens inside the church
that leads people to the Lord. suggestion: perhaps large LED signs posted in the
neighborhoods of supporters living in other areas would help to direct new prospects
since most people in this neighborhood have no problem locating the building.
An LED si~n is dangerous to the many elderly (and youthful drivers) driving down
Great Neck Road. The super bright lights are a hazard and do not fit the beauty of
the Great Neck corridor. It is tacky and unsafe. No to any LED sign.
I would be able to see this from my yard....YUK!!! please don't let this happen!!!
(southern points resident)
signs of this nature are not consistant with a residential neighborhood
The LED sign would be a great distraction at an already dangerous intersection.
I see no reason why a large sign, at variance with the existing requirements, should
be necessary, and I think it would be a dangerous distraction and an impediment to
traffic.
This area is subdivisions not business section, or a broadway production. I live
across the street and they are obnoxious enough already. I DO NOT WANT THAT towering
outside my window. They are stepping allover their neighbors.
(southern points resident)
I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT THIS EXPANSION OF THE WAVE CONVENTION CENTER. WE ARE IN A
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND WAVE CHURCH IS GETTING WAY OUT OF HAND. STOP IT NOW.
The church has disrupted the once quiet of the neighborhoods around it.
This is a" church among a quiet community. I do not want a large neon sign near my
home. The existing sign has accomplished adequate advertising.
unsightly and dangerous distraction to vehicle traffic particularly in this high
volume school area
circus Circus
Currrent intersection is already crowded on sunday mornings with Wave church members
page 3
090706 Wave church sign Comments.txt
operating signal lights giving exiting members preferential treatment and holding up
general traffic on Great Neck Rd. The addition would be an eye sore to the area, go
against current city codes that buisnesses in the area seem to be able to adhere to
and finally would make the intersection more prone to accidents.
(Note: VB police actually operate the traffic light at old Donation/Inlynnview and
N. GN Roads. But there is no denying that traffic is badly backed up when they do!)
We have ~iven and given to this "commercial interest" it's time that they learn to
comply w1th sign and other building regulations just as we do.
enough already; the new building is enough of a monstrosity.
The planned size and visual dynamics of the intersection sign is an unsafe
distraction for the major roadway. A church or worship center does not need that
large of a sign to keep attendees informed. It would be like having a billboard on
Great Neck Rd. If you approve this, there will be many more requests to follow.
This church is located in an neighborhood. They already overwhelm the roads when
their services are letting out. They also have distrupted traffic patterns and their
members have driven on the medians, etc. The area is surrounded by private homes and
a neon sign is not appropriate for that area.
Enough is Enough. IS it a church or a convention center?????
(several similar comments)
LED Billboard! Lets try to maintain some decency and class. Happy for their success,
but come on.
VB zoning- Resdential R 2.5 and above should have a decent buffer (preferably woods
or park) from ~o~merc;al zones- STOP GIVING THE BUFFER AWAY! ! ! !
This property has already exceeded what should be at this residential intersection.
please, not one nore light or expansion of any kind. It is already too bright, loud
and disruptive.
This is a primary residential area. Our nei~hborhood is already impacted with
increased traffic at this intersection. A s1gn of this nature would be a distraction
to drivers and would impact the surrounding homes. As it is now, we are impacted by
noise and less than considerate drivers from this facility. This sign would not be
an asset to this community.
unbelieveable. ..this sign will make us look like a carnival
(several more comments on the carnival theme)
I serve in EMS, signs of this type at intersections are major distractions and can
serve as a contributing factor leading to accidents.
page 4
II "I
Karen Prochilo
Cc:
Phry@aol.com
Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:52 AM
franzitta@cox.net; president@laurelcove.org; Specia1 Kay@aol.com; wsmith12@cox.net;
sailracer@verizon.net; tvillers@cox.net; popsfour@cox,net; Senchova@aol.com;
Loren ,Heckelman@cox.net
anthony.franzitta@ddlomni,com; hroesen@cox.net; sinbad77@verizon.net;
rm ichelini@verizon.net; johnson67@cox.net; findjolson@hotmail.com;
john.otoole@hotmail.com; Karen Prochilo; karen.ulsh@gmail.com;
patricia.mcfadden@navy,mil; Brandy1048@aol.com; paulmurdock100@hotmail.com;
steve.kelly@wavechurch.com; sdl@lawlsb.com; seth .mizelle@wavechurch.com
Wave Church Mtg 7/6/09 @ Fry's <Michael's Glen>
From:
3ent:
To:
Subject:
Greeting;
July 6, 2009
Thanks for all the participants in tonight's meeting. We had four Civic Leagues represented in the meeting with Steve
Lentz and Seth Mizelle of Wave Church. The participants included:
Lisa Roesen, Michael's Glen
Brandy Fry, Michael's Glen
Hal Hamberg, River Haven
Michael White, Laurel Cove
Ray Michelini, Great Neck Meadows
Chuck Steenburgh, Great Neck Meadows
Information on the proposed LED sign included:
Hieaht:
Will be limited to 8 feet above ground level
LED display: Will be 42.7 sq-ft, (approximately 6' x 7' )
Display:
Will use letters, numbers and graphics, NO video; NO audio.
Message change limited to no faster than 8 sec.
NO ''flashing displays"
Sign will use a photo sensing auto dimmer,
Sign will have a black background and use multiple colors,
Location:
turn lane,
The plan is to move the sign from the current location to North on Great Neck near the start of the
Additional Sians: One additional non-LED sign will be authorized for the Old Donation entrance. Note: Two 24
sq-ft LED signs are currently being installed at church entrances; one on Great Neck and one on Old Donation. The
church committed to move the signs to the alternate church location if the large marquee sign is authorized.
The staff report on the Wave Church sign recommends approval with comment to the Planning Commission. The
proposal must then go to the City Council. The staff report may be viewed on the Planning Com web site:
, htto://www.vbQov.com
A few of the areas that remain of concern are the safety related issues at the Great Neck and Old Donation
intersection; the new president now set by the Wave church large lED sign and the potential propagation of LED signs at
other churches and establishments along Great Neck.
I still plan to attend the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, 7/8/09. If you have any additional comment,
sent an e-mail and I will bring them up during the meeting.
(
Very respectfully,
Jim Fry
1
Summer concert season is here! Find your favorite artists on tour at TourTracker.com,
2
II III
I.
Karen Prochilo
I
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Carolyn Jones Uonesc1029@cox.net]
Monday, July 06, 200911:10 PM
Karen Prochilo
planningcommission meeting Wed July 9,
HI KARENJ THIS IS CAROLYN JONESJ 921 MARSHALL CIRCLEJ VA. BEACHJ VA. I AM WRITING ABOUT
THE CHURCH SIGN WHICH I AM SURE THAT IS WHAT THIS MEETING IS ABOUT.
PLEASEJ PLEASE STRESS TO ALL INVOLVED THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH WRECKS AT THIS STOP LIGHT AS IT IS.
IT WOULD BE SUCH A HAZARD TO HAVE A NEON SIGN AT THIS CORNER. OUR HOUSE BACKS UP TO OLD
DONATION PARKWAY. WE HAVE ON MANY OCCASIONS GONE OUT OUR BACK FENCE TO HELP THOSE WHO HAVE
BEEN INVOLVED IN ACCIDENTS. WE HAVE TAKEN IN PEOPLE IN THE COLDJ OFFERED CHAIRS TO THE
ELDERLYJ BLANKETS TO THOSE INJUREDJ ETC UNTIL THE POLICE COULD GET TO THE SCENE.
I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT WITH A SIGN THAT IS EITHER BLINKINGJ SCROLLING J OR BRIGHTLY COLORED
WOULD CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS WITH THE TRAFFIC. GREAT NECK RD. IS ONE OF THE WORST ACCIDENT
ROADS IN THIS AREA ESPECIALLY WHEN IT RAINS.. IF ANYONE WOULD TAKE THE TIME TO SEARCH THE
POLICE/ACCIDENT RECORDS THEY WOULD SEE HOW TRUE THIS IS.
HOWEVERJ NOT QUITE AS IMPORTANT AS THE ACCIDENTS IT WOULD CAUSEJ BUT IT WOULD ALSO BE A
NUSIANCE TO THOSE OF US WHO WOULD SEE THAT SIGN BLINKING NIGHTLY. OUR FAMILY ROOM/PATIO
BACKS UP TO THE CHURCH AND WE ARE INUNDATED WITH LOUD MUSICJ IMPOSSIBLE TRAFFICJ KIDS BLOWING
THEIR CAR HORNS LATE INTO THE NIGHT AS IT IS NOW J PLUS THE LIGHTS FROM THE TOP OF THE
CHURCH SHINE CONSTANTLY. THAT IS QUITE ENOUGH LIGHT FOR ALL OF US TO INDURE.
THIS CHURCH SHOULD BE EITHER AT PEMBROKE OR SOME OTHER COMMERCIAL SETTING. ( NOT IN A QUIET
RESIDENTIAL ZONE. ) IT DOESN'T EVEN RESEMBLE A CHURCH AND I HAVE HEARD THAT THEY WON'T PUT
A STEEPLE ON IT LIKE MOST CHURCHES HAVE IN ORDER TO SHOW WHAT IT REALLY STANDS FOR. IT
LOOKS LIKE A STADIUM/COLISEUM
I HAVE VISITED THIS CHURCH JUST TO SEE WHAT IT IS ABOUTJ IT ISJ IN MY OPINION TEEN ORIENTED-
RECREATIONAL FOR THE MOST PART WHICH IS FINE AND I AM SURE THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT TO
ADVERTISE WITH THIS SIGN...THE UPCOMING ACTIVITIESJ ETC. IT DOES SPEAK OF SOME RELIGION ON A
INTER-DENOMINATIONAL LEVEL BUT IT IS GETTING TOO COMMERCIAL (IN MY OPINION).
WHEN THE FIRST PLANNING ZONE TO REBUILD THE CHURCH WAS SUBMITTEDJ WE WERE ALL FOR IT AS THE
SOUND OF CHILDREN'S LAUGHTER IS AWESOME BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT ANY OF US EXPECTED. YESJ THERE
ARE TEENAGE ACTIVITIES WHICH WE DON'T MINDJ BUT THAT AREA COULD ALSO BE IMPROVED ON. THE
BACK SIDE OF THE CHURCH FACES A GRAVE SITE THAT THE CHILDREN/TEENAGERS COULD PLAY THEIR MUSIC
AND POINT THE LIGHTS THAT WAY WHICH WOULD BE MUCH BETTER FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
WELLJ I APPRECIATE YOU LETTING ME VENT ON THE SUBJECT OF THE SIGNJ WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH. WE
DO NOT LIVE IN LAS VEGAS. THIS IS NOT AN AREA TO BE ZONED FOR SUCH LIGHTINGJ LOUD MUSIC AND
BLINKINGJSCROLLING SIGNS OR EXTREME TRAFFIC ON SUNDAY NIGHT AND WEDNESDAY NIGHT. LIKE I
SAIDJ WE ARE WITNESS TO TOO MANY ACCIDENTS AS IT IS. THIS SIGN WOULD TRULY BE A HAZARD TO
TRAFFICJ RESPECTFUL NEIGHBORHOODS AND THOSE OF US WHO HAVE TO CONTEND WITH ALL OF THE ABOVE.
THANKS AGAIN KAREN
I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT ON THESE MATTERS.
( SINCERelY PERPLEXED
CAROLYN JONES
1
OCEANA CHURCH OF CHRIST
Oceana Church 0 Christ
R-20
>75 dB Ldn
70-75 dB Ldn
000 c=:b=
(:1l1li
b
~
R-20
CUP for Religious Use
Relevant Information:
· Beach District
. The alpplicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a religious
facility to operate in one of the units of an existing retail strip center.
. Churl::h congregation consists of eight to ten members. Parking on
the site is adequate.
Evaluation and Recommendation:
· Planning Staff recommended approval
. Planning Commission recommends approval (11-0)
· TherEl was no opposition.
· Consent agenda.
II I
I:
II III I
I
r$~~:r.'.' '.~'.~'~~
~ '" t~\~
\:...." . iJ
~..."" "~..,..
~~~.r
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: OCEANA CHURCH OF CHRIST I MONARCH PROPERTIES, INC.,
Conditional Use Permit, church, 1789 London Bridge Road. BEACH DISTRICT.
MEETING DATE: August 11,2009
. Background:
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a church in one of the
units of an existing retail strip center.
. Considerations:
The applicant will lease a 1,250 square foot suite within a retail building of
approximately 10,000 square feet. Hours of operation are Sunday, from 9:00
a.m. to 1.2:00 noon and 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Wednesday night service is from
7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. On average, the church congregation consists of 8 to 10
members.
No exterior modifications are planned, except for the replacement of the existing
signage face. The new sign face will identify the church. The Zoning Ordinance
requires two parking spaces for a church with 10 seats. The site plan depicts 49
spaces in this center. Based on the fact that the proposed church has peak
operational hours different from traditional business hours, staff finds that the
site's 49 on-site parking spaces are sufficient for this use and the other
commercial uses in the center.
There was no opposition to this request.
. Recommendations:
The Planning Commission placed this item on the Consent Agenda, passing a
motion by a recorded vote of 11-0, to recommend approval to the City Council
with the following conditions:
1. The number of individuals attending anyone (1) service shall not exceed the
occupancy number established by the City's Fire Marshall.
2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and inspections from the
Planning Department / Permits and Inspections Division and the Fire
, I
OCEANA CHUHCH OF CHRIST
Page 2 of 2
Dep.9rtment. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the
change of use from the Building Official.
3. This Conditional Use Permit is valid for three (3) years.
. Attachments:
Staff Review and Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map and Summary
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department I 1 ~--/
cityManager~~Y- ~M. V
II I
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit (religious use)
II III I
3
July 8, 2009 Public Hearing
APPLICANT:
OCEANA CHURCH
OF CHRIST
PROPERTY OWNER:
MONARCH
PROPERTIES, INC
STAFF PLANNER: Leslie Bonilla
ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: 1789 London Bridge Road, Suite 105
GPIN:
24050450810000
ELECTION DISTRICT:
BEACH
SITE SIZE:
0.991 acre site
1,2.50 s.f. lease space
AICUZ:
70 to 75 dB DNL
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
church in one of the units of an existing retail strip center. The applicant will lease a 1,250 square foot
suite within a retail building of approximately 10,000 square feet. Hours of operation are Sunday, from
9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Wednesday night service is from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00
p.m. On average, the church congregation consists of 8 to 10 members.
No exterior modifications are planned, except for the replacement of the existing signage face. The new
sign face will identify the church as being located within the facility.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: Retail strip center
SURROUNDING LAND
USE AND ZONING:
North:
South:
. Retail shops / B-1A Limited Community Business District
. Single-family dwellings I R-7.5 Residential District
. Retail shops / B-1 Neighborhood Business District
OCEANA CHURCH OF CHRIST
Agenda Item 3
Page 1
, I
East:
. London Bridge Road
. Across London Bridge Road are single-family dwellings I R-20
Residential District
. Single-family dwellings I R-10 Residential District
West:
NATURAL RI:SOURCE AND
CULTURAL FEATURES:
There are no known significant natural resources or cultural features
associated with this site.
IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES
MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): London Bridge
Road is a four-lane minor suburban arterial in front of this application site. This segment of London Bridge
Road is shown on the Master Transportation Plan map as a divided roadway with a bicycle path in a 100-foot
wide right-of-way.
Dam Neck Road is a four-lane major suburban arterial, with this segment shown on the Master Transportation
Plan map as ;:1 parkway in a 165-foot wide right-of-way.
TRAFFIC: I Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic
Volume
London Bridge 23,200 ADT 1 30,600 ADT 1 (Level of Existing Land Use ;t - 55
. Road Service "0") - ADT weekdays, 26 ADT
I 29,700 ADT 1 34,900 ADT 1 (Level of Sundays
Dam Neck Road Proposed Land Use 3 - 11
Service "0") - ADT weekdays, 16 ADT
Sundays
, Average Daily Trips
2 as defined by 1,250 square feet of retail
3 as defined bv 1,250 SQuare feet of church
WATER: This site currently connects to City water.
SEWER: This site currently connects to City sanitary sewer.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this
request with the conditions below.
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Comprehensh,e Plan:
The ComprehE!nsive Plan designates this area as part of the Primary Residential Area. The land use
planning polici4:!s 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.
OCEANA CHURCH OF CHRIST
Agenda Item 3
Page 2
II I
I:
II III I
1
i
Evaluation:
The proposed church use is compatible to the other commercial uses within the retail center and will not
negatively impact any neighboring properties. The Zoning Ordinance requires two (2) parking spaces for
a church with 10 seats. The site plan depicts 49 spaces in this center. Based on the fact that the
proposed church has peak operational hours different from traditional business hours, staff finds that the
site's 49 on-site parking spaces are sufficient for this use and the other commercial uses in the center.
Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request with the conditions provided below.
CONDITION
1. The number of individuals attending anyone (1) service shall not exceed the occupancy number
established by the City's Fire Marshall.
2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and inspections from the Planning Department /
Permits and Inspections Division and the Fire Department. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of
Occupancy for the change of use from the Building Official.
3. This Conditional Use Permit is valid for three (3) years.
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.
OCEANA CHURCH OF CHRIST
Agenda Item 3
Page 3
AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION
OCEANA CHURCH OF CHRIS1
Agenda \tem 3
Page 4
\\
j
l
t
i
\\
~
..
..
,
...
-
, '
...... ......
......
_ __ JJt ~.",.,.
__ ~ j,'t jittIt' 1l11Jlt
".
............
t
i.
r:.......-----r-~
\
SftE pl.AN
OCE/l.N/I. CHURCH Of cHRI~
p..genda \tet1
pa9
."" 'tf . "'"
,j,'
;1
PHOTOGRA.PH OF BUILDING
OCEANA CHURCH OF CHRlS1
Agenda \tem 3
page 6
II I
I'
II III I
Oceana Church 0 Christ
R-20
>75 dB Ldn
70-75 dB Ldn
CJC:::Jo c::::b=
dllD
b
t;)
R-20
# DATE DESCRIPTION ACTION
1 10-24-00 Zoning Change (B-1 to Conditional B-1A) Granted
2 6-14-98 Street Closure Granted
3 3-25-97 Zoning Change (B-1 to Conditional B-2) Granted
3-25-97 Conditional Use Permit (automotive service station & car wash) Granted
4 1-26-99 Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use Withdrawn
ZONING HISTORY
OCEANA CHURCH OF CHRIST
Agenda Item 3
Page 7
II DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
II
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)
Ocea",,; Chu...J" of Ch,,;fi,f '-/ T,t.(6 f~C5 bt::. ItJw ;
Tovn l!;,,(. k~v I' ROd.-fc) R~7/~1c..., ~'" G. II ""'it"',. 6c,,? L71'1V1
2, List all husinesses that have a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entitf
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
NIl!
.
o Check here if th~ 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 prOpE!rty owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other
unincorpori:lted organization, complete the following:
1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members,
trustee~., partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary)
fv{o~l2.~ ~(es. ~.
OWj,1e'vS:
(viA"" .:s", ~u... W'U,.JAM g. ~ ~/(!1.. \N. Spe tE#T
'~6,q.~t . $cc./ n-_... IJ,,~ p".,.s;.).,f
2, List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entity2
relation:)hip with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
N/A
o CheGk here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm,
busil1ess, or other unincorporated organization.
1 & 2 See nelct page for footnotes
Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the
subject lancl? Yes _ No ....l5.......
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 71312007
z
o
I .
~
~
I I
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
CI:J
~
~
o
I I
~
I I
~
Z
o
c ~
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
OCEANA CHURCH OF CHRIST
Agenda Item 3
Page 8
II I
I,
z
o
I I
~
U
I I
..-:I
~
ea
f--4
~
~
~
~
CI':)
p
~
o
I I
f--4
I I
~
Z
o
u
II
III I
II
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT II
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)
N / ,A
1 "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one
corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting
power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va.
Code ~ 2,2-3101.
2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent-
subsidiary relationship. that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership
interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling
owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business
entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated
business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person
own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the
business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities,
resources or personnel on a regular basis: or there is otherwise a close working relationship
between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act. Va, Code ~
2.2-3101
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 hotograph and view the site for purposes of'processing and evaluating this application.
G"y J, LyVJV\
Print Name
~~:r: .J. MA;-~~
P
CondItional Use Permrt Apphcalton
Page 10of10
Revised 7/3/2007
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
OCEANA CHURCH OF CHRIST
Agenda Item 3
Page 9
Item #3
Oceana Church of Christ
Conditional Use Permit
1789 London Bridge Road
District 6
Beach
July 8, 2009
CONSENT
Joseph Strange: The matter is agenda item 3. It is an application of Ocean a Church of Christ for
a Conditional Use Permit for a church on property located at 1789 London Bridge Road, District
6 at the Beach, with two (2) conditions.
Janice Anderson: Welcome.
Gary Lynn: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Gary Lynn. I am a member and a trustee
of the Oceana Church of Christ, and all conditions are acceptable.
Joseph Strange: Alright. Thank you very much. Is there any opposition to this matter being
placed on the consent agenda? Ifnot, the Chairman has asked Jay Bernas to review this item.
Jay Bernas: Thank you. This applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a church in
one of the units of an existing retail strip center. The congregation consists of 8 to 10 members
and no exterior modifications are planned. There is ample parking and there are no objections
from surrounding property owners. Therefore, the Planning Commission has placed this on the
consent agenda for approval.
Joseph Strange: Thank you Jay. Madame Chairman, I make a motion to approve agenda item 3.
Janice Anderson: A motion by Joe Strange and a second by Kathy Katsias.
AYE 11
NAYO
ABSO
AB SENT 0
ANDERSON AYE
BERNAS AYE
CRABTREE AYE
HENLEY AYE
HORSLEY AYE
KATSIAS AYE
LIVAS AYE
REDMOND AYE
RiPLEY AYE
RUSSO AYE
STRANGE AYE
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 3 for consent.
NEPTUINE FITNESS
Relevant Information:
· Princess Anne District
· The applicant requests a Use Permit to allow a fitness studio within
an existing retail center.
· The fitness center is currently in operation, as the most people in
attendance at one time is ten. The applicant desires to have more
than ten people, which triggers the requirement for a Use Permit.
Evaluation and Recommendation:
· Plann ing Staff recommended approval
· Planning Commission recommends approval (11-0)
· There was no opposition.
· COnSli!nt agenda.
II I
II
III I
I
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: NEPTUNE FITNESS I MOUNTAIN VENTURES, VIRGINIA BEACH LLC,
Conditional Use Permit, indoor recreational facility (gym), 3352 Princess Anne
Road, Suite 905. PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT.
MEETING DATE: August 11,2009
. Background:
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a fitness studio within a
retail center. The 4,000 square foot space will be located near the end of a strip
of retail shops adjacent to a yoga studio.
. Considerations:
The applicant is currently operating the fitness studio at this location; since ten
people may occupy the fitness studio at one time without a Use Permit. When the
number of participants exceeds ten, a Use Permit is required. The applicant is
requesting this Use Permit because the number of members is exceeding ten
individuals working out at one time. No building modifications are proposed to the
commercial center or its parking area and no land use compatibility issues are
anticipated. The studio offers 24-hour member access, and there is an onsite
security system that includes closed-circuit television and tailgate detection for
entry doors.
There was no opposition to this request.
. Recommendations:
The Planning Commission placed this item on the Consent Agenda, passing a
motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 with 1 abstention to recommend approval to
the City Council with the following conditions:
1. All necessary permits and a Certificate of Occupancy for this use shall be
obtained from the Department of Planning I Permits and Inspections Division
before occupancy and use of the building for a twenty four hour seven day a
week fitness studio.
2. Parking lot lights in the vicinity of this lease space should be programmed to
remain on each night until daylight.
NEPTUNE FITNESS
Page 2 of 2
. Attachments:
Staff Review and Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map and Summary
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department A~
City Manager~~ t-~~ ~
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit (indoor commercial recreation facility)
ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: 3352 Princess Anne Road.
GPIN: .
1485913940000
ELECTION DISTRICT:
PRINCESS ANNE
II
II I
13
July 8,2009 Public Hearing
APPLICANT:
NEPTUNE FITNESS
PROPERTY OWNER:
MOUNTAIN
VENTURES
STAFF PLANNER: Karen Prochilo
SITE SIZE:
Lease Size: 2,000 SF
AICUZ:
70 - 75 dB DNL
APZ2
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
fitness studio within a retail center. The 4,000 square foot
space will be located near the end of a strip of retail shops next to a yoga studio. The fitness studio will be
open 24 hours a day / 7 days a week. The applicant is currently operating the fitness studio at this
location; since ten people may occupy the fitness studio at one time without a Use Permit. When the
number of participants exceeds ten, a Use Permit is required. The applicant is requesting this Use Permit
because the number of members is exceeding ten individuals working out at one time.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: Retail center
SURROUNDING LAND
USE AND ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
. Retail shops / Conditional B-2 Community Business District
. Retail shops / Conditional B-2 Community Business District
. Delivery and rear drive aisle for shopping center
. Stormwater Management Pond
NEPTUNE FITNESS
Agenda Item 13
Page 1
. Single-family residential'! PD-H2 (R-5D) Residential
West: . Parking lot
. Retail! Conditional B-2 Community Business District
NATURAL RI:SOURCE AND
CULTURAL F'EATURES:
The majority of this site is developed as a retail center with parking,
There are no natural resources or cultural features associated with this
site,
IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES
MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Traffic
Engineering does not have any comments on this application. The trip generation for this type of a facility is
less than the typical shopping center use; moreover, the traffic has been accounted for in the Landstown
Commons Shopping Center Traffic Impact Study.
TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic
Volume
Dam Neck Road 41,100 ADT 34,900 ADT 1 (level of Existing Land Use ;t -
Service "D") - Capacity 172 ADT
Princess Anne 26,200 ADT 17,100 ADT (level of Proposed Land Use 3 -
Road Service "D") - Capacity 132 ADT
2 lane
1 Average Daily Trips
2 as defined by 4,000 SF retail
3 as defined bv 4,000 SF fitness club
WATER and SEWER: This site connects to City water and City sanitary sewer
~ No Fire Department comments at this time.
POLICE: Coordinate lights in parking lot to remain on in this fitness studio lease space vicinity.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this
request with the conditions below,
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Comprehensh,e Plan:
It is stated in the Comprehensive Plan that this area is suitable for low intensity retail and service uses
that are compsitible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. Examples of such uses include garden
centers and nurseries, neighborhood medical offices and specialty shops providing goods and services to
the neighborhood market (p 85). This proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's
recommendations for this area.
NEPTUNE FITNESS
Agenda Item 13
Page 2
I I II I
I
Evaluation:
The applicant's request to lease one of the existing strip commercial center's suites as 24 hour /seven
day fitness studio is of such low intensity that no negative impacts are anticipated. No building
modifications are proposed to the commercial center or its parking area and no land use compatibility
issues are anticipated. The studio offers 24 hour member access and onsite security system which
includes closed circuit television and tailgate detection for entry doors.
Staff recommends approval of the request for an indoor commercial recreational facility at this location.
CONDITIONS
1. All necessary permits and a Certificate of Occupancy for this use shall be obtained from the
Department of Planning / Permits and Inspections Division before occupancy and use of the building
for a twenty four hour seven day a week fitness studio.
2. Parking lot lights in the vicinity of this lease space should be coordinated to remain on each night until
daylight.
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.
NEPTUNE FITNESS
Agenda Item 13
Page 3
AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION
NEPTUNE FITNESS
Agenda Item 13
Page 4
I I
CI)
c
o
E
E
o
()
c
;:
o
.......
CI)
-0
c
Cd
-1
.d}
~
'I
f
i
I
~
I ~ i
nhU
,0 ;11
'~
\ \...---)
-'" -
'='='-:::;u ')
1 \11
II \
rIl
rIl
Ql
.E
u:
QlLO
EO
._ 0)
>.:0:
C C
<(::l
II II I
~
I I
II
Il~
I
I
\.11
I II
uJ
\ ~ \
~\
!li!1
: ~ I
I ! \
\ f \
j
I
II
PROPOSED LOCATION PLAN
NEPTUNE FITNESS
Agenda Item 13
Page 5
PHOTOGRAPH OF FACILITY
NEPTUNE FITNESS
Agenda Item 13
Page 6
I I
II II I
1 03/24/09 Conditional Use Permit (assembly - yoga Granted
studio)
2 09/30/08 Conditional Use Permit (church) Withdrawn
3 08/22/06 Conditional Rezonina AG-1 to B-2 Granted
4 02/24/98 Conditional Use Permit (communications
tower) Granted
5 09/26/83 Conditional Rezoning AG-1 to R-8
(conditions met 11/05/87)
Conditional Rezoning R-8 to PD-H2
(conditions met 11/05/87) Granted
ZONING HISTORY
NEPTUNE FITNESS
Agenda Item 13
Page 7
II DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
I
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm. business, or other unincorporated
organi:~atlon, complete the following:
1. list the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees.
partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) ')
JJ.r..ffurH ~ rht:SS' IVlr S{"t+ l'o;lur ((f61M:
2. list all businesses that have a parent-subsidiaryf or affiliated business entitf
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
.0 Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or
othElr unincorporated organization.
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
Camp/Elte th;s 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)
J~
SUJ. ~ " ,~ l..i
2. List i~1I businesses that have a parent-subsidlary1 or affiliated business entltf
relaUonship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
o Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation. partnership, firm.
t1usiness. or other unincorporated organization.
, & 2 SeE' next page for footnotes
Does an official or employee of tI1e 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?
C<lndltiCll'la\ Use Pell1ll1 Application
Page 9 of 10
Revised 713J2t'07
z
o
I I
~
~
~
~
H
~
~
~
;::::J
~
o
I t
H
52
o
C-'
NEPTUNE FITNESS
Agenda Item 13
Page 8
z
o
I I
~
'-'
I I
~
~I
~
E--c
~
b"l
~
~
t:::J
~
o
I I
E--c
I I
~
Z
o
'-'
II
II I
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 tist if necessary)
P(r'-.lil~" f (VIIi,,,! I ""C. . fllll.J'M . Lrfu~, ~ ,/lIL'~ " I
C !""oIL ~ (l)1""f.~C!~ rCl('~I}N\.vul ~ ~^,I..,:of;rt"4f)
~~~k vY- -t~ r tV--~f\ v~l~
frf r.,l/\ i Ct" { t:.. ({J " ...,)
1 'Parent-subsidiary relationship' means "a relationship that exists when one
corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting
power 01 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 enUty, (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 detennining the existence of an affiliated
business entity relationship indude that the same person or substantially the same person
own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled ft.nds 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 Stale and Local Govemment Conflict of Interests Act, Va, Code!i
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 accorcing to the Instructions In this package. The
undersigned also consents to entry upon the subject property by employees of the Department of
Planni 9 to photograph ::Z~oses of processing and evaluating this application.
"fur (~l'l(' \=' I l.. ~ ec, \\- \" ~l,r
A pUcant's Signature Print Name
MOUNTAIN VENTURES VIRGINIA BEACH LLC Lawrence A, Silvestri
By: Goodman Properties, Inc., its Manager Vice President
proP~r!YOwner's Sig".at~re (if differ~nt tha~ applicant) Print Name
By: CY'Q..c.v"'-l.1", " .k)",-hZ- '-- !/ - ,
Condlllonal Use Pennit ApplIcation
Page 10 0110
Re\/ised 71312007
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
NEPTUNE FITNESS
Agenda Item 13
Page 9
I ,
Item # 13
Neptune Fitness
Conditional Use Permit
3352 Princess Anne Road
District 7
Princess Anne
July 8, 2009
CONSENT
Joseph Strange: The next item is agenda item 13. It's an application of Neptune Fitness for a
Conditional Use Permit for a recreational facility of an indoor nature on property located at 3352
Princess Anne Road, Suite 905, District 7, Princess Anne, with two (2) conditions.
Good afternoon. ]'m Scott Taylor representing Neptune Fitness. We accept all conditions, and
thank you for plaeing us on the consent agenda.
Joseph Strange: Thank you. Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent
agenda? If not, the Chairman has asked Ron Ripley to review this item.
Ronald Ripley: This is a relatively routine Conditional Use Permit. This is an existing business
that operates as a fitness studio. It has been operating there since the center opened. It is a large
center. It's Land~:town Commons. When the occupancy exceeds 10, then a Conditional Use
Permit is triggered, and that is where we are. The staff has reviewed this. They have found that
it is appropriate. After the Commission's reviewing, we believe it is appropriate as well, and
have placed it on the consent agenda.
Joseph Strange: Thank you Ron. Madame Chairman, I make a motion to approve agenda item
13.
Janice Anderson: A motion by Joe Strange and a second by Kathy Katsias. David?
David Redmond: Madame Chairman, I will specifically abstain from item 13. I have a business
conflict.
Janice Anderson: Thank you.
AYE 10
NAY 0
ABSl
ABSENT 0
\
ANDERSON
BERNAS
CRABTREE
HENLEY
HORSLEY
KATSIAS
LIVAS
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
I I
\
Item # 13
Neptune Fitness
Page 2
REDMOND
RIPLEY
RUSSO
STRANGE
II
II I
I
ABS
AYE
AYE
AYE
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, with the abstention so noted, the Board has approved item 13 for
consent.
I ,
/
. sms. BOURDON.
Am:RN &. LM. P.c.
The Honorahle William D, Sessoms, Jr.
Vice Mayor LlUis Jones
Members of City Council
July 2, 2009
Page 2
With best regards, I am
Very truly yours,
REBjr/arhm
cc: Jack Whitney, DUector, DepartmeDt of Planning
Karen Prochilo, Department of Planning
Radhakrishna Renukunta
Robert n. Miller, ro, MSA, P.C.
ConditionalRezoI1l~/EndeavorEnteIprises/villagCenter/Sessoms_Ltr6-02-og
II II I
. sms. ROURDON.
AIImN & 1M. p.e.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
TELEPHONE: 757-499-8971
FACSIMILE: 757-456-5445
July 2, 2009
JON M. AHERN
R, EDWARD BOURDON. JR,
JAMES T. CROMWELL
L. STEVEN EMMERT
KIM R. GERSHEN
DAVID S. HOLLAND
KIRK 8, LEVY
MICHAEL J. LEVY
HOWARD R. SYKES. JR.
PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK - BUILDING ONE
281 INDEPENOENCE BOULEVARD
FIFTH FLOOR
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462-2989
Via Hand Delivery and Email
The Honorable William D. Sessoms, Jr.
Vice Mayor Louis Jones
Members of City Council
c/o Ruth Hodges Fraser, City Clerk
Office of the City Clerk
City Hall Building #1, Room 281
Municipal Center
VIrginia Beach, Vll'ginia 23456
Re: Application of Endeavor Enterprises, LLC for Change of Zoning District
Classification from AG-1/AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-lA limited
Community Business District and P-1 Preservation District on 3 assembled parcels
totaling 19.94 acres in the Princess Anne District (east side of Holland Road, south
of Chestnut Oak Way and north of Sugar Maple Drive)
Dear Mayor Sessoms, Vice Mayor Jones and Members of City Council:
On behalf of the principals of Endeavor Enterprises, LLC, I am writing to
formally request the pending rezoning application which is scheduled for public
hearing on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 be deferred until your Tuesday, August 11, 2009
public hearing.
The purpose for the deferral is to provide additional time for my clients to
finalize their financing commitments. I can report that substantial progress has been .
made, and that my clients assure me that no additional deferrals will be requested.
As I expressed in my June 2, 2009 correspondence, given the uncertainties in
the financial markets and the significant amount of infrastructure improvements
associated with this proposed conditional rezoning, it would be imprudent on my
clients' part to proceed to a final vote on the rezoning without an acceptable financing
commitment in hand.
. .As was the case with our first deferral request, we are advising our neighbors
today of this deferral request, in order to minimize any inconvenience.
Should any of you have any questions or concerns regarding this request or this
application in general, please do not hesitate to contact me.
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES
Map H,l--ll E d
~. NO)~~. T "l 70-75 nB L~~VO~,
l1.5A8 ~ ~
~~-~ ~.I
-= ct) ^-
0)'~ .
IY~ ;~~ '
.~ . ~...~~ ~
"0(.
~ ~ ~;:I .
f9IU /L ..1\ \.oj I~ ~
W'I- 'w, 1\ IrIL
........ cat ~
I~.,.... "" ') --
-r ~
~ act-
"N ~~
~ .1 ~~ ~ ./Je:j
>$\ ~ J'~ -->- l..
~JX r:"\( u ~ '"" '\
~ ""'~. ~/\\~ ""\
.J dI~1I ~~~ ~
~~W' ~~
EntertJrises. LLC
.c'1
".,
~
~
~ I Ld;1
~
!lII ' ~f/ ~~
\M ~ ~~J1 ~ ~~~~
~ %~I/ ~~. ';/
~ v~ ~~~ij~
,.. ~~ y A~ u/'>/f@
",1
.c. 1
.1
..~
~
~
lIlJ
Conditional Zoning Change from AG-1 and AG-2 to Conditiona B1-A
Relevant Information:
· Princess Anne District
· The Blpplicant proposes to rezone a portion of properties zoned AG
for community-oriented commercial uses and a natural area to be
dedic;ated to the City of Virginia Beach.
· The clevelopment consists of 9,315 SF of day care, 20,000 SF of
retail, 26,000 SF of office and personal services, and 5,000 SF of
restaurant space.
· The project is in two phases, with the phases tied to the future
widening of Holland Road.
Evaluation and Recommendation:
· Planning Staff recommended denial
· Planrling Commission recommends approval (8-1)
· TherE! was opposition.
I I
II II I
I
~1
~ ~?\\\
f( ~ 't~}
\\ - - Itt"~
~~.
, ,
'" ~~. ..~~oJ
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., Chanae of Zonina District
Classification, AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional B-1A Limited
Business District and P-1 Preservation District, east side of Holland Road,
approximately 120 feet south of Chestnut Oak Way. PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT.
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009
. Background:
The applicant proposes to change the zoning of a 19.94-acre site currently zoned
Agricultural to Conditional B-1A Limited Business District and P-1 Preservation
District. The purpose of the rezoning is to develop a commercial center and a
child care facility on 14.76 acres of the site, with the remaining 5.18 acres being
dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach for natural area preservation.
The City Council deferred this application at the request of the applicant on June
9 and July 7.
. Considerations:
The proposal depicts four buildings in two phases with a combination of
professional offices, retail, and a stand-alone daycare. The first phase will include
two one-story buildings, one of which will consist of a mix of retail and office and
the second, a daycare facility. The second phase of the development will include
a one-story retail building and a two-story office building. .
The buildings are located such that two buildings are toward the front of the
property, an office building is positioned adjacent to an adjoining neighboring
park, and the daycare is in a recessed portion of the site to the north. Where
possible, existing trees will be retained, and additional infilllandscape planting
will be provided to buffer adjacent neighborhoods.
The Comprehensive Plan states that where residential and commercial uses
adjoin one another, the preferred land use relationship should reflect higher
density residential and lower intensity commercial uses (p 90). Land uses
proposed for infill sites as well as their density, material, height, setback, yard
area and other design considerations should complement and reinforce the
predominant physical character of the surrounding area (p 91).
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.
Page 2 of 2
In the past, the site may have been suitable for rezoning that would have allowed
development of single-family residential development consistent with the
adjoining neighborhoods. Under current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance provisions pertaining to AICUZ constraints, however, such
development is no longer acceptable; any residential development would have to
be at the density allowed by the existing Agricultural zoning. The unsuitability of
the appliGant's property for residential development at a density consistent with
the adjoining neighborhoods is demonstrated by City Council's 2006 denial of the
applicant's request to rezone the portion of the site at the existing terminus of
Chestnut Oak Way for five single-family lots.
Based on this constraint, Staff finds the applicant's desire to provide a non-
residential use intended to serve the surrounding area is appropriate; however,
Staff cannot support the intensity of the non-residential development proposed by
the applieant. Neighborhood serving uses such as daycare, office, personal
services, and a limited range of retail businesses are acceptable, but the intensity
of the applicant's proposal, in Staff's opinion, is such that it is incompatible with
the surrounding residential area. The proposed intensity is more suited to a
larger commercial area, not a long, narrow site between two existing residential
neighborhoods.
Staff cannot support this application at the currently proposed intensity of
proposed uses.
. Recomrrlendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 8-1 to approve
this reqw3st as proffered.
. Attachments:
Staff Revi ew and Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map and Summary
Recommended J"ction: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting DepnrtmentlAgency: Planning Department I ~
City Managel~ l. qslSOt.
II
II I
ENDEAVOR
ENTERPRISES,
LLC
Agenda Item 22
May 13, 2009 Public Hearing
STAFF PLANNER:
Karen Prochilo
REQUEST:
Chanae of Zonina District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional B-1A Limited
Community Business District and P-1 Preservation District.
ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located on the east side of Holland Road approximately 120 feet south
of Chestnut Oak v:'ay,
GPIN:
14954173360000
14955195180000 portion
of
14955126960000
ELECTION DISTRICT:
PRINCESS ANNE
SITE SIZE: AICUZ:
Total site:19.94 acres 70 to 75 dB Ldn
Proposed B-1A site:
14.76 acres
Proposed P-1 site:
5.18 acres
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant proposes to rezone a portion of existing
agricultural properties for community-oriented commercial uses and to rezone the remaining portion for
natural area preservation, dedicating that area to the City of Virginia Beach. The property is one of the
few infill properties remaining in the area and is surrounded by suburban neighborhoods constructed in
the past 15 years. One of the parcels involved in this rezoning had been before Planning Commission
and City Council for a Conditional Rezoning request for five (5) single family lots in a 70 -75 dB DNL
AICUZ. As residential structures within this AICUZ are designated as 'not compatible' with Navy flight
operations associated with NAS Oceana, the City Council denied the rezoning request on June 27, 2006.
The applicant then appealed the decision of the City Council to the Circuit Court, which upheld the
Council's decision.
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC
Agenda Item 22
Page 1
The applicanl has met with the adjacent neighborhoods for input on three occasions. The applicant's
current proposal incorporates input from the neighborhood and staff. The proposal depicts four buildings
in two phases, with a combination of professional offices, retail, and a stand-alone daycare. The first
phase will include two buildings of one single story with a mix of retail and office. The second building is a
single-story daycare, The second phase of the development will include a single-story retail building and
a two-story office building. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to road improvements along Holland
Road.
There is a creek running through the length of the site and the applicant's plan uses the creek as an
amenity, placing a multipurpose trail along one side and the access road on the other side in a cleared
area. Building placement consists of two buildings toward the front of the property, an office building
positioned adj acent to an adjoining neighboring park, and daycare in a recessed portion of the site to the
north. Where possible, existing trees will be retained, and additional infilllandscape planting will be
provided to buffer adjacent neighborhoods.
The designs of the four proposed buildings are similar in materials and style. The building design
integrates traditional elements with a European accent. The exterior fa~ade incorporates a cultured stone
base with an l~xterior insulation finish system (EIFS) applied above the stone. The use of metal hip roofs
and flat roofs capped with an EIFS molded crown accent the buildings, The predominant building material
colors consist of neutral tones.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING U1.ND USE: Undeveloped wooded vacant site
SURROUNDING LAND
USE AND ZONING:
North:
· Residential single-family subdivision, open space I R-10
Residential District, P-1 Preservation District
· Residential single-family subdivision I R-7.5 Residential District
. Undeveloped property I AG-1 Agricultural District
· Across Holland Road, a single-family subdivision I R-5D
Residential District wI PD-H2 overlay
South:
East
West
NATURAL RI:SOURCE AND
CULTURAL F:EATURES:
The site is undeveloped with large stands of trees. There is a branch of
West Neck Creek flowing down the middle of the site from Holland Road
to West Neck Creek. There is a Southern Watershed buffer on either
side of the ditch. A portion of the site along one side of the ditch (in the
buffer area) has been cleared by the City to access the waterway for
cleaning and maintenance.
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC
Agenda Item 22
Page 2
II
"I
IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES
MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN fMTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM fCIP): Holland Road in
the vicinity of this application is a narrow two-lane undivided minor suburban arterial. This section of roadway
is shown on the Master Transportation Plan as a divided roadway within a 125-foot right-of-way. The Holland
Road Phase VI roadway project will widen Holland Road to a four-lane divided roadway along the front of the
proposed development. This VDOT administered project is currently in the right-of-way acquisition stage.
Due to reduced state funding, the construction start date has been moved beyond VDOT's current Six-Year
Plan,
TRAFFIC:
Street Name
Generated Traffic
Existing Land Use 2 -20
ADT
Proposed Land Use 3 -
4,337 ADT
1 Average Daily Trips
2 as defined by AG-2 zoning
3as defined by 10,000 SF day care center, 40,000 SF office, 20,900 SF retail & 5,000 SF restaurant
Present
Volume
17,300 ADT '
(2007)
16,500 ADT
'(2008)
Present Capacity
15,000 ADT ' (Level of
Service "D") -
16,200 ADT' (Level of
Service "E")
Holland Road
It is important to note that the Holland Road Phase VI project does not include a median crossover on
Holland Road at the proposed access point for the proposed Village Centre at Holland Creek, opposite
Barberry Lane. The current arrangement of median crossovers included on the Holland Road plans would
prevent the City of Virginia Beach from adding a median crossover at the Village Centre access point,
meaning that when the Holland Road project is eventually completed as a divided roadway, the Village Centre
development will be served with a right-in/right-out access arrangement. Traffic from the north on Holland
Road bound for this development would have to make a U-turn at Sugar Maple Drive to return north towards
the site. Traffic leaving the development headed southbound on Holland Road would be required to travel
north on Holland Road, 1000 feet to Saville Garden Way to make a U-turn to access southbound Holland
Road.
Public Works Engineering/Proiect Manaaement Comments
The proposed development will impact the Holland Road Phase VI roadway project. A right-of-way, temporary
slope easement, and utility easement are needed for the completion of the project. These areas are not shown
in the conceptual plan. As per the VDOT right-of-way section, parcels 060 (Endeavor Enterprises) and 061
(George McCoy) right-of-way for Holland Phase IV project were already acquired. For further coordination,
developer to contact the City of Virginia Beach Holland Road Phase VI project manager, Alex Paragas at 385-
4131.
Public Works EngineerinafTraffic Enaineerina Comments
Traffic Engineering has reviewed the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) dated November 14, 2008 and the Conceptual
Right-of-Way Improvements Plan dated December 10, 2008 for the Village Centre at Holland Creek
development and is conditionally approving the Conclusions of the TIS with the following
comments/exceptions:
1. The TIS incorrectly states that the daily traffic volume on this section of Holland Road was 12,800
vehicles per day (vpd) in 2007. The correct daily traffic count on this portion of Holland Road was
17,300 vpd in 2007 and recently completed traffic counts showed 16,500 vpd for 2008.
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC
Agenda Item 22
Page 3
2. The TIS concludes that a traffic signal will be warranted at the access point on Holland Road at
appr:>ximately 70% site build out. Traffic Engineering cannot support that conclusion because the
traffil; signal warrants analysis is incomplete. While we can agree that the one hour warrant will be
met, the data presented in the TIS was not sufficient to determine that the eight hour and four hour
warrants are met. Traffic Engineering believes that a complete traffic signal warrants analysis would
show that only the one hour traffic signal warrant would be met, and therefore a traffic signal would not
be considered based on projected traffic volumes. Traffic Engineering will however require the
developer to post a traffic signal bond during the site plan stage to cover the full cost of a traffic signal
if it is warranted based on actual traffic volumes.
3, The TIS reports the future level of service at the access point intersection with Holland Road and
Barbl3rry Lane as a signalized intersection, but does not include the level of service as an unsignalized
inter~iection. Traffic Engineering has run the unsignalized intersection analysis for the intersection
based on full development of the site and Holland Road still as a two-lane undivided roadway. This
analysis shows that in 2012, the left turn movement out of the development onto southbound Holland
Road will operate at a Level of Service (LOS) F in the AM and PM peak hours, The Barberry Lane
approach to the intersection will also operate at a LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours. The Barberry
Lane approach would operate at a LOS D in the AM and PM in 2012 as a three legged intersection if
the Village Centre development was not built.
Public Workl; Enaineerina I Stonnwater Comments
Stormwater management facilities appear to be too small to accommodate the total development. If infiltration
type facilities are to be used, soil analysis and boring should be done to ensure adequate permeability and
separation frcm the seasonal high groundwater table. Wetlands delineation is to be performed to prevent
impacts to wetlands. Coordinate the stormwater management plan with the Holland Road Phase VI project.
WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is a 16-inch City water main in Holland Road fronting the
site.
SEWER: This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. City sanitary sewer does not front the proposed parcel.
Plans and bonds will be required for any construction extensions of the City sanitary sewer system, An
engineering hydraulic analysis of Pump Station #571 and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to
ensure future flows can be accommodated. There is an a-inch City gravity sanitary sewer main in a public
utility easement crossing a portion of the property. There is an a-inch City gravity sanitary sewer main in Bald
Eagle Road. There is an a-inch City gravity sanitary sewer main in Sugar Maple Drive.
FIRE: No Fire Department comments at this time. Comments will be provided during site plan review.
EMS: A turn lane is encouraged for this proposal. Additional comments may be included at site plan review.
Recommendation:
Staff recommonds denial.
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC
Agenda Item 22
Page 4
II II I
,
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan states that where residential and commercial uses adjoin one another, the
preferred land use relationship should reflect higher density residential and lower intensity commercial
uses (p 90). Land uses proposed for infill sites as well as their density, material, height, setback, yard
area and other design considerations should complement and reinforce the predominant physical
character of the surrounding area (p 91).
Evaluation:
This applicant has attempted to combine a balanced network of buildings, parking, and open space. The
layout has established buffers around the creek bed, as well as buffering around the perimeter of the
development against the residential neighborhoods. The applicant's intent is to provide a limited
commercial development that can support the needs of the nearby residential neighborhoods without
impacting adjacent uses.
The site is one of the few remaining infill parcels along this portion of Holland Road. At some point in the
past, the site may have been suitable for single-family residential development consistent with the
adjoining neighborhoods. Under current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance provisions pertaining
to AICUZ constraints, however, such development is no longer acceptable. The unsuitability of the
applicant's property for residential development is demonstrated by City Council's 2006 denial of the
applicant's request to rezone a portion of the site for five single-family lots,
Based on this constraint, Staff finds the applicant's desire to provide non-residential uses intended to
serve the surrounding area is appropriate; however, Staff cannot support the intensity of the non-
residential development proposed by the applicant. Neighborhood serving uses such as daycare, office,
personal services, and a limited range of retail businesses are acceptable, but the intensity of the
applicant's proposal, in Staffs opinion, is such that it is incompatible with the surrounding residential area.
Staff cannot support this application at the currently propo~ed intensity of proposed uses.
PROFFERS
The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The
applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these
proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable,"
(~107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve
as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning.
PROFFER 1:
When the portion of the Property zoned B-1A is developed, it shall be developed and landscaped
substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT & LANDSCAPE PLAN OF
VILLAGE CENTER AT HOLLADN CREEK," prepared by Ionic Dezign Studios and MSA, P.C., dated
03/06/09, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach
Department of Planning (hereinafter "Conceptual Site Plan").
PROFFER 2:
When the property is developed, the exterior building materials, colors and architectural design elements of
the four (4) buildings designated on the Conceptual Site Plan shall be substantially as depicted on the
exhibits entitled "VILLAGE CENTER AT HOLLAND CREEK - TYPICAL RETAIL BUILDING ELEVATION;
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC
Agenda Item 22
Page 5
VILLAGE CENTER AT HOLLAND CREEK - DAYCARE ELEVATION; VILLAGE CENTER AT HOLLAND
CREEK - OFFICE BUILDING ELEVATION" dated 03/04/09, prepared by Ionic Dezign Studios, which have
been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of
Planning (hE!reinafter "Building Elevations").
PROFFER j,:
When the Property is developed, the Grantor shall make those road improvements to Holland Road as
depicted on the exhibit entitled "Conceptual Right of Way Improvement Plan for Village Center at Holland
Creek", dated 12/09/08, 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 "Right of Way Improvements").
PROFFER 4:
When the Property is developed, if the improvement and widening of Holland Road to four (4) through lanes
of vehicular eapacity from its intersection with Dam Neck Road, south to its intersection with Crestwood
Drive has not commenced, only the buildings designated #1, Single Story Daycare and #2, Single Story
Retail 1 Officl:l on the Conceptual Site Plan may be developed. No occupancy of the buildings designated #3,
Single Story Retail and #4, 2-Story Office on the Conceptual Site Plan shall be permitted until improvement
and wideninn of Holland Road to four (4) through lanes of vehicular capacity from Dam Neck Road to its
intersection with Crestwood Drive has been completed.
PROFFER 5:
The Building designated #2, Single Story Retail 1 Office on the Conceptual Site Plan shall have no more than
16,000 square feet of space occupied by retail and restaurant uses. The remaining space in Building #2
shall be occLlpied by office or personal service uses.
PROFFER 6:
Prior to submittal of a Site Development Plan for the Buildings designated as #3, single Story Retail and #4,
2-story OffiCE; (Le. Phase II), Grantor shall prepare and submit a "Supplemental Traffic Impact Study" to the
Director of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning.
PROFFER 7:
In addition to the limited list of permitted uses in the B-1A Limited Community Business District, the Grantor
further proffers that Building #4, 2-Story Office shall not be used for any retail or restaurant uses; Building
#1, Single StlJry Daycare shall only be used for an educational 1 child daycare or office use, no convenience
store use Shelll be permitted on the Property; no establishment shall be permitted to sell alcohol for off
premises corlsumption; and no restaurant shall be permitted to sell alcohol after 11 :00 p.m.
PROFFER 8:
When the Property is developed, only one (1) freestanding monument style sign may be erected on the
Property, constructed with a base matching the material and predominant color of the buildings as depicted
on the Conceptual Site Plan. All building mounted signage shall be channel letters on a raceway (Le. no
block signs) C1nd only the lettering may be illuminated.
PROFFER 9:
When the Property is developed, the dumpsters depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan shall be screened 1
housed in a masonry structure (3 sides) with the exterior surface matching the building material and color.
Dumpsters shall not be tipped lemptied before 8:30 a.m. nor after 8:30 p.m.
PROFFER 10:
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC
Agenda Item 22
Page 6
II II I
The hours of daily operation for any educational Ichild daycare use in the building designated #1, Single
Story Daycare on the Conceptual Site Plan shall not commence prior to 6:00 a.m. nor conclude subsequent
to 7:00 p.m.
PROFFER 11:
All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises
and away from the adjoining property. The development shall use "The Largent "lighting fixtures and a
complete photometric plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval during
detailed site plan review.
PROFFER 12:
When the Property is developed, the Grantor shall install and maintain an 8' wide multi-purpose trail from
Holland Road through the open space within the developed portion of the property, through the open space
at the eastern end of the center and terminating at the 5.18 acres of land to be zoned P-1 Preservation
District substantially as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan, The Grantor shall dedicate to the Grantee a
pedestrian access easement over the multi-purpose trail and create a second pedestrian walkway from the
multi-purpose trail to the small City owned park which abuts the southern boundary of the Property, as
depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan.
PROFFER 13:
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building on the Property, the Grantor shall dedicate to
the Grantee, the 5.18 acre portion of the property to be zoned P-1 Preservation District.
PROFFER 14:
Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of
applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code
requirements.
STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are acceptable in respect to the level of quality of the
project. Staff, however, still finds the proposal too intense as depicted.
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated March 12,2009, and found it to be
legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form.
NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances.
Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to
meet all applicable City Codes 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.
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC
Agenda Item 22
Page 7
AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC
Agenda Item 22
Page 8
. h ~':\ 1---
r-".-_". . . Y", , ~_' I f dl
:;~~ "'(7~:-'~'f:'~~~':'~~ _ ~'~ C\\. ,"- -t::- \. m
P <If" -"~~-<[ i'<"'" ~
hi-~ 1 ".~. _~-") ,~\,R, ,--1.) ," \,; ,;~, ~C:, ......k.-~_.~
., '[ j'" "..\...J.(~ " " :!J'!J. '".. .
:~l 81' i -''!!I . '''--~~ \j , (~)f"'bL)' I'J,"
'.:'" "~ f. ~, p~i~'~ .! .r;~'\ ");.."'. ':e t t
t" '\~ . IXS i: if>, ~~:j#.\ it'..!.; d '~ ·
t~~"""',:/,") ._", "" .' "'....':.--7:."../ ~.. J b: fj p p...\ ,
:~,'o C,_.. '. / ..,..~.: J:,. ''? J' '; cp(. ". '-.....'i~-_.. . " 'r, - tf _~, --.' I
i .:...',.., ."J.:,. ~... .'.~ .~' ,<_N. ". ,;",.l).,_, 0 ,.,,-- '\.. . .'. ", J.....,.0 '..':;1$". I-
I : '. \ .' )~' ')''''f:Y&:A;:'~ (' ~ / 0 '.' ',['i.. . 'rt' ,
1~1&f.:~~ ~)'. ,:\ 1111
! bitt ;! II !Jr,. , 1Y;-~, ~R L ; \h, I
, r,'~." Oc-y~ p" .. '~.'~
. n '!('~\f>',.<(l ri" Q
. .P{J ~~. , n' ;-"~ .'. (':i ; '#..~" .' .
I iHh:t '1 ~ f! 1i 1 0:--f0"., J' o2'I,~)A ~"" ,jyl '"
;!~. I!f ill U It II 'I II hI, ", --.6Ii01,~ d t[D' hb"':;'~ '
&fl:.il IU i~J' l~ ,;t .~ Ii II IIi I I ..'1:; . \ ~l~ ....~.-.......:,.
~iU.t U:~ is 'I U i i f,o!: t ~r~"1
.~b:'~ -~t
"1' ' 'U1 ""'1':.'.'.: I
,. I . ~..d t
in; fL' ~~\~ ~
,.0.' ~.y, ,:,>~
j"'~P>:k\
rT7.r~1,;.~ ,0 ""'~ '
~
., ~
I.d, "
'/tfm-
(: ,. ~~..~I...l..'
\ :f,: ~I
" ;",,{ )'-'~ IN'
111111
.
.
..
..
CI
'a
=
o.!!
i-
-CD
~.
~@
~..
.'j.
..-
Ii <
:eI >,
dI.~~
Ci D<<I ~
~..~Id. 11 I
u_11-li Ii (
\) _ ij .!; i
(:5- \)>5 ",.
\) '5 !: .....--...--..:,::.
\) J:>! ---
if I
"
p
w.';.i~~~
"~~:,:--~-
.. ~"" --",. .
i -- ~~,~,-
II II I
PI
. l,f
U'~'
~.
.~.
~ Ji
<".';';:
Ji
;<1-",
0011:
. f
~!.'
~ ,~;
.
~
i
.
i
~..,....
;, ,',3
~,."" '_;'--" "-i
! ,,;:,,:
._-..-O),.,'~, ,- c .,. ~--,
. 1
U!tf
llil!
IWi
Ili!:i
,~'.: Mil
. tHjP
l.. .1
~",-
,""""
.....~;~'l:".
~ ~'o.
tiN
il ~h
;;
IP
illlr
.1.~il
. aU
Iii hi. I
.:.11
I.. ',@
-aw';
D.. ·
;;p iI
.':IW
III " a
si~,'s;
I~:il
_ tftJ:.
II
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, lLC
Agenda Item 22
Page 9
-"-r
. l
~1!~'" ,/ :.
>...~
L.. ':.\'- /' :.
" . I
" !
. .
.:::to
Q)
Q)
...
U
-C
c:
rU
-
15
:r:
@
...
!
c:
Q)
i 0 U <
. .1:: >
\ ~~] 1
l.e.!~..
'I' a::.!j
J > ~ 5
;."....~--''''~.''''"'''>"
---_.,._~_....
..t
1lD'C ..
S 1~3
ftI... NIl
at: ~_.,
!!5 ~ll
j
i
,- ., \
".) \"
I \.
J \
r \
, \
,I '
\ i
\ \
! .
, \
I
I \
I
I
i 'J
( lIt
I!.
'I
, .
~
,
~ =.0 .
~:;;$ B ,-
~I} C!''1' ;[~~
-~~ 0
~~~:i: oll= ....-
",,,,O\,,,o~l!l~
i;! ;! :! di :0
<
rJ1
l
~
l~i
I .. . i
" I
'.Ui i l'
; {il dl_
.-j.!+"", }':
jt.!~IJ; I! I
I
I .l
tlfl
.tll
it"
lCl Jllrl
~ pI,
.g II~!
~
.;U
< 11111
Co
filii
1
Q' i
11
il
~~,~
~~~,
...:;:.
!
III .~-
!tJ
)I "",
11-
~t ~,,~,
I
~
. I
REZONING EXHIBIT
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, lLC
Agenda Item 22
Page 10
..."J..---
~>
!
~ ~
.
;
>
l.',
.5./:11
I>
i;'~
!!
ii
f
II
"I
'-
\
3
.,r (~' fVYIJ
....r tJRI"" '
~ ",;.,,,. .
---.-.-,
_.-'~-^
-~---
---~
',; -
Iu 1 --
il . . _----
i ___~--;;:;:::
-
-----
~l.
d
;:;; co.
U
: ..
;.u;:i
~:c,.
_~_a;;
g~'a~
~I!i"
I;; g
e
L__J
-r~
r;:-
I il: l~
'~ 't"
--~--~--- ~ ~ !~!
'..... s ~ii1
ibl :Ii l il . ~
!~i ii ~ .~..Il ; ~i
! ~ ~~
------1__________ t~ II
& . .rr'l I I
!i~ ~H~ I
I': ! 11~, I
4:' ~~
. I
.y, ~ t'Oi' FJ'/wJS3H'J I
.. .. w: ,iN. ,(N11 ~=-=-'=':::; II
~c"
~ 'lt~- I
;n.
! li1
!-~
~ t #
HOLLAND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC
Agenda IterT'! 22
Page 11
. ':>:':0<.
~ c.r-f >C.t f_rv...~>O'<
--
~~
.i.:1::~:.t~~':~:::tTh-:,~:
~ *e@'!$tfu<t:;%{,~"i~1>.l!:~n,'
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC
Agenda Ite~ 22
Page 12
I I
II II I
~~;L .td'~"....~~~..
: ~b!t;~~
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC
Agenda Item. 22
Page 13
Map H,I-Il
Endeavor EnterIJrises. LLC
70-75 B Ldn
,.,
Mop Not ~J 5cal~
I/~A(~~
~2 A~~
~5 B ~ ~~~ ~
'!. II." ~ \.A':y
"!Ii~ct) ~
1\...... .......
~~
.c.)
~.,
~
...,
, :..J
~rr
....
.-1
"\ 4
. ~~.,
., ~ln ~~ ~_
~~~~~~
~.....,. ~~ ~ Xy~!?f.~ y..~
.~~ ~;~ r~W~
~ ~y.", -~ ~Y/
a.
:;~ ~~~ ~ Il:..... ~ 7~
"~""" ~ :: v, ~ "'- 95!' ~/%
~ r \f.~
, ,....-I
~'\J
rT/f 71 J \ VI'"
...~ ~.--- \ \
~~1. _ .
I: '1-
1\ ~Z'i1 JIG. ~
':f' .,.. il ~ ~ ill
~ ~~~ ..
~ r."[ w ~~
,...:~ ""'.~ "/.\' ~\
=-' '3' ..sn y J~ ~
t:-~~~~.
~L
Conditional Zoning Change from AG-1 and AG- 2 to Condition a B 7-A
1 06/27/06 Conditional Rezoning from AG-1 to R-10 Denied
2 12/10/91 Conditional Rezoning from R-5D wI PD-H2 to P-1 Granted
3 09/08/98 Conditional Rezoning from AG-1& AG-2 to R-10 Granted
4 03/0!:}/99 Subdivision Variance Granted
5 04/10/01 Conditional Rezoning from AG-1& AG-2 to R-10 Granted
6 05/1 :3/03 Conditional Rezoning from AG-1& AG-2 to R-5D Granted
7 04/10/01 Conditional Rezoning from AG-1& AG-2 to R-10 Granted
8 10/22/84 Conditional Rezoning from R-8 to R-5D wi PD-H2 Granted
9 11/02/87 Conditional Rezonina from AG-1to R-6 Granted
ZONING HISTORY
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC
Agenda Item 22
Page 14
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)
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.: Vishnu Sappati, Member; Radhakrishna Renukunta,
Member
2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary' or affiliated business entitl
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
o Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or
other unincorporated organization,
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
Complete this section only if property 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, ete, below: (Attach list if necessary)
New Endeavors, L.C.: Vishnu Sappati, Member; Dr. Suhas Deshmukh, Member;
Radhakrishna Renukunta, Member
2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary' or affiliated business entitl
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
o Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business,
or other unincorporated organization.
, & 2 See nexl page for footnotes
Condrtlonel Rezoning Applic8lion
Page" of'2
Revised 9/112004
II
II I
z
o
I I
~
U
I I
.....:I
~
~
~
Z
I I
Z
o
N
ga
~
o
I I
H
Q
Z
o
u
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC
Agenda Item 22
Page 15
z;
c~
1--11
I ~!
U\
I l
~
~
t.::)
Z
I I
Z
o
N
~
~
o
I- I
E--t
I I
~
Z
o
u
~
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT II
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)
Engineering Services, Inc.
Sykes, Bourdon, Ahem & Levy, P.C.
1 "Parent-subsidiary relationship. means "8 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
accord in to the instructions in this package.
Endeavo te ises, L.L.C.
By: Vishnu Sappati, Member
Applicant' nature Print Name
New Endea
By: Vishnu Sappati. Member
Property Owne Print Name
Conditional Rezoning Application
P.12of12
RIMsed 91112004
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC
Agenda Item 22
Page 16
II
"I
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Change of Zoning District Classification
East side of Holland Road
District 7
Princess Anne
May 13, 2009
REGULAR
Donald Horsley: The next item on our agenda is item 22, Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. An application
for a change of Zoning District Classification for AG-l & AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-1 A
Business District and P-l Preservation District on the east side of Holland Road, approximately 120 feet
south of Chestnut Oak Way, District 7, Princess Anne. Mr. Bourdon?
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Horsley. Madame Chair and members of the Commission, for the
record, I'm Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing Endeavor Enterprises. A number of
the investors in the organization are here today along with RK, who is the managing member. Before I
get started, I want to take a second to thank Karen Prochilo for tireless efforts on this application, and
helping us move forward with a number of modifications. I think she has done a wonderful job. I want to
also thank the members of the surrounding community with whom we've had three very lengthy meetings
which were well attended. The fact that everyone that attended were gentlemen and gentlewomen, and
everybody was very cordial, I do think the level of discourse as been extremely good. Now whether we
agree or disagree, and there is obviously some disagreement, I do think the processes has been what we
all would hope it would be in terms in way that people have composed themselves. We have provided a
handout, which you all should have that is pretty descriptive and it includes the final version of the plan,
which this morning was not on the PowerPoint. The final version is not that much different from the one
that you were all looking at during the informal this morning. But I wanted to point out Mr. David
Beardsley with Finesse Handgun, our Traffic Engineer is here and Bob Miller was here earlier. He is
going to be back down but he is the project engineer on this application. The proposed project involves
just under 20-acres ofland on the east side of Holland Road. We are proposing to rezone this 19.94 acres
as 14.76 acres of B-1 A Limited Community Business District with an additionalS.18 acres to be rezoned
to P-l Preservation District. That S .18 acre preservation area district portion of the property will be
dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach as parklands with the development of Phase I of this project. If
we could look at the aerial for second, I just wanted to point out because it will probably be part of the
conversation. The community to the north Chestnut Oak Way is the Greenwood Community and the
community to the south, Sugar Maple Drive is the entrance road, and that is Holland Oaks as that
community. To our east is Barberry, which is the entrance to the existing community on the west side of
Holland Road that may also be part of the conversation. The subject property is located in the 70 plus Db
high noise zone around Oceana Naval Air Base. These three parcels were assembled by my clients prior
to the wonderful BRAC land use train wreck that occurred a few years ago. These parcels were
assembled with the intent to develop them in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan
that was in place at the time. In Spring 2006, an application was submitted and it was unfortunately when
BRAC was hitting us. We've been dealing with that application at the end of Chestnut Oak Way to
rezone a portion of the property from agricultural to residential. The Planning Director and the Planning
staff recommended approval of that indicating that the existing agricultural zoning was not appropriate in
this area, and that this was the best use of the property. You innately approved that request. There was
opposition to it. Primarily from the Navy but from also from a number of residents in the area who
opposed residential use of the property at that time. City Council, 6 to S denied that application and as it
is written, we appealed to court and the court said that the Council was within its right to deny the
residential use of the property. Now our Comprehensive Plan clearly, which was adopted subsequently to
amendments from BRAC, clearly say that you cannot develop the property residential as it was acquired
for that purpose at 3Y2 units per acre density. That was what the Comprehensive Plan said at the time but
I I
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 2
that is no longer an available option. Under BRAC and our AICUZ ordinance adopted as a result of
BRAC, the uses that are permitted on this property that are compatible, they are industrial or commercial
uses, and this proposal is for a mixed use limited, community oriented, commercial development, which
is acceptable and the Navy has no objection under their guidelines. The property development plan, if we
can look at that up here. This is the correct plan right here. The entrance to the property on about 600
feet of frontage we have on Holland Road is located here, and it has been located across from Barberry as
was recommended by Traffic Engineering and by staff. And as was explained in the informal it is located
in the area through the middle of the property near the ditch/creek, Village Center and Holland Creek.
We're characterizing this as Holland Creek. The entrance and there are a total of 4 buildings proposed
on site. Building 2 is at the southwest portion of the property. It is a mixed use retail office and personal
service building. We have proffered the elevations of all the buildings, a one story building. Within that
building, we have proffered there will be no more than 11,000 square feet of retail, 5,000 square feet of
restaurant space, and 9,000 square feet of office and personal service uses. That was in a large measure to
concerns that werl~ expressed by staff with the amount of retail space. We wanted 21,000 square feet of
retail space and we agreed with that. That is in the proffered agreement with regard to Building 2.
Building 3 at the northeast corner of the property is 9,000 square foot retail one-story building. Again, the
elevations profferl;xl. Building 1 is the daycare facility located at the far northeast portion of the property
that is for Kiddy Academy. They are a national company. They are respective tenants on that piece of
property. The lea:ie is in place. The fourth building is a two-story office building. It is located on the
southern side of the property adjacent to a city park in the Holland Oaks neighborhood to the south. The
property as proposed also includes an 8 foot multi-purpose trail coming off the Holland Road
improvements. It would include a trail system along Holland Road. We're providing an 8 foot multi-
purpose trail that luns adjacent to the creek all the way to the back of the property. Along that trail will
be benches provided. And obviously all the open space that surrounds it. We've also provided a
combination trail/sidewalk system that comes down and will provide access to the city park to the south.
Again, the other trail goes to the park plan that we're dedicating to the City at the east side of the
property. All total just under 2,000 linear feet of trail that is provided along here, along with the
amenities that go with that trail system. Now, again there were concerns expressed by staff and by some
of the residents of the neighborhood concerned about traffic issues. So, we have agreed to phase the
development with the first phase of development being Building 2 and Building 1. Those would be
constructed initially. The second Phase Buildings 3 & 4 would not take place until the current VDOT
project to widened Holland Road from Dam Neck Road pass this property is completed. There are four
lanes of through traffic on Holland Road. When we started this many, many months ago, the timing of
that was more likely sooner rather than later. At this point it is probably later rather than sooner. We
could well be 15 to 20 years at the rate things are going but I don't think. I'm an optimist not a pessimist
but regardless of that, my client is obviously an optimist. These two buildings will not be constructed
until that roadway is completed. However, with this project, and this is also one of the things we've also
proffered, this client has proffered to make improvements to Holland Road. That in my estimation, and
more important in Bob Millers' estimation, he has been doing this engineering work a long time, sets the
bar awfully high because we don't have other people proposing to do what they're proposing to do.
They're proposing with Phase I, they will create, in essence an additional lane of Holland Road from
Sugar Maple up to Chestnut Oak Way. And a portion will be, in fact two lanes will be created so that at
the end of the day" you got an exhibit on that, it was proffered. There will be one through lane going east
direction off Holland Road in addition to left turn onto Barberry. A left turn lane onto Chestnut Oak Way
and a left turn lam: coming into this facility from Holland Road, and a right turn lane on Holland Road. A
right turn into Ch<:stnut Oak Way so there will be one unabated lane of traffic going in each direction plus
all the required tum lanes. The expense involved in that is significant. And the additional capacity
created by that in this particular area is significant. And that is, again one of the things that has been proffered. The plan itself, as you can readily see, there is a significant amount of open space on this
property that would not exist ifit was developed residentially. With Phase I, less than five acres of this
20 acre total piece, (19.8 acres), will be developed. Close to ten acres of open space on this site will
II
II I
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 3
remain 5.18 acres that will remain open space that we dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach. With
Phase II, close to 15 acres out of the 19.8 acres will be open space with Phase I. With Phase II, that
amount is reduced slightly. Over 13 acres of open space will exist then out of the total of 19.8 acres,
which is still unprecedented in the City of Virginia Beach for commercial development. We've also
proffered to provide a second traffic impact study prior to Phase II. That is when Holland Road has been
completed. At which time, depending upon what it discloses and what Traffic Engineering wants, we
might be looking at moving the entrance. We might leave it where it is. That will be determined at some
future date, and hopefully we will all still be around at that point in time. The restrictions on use that is
included in the proffers include no convenience store on site. No alcohol sales for off premises
consumption from any business on site. No alcohol sales at restaurants. We have restaurants included in
here with some nice outdoor seating areas away from the homes. No alcohol service at their restaurants
past II :00 pm at night. We proffered the hours of operation for the Kiddy Academy. We have also
provided buffers, extensive buffer planting along the southern portion of the property. There are a total of
seven homes that back up to the property in the area, both of the building and the parking area. There is a
32 foot landscape area where there is existing vegetation will be retained. This property all drains to the
center, which is a good thing and it should provide us with the opportunity to retain a lot of the vegetation
in all of the property. But we have agreed to put an 8 foot privacy fence, a solid fence, vinyl along here
on our property and have Evergreen plants along the entire outer boundary of that fence and two other
rows interior of that fence, in this area, and in the area along the north. We will do a single row of
evergreens in these areas where there is nothing. Originally there was going to be a building there but
there won't be one there, and along here, as there is no current desire for fencing. I don't think there will
ever be. With Phase II, we will extend that in this area as well, although again, we're dealing with park
land and not a home. So, those buffer requirements are shown on here as well. And, the buffers will all
be maintained by the owner of the property. Because this is a B-IA and not B-2, this is a less intense
commercial zoning. No gas. No car related uses. . Like we said, we proffered away any convenience
stores. Only 11,000 square feet of retail with Phase I, and again, I can't envision a better scenario for the
use of this property. I would hate to see it be something industrial like we've been dealing with earlier on
the agenda today, which is the other only really compatible use for this piece of property. With that, I
think I'm going to be on my time. I appreciate the Commission letting me do so. It is fairly complicated
application, and if you have any questions about any of the information that we provided, I'll be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
Janice Anderson: Are there any questions for Eddie at this time? Go ahead Jay.
Jay Bernas: How do you respond to staff's concern that they mention at the informal that this proposal is
too intense. I'm not sure if that was from a traffic standpoint or if that was from a lot coverage standpoint
but their comment was that is too intense?
Eddie Bourdon: The conversations that I have had, Mr. Bernas, and I hesitate to put words in other
people's mouth. It had nothing whatsoever to with the lot coverage or the amount of development that
was proposed. It was my understanding that it was, and we heard this and we made some of the
concessions throughout the process that it was the amount of retail that was being proposed. And, with it
down to 11,000 square feet of retail in Phase I, and with the amount of costly improvements that have to
be made, it included the development site, the construction, the light fixtures, which we have state of the
art light fixtures to keep there from being any potential spill over. I failed to mention that. Economically,
it just becomes. It just isn't going to be viable. We have to have some amount of retail. 11,000 square
feet out of 25,000 is not a lot in our view. Now, the second building and we don't even know when that
will even be built. And, it frankly came up toward the last few weeks, and we thought we had addressed
those issues more than adequately. But there still seemed to be some concern expressed to me they would
like to see the amount of retail space reduce to a greater extent to what is shown on here. The other
problem that we have obviously, and we got real estate people here trying to get a good tenant mix and
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 4
trying to make this a viable and profitable, or at least break even, proposition given otherwise it will
continue to be a I'Jsing proposition in terms of economics. We didn't feel like that was too intense with
the phasing and with the improvements that we're doing to Holland Road. We didn't feel like that was
the case at all.
Janice Anderson: Go ahead Henry.
Henry Livas: To follow up on that, I have that same concern that Jay mentioned. I need probably more
reinforcement from the City as what they call "too intense". I think in terms in number of people. You
think the Navy was concerned about the number of people in an industrial area? I know they were
concerned about residential.
Eddie Bourdon: I know the city's comments have nothing whatsoever to do with the Department of the
Navy. The Navy has no objection to this. The Navy is not in any way involved in terms of having this
objection to this. And given the amount of open space, I can't conceive how that would but it is not a
Navy issue. You will have to ask the staff. I don't know what that number is. We've been asked on two
different occasions. We have reduced the amount of retail and we've agreed to phase. And we felt that
those two things would address those concerns. In doing that, we analyze that economics of it and how
we can keep our head above water waiting for Holland Road to be built. And gosh knows how long that
is going to be. And so it really isn't any opportunity with regard to Phase I to be able to do anything
significant in terms of reducing the amount of retail space of below what we've already proffered it to be,
which will be no more than 11,000 square feet of retail space in Phase I. There is 5,000 square feet of
restaurant space in addition to that. You will have to ask staff Mr. Livas.
Henry Livas: I would like a follow up from staff as how you came up with the too intense comment.
Karen Prochilo: First, Mr. Bourdon is correct in that it doesn't deal with the Navy, as far as intensity.
The Navy supports a non-residential use as we have discussed. They had come back with a much larger
project originally. There was a lot of concern based on the traffic issues. That has a lot to do with the
intensity. It is because retail does provide a lot more traffic generation then office or even the daycare.
Size was an issue .is far as the intensity. Not necessarily dealing with the number of buildings. We have
to look at what th(: intensity of each use is. We don't have issues with the uses. We think a mix of some
retail, some office, and the daycare is acceptable but we do have an issue with how much.
Stephen White: let me expand on that some. I think when you talk about intensity from our perspective,
the discussion is. Can you get back to the zoning map? From our perspective the discussion has more to
do with the intensity of the use in terms of what's around it. In terms of a single-family residential
development that liUrrounds this site except for those portions to the east that are non-developable for
environmental rea:mns. And, what we're trying to say is that we understand the applicant bought this
property with the c:xpectation of developing it. The applicant was caught with the BRAC, as Mr. Bourdon
has stridently pointed out, and it is true that this site is and cannot be used for residential uses. The
question then ariS{:s what non-residential uses are appropriate? What we have to weigh as planners is
what the expectation is of those single-family homeowners who purchased lots here thinking this was
going to be probably single-family as well. So, we're trying to find a middle ground of intensity that is
appropriate in what really is a single-family area. And, non-residential uses, the daycare I don't think
anybody could object to a daycare on this site. I don't think anybody could object to some office on this
site. There are other sites to the north on the west side of Holland Road that, and one in particular you
rezoned recently f(>r an office type of use. And, a limited amount of retail. Now, I can't tell you what
that number is but I'm not sure that its 11,000 square feet. That may be too intense. And, staff thinks that
it is. But some neighborhood serving retail on this property would probably be totally appropriate. But
II II I
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c.
Page 5
you got to remember that it is in a single family residential area. It is not a situation where it is on a
corner of two arterials or a strip on an arterial. It's a site in the center of a single-family residential area.
Janice Anderson: Okay. We have Dave and then Ron.
David Redmond: So, it is not really the intensity then, but it's the nature of the use that bothers them.
I'm following up on what Jay and Henry have to say that is not intensity mind.
Stephen White: Intensity?
David Redmond: Hold on. Let me finish.
Stephen White: Okay. Sorry.
David Redmond; When I look at that map I see an awful lot more of open space on that plan than I see in
either neighborhood to the north or to the south. They are fairly dense neighborhoods.
Stephen White: Well.
David Redmond: Can I?
Stephen White: I thought you were done.
David Redmond: I'm not. I'll let you know when I am.
Stephen White: Okay.
David Redmond: If you look at that map, that piece of property is surrounded by development. It is
zoned for a commercial use, agriculture Mr. Horsley, and he is not doing what he does for free. So,
obviously it is a commercial property. It may seem like that some times. But, be as it may, you know we
can come up with these sorts of arbitrary numbers. It is not 11,000 square feet but gosh I can't tell you
what it is. And we sort of casually throw out things that, well we'll change this and do that, as though
there are not, and there are, I'm sure, fairly complex financial models behind these things where you
essentially make it not work at some point without really considering what that is. It looks to me there are'
an awful lot of amenities proffered in this including the transportation, including the open space,
including the five acres they want to give to the City. I don't find that in anyway intense. Anyway, we
pick up five acres somehow that somehow it is a particularly intense development. Finally, in response to
what you have to say, the neighbors expectation perhaps. I'm getting a little ahead of myself, I know the
neighbors expectation that these were going to be single-family homes. A lot of us had expectations that
got up ended by BRAC. And all of us have bared the burden in some respects. I had expectations myself
that certain things would be different and they are not. So, I'm not sure necessarily that particular
applicant ought to bear all the burden of that. I mean it is a shared one throughout our community.
We've all done it. So, anyway there is my comment so there.
Stephen White: I have no reply to his comment.
Eddie Bourdon: Madame Chair, if I could?
Janice Anderson: Sure.
Eddie Bourdon: My client has born and I can speak personally because I know this. My client has born a
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 6
greater burden of what has happened with the BRAC process than anybody that I know. And they are not
some of the big d:::velopers that we know that I've had the privilege of representing whose pockets are
deep and who frankly, my experience wouldn't have been willing to do as much as these folks have been
willing to do. I mean that in all sincerity. And, I appreciate the complexity of this issue. I appreciate
having spent, and I can't remember but it has been probably 5 or 6 hours with the community in the three
meetings talking about it. So, I do recognize and we all recognize that it is a complex situation but it is a
situation that we have got to overcome, and with the neighborhood being able to access this property,
without having to drive elsewhere, there are some similarities that are reflected in that traffic number as
far as capture and things of that nature. To suggest that on 20 acres ofland with 600 feet offrontage on
Holland Road that 11,000 square feet of retail is too much, with the improvements and the cost of those
improvements. We all know the market for office space is very limited. And, it won't pay for itself.
There is no way we can get these improvements by saying we'll condemn it to office space. We are
providing office space in the first building, 9,000 square feet will be office and personal service uses.
That is mixed use and the daycare. I appreciate Dr. White's expression that it is a great use for that piece
of property. We concur wholeheartedly. It is a great use for that piece of property. But this is not a high
intensity use of 20 acres by any stretch, and to have retail adjacent homes, we have and I got a long list.
I've gone around and made a partial list of number of commercial developments with homes, 10, 12 or 15
homes backing up to it without the level of buffer we have here. We've got Windsor Oaks up on Holland
Road, where we did the rezoning on Mast Fann between Chimney Hill and Windsor Oaks neighborhood.
We put a huge shopping center behind houses on both sides of that property. But when you put the road
through it, it actu<llly got to go through another road. This doesn't get through another road because of its
environmental issLles behind it. It is very similar to that. And, again, I've got a list if anybody wants it. I
may use it on rebuttal of all of these commercial areas in the city with much, much larger commercial,
much, much larger retail, and more intrusive directly adjacent to homes.
Janice Anderson: Eddie, I think Ron had a question. Didn't you have a question for Eddie?
Ronald Ripley: Mine is two questions. And one is the square footage. I know I must have had it but I'm
not sure what they are. Do you mind just going over Building 1, 2, 3, 4 or whatever?
Eddie Bourdon: Building 2, which is I think: is the primary building of concerns of Phase I on the
southwest comer of the property. It is a total of 25,000 square feet in that building. Okay. Within that
25,000 square feet, we have proffered it would be no more than 11,000 square feet retail. No more than
5,000 square feet of restaurant and the remaining 9,000 square feet would be office or personal service
businesses. Get YDur hair cut, beauty salon, things of that nature. The Phase II building to the northwest
comer that is a 9,000 square foot retail building, a one-story retail building; the office building is a two-
story, that I believe is 17,000 square feet and the daycare is a one-story building. I apologize. I don't have
that committed to memory as far as the square footage of the daycare building in the back.
Ronald Ripley: TIlat's okay.
Radhakrishna Renuknunta: 9,300 square feet.
Eddie Bourdon: 9,300 square feet. Thank you.
Ronald Ripley: My second question is that you look like you're doing some off-site improvements here
with the road. Can you do all of that within the public right-of-way? You look like you're going beyond
your property. Am I seeing this right?
Eddie Bourdon: You are. The answer is yes Mr. Ripley because VDOT has acquired the right-of-way.
All of the right-of.,way in this area for the ultimate four-lane divided highway.
II II I
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c.
Page 7
Ronald Ripley: You're going to accelerate their plan.
Eddie Bourdon: We are going to be in this area accelerating to a degree. We're not doing the full VDOT
build out but we are creating, as I indicated, creating an additional, in essence lane of traffic. This is the
exhibit. All the areas that you see shaded will be new road section that we will be providing which will
provide the opportunity for there to be left hand lane going into Sugar Maple and a left lane coming north
on Holland to go into Barberry, and a left turn lane, again south on Holland into Chestnut Oak Way with
a right hand turn lane coming into our development, a right hand turn lane going into Chestnut Oak Way
and a left hand turning coming into our development.
Ronald Ripley: Right there at the end of your property.
Eddie Bourdon: This is the northern end of the property. This is the southern end of the property. The
improvements go all the w~y past Chestnut Oak Way all the way up into this area as well, so we can
create that left turn lane coming in here.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you.
Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions of Eddie at this time? Thanks.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all very much.
Donald Horsley: We got three speakers in support. John Wessling.
John Wessling: Good afternoon. I am John Wessling with GV A Advantis Commercial Real Estate. I am
representing the landlord in negotiating the lease for the Kiddy Academy daycare, and I just wanted to
share a little bit of information about the proposed daycare. First of all, Kiddy Academy is a national
daycare operation with 100 centers in 21 states. They have done a market study and believe this site on
Holland Road is a viable site for one of their centers. It will be operated by a local franchisee by the
name of Mary Griffin. Mary is a retired Naval Intelligence Officer who now works as a civilian
psychologist with the Navy. The anticipated hours of the center is 6:30 am to 6:30 pm, Monday through
Friday. It will not be opened on weekends. Anticipated capacity is approximately 150. It will create 15
to 18 jobs. They expect drop offs to be spread out in the morning between approximately 6:30 am and
8:30 am for the most part and most pick-ups to between 4:00 and 6:30 pm. There will be a small van with.
12 seats to pick up kids from schools for an afterschool program. It will pick up children from schools
within a 5 to 7 mile radius of the site. It is possible at some point in the future if the afterschool program
has enough demand there could be a second van. Initially the Kiddy Academy will be a daycare. After a
year-long accreditation process, it may become an accredited pre-school. In good weather, there will be
children on the outdoor playground in groups always supervised and within a fenced in area. There will
be six foot high fence around that outdoor area. And as you heard a few minutes ago, the daycare
building is 9,315 square feet, and the outdoor fenced in area is a little bit more than 4,000 square feet. It
will be well managed. The owner anticipates a system of security cameras and occasionally offering
sporadic field trips to places like the aquarium.
Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any questions for John? Thank you.
John Wessling: Thank you.
Donald Horsley: Okay. Our next speaker is Susan Sivertsen.
Susan Sivertsen: Good afternoon. I'm Susan Sivertsen and I'm a nine year resident of the Holland Oaks
Subdivision. I am very proud of our community, and I'm also in support of this project. The reason is
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 8
that I am a small business owner here in Virginia Beach. There is nothing that excites me more in today's
economy is to be able create additional jobs. In addition to that, there is what looks like an ideal situation
for the Christopher Farms Elementary School. I'm a mother of nine year old third grader there who is a
honorable student at that school. There is nothing more frustrating in the summer time and an after-hours
care knowing the amount of time we have to spend to find after hours care for our children there. Being a
working mother and a working father in the household, we need to have that after hours care. Christopher
Farms fills out within the same day of registration at that location. Having an additional facility, in
addition to the Kindercare options that are available in our community, it is a very exciting to our
neighbors and our community. I've talked to numerous residents there and nothing excites them to have
somewhere else that is local, that we can walk to that facility to be able not only to pick up our children
but drop off our children in the morning for those who are heading out. Weare a thriving community.
We look forward to this. It looks like from this project is a green project that will not only look at low
lighting for us, low impact to our community and not only decrease the amount of impact to those
residents for after hours for noise situations, where we have enough teenagers back there causing
situations, but to he able to clean up that environment and allow for the job growth. The support for
additional property values having that daycare facility in that area, and an addition to Holland Road. As
we all know that project is coming. We're excited for that project. But the point is that we have enough
helicopters coming in to airlift people from accidents over there. I witnessed three or four myself
happening. People drive quickly and having additional lanes will only help us stay safer on that road.
Thank you.
Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any more questions for Ms. Sivertsen? Thank you.
Susan Sivertsen: Thank you.
Donald Horsley: Okay. Eric Sivertsen.
Eric Sivertsen: Good afternoon. Just by a way of a quick introduction.
Ed Weeden: State: your name for the record.
Eric Sivertsen: Certainly. Eric Sivertsen.
Ed Weeden: Thar.k you.
Eric Sivertsen: You're welcome. We live in an adjoining property to the proposed development.
Donald Horsley: Can you show us on the map?
Eric Sivertsen: Certainly.
Donald Horsley: There is a pointer right there.
Eric Sivertsen: Just by way of introduction, I'm employed by a local company here in Virginia Beach for
the past nine years. I am a Board member on the Project Management Institute of Hampton Roads, which
is very active in the Hampton Roads community. I want to say that I am in favor of this development.
What I am not in favor of is the fear of what will go in there. We have lived there for nine years looking
at a beautifulland!icape. My expectation has always been that was going to remain that. Now, that may
be a false expectation knowing that the property could be owned by someone but Endeavor Enterprises
has taken time to come in and talk to the community, explain what they are going to do, and I think they
have gone out of their way to try to make the impact as minimal as possible. Again, I believe that their
proposal is really to integrate and become a really good addition to our community. Thank you.
'I
'I I
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c.
Page 9
Janice Anderson: Are there any questions of Mr. Siverteson? Thank you sir.
Donald Horsley: Speaking in opposition is Karen Maxwell.
Janice Anderson: Welcome.
Karen Maxwell: Good afternoon Madame Commissioner and members of the Planning Commission, my
name is Karen Maxwell. My address is 2966 Sugar Maple Drive. I actually own the property that is
adjacent to the park of this proposed project.
Donald Horsley: Do you want to show us?
Karen Maxwell: I'm right there (pointing to PowerPoint)
Janice Anderson: Okay.
Karen Maxwell: Okay. Although I have many concerns about this project, my two major concerns are
the fact that Endeavor is proposing to have an access road that actually leads from their retail
establishment to the city park and also the fact that they will be selling alcohol until II :00 pm. There has
been an ongoing effort to try and eliminate drugs and gang activity in the park. Because of the fact that it
is limited, only one way in, one way out, my neighbors and I have been able to really monitor the
situation, and engaged help of the police force to prevent that from flourishing. However, with this new
proposed plan, I can see that this would really be a problem. The fact that the parking lot that is actually
right behind the proposed development, and then by having actually the park there, really provides access
to the neighborhood. That is, to me really a recipe for disaster because all of a sudden you're opening up
the neighborhood to various types of different elements. I don't understand why a residential park should
add an amenity to a commercial enterprise. I think, as we've all seen this plan has changed numerous
times, and now all of a sudden we're adding the fact that we're going to have this pathway. I think that
Endeavor's thought was we would have the opportunity to have people from the neighborhood go over
and enjoy the services of this community. However, on the other hand what happens is that you have all
of these people that are visiting these retail establishments, now coming into the community park. And, I
really just don't see that is fair. I also think, again present a hazard to the neighborhood. I think that one
of the concerns that actually Dr. White and Mr. Redmond was addressing was the intensity of the project.
I think that, I guess we started talking about the types of use. That is a major concern of mine. The fact
that we're talking about all of this retail space and what that brings to the fact that this is a totally a
residential community. I do understand that fact that Endeavor does have the right to develop their
property. This was an investment they made and because of the decisions of the BRAC Commission,
they're limited in the types of uses. That is understood. However, I would ask that everyone take into
consideration that this is neighborhood community, and some of the types of businesses that they are
talking about bringing into can greatly impact the community.
Janice Anderson: Thank you Ms. Maxwell. Are there any questions? Go ahead AI.
Al Henley: yes. So, really your concern is because of the park may be encouraging some illegal or not so
good activities from the proposed development?
Karen Maxwell: Yes I am. The fact that and as I said you had various people congregating, etc., now all
of sudden you also have the opportunity with the establishments that are serving alcohol to be opened
until II :00 pm. Although they are not allowing carry out alcohol, people can visit those establishments,
and as we all know once people engage in alcohol consumption, attitudes changed. Then all of a sudden
they can easily walk over, hang out in the park. I just don't think that it provides for a good use of the
facilities.
I 1
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 10
Al Henley: Would you be happy if the development cut that access off completely and had an eight foot
solid privacy fence along that entire property line?
Karen Maxwell: Yes I would. That is what I would really be hoping for. One of the concerns though is,
this plan has chan.ged numerous times keeping it up with it has been quite difficult. At one point in time,
the fence seemed to have extended the entire line going up until the 5 acre portion that is to be given back
to the City. Now, because there is a phased approached, it looks like they're saying they're only going to
put the fence up to the end of the second building. That is going to leave still an open access way to the
park. So, that is a concern.
Al Henley: Okay. I think it was the intent of the development and that would be a positive element to the
neighborhood to open that access so they could visit those facilities but however, like your concerns are,
the idea was negative rather than a positive.
Karen Maxwell: Yes. That is correct.
AL Henley: Than.k you.
Karen Maxwell: You're welcome.
Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions? Thank you.
Donald Horsley: Kenneth Slobodkin.
Kenneth Slobodkin: Good afternoon.
Janice Anderson: Good afternoon. Thank you.
Kenneth Slobodkin: Madame Chair and members of the Commission, thank you for giving me the
opportunity to spt~ak with you today. My name is Kenneth Slobodkin. It weeds out the telemarketers.
I've lived on Barberry Lane since 1999, and when we moved to Barberry Lane with my family, neighbors
told us that the only real problem is fast cars pulling through the subdivision and sometimes long waits to
make left turn onto Holland Road from Barberry Lane. Well, that was accurate because we to have
grown to love our neighborhood but we remain vigilant for fast moving cars cutting through. It is a
constant danger to our children, as it is in a lot of neighborhoods. We accept the fact that crossing or
walking along Holland Road even to a park that is less than a quarter mile from our house is really a death
sentence. It is not available to us. When we heard VDOT's plan to close off Barberry Lane as part of the
widening project, we became hopeful. That project got pushed to 2008 then 2012. It looks like is 2020
now. The question is why did VDOT make closing off Barberry Lane part of their plan? Well, I don't
have the answer to that question but the more important question is, were those reasons that VDOT had
whatever they are taken into consideration when this plan was created? They have lined up. Can we get
a shot with Barberry Lane and Holland? I will show you where I live. I'm right about here on Barberry
Lane (pointing to PowerPoint). That is Barberry? Yeah. Okay. It looks like we got left turn lanes going
into the Village Centre. We got a left turn lane going into Barberry Lane. It looks like the left turn lane
going into Barben)' is only about 75 feet long. If this is 200 feet, this is about 75 feet. Now, when that
left turn holding lane fills up, traffic is going to back up right about here. You're going to have the same
problem you have now with cars getting rear ended because that is insufficient. I also believe that the
traffic impact analysis paid for by Mr. Renuknunta says that is going to create additional traffic capacity
and including beOi~fits and reduce the latest for through traffic on Holland Road. I believe that is true. I
also believe that this is going to meet huge amounts of traffic through the residential subdivision at
Barberry because ,:>f that left turn lane from Holland Road onto Barberry. If an average of one car uses
'I 'I
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c.
Page 11
that lane every five minutes that is going to be an extra 100,000 going through that subdivision. One car
every 2 minutes is a quarter million cars a year. It is my hope that you have the power to pass this zoning
request with a line item rejection of this traffic plan because I think Mr. Renukunta and his people have
worked hard on this. It promises to be a great benefit to the community. Mr. Renukunta had nothing to
do with this road plan. He was told by the City that if he wants this project to move forward he has to
include these features so he did, including the left turn lane into Barberry. Instead, how about we come
up with an alternative plan that doesn't send all these new cars through a residential subdivision such as
shutting off the street now, which is VDOT's plan and recommendation or putting in a barrier that
restricts left turns onto Holland Road so you can turn right onto Barberry and you can turn right out of
Barberry. I see no advantage a residential subdivision to this commercial endeavor and I urge this
Commission to do the right thing and protect my children and the hundreds of children in Landstown
Meadows that deserve to live where their safety isn't put at risk in the name of a left turn lane that ignores
VDOT's recommendations and doesn't have a thing to do with this development.
Janice Anderson: Are there any questions? Thank you sir.
Kenneth Slobodkin: Thank you.
Donald Horsley: Stuart Koegle. Did I mess that up bad?
Stuart Koegle: Yes. Go through life with it like that.
Donald Horsley: That's alright.
Stuart Koegle: Madame Chair and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Stuart Koegle.
I'm the President of the Greenwood Community Association that borders the north side of the proposal. I
appreciate the chance to speak about the development of Endeavor Enterprises. I spoke with Barbara
Henley to find out how this works. I really didn't understand a lot of the things and what's going on here.
We understand that Endeavor Enterprises has the right to develop this, and we understand that. I would
like to thank Karen Prochilo for her help. When I worked with her in understanding what 0-1 is, which is
office for rezoning this. I think it is a viable option for this. We sent Endeavor Enterprises, in January, a
five-page letter. Stating what the neighborhoods that I had talked too and what the people in Greenwood
had talked about to make this a professional office park, doctors, dentists and things of this nature. I
would also like to thank Ric Lowman and the traffic infonnation. In what he is proposing is going to be
an increase here. There will be over 3,000 vehicles a day moving in and out of this area onto to Holland
Road. That is per day. Holland Road right now is over capacity. It is rated about 16,000 vehicles a day.
It is over 17,000 right now. Those are numbers that are coming right from Traffic. While the applicant
Endeavor Enterprises has met with the adjacent neighborhoods three times, my perception of these three
meetings is that Endeavor Enterprises was there to tell us what they were going to do not to change the
proposal or integrate any ideas for what the neighborhoods wanted. In January, we sent them the five
page letter trying to move into an office realm. There was actually no discussion about this at all. I
would liken it to Holland Office Park, which is Holland Road just north of Mount Trashmore. And at
7/eleven the buildings are single story in the woods. It would be an addition. Building another daycare, I
don't believe is supported. The demographics of Virginia Beach are showing stagnant and they just
closed one of the elementary schools. In a 4.5 mile radius there are over 50 daycare centers that are not
full. The population of Virginia Beach is also aging. That is why I feel that the area could be used as an
office park for dental, medical, something that would support Sentara Hospital that is getting ready to be
built over there. VDOT? That has been discussed. 2020 is coming down the road. We also don't know
what the impact is going to be on the water. There is only a 16 inch city main there. When they hookup
to the water how is that going to impact us at Holland Road? Sewage is the same way. Both ofthose will
not be increased until they widen Holland Road or they upgrade Holland Road. We ran a petition. There
Item #22
Endeavor Ente:rprises, L.L.c.
Page 12
is over 400 people signed the petition that are against this proposal, this development as it is set up right
now. Thank you for your time.
Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Koegle. Are there any questions? Thank you sir.
Donald Horsley: Michael Carey. I got that one right.
Michael Carey: Madame Chair and members of the Planning Commission. Good afternoon. My name is
Michael Carey. I'm a resident of Chestnut Oak Way, which borders the parcel ofland in question. I'm
also on the Board of Directors for the Greenwood Homes Association. I am a retired police officer now
in the private sector. When I bought my home on Chestnut Oak Way, I bought it for two reasons. First it
was a safe environment for my family to stay here for the remainder of our lives and for the school
system. I did not buy it with the idea that a road would be put through behind my home and commercial
buildings and restaurants and alcohol being sold. I agree with Mr. Koegle as far as office space. I also
agree with Endeavor Enterprises in the sense that they do have the right to develop their property but I
feel as though it is their responsibility as well as the City's responsibility to make sure that it developed
wisely and compatible to the adjoining neighborhoods. I don't think, and I would hope, you would agree
that the infrastructure along Holland Road would not support the added traffic that this would put on
Holland Road. Incidentally, it has not been mentioned yet but at the comer of Chestnut Oak Way and
Holland Road there is a bus stop there. It is virtually impossible to pull out of our street to make a left
turn onto Holland to go south down to Princess Anne Road. It virtually cannot be done. With this added
traffic who know:; what that will do? I don't agree with some of the comments that were made earlier
about the BRAC Commission and so forth. We should just expect that this co~ld happen. It was a
reasonable expeclation on our part to have neighbors behind us. We knew that property would be
developed at som;: point. I think it would be a very reasonable expectation to believe that it would be
residential neighbors. We got caught in this "catch 22" because investors came along, bought this
property. They weren't the original land owner. They want to flip the property and make a profit on it
and that is their right to do that. It is also my right to make money in the stock market. It is an investment
and that is a gamble. But likewise, I don't think it was reasonable to have a shopping center sandwiched
in between two residential communities. There is minimal frontage along Holland Road and if you look
at this, it is not a parking lot. It is a street that is going through the property with buildings and shopping
centers on each side. This would literally not be compatible to either residential neighborhood.
Janice Anderson: Are there any questions of Mr. Carey? Thank you sir.
Michael Carey: lhank you.
Donald Horsley: Frances Mongin.
Frances Mongin: My name is Frances Mongin and I'm not a fancy person. I just live in Holland Oaks
Development for 13 year. And when I bought the home in Holland Oaks, I was told yes, it would be
residential. I'm also a teacher so I'm also very sentimental. I worry about the children. I agree with the
park. We have a lot of police activity right now in our development of Holland Oaks where teenagers are
hanging out at the park. The police and the neighborhood is working together to keep all of our children
safe. I do oppose the change from residential to commercial. I would have been happy to have
residential neighbors behind me. And probably would have made them a pot of sauce and welcomed
them to the neighborhood. But I have concerns also as an environmentalist. I'm so fortunate to live
where I did becam:e I'm behind the woods. That are woods right now and we have owls back there.
Being a New York City girl, I just love those animals and those birds. And, I also have heavy rains. We
have flooding so I am very fortunate to have Lake Mongin in the front of my house and behind my house
where those wetlands are. So, there is a lot of considerations for the environment. As a teacher traveling
'I II I
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 13
out of my development to try to get to work in the morning, there are many days that I am sitting there 15
minutes waiting to make my turn onto Holland Road. I allow that time into my travels so I can get to
work on time. But I would like for you to consider the neighborhood, and I understand that everyone has
a right to make money. Believe it or not, we have our 401Ks that have died. We all made a risk with
money and economics but consider all the people in Holland Oaks, Hidden Oaks, and Greenwood next to
us when you make your decision. Thank you.
Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you ma'am.
Donald Horsley: Ashlee Morgan.
Ashlee Morgan: Good afternoon Madame Chairwoman and members of the Planning Commission, my
name is Ashlee Morgan, and I am a realtor. I'm also a homeowner here on Chestnut Oak Way. I am here
today in opposition of this development. Don't get me wrong. I'm for growth and economic development
for our city. However, this location is not a good one. As a realtor, I am self employed. My husband is
self employed. Jobs in our economy are very important. This particular parcel is not the right place. I
have briefly reviewed the Comprehensive Plan by the City of Virginia Beach as I am sure have all of you.
I am aware that this is the guideline for the future vision of our City. This parcel falls in a primary
residential area. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes preserving and protecting the overall character,
economic value and quality of stable neighborhoods. This developer is proposing, and if you look at this
what looks like a small retail strip center in between two neighborhoods with a two-story office building
and five acres of just building footprint sandwiched between two residential areas. I know the
Comprehensive Pl~n states to avoid further development of strip centers only to major roadways and two
encourage the reuse and redevelopment of existing commercial site, and limit these to intersections,
definitely not between two neighborhoods. We have spent a lot of time reviewing the proposed site plans
for this parcel since November. I mean, of course, we have several concerns. Traffic is definitely an
issue. We were told several different numbers on several different of the meeting. Some of them have
said 2,500 cars. Some of them have said 3,000 additional cars based on this development. Either way,
even if there is only a 1,000 cars that road is over capacity. There is no way around it. I am also a mother
of a third grade, and a fifth grader of Christopher Farm Elementary. Each morning I struggle to safely
turn left to get them to school on time. We also have based on the recommendations of staff that they did
recommend denial. Stormwater management cannot accommodate development. Holland Road cannot
handle any additional cars on the road. The Comprehensive Plan is your guideline and your vision for the
city. If you start bending the guidelines and making exception after exception, the guidelines and the
vision gets lost. I ask for each of you to deny this request today because this proposal is too intense. It is
too intense for five acres in a residential area. That's all. Thank you for your time.
Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any questions of Ms. Morgan? Thank you
Ashlee Morgan: Thank you.
Donald Horsley: Joe Heilman.
Joe Heilman: Good afternoon. My name is Joe Heilman. Thanks for hearing me today. My family and I
live at 3004 Barberry Lane, which is now the comer of Barberry and Holland after 3002 Barberry has
been tom down for road expansion. When we moved there in 2006, we were told that VDOT's plan was
to widen Holland Road and to put up a sound barrier there to close off Barberry Lane. We soon realized
why because cars love to cut through Barberry Lane and the traffic can be burdensome at times. There
are children all around including my two, eight and five year old. Now with Holland Road being
expanded, we're scared because VDOT's plan is being taken away and turn lanes are being put in. If that
is to happen and Barberry is to go directly into this new development then Barberry becomes even more
of a cut-through for people. Barberry is a very thin road. It is a very narrow road. There are a lot of one
I ,
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c.
Page 14
car driveways, cars on either side of the road right now. It is a maze to get through Barberry Lane to get
out either way. lJthere is more traffic put on that road, I simply don't know how I'm going to get out of
my front door. 80, I'm asking that you will reconsider VDOT's plan to close off Barberry Lane. We
have no problem, my family and I with the development or whatever is going to be put across the street
from us. We would hope that you would consider the safety of the children and the families on Barberry
Lane. Thank you.
Janice Anderson' Thank you. Are there any questions?
Donald Horsley: Jerry Chiusano.
Jerry Chiusanio: Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Chiusano and I live in Holland Oaks. Very quickly,
I will show you m.y little piece of America. I am right there. That is my house (pointing to PowerPoint).
I have lived there since 1999. I was deposited here. I've been here for 30 years. I came here in 1979.1
was a member ofUnc1e Sam's canoe club, and I decided to stay in this little City of Virginia Beach.
Look where we are now? I've worked for the City for 26 years, and I am a middle manager in the Public
Safety division. What I do is that everybody that is underneath my command and I learn things, that if it
is predictable it i!: preventable. Some of these things that I want to point, and I'm going to try not to be
redundant, and I'll get out of your hair are two points. This is just one of those scenarios that quite
honestly doesn't make sense. It is not necessarily because it is in my backyard so to speak, it's just the
fact of the matter that the owner, sorry to say was put into a precarious position that he has to use the land
for something. Like the previous speakers and as you can see with our beautiful neighborhoods on either
side, the assumption, and we are all taught that is a terrible word, but in reality our assumption was going
to be a residential neighborhood where all of these trees are. So, that's the first point. And, if I could,
respectfully tell Mr. Redmond that by virtual of knowing that it is possible that their giving the City "x"
amount ofproperty. I think they are using 5 or 2 acres. Whatever the case may be, the reality is and it is
great for use as City stakeholders, that property is mush. So, the fact of the matter is that he is going to
give us some property but that area that goes towards the creek is kind of unusable anyway. So, I just
wanted to put some reality to that respectfully sir if! could. The second issue is the most important issue.
This project althollgh we understand that it is the property owner's right to do something with his
property, the one ilcey medium that we're all discussing here is that maybe it's, first of all too much. I love
the word "intense" but it is too much too early. Holland Road needs help. We were told when I bought
my house under contract that this little area right here was going to be a cul-de-sac. This is a construction
entrance. When this property was built in 95-96, right around there, this was going to be closed off
because Holland Road was going to be widened. Here are two years later because they said it was going
to happen around 1999, were ten years later. It's 2009, and now we are told in writing through the City
official that at a minimum 2019 or 2020 is when this Holland Road is going to be expanded. The fact of
the matter is Hollflnd Road is an issue. It's a safety issue. If! was here tomorrow in uniform I could
gfbring you numbers to show you the amount of traffic accidents, and if not fatalities, serious injuries
because of this oVlerloaded road. Go home that way this afternoon and I hope that you will be satisfied
with your vote of a denial today would be for the safety of our citizens. It is too early. We have to finish
Holland Road first. Thank you so very much. I appreciate the honor.
Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Chiusano? Go ahead.
David Redmond: I'm sorry. How do you pronounce your name again?
Jerry Chiusano: CHU-SANO.
David Redmond: I've come to mistrust his pronunciation today.
II
'I I
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 15
Jerry Chiusano: I just found out I have an Italian in my neighborhood. I'm going over for sauce.
David Redmond: Come back. I have a question for you. You mentioned that you were told that was
going to be a construction entrance at Sugar Maple.
Jerry Chiusano: It's an opening right now. It was a construction entrance. We were told that Holland
Road was going to be finished within a two year period and that was going to be closed off. So, my street
Sugar Maple, this entire street was going to be a dead end. Now, my goodness and of course that sounds
great. I'm only going to be six houses from the end of a dead end. I'm going to have a cul-de-sac. So,
we've got so many promises over the years. Again, I know that promises are only as good as the plan but
you could only imagine this is not a wide frontage. Go by there and look. It's your assumption, as a good
investor. This is my fourth home here in the City of Virginia Beach. My assumption was I was moving to
a residential area.
David Redmond: That was precisely my point. The reason why I asked you is because someone else here
earlier had said that we were told that these were going to be houses. Who knows who tells you
something over the years?
Jerry Chiusano: Sure.
David Redmond: I've come the hard way to treat rather skeptically what people tell me and not
necessarily rely on them until they occur.
Jerry Chiusano: Absolutely sir.
David Redmond: But that was really rather my point earlier. I'm sure at some point there was some
expectation and the assumption since it is buffered on all sides practically by houses that it would be
houses. BRAC upended all of that.
Jerry Chiusano: Sure, absolutely.
David Redmond: Completely threw it out the window.
Jerry Chiusano: Right.
David Redmond: If that was my assumption if I was standing at 30,000 feet and looking down and
thinking, this is how it is arranged. That may have been very valid. I'm not sure those assumptions.
There changeable by virtue of circumstance. And BRAC was a pretty big one around here.
Jerry Chiusano: Absolutely. And I agree with you but our Plan B, in my personal opinion that since we
have Plan B, and since that new property owner does have the right to have a Plan B. Plan A needs to be
less intense, Plan C, needs to say that Plan B needs to come onboard after Holland Road can handle what
that plan C will have. It can't handle what we have now. Holland Road is overweight with cars, with
traffic. It is what it is.
David Redmond: Okay. Thank you.
Jerry Chiusano: Thank you sir.
I I
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c.
Page 16
Janice Anderson: Thank you. No other speakers? Eddie? Can you kind of address some of their
concerns?
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. I appreciate it. I will try to address them. It will take more than three
minutes. Again, I want to thank the community representatives from coming down today. Again, I will
repeat what I say, but again, everybody composed themselves very professionally. That is from my
standpoint something that I greatly appreciate. First of all, I'll start at the beginning with Karen
Maxwell's concerns. The connectivity by creating a trail connection to the park was something that staff
had asked us to do, and it is in fact was intended in fact to provide a means for people to access our
development from the neighborhood without having to go out onto Holland Road. We certainly don't
have to have that. We got, as I said, 15 acres of park space on our property. That park is not particularly
large, I don't know that someone is going to hang out there versus hangout on the parks that we have.
We don't intend to have anybody hanging out. We have security. If that is a big concern, again it wasn't
our idea. We had no problem doing it. It will save us money not to have that connectivity. But I guess
what our Compn:hensive Plan asked for, look for and I think that is a good thing overall. We're not
going to fall on our sword on that. We heard a number of times types of use, types of use. Immediately
had and I beg to differ to one of the statements that were made. We asked for feedback. We got
feedback. Whatever we got we put into the agreement. We don't necessarily agree with everything but we
tried to eliminate uses that would create concerns such as convenience stores and people selling alcohol in
an uncontrolled environment. Not the same situation with regard to a restaurant. Not a bar but a
restaurant. You c:an't have a bar on this property in B-1 A. You can't have a nightclub or any of that kind
of stuff, which w\~ have gone over and explained. It will be like an Appleby's or a place like that. We
don't think that is going to create a problem. As far as the two gentlemen spoke on Barberry, again the
location of the entrance across from Barberry is something that Traffic Engineering and the City
expressed was tht: correct location. We didn't object to that. By providing these turn lanes in the road,
where now there really is a difficult time getting across the street because there is no way to stay in the
middle, at least that opportunity all now exist, which should exactly make it somewhat easier. We're not
creating a cut-through. If Barberry is a cut-through now, it will be a cut-through later. I don't really see.
that. There is no left turn lane going into Barberry now. We don't understand and maybe Traffic
Engineering can, The idea that there is going to be a bunch of people stacked up northbound on Holland
Road turning left onto Barberry for some conceived cut-through. Again, we're doing it because that will
help traffic. We're doing it because that we were requested to do. It will save us money if you cut
Barberry off and we don't have to make all of those improvements. It is not something that we need for
the development of our business. I think it does make sense traffic wise. As far as Mr. Keogle
comments, we do have office space in here. We hope there will be some office use tenants, professional
office. It would be great but I would suggest to you that the city's huge medical complex at Princess
Anne Commons and all of the medical office buildings here at Princess Anne Commons is pretty much
saturated that market. Again, we would welcome and hope there would be some but our professionals tell
us and I think you all know enough to recognize that the likelihood is that were not to have a significant
amount of office space desire demand in this particular area but we certainly are anticipating some, and
hope there will be some. That is why we have a mixed use development. But again, our intent all along I
think we have demonstrated a huge desire to work with the community to try to make this as, good as it
can be. With regard to Mr. Carey's, and I do take some exception to some of the things that were said by
Mr. Carey, my client bought this property intending to develop it residentially, as it was recommended at
the time. The flipping of the property to make a profit is an absurd proposition. He is just trying to keep
his head above water at this point. At one point, although I think he changed his mind at the end, Mr.
Carey and some of the other neighbors opposed residential development at the end of Chestnut Oak Way
back when we proposed that rezoning. So, again Mike did change his mind at the very last minute on that
one. A number of residents in the area did actually come down and oppose that request to rezone it
residentially. Now, they found the Lord. They want it be residential. We wish that it was the case. But
the idea that he is going to make some kind of profit off of this is an absurd proposition. Fifteen acres out
11 I!
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 17
of 20 acres will be open space with Phase I being develop 13 acres out of 20 acres open space upon
complete build out and gosh know how long that will be. Now, with Ms. Morgan's concerns, the actual
total building foot print of all four buildings on this site is 1.19 acres, the building footprint. She
indicated 5 acres. Again, it is the total build out of the road on site and it just serves the site and nothing
else as well as the parking lot. That is how you get the 5 acres. Mr. Carey and Ms. Morgan's property
backs up to wooded area and that will remain wooded area. There is no road until you go on the south
side of the creek, which is very significance distance from the back of their property. We offered to put a
solid fence up. They indicated they didn't want a solid fence, so there is nothing to be built behind them
with this plan. Earlier there was a plan that had a building behind there. In fact, the daycare was behind
their home. But that is not there anymore. The part about this being too much, and again I go back to
what I said. There is nothing like this anywhere in the city where you go this much open space associated
with a preserved open space. Not just the part that's dedicated to the city, preserved and maintained open
space. A part of a development of a office and commercial mixed use development. And with the
phasing, and if you develop this property residentially, if we were able to develop it residentially at 3.5
units per acre of developable land you would be looking at something close to 2,000 trips per day, just
under 2,000 trips per day if it had been developed residentially. You would have houses up against
houses and you would have a small fraction of the amount of open space that you're dealing with this
application. This application would represent probably 300 percent. That is probably too low, increase
the amount of open space that you would have verses if it was developed residentially. So, my firm belief
that once it is there, and people start utilizing the services and the businesses, it will come to be part of the
community that we envisioned it to be, that the developer envisioned it to be. Staff envisions it to be. The
only issue that staff has isn't that type of development but simply the concern about the amount of retail.
With that, I'll be glad to answer any questions that you may have. Our Traffic Engineer is here if
anybody has any questions of him.
Janice Anderson: Are there any questions for Eddie at this time? Go ahead Jay.
Jay Bernas: First I want to say and I want to echo one of the speakers and say that they are right. This
doesn't make sense, and where we're at because of the BRAC. Obviously, everybody wants residential
but it is what it is. My question to you is I'm trying to arrive at a compromise or a win-win for both sides.
You mentioned that this would be a phase development. One option could be let's say you had the
daycare obviously. It looks like you got a tenant for the daycare. You do the daycare in an office
building in Phase I and that is all that we approve today. Is that something that is economically feasible
and then we will see how it happens? Because you said you're going to do it in phases anyway. The
second phase is going to come years later.
Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Bernas what doesn't work with that is that you don't have the demand for the office
space. They are paying the rents and there not even going to come close to paying for the infrastructure
that is required. You're talking about doing those and not making any improvements to Holland Road
whatsoever. Some of those types of issues, you're talking about tradeoffs here. You cannot make the
numbers work. You can't conceivably make the numbers work, with what were having to invest. Forget
the purchase price of the property but the infrastructure improvements that we're talking about with this
development. The trail costs a lot of money to put in as well as all the landscaping. And Ms. Maxwell's
concern, if they don't want the connection, we always intended to put the fence all the way to the end
when we did Phase II, and have a gate through there but if they don't want that extra, we will put the
fence up at the beginning. Those are all the costs. But the biggest cost obviously is the infrastructure cost
and the improvements to Holland Road, is the significant one of those costs as well. You can conceivably
make those numbers work with doing the office building for really there isn't a demand and the daycare.
And the daycare is clearly one of the driving forces in tenns of being able to provide the cash flow to be
able to sustain this development until Holland Road is built. And I appreciate your first comment. None
of us wishes we were in this position.
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 18
Janice Anderson: Any other questions of Eddie at this time? Thanks Eddie. I'll bring you back.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you very much Madame Chair.
Janice Anderson Ric? Would you mind us putting you in the hot seat here?
Ric Lowman: I've got some responses.
Janice Anderson: Okay. Because there have been several concerns about it.
Ric Lowman: Yes. For the record, I'm Ric Lowman, City of Virginia Beach Traffic Engineering. Karen,
can you put up the infrastructure? Before you guys ask any, 1 guess additional questions, I've got a
couple of things lhat could answer some questions, and talk about why we decided where the best place
for the entrance was, and the turn lanes and things like that. The turn lanes and the location of the
entrance are really a function of the geometry that was already out there. Holland Road is already a three
lane road, meaning there was already a turn lane. And, I'm getting a little mixed up here with some of
this. There was already a turn lane, I believe at Sugar Maple? There was already a left turn lane there.
Henry Livas: Do you want to use the pointer?
Ric Lowman: Y ~:s. I always forget about this thing? Right here (pointing to PowerPoint). There was
already a left turn lane here at Sugar Maple, and I believe there is already a left turn lane down here at this
entrance. So, really the only thing that made sense through this section because he had to add a left lane
for his developm~:nt. There are no bones about it. There had t9 be a left turn lane at this location. Now,
with this being widened to a three lane section here, and it his already being a three lane section down
here, we had to k(~ep it a three lane section throughout. The only way to make the left turn lanes work and
Bob Miller can correct me ifhe feels differently. The only way we can get this existing left turn lane and
this left turn lane to work and to widen it, it would be silly to narrow it back down to two lanes. You
couldn't do it in this little distance here. So, it is a function of geometry. We had to get these lined up
with each other to make the left turns work or otherwise the people from Barberry, if they were to put the
entrance here, the people from Barberry would have had to turn across the left lane from the shopping
center to get into their neighborhood. So, it was in the best interest of all the geometries there. It is very
complex the way .the number of entrances are. So, that is why that is the way it is. Now, the turn lane for
Barberry, I don't believe in my opinion. It's not going to encourage more traffic to come through there.
Barberry doesn't actually go all the way through to Princess Anne. It comes around and it ties into
Winterberry and Winterberry comes in. Based on the traffic volume from the traffic study that the
developer did, the existing counts on Barberry and Holland Road, they were not indicative of a cut-
through problem. If it is speed that is an issue, I would encourage the neighborhood to be in touch with
us in Public Works and Traffic Engineering to talk about maybe getting them included in a traffic calming
program, if they are not already. With the number of petitions from the neighborhood, we'll come out
and will include them in the Traffic Calming Program. We'll study the speeds. We'll get police
enforcement ifis warranted. We do that already so it is not really a volume, in our opinion that's the
issue. Ifit is speed, we'll certainly deal with that. It won't be exacerbated by the shopping center, in our
opinion. Let me slee. The distance from the left turn lane that Kenny Slobodkin talked about. We had to
limit it to 100 feet because again, there is back to back left lanes here, and here. We had to make them
equal and 100 feet is bout enough for four cars. The only thing that I'm going to disagree with Eddie on
is the left turn lan~:s and the widening it to three lanes there in front of the entrance. There isn't going to
be any room for a car to go halfway and stop because it is only 12 foot wide, and as most of you that have
cars that are 16 fed long, everybody knows what happens when a car tries to do that. Their back end
hangs out and nobody wins. I think that is it unless you guys have anything.
'1 'I
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 19
Janice Anderson: Okay. Are there any questions?
Henry Livas: In general, you're saying this proposed project doesn't create a real traffic problem in
general.
Ric Lowman: I didn't say that. What I said was that the turn lanes are going to help the neighborhood. It
is a bad situation out there already. Holland Road is over capacity. I'd hope that Princess Anne Road,
which is scheduled to be in construction next year, and that is fully funded, to widen it from two to four
lanes. I would hope that some of the traffic on Holland would switch over to Princess Anne once it is built
just some of it. I'm not saying it is going to solve all of their problems. But there are problems getting on
to that road in the morning and the afternoons already. This shopping center is going to exacerbate that
for the people on Barberry. I mean the traffic impact study show that it is not going to make it better.
The delay is going to be on the side street. It is going to make the traffic on Holland Road flow better
because there are turn lane~ but on the side streets for the cars trying to make a left turn out of the
neighborhood and out of the shopping center, it is going to make it harder because of the increase in
traffic. There are no doubts about it. One additional car would make it harder.
Henry Livas: Any development in there may increase it.
Ric Lowman: Yes.
Henry Livas: Would this increase it more than any type of development? I guess you put office buildings
in there and maybe would be better but it might not be profitable.
Ric Lowman: No. You're asking about traffic wise?
Henry Livas: Traffic.
Ric Lowman: Traffic wise? It is obviously from the sheet, the handout that I've given and I've talked
with a couple of members from that are in opposition. Obviously retail is the highest of the three uses he
is considering. Retail is the highest generating use. So, if you were to ask me on how to reduce it in
impact, an office complex. Again, not speaking to the profitability or marketability, the office would be
the less intense use of anything they show. Again you asked me to talk about traffic.
Donald Horsley: I have a question.
Janice Anderson: Go ahead.
Donald Horsley: What is your comment? They mentioned that VDOT wants to close Barberry.
Ric Lowman: Yes.
Donald Horsley: And one speaker said why don't you go ahead and close it now?
Ric Lowman: The VDOT project, again it was part of the negotiations. I believe. I wasn't with the city
when these discussions were had. These plans have been pretty much 90 percent to 100 percent. One
guy said ten years and it s true. There just hasn't been money to fund the project. They could petition the
city to do that ahead of the project. Again, because I don't know what the negotiations were.
Donald Horsley: It seems like a bunch of them would support that. From what I understand today, they
support that and that would eliminate their problem.
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c.
Page 20
Ric Lowman: It would help them on Barberry but Winterberry would feel the effects.
Donald Horsley: Then we got to hear from Winterberry people.
Ric Lowman: Winterberry would have to weight into it because now the traffic on Winterberry would be
double what it is today.
Donald Horsley: It's going to happen when VDOT closes it anyway right?
Rich Lowman: Yes.
Donald Horsley: Okay.
Ric Lowman: Like we said, VDOT is going to make it a four lane road and what's going to happen
you're not going to get the cue of traffic and you're going to get more gaps on Holland Road. So, turning
left out of there is going to be a lot easier. And when VDOT does four lanes it there will be a median
open in the middle so you can go halfway. And then finish your trip, so you will only have to do half of
your decision points at one time. So, Winterberry will be a lot better when VDOT does the four lanes on
Holland. And to ~.ay that it is 2019 or 2020, I don't' think that anybody has ever committed to a date when
it would be or wouldn't be. If for some reason the city gets an enonnous amount of money from the
recovery plan, which we are for other projects but if we get more money, the city could obviously bind it
to put it on Holland. If there is a new revenue stream that comes out of whatever the new legislation,
there c01!ld be new monies from VDOT as well. So, I hear the snickering. We all know that it is not
likely they are going to come up with a lot of money.
Donald Horsley: Not likely.
Ric Lowman: So, but it could be accelerated if there is money for it.
Janice Anderson: Go ahead AI.
Al Henley: Ric, travel back south a little bit to where Nimmo Parkway connected between Princess
Anne and then Holland Road. When is that particular section of Nimmo supposed to be completed? Do
you know?
Ric Lowman: That is shifting a little bit as well. I mean Dave Hanson, Deputy City Manager just made a
presentation to Cily Council last Tuesday during the budget reconciliation. Officially it is 2014 to begin
construction for Nimmo but there is other plans that if more money comes in and it is very likely that
Virginia Beach will see additional recovery money. If that comes to fruition and if everything works,
they could move that up to begin construction in 2012 but now as it sits, I believe in the current CIP it is
2014.
Al Henley: Okay. I know that was at one time that was on a fast track and also to connect it all the way to
the Princess Anne Recreation Center. That is why I was asking. I know it takes a lot of burden to track.
The reason why I'm asking you that question because if that was moved up and we did receive the extra
funds, in your opinion would that takes a lot of traffic off Holland Road to Princess Anne Road?
Ric Lowman: It would take traffic off of Holland Road. Did you ask about the one little portion between
Holland? Okay. lbat part of Nimmo is actually and I'm sorry for the answer to that. That part of
Nimmo is actually included in the Princess Anne project.
'I 'I I
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 21
Al Henley: That is what I'm saying.
Ric Lowman: It's an "L" project: Princess Anne comes down to Nimmo Parkway and then it comes over
to Kellam. So that is part of the project. I think that will be completed I think in 2013 there.
Al Henley: It would take some traffic off of Holland?
Ric Lowman: I feel like it would because Holland is not fun in the afternoon to drive down or in the
mornings. And with Princess Anne being a straight shot and being four lanes in a parkway section, of
course there is going to be more traffic.
Al Henley: I think if I understood you correctly and the reason why the developer of this site is improving
the turn lane movements for those three neighborhood is to accommodate the traffic for those
neighborhood is not to accommodate the traffic obviously for the complex propose but it is to
accommodate the current traffic down some to alleviate and improve some of the turn lane movements for
those neighborhood.
Ric Lowman: Yes.
Al Henley: Okay. That is what I thought you said.
Ric Lowman: And a lot of what I said is function of what he has got to do anyway. So, there are some
improvements that go .over and above that are just going to be benefits for the neighborhood. If I was
trying to turn into my neighborhood from Holland Road, just as a resident, forget the cut-through people,
I would surely want to sit in a left turn lane and not having people bearing down on me.
Al Henley: In reality, I mean what I have seen and I don't recall a project of this particular size, which is
not that large with that type of development that is proposed to and extend the enormous amount of right-
of-way improvements for an existing highway. That is completely unheard of. I don't recall of one other
than Dam Neck Square, I believe it is with a large shopping center on Princess Anne and Dam Neck
Road. This is virtually a small project. If it was a residential neighborhood, the amount of services that
would be demanding on City government, you're talking about the sewage, the water, the trash pickup. It
is a 24/7. These offices are going to close up at 11 :00 at night. And everyone goes home. Bedrooms
light up at 11 :00 pm. So, I think the amount of traffic that would be generated from this is much less in
demand much less from City government if it was an office complex like is proposed rather than a single-
family development. Am I correct on that?
Ric Lowman: It depends on how many homes can be put.
AI; Henley: That is true.
Ric Lowman: What zoning level? What would be allowed if it was residential? The highest generation
uses is retail. So, residential is a little bit less intense.
Al Henley: Well for school children and so forth. There was a comment made earlier about the daycare
centers. There were a couple of daycare centers in my neighborhood and they were fully occupied before
the roof was put on the place, so the demand for those child daycare is because both of the parents had to
work in this day and time, and they need child daycare services. I can't recall any child daycare service
other than the one across from Kellam High School. I just wanted to make sure that I understood where
you were coming from especially on the turn lane move and those improvements.
Item #22
Endeavor Ent(:rprises, L.L.C.
Page 22
Ric Lowman: yes. The movements to the neighborhood are improved.
Al Henley: Good. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Janice Anderson: A couple of more. Jay?
Jay Bernas: Do you think if we eliminated the retail they would have to do that much right-of-way
improvements because if you're looking at the retail and the trip generation, it is like five times the office
space and four times daycare because they are going to be spending a lot of money making those right-of-
way improvemellts.
Ric Lowman: Like I said, the right-of-way improvements are and once you have to put this left turn lane
in you have to do this widening, and you have to do some of this widening because of the left turn lane
into it because of the geolI!etry.
Jay Bernas: So in either way?
Ric Lowman: You guys with the geometry and maybe Mr. Miller, if you needed him to but if you put
this left turn lane: in you're going to need most of this and most of this. Maybe some of it could be saved
but I think just the daycare center alone you would need to have a left turn lane on Holland Road. Maybe
the right turn lane wouldn't be required but the left turn lane if you put a daycare center in there or an
office complex, a left turn a minimum is going to be needed. And that is going to spur some of the extra
widening just because of the geometry that already exists out there.
Janice Anderson: Okay. Ric, the question I have is this improvement to the roadways. It is not going to
make the roadway any better but you looked at the phased development. So, they are only doing those
two proposals, the daycare and the front building for the first phase. With these improvements without
this development, I guess it wouldn't be done until 2020 when they are supposed to the full Holland
Road. Does that work?
Ric Lowman: I'm not sure.
Janice Anderson: Is it acceptable with that limited development on that first phase. You've looked at
their phasing.
Ric Lowman: Right.
Janice Anderson: I know it doesn't make it any better.
Ric Lowman: Right. It is not really Traffic Engineering's position to come out with a position on it. Is it
too much? We tell you what the impacts are and it's the Planning Department and the Planning
Commission and City Council. I don't want to push the decision but the decision whether it is too much
or too little. Like I said, the roadway is over capacity. So, any additional cars on Holland Road there
would be an impact to Holland Road. The improvements that they are doing are mandated by the
intensity of the de:velopment. Like I told Jay, ifit isjust the daycare center, the same improvements
would be required as the full. As what they proposing with Phase I, and don't get it wrong. The
improvements they are making on Holland Road, they are no way near the depth of traffic relief that
we're going to set: when VDOT comes through with their project. VDOT's project is the answer. This is
a band-aid to help us get through this shopping center.
Janice Anderson: Okay.
'I
'I I
,
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 23
Ronald Ripley: Madame Chair, I have one question. The retail calculation you made for traffic is that
based on the neighborhood retail or is that based on some general retail calculation you used for all retail?
Ric Lowman: Their traffic engineer actually came up with the trip generation. But 1 think I could speak
for him and if Dave (developer's traffic engineer) wants to correct me afterwards but the trip generation is
for a shopping center. The trip generation manual doesn't really account for the differences between like
a neighbor shopping center with uses that are just really limited in scope and people will not be driving
from miles and miles around to come to this shopping center. But, if there is a restaurant in there it will
still be filled just as much as a restaurant. The size of it is going to dictate how many customers they get.
Ronald Ripley: 1 understand that. But would it be a practical assumption that a neighborhood shopping
center of a less intense use might generate less traffic maybe then what would be normally projected?
Would that be a reasonable assumption
Ric Lowman: That would be a reasonable assumption to some level that traffic could be lower but he is
going to fill it with 5,000 of restaurant and 11,000 of retail. He wants it to be just as full as if he had a
retail establishment that kind of drew. I think it is more function of the amount of space rather than the
type of business. We can't be guaranteed what businesses are going to be coming except this is going to
be shopping center.
Ronald Ripley: We might get some more of these karate studios for example where they won't have a big
user ofa lot of space but not a lot of people. So you don't really know. I understand.
Ric Lowman: No sir. These are just generalizations.
Ronald Ripley: You're working off these matters.
David Redmond: Except we can't assume that they are going to adhere to the restrictions of the B-IA
zoning. It is not like B-2 zoning. And if you sort of a shopping center designation, that can be B-2,which
1 think is probably a lot more trip generations than B-IA in some sort of neighborhood less intense sort of
retail establishment then if you have a B-2 where you have convenience stores and the rest of them.
Ric Lowman: Right. There is some.
David Redmond: We can extrapolate that much from them what we're looking at.
Ric Lowman: Yes. Absolutely. No. There is some research that shows that the shopping center trip
generation category is over estimating it. Over estimating the general shopping center because those rates
include out parcels, which this won't have any out parcels. So, it is probably overestimated it a little bit
but to be conservative, we used the best available information, and that is what their consultant has used.
I believe he has done his analysis one hundred percent the right way.
David Redmond: Okay.
Janice Anderson: Thanks Ric. Yes Bob. Go ahead.
Bob Miller: My name has been used. I thought I should at least come up.
Janice Anderson: That is fine.
Bob Miller: I'm Bob Miller with MSA. Forgive me again, I didn't sign a card. After the fact. I
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 24
apologize. You didn't have to pronounce my name. I just wanted to make sure that the improvements
that were showing like Ric said on Holland Road are the improvements that have been asked for the
development. These are things toat have to be done in order for the development to be done. If we were
only putting a daycare in here, we wouldn't be doing anywhere near this kind of amounts of
improvements. These are extensive. There is no doubt about it. I understand the questions about turn
lanes and other roads and things like that. That is not something we chose to define. We didn't define
any of that. We only defined our development and dealing with our development. If you were just doing
a daycare center, you would not be doing these kinds of improvements on Holland Road. Just to make
that everybody understands. I don't know if that was the total of what you were asking, and how Ric was
trying to explain it to you. Dave Beardsley, who is from VHB, is our Traffic Engineer. He can answer
some of the other questions if there are specific things you want answered. But I think that was the tone
that I was hearing. If there is something else I need to answer, I'll be happy to do it since you used my
name.
Janice Anderson Are there any other questions? Go ahead.
Phil Russo: If you were just putting in a daycare you would be doing some improvements on Holland
Road.
Bob Miller: Very minor improvements on Holland Road. Because it just doesn't generate that kind of
traffic. But obviously this is a 20 acre piece of land. You wouldn't be just doing just a daycare unless it
was kind of super daycare center.
Dave Beardsley: I'm David Beardsley. I'm with VSB, Traffic Engineer. I would actually say and I think
Ric mentioned this a little bit earlier. The daycare itself does generate some traffic to it. It is not a
significant amount. It is about half of what the first phase of development is. But that probably would
warrant a left turn lane installation in which then would cause this widening to occur through here. The
only improvement that it might not require is that right turn lane into the site. But as soon as you have
that left turn lane in the middle of the road, you've got to widen to an extent from north and south of that
just for the lane transition around that left turn lane. So, as soon as you start talking about even the
daycare use, you're going to be requiring some significant infrastructure improvements.
Bob Miller: So, hi;: contradicts what I say. That is okay. He's the expert on traffic engineering. Forgive
me. Is there anything else?
Janice Anderson: Is there anything else?
Donald Horsley: What is your name again?
Henry Livas: How soon they forget.
Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions? I got a question of Mr. White.
Stephen White: Yes sir.
Donald Horsley: We keep going back to this intensity of the site. And I guess the 11,000 and 5,000, the
16,000 retail is wr.ere the intensity that is not really agreed on by staff. What is the right figure to put
there?
Stephen White: Mr. Horsley, I don't know if we could give you a figure. It is a professional judgment
that the staff has made that while yes, the surrounding residential area is fairly dense. There is a
'1 'I
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 25
difference between density and intensity. We usually apply intensity to non-residential uses. But it is our
thinking that there is simply too much retail here. It is retail that we think you would find in a retail corp.
area. So, our professional recommendation to you is that this project is too intense for that purpose. And
that is what we mean by intensity. I can't tell you if2,OOO feet of retail is appropriate or 5,000 feet retail,
but a neighborhood oriented retail would be appropriate. Something that the citizens could come to in the
evening, even ifis a mom and pop kind of thing, a 7/eleven would not even be appropriate without gas
pumps. But something that serves the neighborhood. Retail beyond that would be inappropriate in our
OptOlon.
Janice Anderson: Go ahead AI.
Al Henley: Mr. White, let me ask you a question. Assuming that BRAC did not exist and we were in the
road looking at this that this particular 20 acres could be developed without any of those restrictions from
BRAC committee, would this particular parcel be attractive to mixed use?
Stephen White: It depends on the definition of mixed use.
Al Henley: The mixed use meaning residential and business commercial.
Stephen White: If there was no BRAC involved in this, I don't think staff would even be entertaining
non-residential uses. This is a residential area. The Comprehensive Plan identifies it as a residential area
and always has, and residential consistent with the density of the surrounding area would be at that point
appropriate. We recommended favorably for the applicants previous project that was residential. Things
happened and things changed. That was out of the planning staff control. But I don't see a no-residential
use without BRAC being appropriate at this location.
Al Henley: Okay. With that comment assuming BRAC did not exist, what would be the density of the
single-family residential development on these 20 acres?
Stephen White: Can we go back to the zoning map? You got R-7.5 and R-I O. It would probably be 3 Yz
or 4 dwelIing units per acre. It is what the surrounding density is.
Al Henley: Three to four units per acre and that's taking into consideration there is going to be a certain
amount of open space as well and trails.
Stephen White: That is the thing. It's a constrained site. You got environmental issues but if you can
design it to get the residential in there. Yes the density is appropriate.
Al Henley: Okay. Thank you very much.
Janice Anderson: Go ahead Jay.
David Redmond: I don't think this is ideal. It doesn't sound to me like anybody things this is ideal.
Assuming we didn't have BRAC. But we do have BRAC, which changed all sorts of things across the
city. In some cases, much to our chagrin and there are lots of places, huge swath, tens of thousands of
acres that were impacted as a result. This is one of them. Density? Intensity? I think Landstown
Commons is about 500,000 square feet. Courthouse Market Place, which is right over is about 150,000
square feet. This is a very, very small piece of retail on this property as retail goes in the least intensity
category of retail that you can have but the B-2 designation, which is just general commercial. This is
restrictive would be unquestionably more intense. This is as low as it gets on about as small a building
that you can get. I think too often what we do is kind of toss out these sort of alternatives as though those
are realistic. If! said Mr. Ripley, who develops a residential multi-family units, you know, senior
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 26
housing. Take 40 units and put a fitness center in there just because it would be much nicer for the people
in there just obli:erates the economics of what he is trying to do. If I told Mr. Horsley take out 20 acres of
Soy beans and pi.ant mint. Does he have a market for mint? Does mint make any sense? Do all of the
inputs that he puts into that make sense with mint? When we say something like well, what if there was
no retail? We can sort make assumptions like that but they don't in the real world make any real sense.
When you're in business, Mr. Strange, I was going to pick on you to but I decided not to. We see things,
all too casually without recognizing behind it. There are some real complicated tinancials that have to
work. On 20 acres, 16,000 square feet is a puny amount of retail. You can typically get about 10,000
square feet per acre. That is about an Auto Zone for instance. It takes about a 10,000 foot building. It
takes about an acre including all of the parking which is required in retail, which is more intense and if
you were to do sayan office use. It requires much more parking. All of judgments are necessarily
subjective, All of the folks that are opposed to it have their own subjective judgments. I have my own.
I'm sure the applicant has his. But when I look at this, I see an awful lot of trees on that plan. I see a
multi-purpose path that is to the City's benefit. Ultimately, I think it will be everyone's benefit. You may
not see that and disagree with. That is okay. I think it is a parcel that is surrounded by development. If
this was in Pungo, I would have a different view. I would probably have a different view but it is not. It
is in a heavily developed corridor. Holland Road, we can't change Holland Road. It has taken decades to
get Holland Road to where it is. The only thing that is going to change Holland Road is money and
plenty of it, which is not that easy to come by these days. Be that as it may, I have never seen an
applicant proffer road improvements, off site, as significant as these are. I've never seen them for
something this small. So, when I look at this, I think it is and we all got dealt this hand by BRAC
unfortunately but on this parcel of20 acres, and what the applicant is proposing, and by any of the
measures that I've ever applied to these sort of things. Not just modest but small. So, whenever we have
something this su'bstantial and significant as this, somebody leaves disappointed, mad and somebody will
again, I'm sure. But, I think given the hand that we have been dealt, this is as reasonable as it gets. I
don't think you can make it any smaller or make it a whole lot more different and not have the entire basis
just collapse. We certainly can't make it up. We can't just sort of say well, lets' change the soybeans to
mints. That doesn't make any sense for us to do that. I'm going to support it. I hope like the dickens
that we get an awful lot of money for Holland Road improvements, and Princess Anne Road
improvements, and lots of other places around the city. They are long time overdue. But my judgment the
infrastructure improvements that he has proffered here are pretty extraordinary. I don't think he can
really expect a whole lot more than that of anything of this size. So, anyway, I appreciate the forbearance
and you all for coming down here. You have beautiful neighborhoods. I spent some time in them.
Jay Bernas: I kind of look at it from a different eye then Commissioner Redmond. Obviously it has to be
non-residential. So, what's the next least impacted thing to put there? To me, it's office. I think you put
in retail there, and you're driving down Holland Road in a primarily residential neighborhood, retail to me
doesn't make any sense. You're going to drive by there and it is going to seem unplanned, out of place.
It is going to be "what in the world" were they thinking putting retail in the middle of this vast. Look at
Holland Road? It is all residential throughout that entire corridor. To me, from a planning sense, just
retail it just doesn't make sense. And, it's got the double whammy of exacerbating the traffic situation.
You look at these numbers you were given conservative or not, they're multiples higher than the office
and the daycare. So, in my mind, my two concerns are retail is out of place, and if we're going to do
something non-residential. What makes sense in non-residential and to me, office. I think daycare is
okay. But retail, like I said seems out of place and the traffic is a huge concern. It is already on a
roadway that is oVler capacity and now we're potentially going to exacerbated it by approving retail which
is going to have a higher average daily trip rate. So, those are my two main concerns. Besides from the
business aspect, it may not make economic sense but we've got to look at the bigger picture of the entire
neighborhood and the entire community and how it impacts the community because there are economic
impacts there as wdl. So, that is just my two concerns.
, I
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 27
Janice Anderson: Thanks Jay. Henry and then Joe.
Henry Livas: I would like to say that 1 support Dave's position on this. I like the way that he analyzed it
with numbers. I'm an engineer. I like to hear numbers, square footage and things like that.
Unfortunately, our Planning Department said it is just too intense. And as I read the book last night, I
couldn't put a number on that or anything specific. And, now I hear that this type of shopping center is
not that large compared with others. Also, I think that because of BRAC, if we could error or give a node
to the applicant, I think we should because the applicant has been getting turned down by us and City
Council. They even had to go to court; so, I think it's not fair to give them real strict interpretation on
something they have proposed that is within the law of that zoning. So, I think we should cut them some
slack if there is an area to deal with, and certainly think we do in this case because the zoning doesn't tell
you how much square footage of retail you can have. We just have to go by experience but what doesn't
look like a lot. Dave is the retail man. He doesn't think it looks like a lot. So, I'm supporting the
applicant.
Janice Anderson: Thank you Henry. .
Joseph Strange: I have to agree with Dave also. I think the question here is what is the least intrusive use
for this property under the circumstances? I go along with Jay. A nice beautiful office park there would
be good except that it just wouldn't pay for itself. And retail doesn't cost much to build the building and
you get to charge more for it. So, it's retail. It's just more profitable then office space. So, you got to
have some retail in there to make it work. I mean we're talking about 11,000 square foot. What are we
talking about two 5,000 square foot stores? You know. 750? 100 square foot stores? I mean, we're not
talking about 50 stores. We're not probably taking about 10 stores here. We're talking about 7 stores
probably or something of that nature. We're not talking about a regional shopping center. We're talking
about a neighborhood business that is going to be in there. I am a small business person. I would like to
think that you get that kind of traffic in your stores every day. The average small business person, he is
not getting that kind of traffic in the store. The average neighborhood person is getting the small amount
of traffic. He's a specialty retailer in most cases. I understand the communities concern here. I live off
of Indian River Road. Every time I see something new coming in there, I blink my eyes. I say "Golly",
something else. So I really do understand their concern. I just think this is the least that you can put in
there, and make this work. I'm surprised. When Eddie says a big developer wouldn't give you all of this,
I believe that. I don't believe a big develop would give you all of this. I believe that these people and I
don't know anything about them except they are small developers. They probably are kind of strapped
for money. They probably are strapped and say let's get this thing going. We got to do something to get
some money coming through the door. That is the way I see it. I think an office park would be beautiful
but I just don't think it would work. I think this is the least intrusive. I think the neighborhood will find
out that this is not going to be as bad as they think it is. And is it going to be bad? Is it going to add
traffic? Of course it is but if you stop and look at if there were 50 houses in there. We're looking at
numbers on my chart. There is a difference between this and agriculture. It doesn't show the difference
between this and 50 or 60 homes in there. So, when you start to look at everything relatively speaking, I
think this is the least intense you're going to get in there, and make it work.
Janice Anderson: Thanks Joe. Are there any other comments?
Ronald Ripley: I have just one quick comment. I'm going to support the application as well. I think
when I look at this land use plan. I think the market is going to detennine who uses this. And, I think
you might find and I haven't been around to look at lot of these little neighborhood strips, it ends up being
occupied by a church companies and different little neighborhood uses that really are not very intense
commercial use. They really act like an office for the most part. I would probably and this Building 3
could end up being all office. What the applicant would be doing is foreclosing his ability to put any kind
Item #22
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
Page 28
of retail on thisifhe did this all office. I think he has tried to cut it back. And it looks like. We saw a
number of different iterations of this site, and it looks there has been a lot of attempt to reduce the
intensity. I think the intensity is reasonable personally. I'm going to support it.
Janice Anderson: Go ahead Don.
Donald Horsley: Okay. There are two or three things that I want to mention. One is the intensity thing.
I appreciate staff's comment about the intensity but you know, I agree with the folks that have spoken and
said they can kind of go along with the intensity, and I think I can too. The thing that I disagree with, and
whoever came up with the figure of 3,000 extra cars, I don't think we're going to see 3,000 extra cars on
Holland Road be:cause of this. A lot of the people that are going to patronizing these businesses are going
to be regular traffic that goes down Holland Road anyway. And it may provide some of their trips shorter
if it the use is tht:re they can get without having to drive further, and they will cut in there and live in that
area, I think they will support that. So, I don't see the extra 3,000. I'm not a Trafficologist or whatever
the new terminology I heard on the TV about some of these people ought to become traffic experts. But, I
just don't see that happening. I kind offeellike the improvements that the applicant is going to make to
Holland Road I consider it low intensity for this site. I think the neighborhood in the long run is what Joe
or somebody said, I think in the long run they won't realize the fear they have now. So, I plan to support
the application also.
Janice Anderson: Thank you. Go ahead Dave.
David Redmond: . I move approval of the application.
Janice Anderson: A motion by Dave Redmond. We have a second by Phil Russo.
AYE 8 NAYl ABSO
ANDERSON AYE
BERNAS NAY
CRABTREE
HENLEY AYE
HORSLEY AYE
KA TSIAS
LIVAS AYE
REDMIOND AYE
RIPLEY AYE
RUSSO AYE
STRANGE AYE
ABSENT 2
ABSENT
ABSENT
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 8-1, the application of Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. had been approved.
Janice Anderson: Thank you all for coming down. We're going to conclude the meeting. Thank you.
I I
I '! I
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF6518
DATE: July 29, 2009
FROM:
Mark D. Stile~
B. Kay Wilson
DEPT: City Attorney
TO:
DEPT: City Attorney
RE: Conditional Zoning Application; Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.
The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the
City Council on August 11, 2009. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated
March 12, 2009 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 /ka
Enclosure
cc: Kathleen Hassen
PREPARED BY:
11m svns. ROURDON.
.. AHrnN & lM. P.c.
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company
RADHAKRISHNA RENUKUNTA and KAVITHA VURIMINDI a/k/a KAVITHI
VURIMINDI, husband and wife
NEW ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company
TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS)
CITY a F VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 12th day of March, 2009, by and between
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, party of the first
part, Grantor; RADHAKRISHNA RENUKUNTA and KAVITHA VURIMINDI a/k/a
KA VITHI VURIMINDI, husband and wife, parties of the second part, Grantors; NEW
ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, party of the third
part, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, party of the fourth part, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
'NHEREAS, the parties of the second part are the owners of two (2) parcels of
property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing a
total of approximately 6.158 acres as more particularly described as Parcell and Parcel 2
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which parcels along
with Parcel 3 is hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the party of the third part is the owner of a parcel of property located in
the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing a total of approximately
13.77 acres as more particularly described as Parcel 3 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, which parcel along with Parcels 1 and 2 are hereinafter
referred to as the "Property"; and
GPIN: 1495-41-7336
1495-51-2696
1495-51-9518
Prepared Ey:
R Edward Bourdon, Jr., Esquire
Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C.
281 Independence Blvd.
Pembroke One, Fifth Floor
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462
1
PREPARED BY:
IJIa SYus, QOlJRDON.
.. AlImN & lM'. P.c.
'I 'I
WHEREAS, the party of the first part as the contract purchaser of Parcels 1, 2 and 3
has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee, so as to change the Zoning Classification of
the Property from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-lA Commercial
District and P-1 Preservation 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 Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes
incompatible development of various types of uses conflict anq that in order to permit
differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize
the effects of change that will be created by the Grantors' proposed rezoning, certain
reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community
that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to
which the Grantors' rezoning application gives rise; and
WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and
prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the
Zoning Map with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to
the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of
said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which have a
reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives,
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 or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or
subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of conditions and
restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use
of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute
covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon
all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors, their successors, personal
representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in interest or title:
1. When the portion of the Property zoned B-lA is developed, it shall be
developed and landscaped substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL
SITE lAYOUT & LANDSCAPE PLAN OF VILLAGE CENTER at HOLLAND CREEK",
2
PREPARED BY:
II SYn:s. ROURDON.
AIlrnN & lM, p,c.
prepared by Ionic DeZign Studios and MSA, P.C., dated 03/06/09, which has been
exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach
Department of Planning (hereinafter "Conceptual Site Plan").
2. When the Property is developed, the exterior building materials, colors and
archit(~ctural design elements of the four (4) buildings designated on the Conceptual Site
Plan ~:hall be substantially as depicted on the exhibits entitled "VILLAGE CENTER AT
HOLLAND CREEK - TYPICAL RETAIL BUILDING ELEVATION; VILLAGE CENTER AT
HOLLAND CREEK - DAYCARE ELEVATION; and VILLAGE CENTER AT HOLLAND
CREEK - OFFICE BUILDING ELEVATION", dated 03/04/09, prepared by Ionic Dezign
Studios, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with
the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Building Elevations").
3. When the Property is developed, the Grantor shall make those road
improvements to Holland Road as depicted on the exhibit entitled "Conceptual Right of
Way Improvement Plan For Village Center at Holland Creek", dated 12/9/08, 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 "Right of Way Improvements").
4. When the Property is developed, if the improvement and widening of
Holland Road to four (4) through lanes of vehicular capacity from its intersection with
Dam Neck Road, south to its intersection with Crestwood Drive has not commenced, only
the buildings designated #1, Single Story Daycare and #2, Single Story Retail/Office on the
Conceptual Site Plan may be developed. No occupancy of the buildings designated #3,
Single Story Retail and #4, 2-Story Office on the Conceptual Site Plan shall be permitted
until the improvement and widening of Holland Road to four (4) through lanes of
vehicular capacity from Dam Neck Road to its intersection with Crestwood Drive has been
completed.
ti. The Building designated #2, Single Story Retail/Office on the Conceptual
Site Plan shall have no more than 16,000 square feet of space occupied by retail and
restaurant uses. The remaining space in Building #2 shall be occupied by office or
personal service uses.
6. Prior to submittal of a Site Development Plan for the Buildings designated
#3, Sin~~le Story Retail and #4, 2-Story Office (Le. Phase II), Grantor shall prepare and
submit a "Supplemental Traffic Impact Study" to the Director of the Virginia Beach
Department of Planning.
3
II I
II
PREPARED BY:
118 SVk1:S. nOURDON.
m AllrnN & lM. P.c.
I I II I
7. In addition to the limited list of permitted commercial uses in the B-tA
Limited Community Business District, the Grantor further proffers that Building #4, 2-
Story Office shall not be used for any retail or restaurant uses; Building #1, Single Story
Daycare shall only be used for an educational/child daycare or office use; no convenience
store use shall be permitted on the Property; no establishment shall be permitted to sell
alcohol for off premises consumption; and, no restaurant shall be permitted to sell alcohol
after 11:00 PM.
8. When the Property is developed, only one (1) freestanding monument style
sign may be erected on the Property, constructed with a base matching the material and
predominant color of the buildings as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan. All building
mounted sigmige shall be channel letters on a raceway (i.e. no block signs) and only the
lettering may be illuminated.
9. When the Property is developed, the dumpsters depicted on the Conceptual
Site Plan shall be screened/housed in a masonry structure (3 sides) with the exterior
surface matching the building material and color. Dumpsters shall not be tipped/emptied
before 8:30 AM nor after 8:30 PM.
10. The hours of daily operation for any educational/child daycare use in the
building designated #1, Single Story Daycare on the Conceptual Sit Plan shall not
commence prior to 6:00 AM nor conclude subsequent to 7:00 PM.
11. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to
direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property. The development
shall use "The Largent" lighting fixtures and a complete photometric plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval during detailed site plan
review.
12. When the Property is developed, the Grantor shall install and maintain an 8'
wide multi-purpose trail from Holland Road through the open space within the developed
portion of the property, through the open space at the eastern end of the center and
terminating at the 5.18 acres of land to be zoned P-1 Preservation District substantially as
depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan. The Grantor shall dedicate to the Grantee a
pedestrian access easement over the multi-purpose trail and create a second pedestrian
walkway from the multi-purpose trail to the small City owned park which abuts the
southern boundary of the Property, as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan.
4
PREPARED BY:
IiSB SYns. ROURDON.
.. Am:RN & UVY. P.c.
13. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building on the
Proper1y, the Grantor shall dedicate to the Grantee, the 5.18 acre portion of the property to
be zoned P-1 Preservation District.
14. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan
review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and
departments to meet all applicable City code requirements.
All references hereinabove to B-1A and P-1 Districts and to the requirements and
regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this
Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein.
The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and
accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue
in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property
and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a
subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is
part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning
Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed,
amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the
Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is
consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a
resoluti:on 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 Virgilnia, 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
5
PREPARED BY:
II sYns. BOURDON.
AHmN & Lm. P.c.
II
"I
such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or
other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding;
(2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to
deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be
appropriate;
(3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to
these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior
to instituting proceedings in court; and
(4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the
existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the
conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office
of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded
in the Clerk's Office ofthe Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed
in the names of the Grantor and the Grantee.
6
PREPARED BY:
_ SYlCIS. ROURDON.
.. AHrnN & llVY. P.c.
'vVITNESS the following signature and seal:
Grantor:
Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.,
a Virginia limit~bility company
/~.\.i ....~
" . _....,..~--.~
I . . ...._ ~ .,-~
By: \. :. ........--- (SEAL)
Radnakn na 'Renukunta, Managing Member
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CIlY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24th day of March,
2009, by Radhakrishna Renukunta, Managing Member, of Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C., a
Virginia limited liability company, Grantor.
Li '/~/(,~t i6
' ,.~-A. '/N. /11 (pi
, otary Public .
My Commission Expires:
Notary Registration No.:
August 31, 2010
192628
7
I i I
PREPARED BY,
II svn:s, ROURDON.
AlImN & IXVY. P.C
I I II I
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
",
I
Grantors:
~/~
Radhakrishna Renukunta
(SEAL)
',,~\ tG'"V . (SEAL)
Kavitha Vurimindi ajkja Kavithi Vurimindi
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24th day of March,
2009, by Radhakrishna Renukunta and Kavitha Vurimindi ajkja Kavithi Vurimindi,
husband and wife, Grantors.
A ~'LiL 1 leI' ~.
/lvA _ . · 17 .0 ./
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
Notary Registration No.:
August 31, 2010
192628
8
PREPARED BY:
II SYUS. ROURDON.
AIlmN & LM. p,c.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
Grantor:
New Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.,
a Virginia limite~bility company
,/ /
"
By:
(SEAL)
ukunta, Managing Member
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24th day of March,
2009, by Radhakrishna Renukunta, Managing Member, of New Endeavor Enterprises,
L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor.
~ ., /ld
/ .(;1a~. \/l7'7~{~7(ke
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
Notary Registration No.:
August 31, 2010
192628
9
I' I
; I II I
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL 1:
ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, lying situate and being in the Princess Anne
District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being designated as "PARCEL A-1" as
depicted on the "RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL A, SUBDMSION OF PROPERTY OF
AMERICA WILSON ESTATE, AND 'LUCINDA HASKINS 2 ACRES"', dated November 7,
2005, prepared by Rouse-Sirine Associates, Ltd. and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, as Instrument # 200601040002057.
Containing 3.74 acres ofland, more or less.
GPIN: 1495-41-7336
PARCEL 2:
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 known, numbered and
designated as LUCINDA HASKINS 2 ACRES as shown on that certain plat entitled
Property of G. B. Wilson Located in Princess Anne County dated September 12, 1936,
prepared by W. B. Gallup, Certified Surveyor, which said plat is recorded in the aforesaid
Clerk's Office in Map Book 10, page 113.
GPIN: 1495-41-7336
PARCEL 3:
All that certain tract of land, lying being and situate in Seaboard Magisterial District,
Princess Anne County, (now City of Virginia Beach), Virginia designated as Lot One (1) on
the Plat of HARGROVE FARMS, made by E.E. Burroughs, C.S. for W. W. Sawyer, and
recorded in Map Book 1, at Page 6(a), in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Princess
Anne County (now City of Virginia Beach), Virginia (erroneously referred to as 25 acres
more or less in the previous source deed). Said tract or parcel of land fronts on Holland
Road in said District, Princess Anne County (now City of Virginia Beach).
Said property being more particularly bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the eastern right of way of Holland Road, said point of being 67.35
feet northerly from the intersection of the eastern right of way of Holland Road and the
northern right of way of Sugar Maple Drive; thence S 75 degrees 30' W. 60.16 feet to a
point on the eastern right of way of Holland Road; thence N 7 degrees 24' 47" W. 141.78
feet along the eastern right of way of Holland Road to a point; thence continuing along the
PREPARED BY: eastern right of way of Holland Road N 2 degrees 32' 31" W. 219.90 feet to a point; thence
II" Svns. ROURDON. N 87 degrees 20' 11" E. 676.03 feet to a point; thence N 75 degrees 39' 19" E. 113.68 feet to
AHrnN & l[VY. P.c. a point; thence N 78 degrees 18' 28" E. 168.64 feet to a point; thence N 76 degrees 44' 20"
E. 56.77 feet to a point; thence S 74 degrees 10' 04" E. 75.42 feet to a point; thence N 85
degrees 04' 03" E. 104.19 feet to a point; thence N 52 degrees 34' 24" E. 159.75 feet to a
10
PREPARED BY:
_ SYU:S. ROURDON.
.. AIlmN &. UVY. P.c.
point; thence N 26 degrees 34' 53" E. 60.42 feet to a point; thence N 83 degrees 24' 15" E.
113.99 ieet to a point; thence N 81 degrees 35' 43" E. 505.80 feet to a point; thence S 86
degrees 38' 25" E. 403.60 feet to a point; thence N 67 degrees 46' 21" E. 362.68 feet to a
point; thence N 84 degrees 08' 26" E. 578.52 feet to a point; thence S 3 degrees 44' 54" W.
29.91 feet to a point; thence S 75 degrees 30' W. 3280.13 feet to the point of beginning.
Containing 13.43 acres ofland, more or less.
GPIN: 1495-51-9518
Condition~IRezone/EndeavorEnterprises/HollandLifestyleCenter /Proffer2_ Clean
Rev-3/24/09
11
I' I
I I II I
A~~
{(i%~~
~~~;,IJ
~~~.. "".W
~........v
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, Ordinance to Establish City Zoning Ordinance
Regulations Pertaining to Wind Energy Systems, including Definitions,
Application Requirements, Locational and Other Requirements, and Zoning
Districts where Permitted.
MEETING DATE: August 11,2009
. Background:
Wind-generated power is a growing source of electricity. Worldwide, wind is the
fastest-growing energy source -- installed generating capacity increased by an
average 32 percent annually from 1998 to 2002. The most probable reason for
this increase is that technology has reduced the cost by more than 80 percent
since the first commercial wind turbines were installed in the 1980s. Wind energy
is a clean, safe, and renewable (inexhaustible) power source that is attractive to
many property owners in the City of Virginia Beach as either a primary or
secondary supplemental source of electric power for their home or business.
. Considerations:
At its simplest, a wind turbine is a device that produces electricity from wind.
Moving air causes the turbine to rotate, which generates clean, emissions-free
energy. There are two basic designs of wind turbines: vertical-axis, or "egg_
beater" style, and horizontal-axis (propeller-style) machines. Horizontal-axis wind
turbines are most common today, constituting nearly all of the large "utility-scale"
turbines in the world. Utility-scale wind turbines for land-based wind farms come
in various sizes, with typically three blades having diameters ranging from about
150 feet to about 300 feet, and with towers of roughly the same size. A 300-foot
machine with a 30Q-foot tower would have a total height from the tower base to
the tip of the rotor of approximately 440 feet. The vertical-axis type of wind
turbine features a cylinder-like component that revolves similarly to a barbershop
pole or corkscrew. Systems of this configuration are known as vertical-axis
turbines because the plane of rotatior) is perpendicular, or vertical, to the ground.
On the other end of the spectrum, and the type that is most likely to be used in
Virginia Beach, is the small wind turbine, which can be used to power a home,
farm, school, or small business. Though most small wind turbines look like a
miniaturized, "back yard" version of the large, utility-scale, three-bladed turbines,
the industry encompasses over 200 different models, and they can vary widely in
appearance. A small wind turbine is technologically advanced but mechanically
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS
Page 2 of 2
simple, with only two or three moving parts. Most feature three blades of 2 t015
feet in IE~ngth, a generator located at the hub, and a tail. The turbine is either
mounted on a steel monopole tower or directly on the roof of the building. The
technology has advanced considerably in the recent years, making small wind
turbines quieter, more reliable, and better able to blend in with surrounding
aesthetiGs.
The attached amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance introduce wind turbines,
called VVind Energy Conversion Systems by the ordinance, as an allowed use
and provide regulations for their use.
There was no opposition to this request.
. Recommendations:
The Planning Commission placed this item on the Consent Agenda, passing a
motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to recommend approval to the City Council
. Attachments:
Staff Re\liew and Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map and Summary
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department /1 ,~
CItyManage~~~. "&3~ y
15
July 8, 2009 Public Hearing
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AMENDMENT TO ZONING
ORDINANCE - WIND ENERGY
,SYSTEMS
REQUEST:
An Ordinance to Establish City Zoning Ordinance Regulations Pertaining to Wind Energy Systems,
including Definitions, Application Requirements, Locational and Other Requirements, and Zoning Districts
where Permitted.
This amendment was deferred by the Planning Commission on May 13, 2009 to allow staff time to
incorporate input from a manufacturer of wind energy systems and to circulate the amendment to more
interested parties. Changes have been made to the amendment that address comments received, and
the amendment now allows for Vertical-Axis Wind Turbines to be installed, as well as traditional propeller
systems. Staff made a special effort to distribute the amendment to impacted groups such as the Resort
Advisory Commission, the Tidewater Builder's Association, the Council of Civic Organizations, and the
Audubon Society,
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
Wind-generated power is a growing source of electricity. Worldwide, wind is the fastest-growing energy
source -- installed generating capacity increased by an average 32 percent annually from 1998 to 2002.
The most probable reason for this increase is that technology has reduced the cost by more than 8Q
percent since the first commercial wind turbines were installed in the 1980s, Wind energy is a clean, safe,
and renewable (inexhaustible) power source that is attractive to many property owners in the City of
Virginia Beach as either a primary or secondary supplemental
source of electric power for their home or business.
.--
R:U
~~
At its simplest, a wind turbine is a device that produces
electricity from wind. Moving air causes the turbine to rotate,
which generates clean, emissions-free energy. There are two
basic designs of wind turbines: vertical-axis, or "egg-beater"
style, and horizontal-axis (propeller-style) machines. Horizontal-
axis wind turbines are most common today, constituting nearly
all of the large "utility-scale" turbines in the world. Utility-scale
wind turbines for land-based wind farms come in various sizes,
with typically three blades having diameters ranging from about
RlICr
0lIrnller
i
R:U
l1i!tt
I
L-_
Wind Twbine COIifigul'lltions
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH I WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS
Agenda Item 15
Page 1
150 feet to about 300 feet, and with towers of roughly the same size. A 300-foot machine with a 300-foot
tower would have a total height from the tower base to the tip of the rotor of approximately 440 feet. The
vertical-axis type of wind turbine features a cylinder-like component that revolves similarly to a
barbershop pole or corkscrew, Systems of this configuration are known as vertical-axis turbines because
the plane of rotation is perpendicular, or vertical, to the ground,
On the other end of the spectrum, and the type that is most likely to be
used in Virginia Beach, is the small wind turbine, which can be used to
power a home, farm, school, or small business, Though most small wind
turbines look like a miniaturized, "back yard" version of the large, utility-
scale, three-bladed turbines, the industry encompasses over 200
different models, and they can vary widely in appearance. A small wind
turbine is technologically advanced but mechanically simple, with only
two or three moving parts, Most
feature three blades of 2 t015 feet
in length, a generator located at the
hub, and a tail. The turbine is either
mounted on a steel monopole
tower or directly on the roof of the
building, The technology has
advanced considerably in the
recent years, making small wind
turbines quieter, more reliable, and
better able to blend in with
surrounding aesthetics.
The attached amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance introduce wind turbines, called Wind Energy
Conversion Systems by the ordinance, as an allowed use and provide regulations for their use,
Section 111
The section deifines Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) and establishes two types of such
systems (freestanding and roof-mounted):
. Wind Hnergy conversion system. Any device, such as a windmill, wind turbine or wind charger
that converts wind energy into electricity, including the rotors, nacelles, generators, towers and
associated control or conversion electronics.
o Wind energy conversion system, freestanding. A wind energy conversion system other
than roof-mounted.
o Wind energy conversion system, roof-mounted. A wind energy conversion system
affixed to the roof of a building or other structure.
Section 202
The amendment to this section allows roof-mounted WECS to exceed the height limits otherwise
applicable in the various zoning districts within the City. A new Section 209 contains independent
limitations on the height of WECS, both roof-mounted and freestanding,
A second amendment to this section (Line 45) is a 'housekeeping' correction that replaces the term "Iine-
of-sight relaying devices" with the currently-used term, "communication towers." It is not related to the
regulation ofWECS.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / WIND ENERGY SYSTBMS
~enda Item 15
Page 2
I i I
Section 209
Subsection (a) (Lines 75-78) states that the purpose of this section of the ordinance is to promote energy
conservation by allowing WECS while minimizing the safety, visual, and environmental impacts of such
systems,
Subsection (b) establishes the Conditional Use Permit application requirements (Lines 80-111) and
requirements for site plans and building permit applications (Lines 113-116).
Subsection (c) (Lines 118-215) establishes requirements pertaining to lot area, setbacks, height,
structural standards, lighting, signage, noise, shadowing/flickering, electrical connections and braking.
Subsection (d) (Lines 217-220) requires an inspection every two years and submission of the inspection
report to the Planning Director.
Subsection (e) (Lines 222-224) requires the removal of the system if it is not used for 1 year, If the
system is not removed, the City may do so at the cost of the owner.
Section 242.5
The section provides that WECS allowed as conditional uses will be subject to the provisions of Section
209 of the City Zoning Ordinance.
The remaining portions of the proposed amendments establish the zoning districts wherein the various
types of WECS and the number of each are allowed either as permitted or conditional uses.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH I WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS
Agenda Item 15
Page 3
1 AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH CITY ZONING
2 ORDINANCE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO WIND
3 ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS, INCLUDING
4 DEFINITIONS, APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS,
5 LOGATIONAL AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS, AND
6 ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE PERMITTED
7 Sections Amended: City Zoning Ordinance Sections 111,
8 202,301,401,501,601,701,801,901,1001,1501,1511
9 and 1521
10
11 Sections Added: City Zoning Ordinance Sections 209 and
12 242.5
13
14 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning
15 practice so require;
16
17 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
18 VIRGINIA:
19 That SHctions 111, 202, 301, 401, 501, 601, 701, 801, 901, 1001, 1501, 1511 and
20 1521 Of the City Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to wind energy conversion systems, are
21 hereby amended and reordained, and new Sections 209 and 242.5 are hereby added, to
22 read as follows:
23 Sec. 111. De'finitions
24
25 Wind enerav conversion system. Anv device. such as a windmill. wind turbine or
26 wind charaer. that converts wind enerav into electricity. includina the rotors. nacelles.
27 generators. towers and associated control or conversion electronics.
28
29 Wind enerav conversion system. freestandina. A wind enerav conversion system
30 other than roof-mounted.
31
32 Wind enerav conversion system. roof-mounted. A wind eneray conversion system
33 affixed to the 1"00f of a buildina or other structure.
34
35
36 COMMENT
37
38 The seclion defines wind energy conversion systems and classifies them as either freestanding
39 or roof-mounted.
40
II I
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
"I
Sec. 202. Height regulations.
(a) Whenever height limits for buildings and other structures are established, no
portion of any building or other structure shall extend above such height limits, except
residential chimneys, line of sight relaying dovices communication towers, broadcasting
towers, radio or television antennas, spires, flagpoles, water tanks, roof-mounted wind
eneray conyersion systems or monuments otherwise approved for erection; provided,
however, that smokestacks may also extend beyond such limits, if they do not exceed in
height the distance to the nearest lot line; and further provided that one tower for
purposes of an amateur radio station operation, which may contain multiple antennas,
may extend beyond said height limits but shall not exceed ninety (90) feet in height above
ground elevation.
(b) No artificial structure or tree or other natural growth which on the basis of its
height would constitute an obstruction to air navigation pursuant to Part 77 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Regulations, 14 C.F.R. ~~ 77.21 et seq. shall be allowed in any
district. The director of the department of planning shall prepare a map delineating
geometric specifications and height limitations for protecting navigable airspace in
compliance with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations, 14 C.F.R. ~~
77.21 et seq.
COMMENT
The amendment allows roof-mounted wind energy conversion systems to exceed the height
limits otherwise applicable in the various zoning districts within the City. The proposed Section
242.5, which appears immediately below, contains independent limitations on the height of wind
energy conversion systems, both roof-mounted and freestanding.
The amendment on Line 45 is a technical correction that replaces the term "line-of-sight
relaying devices" with the currently-used term, "communication towers." It is not related to the
regulation of wind energy conversion systems.
Sec. 209 Wind Enerav Conversion Systems.
(a) Puroose. The purpose of this section is to promote the use of renewable
enemy sources by allowina wind eneray conversion systems in appropriate locations
while minimizina visual. safety and environmental impacts and promotina the safe.
effective and efficient use of such systems.
(b) ADDlication reauirements.
(1) Conditional use Dermit aDDlications. In addition to the information
reauired by Section 221. applications for a conditional use permit for
a wind eneray conversion system shall include the followina items:
(A) A site plan or plan drawn to scale. showina the location.
heiaht and desian of the proposed system. includina any
2
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
accessory buildinas or other aoourtenances. adiacent land
uses. and any other aoolicable information required bv the
Plannina Director:
(B) A certification from a orofessional enaineer licensed in the
Commonwealth of Virainia that the proposed system comolies
with all aoolicable reaulations and reauirements of the Virainia
Uniform Statewide Buildina Code and Federal Aviation
Administration:
(C) A certification from a professional enaineer licensed in the
Commonwealth of Virainia that the structure uoon which the
orooosed wind enerav conversion system is to be mounted
will have the structural intearitv to carry the weiaht and wind
loads of the wind enemy conversion system and have minimal
vibration imoacts on the structure: and
(0) Elevation drawinas. comouter-aenerated ohotoaraohic
simulations. or such other documentation as the Plannina
Director may reauire that deoict how the proposed wind
enemy conversion system. includina accessory buildinQs. will
aooear as constructed on the proposed site: orovided.
however. that this requirement shall not aoolv if the orooosed
wind enerav system is allowed as a orincioal use.
(2) Buildina oermit/site deve/ooment alan aoolications. In addition to
information otherwise required bv ordinance. aoolications for buildina
permits or site develooment olans shall include the information
soecified in subdivisions (At (B) and (Ct
(cl lot area. setback. heiaht. etc. reauirements. Wind enerav conversion
systems shall be subiect to the followina reauirements:
11 l Lot area. Minimum lot area requirements for wind enemy conversion
systems shall be as follows:
(A) For freestandina wind enemy conversion systems outside of
Residential Districts. forty thousand (40.000) sauare feet plus
an additional twenty thousand (20.000) square feet for each
such system in excess of one (1 ):
(B) For roof-mounted wind enemy conversion systems. the
minimum lot area soecified in the district reaulations: and
(Cl For wind enemy conversion systems allowed as a conditional
use. the City Council may aoorove an aoolication in which the
3
II I
II I
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
subiect orooerty fails to meet the soecified minimum lot area
reauirements uoon a findina that the orooosed system is of
such size or in such location. or that the conditions attached to
the conditional use oermit are sufficiently restrictive. that the
deficiency in lot area will not result in any adverse effects
uoon surroundina orooerties. The Plannina Director shall
include in his reoort to the Plannina Commission the soecific
factors. if any. that would suooort the arantina of a conditional
use oermit on lots that fail to meet the minimum lot area
reauirements of this section.
(2) Setbacks.
(A) No tower in any freestandina wind enemy conversion system
shall be located closer to any orooerty line or oublic riaht-of-
way than a distance eaual to one hundred ten oer cent
(110%) of the heiaht of the tower or the setback soecified in
the aoolicable district reaulations. whichever is ereater. or
closer to any residential structure or overhead utility
transmission line than a distance eaual to one hundred ten
oer cent (110%) of the heiaht of the tower.
(B) No suooort structure of a freestandine wind eneray conversion
system. includina auy wires. shall be located in any reauired
front yard or any reauired side yard adiacent to a street.
(3) Heiaht.
(A) Unless otherwise soecified in this section or the conditional
use oermit. wind enerey conversion systems shall be subiect
to the heiaht reaulations of the zonina district in which thev
are located: orovided. that in no event shall the heiaht of any
such svstem exceed that recommended by the manufacturer.
(B) The heiaht of a freestandina wind enerav conversion svstem
shall be measured as the distance from around level to the
hiahest ooint on the tower. includina the vertical lenath of any
extensions such as rotor blades. The heiaht of a roof-mounted
wind enerav conversion svstem shall be measured as the
distance from the ooint at which the base of the system is
attached to the buildina or the lowest ooint of anv comoonent
of the wind eneray conversion system. whichever is lower. to
the hiehest ooint on the wind eneray conversion system.
includine the vertical leneth of any extensions such as rotor
blades.
4
179 (C) Notwithstandina any contrary heiaht limitation soecified in the
180 district reaulations. roof-mounted wind enerav conversion
181 systems may oroiect a maximum of eiaht (8) feet above the
182 roofline of the structure on which they are located unless a
183 areater heiaht is allowed bv the conditional use oermit.
184
185 (D) The minimum rotor clearance of freestandina wind enerav
186 conversion systems shall be twenty-five (25) feet above
187 around level for systems incorooratina horizontal-axis turbines
188 and ten (10) feet for systems incorooratina vertical-axis
189 turbines.
190
191 {4) Sianaae. No sianaae. other than safety and warnina sians. shall be
192 allowed.
193
194 {5) Tower construction. All freestandina towers shall be of monooole
195 construction. without auv wires or visible anchors. unless allowed bv
196 the conditional use permit.
197
198 .f6) Noise. The hiahest level of noise aenerated bv the system. as
199 measured at any adioinina orooerty line. shall not exceed an A-
200 weiahted decibel level of 55 dB(A)'
201
202 (7) Illumination. No portion of a system shall be illuminated unless
203 reauired bv the Federal Aviation Administration.
204
205 (8) Sitina. Systems shall be sited in a manner to minimize shadowina
206 and flickerina effects on any adiacent orooertv.
207
208 (9) Electrical connections. All electrical controls. control wlrlna and
209 Dower lines shall be located underaround or otherwise hidden from
210 view.
211
212 (10) Brakina. All systems shall be eauiooed with a redundant brakina
213 system that enaaaes at wind soeeds in accordance with the
214 manufacturer's soecifications so as to minimize the ootential for wind
215 damaae to the system or its suooortina structure.
216
217 (d) InsDections. All wind enerav conversion systems. includina all associated
218 eauioment. sl1all be insoected every two (2) years to ensure comoliance with this section
219 and the conclitional use permit. The reoort of such insoection shall be provided to the
220 Plannina Director.
221
222 (e) Discontinuance. Anv wind enerav conversion system that is not in use for a
223 oeriod of one (1) year shall be removed within ninety (90) days after notification bv the
224 Plannina Diredor.
225
5
.1
"I
226 COMMENT
227
228 Subsection (a) [lines 75-78] states that the purpose of the wind energy system section is to
229 promote energy conservation by allowing wind energy conversion systems while minimizing the
230 safety, visual and environmental impacts of such systems.
231
232 Subsection (b) sets forth the conditional use permit application requirements [lines 82-111]
233 and requirements for site plans and building permit applications [lines 113-116].
234
235 Subsection (c) [lines 118-215] sets forth requirements pertaining to lot area, setbacks, height,
236 structural standards, lighting, signage, noise, shadowing/flickering, electrical connections and
237 braking.
238
239 Subsection (d) [lines 217-220] requires an inspection every two years and submission of the
240 inspection report to the Planning Director.
241
242 Subsection (e) [lines 222-224] requires the removal ofthe system if it is not used for one year.
243
244
245 Sec. 242.5. Wind enerav conversion systems.
246
247 In addition to qeneral requirements. wind enerqv conversion systems shall be
248 subiect to the orovisions of Section 209.
249
250 COMMENT
251
252 The section provides that wind energy conversion systems allowed as conditional uses shall be
253 subject to the provisions of Section 209 of the City Zoning Ordinance.
254
255
256 Sec. 301. Use regulations [Preservation District].
257
258 (a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart lists those uses permitted within
259 the P-1 Preservation District. Those uses and structures shall be permitted as either principal
260 uses indicated by a "P" or as conditional uses indicated by a "C." No uses or structures other than
261 as specified shall be permitted.
262
USE
P-1
Wind enemy conversion systems. freestandina
C
C
Wind enerav conversion systems. roof-mounted
263
6
264
265
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
308
309
310
COMMENT
The am(~ndments allow freestanding and roof-mounted wind energy conversion systems
(WECS) as conditional uses in the P-l Preservation District.
Sec. 401. USE! regulations [Agricultural Districts].
(a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart lists those uses
permitted within the AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. Those uses and structures in
the respective agricultural districts shall be permitted as either principal uses indicated by
a "P" or as conditional uses indicated by a "C." Uses and structures indicated by an "X"
shall be prohibited in the respective districts. No uses or structures other than as
specified shall be permitted.
USE
AG-1
AG-2
Wind enerav o:>nversion svstems. freestandina.
except as provided below
P
P
Wind enerav conversion svstems. freestandina.
in excess of CIne (1)
C
C
Wind enerav conversion svstems. roof-mounted.
except as provided below
P
P
Wind enerav o:>nversion systems. roof-mounted.
in excess of CIne (1 )
C
C
COMMENT
The amendments allow one freestanding wind energy conversion system (WECS) and one
roof-mounted WECS as principal uses in the AG-l and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. Two or more
such systems are allowed as conditional uses.
Sec. 501. USE! regulations [Residential Districts].
(a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart lists those uses
permitted within the R-40 through R-2.5 Residential Districts. Those uses and structures
in the respective residential districts shall be permitted as either principal uses indicated
by a "P" or as conditional uses indicated by a "C." Uses and structures indicated by an
"X" shall be prohibited in the respective districts. No uses or structures other than as
specified shall be permitted.
7
II I
Use
R-40 R-30 R-20 R-15 R-10 R-
7.5
R-
5D
R- R-5S R-2.5
5R
Wind enerav
conversion
systems. free-
standina. except
as provided
below
.E
.E
.E
.E
~
~
~
~
~
~
311 Wind enerav
312 conversion
313 systems.
314 freestandina.
315 in excess of
316 one (1) Q
317
318 Wind enerav
319 conversion
320 systems.
321 roof-mounted.
322 exceot as provided
323 below .E
324
325 Wind enerav
326 conversion svstems.
327 roof-mounted.
328 in excess of
329 one (1) Q
330
331
332 COMMENT
333
334 The amendments allow one freestanding wind energy conversion system (WECS) as a
335 principal use in the R-40 through R-15 Residential Districts. Two or more such systems are allowed
336 as conditional uses in the R-40 District. One roof-mounted WECS is allowed as a principal use in
337 the all Residential Districts except the R-2.5 Residential Townhouse District. Two or more such
338 systems are allowed as conditional uses in the R-40 through R~10 Residential Districts.
339
340 Sec. 601. Use regulations [Apartment Districts]
341
342 (a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart lists those uses permitted
343 within the A-12 through A-36 Apartment Districts. Those uses and structures in the
344 respective apartment districts shall be permitted as either principal uses indicated by a
345 "P" or as conditional uses indicated by a "C." Uses and structures indicated by an "X"
346 shall be prohibited in the respective districts. No uses or structures other than as
347 specified shall be permitted.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
.E
.E
.E
.E
.E
.E
.E
.E
~
Q
Q
c
Q
~
~
~
~
~
8
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
Use
A-12
A-18
A-24
A-36
Wind eneray conversion
systems. freestandina
c
Q
c
c
Wind enemy conversion
svstems. roof-mounted
Q
Q
c
c
COMMENT
The amt~ndments allow freestanding and roof-mounted wind energy conversion systems as a
conditional use in all Apartment Districts.
Sec. 701. Use regulations [Hotel District]
(a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart lists those uses permitted
within the H-1 Hotel District. Those uses and structures in the district shall be permitted
as either principal uses indicated by a "P" or as conditional uses indicated by a "C." Uses
and structures indicated by an "X" shall be prohibited in the district. No uses or structures
other than as :;pecified shall be permitted
Use
H-1
Wind eneray conversion systems.
roof-mounted. E!XCeot as orovided
below
.E
Wind enemy conversion systems.
roof-mounted. in excess of one (1) oer
orincioal structure
c
COMMENT
The 8IDlmdments allow one (1) roof-mounted wind energy conversion system (WECS) as a
principal use in H-l Hotel District and more than one such WECS per principal structure as a
conditional use in the district.
9
II I
395 Sec. 801. Use regulations [Office Districts].
396
397 (a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart lists those uses
398 permitted within the 0-1 and 0-2 Office Districts. Those uses and structures in the
399 respective office districts shall be permitted as either principal uses indicated by a "P" or
400 as conditional uses indicated by a "C." Uses and structures indicated by an "X" shall be
401 prohibited in the respective districts. No uses or structures other than as specified shall
402 be permitted.
403
USE
0-1
0-2
Wind enerav conversion systems. freestandina
C
Q
Wind enerav conversion svstems. roof-mounted.
exceot as orovided below
E
E
Wind enemy conversion svstems. roof-mounted.
in excess of one (1)
C
C
404
405
406 COMMENT
407
408 . The amendments allow freestanding wind energy conversion systems (WECS) as a
409 conditional use in the 0-1 and 0-2 Office Districts. They also allow one (1) roof-mounted WECS as a
410 principal use in the district and more than one WECS as a conditional use.
411
412
413 Sec. 901. Use regulations [Business Districts].
414
415 (a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart lists those uses perm itted within
416 the B-1 through B-4K Business Districts. Those uses and structures in the respective business
417 districts shall be permitted as either principal uses indicated by a "P" or as conditional uses
418 indicated by a "C." Uses and structures indicated by an "X" shall be prohibited in the respective
419 districts. No uses or structures other than as specified shall be permitted.
420
USE
B-1
B- B-2 B-3 B-
1A 3A
B-4 B- B-
4C 4K
421 Wind enerav conversion systems.
422 freestandina. exceot as orovided below E E E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
423
424 Wind enerav conversion systems.
425 freestandina. in excess of
426 one ( 1 ) Q C C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
427
428 Wind enerav conversion systems.
429 roof-mounted. exceot as provided
10
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
below
.E
.E
.E
.E .E
.E
.E
.E
Wind enerav conversion systems.
roof-mounted. in excess of one (1)
oer orincioal structure
c
c
c c
~
c
~
c
COMMENT
The amlmdments allow one (1) freestanding wind energy conversion system (WECS) as a
principal use in the B-1, B-IA and B-2 Business Districts, and more than one (1) WECS as a
conditional use in the same districts. They also allow one roof-mounted WECS per principal
structure as a IIrincipal use and more than one roof-mounted WECS per principal structure as a
conditional use in all Business Districts.
Sec. 1001. Ul;e regulations [Industrial Districts].
(a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart lists those uses
permitted within the 1-1 and 1-2 Industrial Districts. Those uses and structures in the
respective industrial districts shall be permitted as either principal uses indicated by a "P"
or as conditional uses indicated by a "C." Uses and structures indicated by an "X" shall
be prohibited in the respective districts. No uses or structures other than as specified
shall be permitted.
Use
1-1
1-2
Wind enerav conversion systems.
freestandina. exceot as orovided below
.E
.E
Wind enerav conversion systems.
freestandina. in excess of two (2)
c
c
Wind enerav conversion systems.
roof-mounted. Elxceot as orovided
below
.E
.E
Wind enerav conversion systems.
roof-mounted. in excess of one (1) oer
orincioal structure
c
c
COMMENT
The amendments allow two (2) freestanding wind energy conversion system (WECS) as a
principal use in the 1-1 and 1-2 Industrial Districts, and more than two (2) as a conditional use in the
same districts. They also allow one (1) roof-mounted WECS per principal structure as a principal
use and more than one (1) roof-mounted WECS per principal structure as a conditional use in both
Industrial Districts.
11
I' I
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
II I
Sec. 1501. Use Regulations [RT-1 Resort Tourist District]
(a) The following chart lists those uses permitted within the RT-2 Resort Tourist
District as either principal uses, as indicated by a "P," or as conditional uses, as indicated
by a "C." Conditional uses shall be subject to the provisions of Part C of Article 2 (section
220 et seq.). Buildings within the RT-2 District may include any principal or conditional
uses in combination with any other principal or conditional uses. No uses or structures
other than those specified shall be permitted. All uses, whether principal or conditional,
should to the greatest extent possible adhere to the provisions of the Oceanfront Resort
Area Design Guidelines.
Use
RT-1
Wind eneray conyersion systems.
roof-mounted. exceot as oroyided
below
E
Wind eneray conyersion systems.
roof-mounted. in excess of one (1) oer
orincioal structure
c
COMMENT
The amendments allow one (I) roof-mounted wind energy conversion system (WECS) as a
principal use in the RT-I Resort Tourist District and more than one such WECS per principal
structure as a conditional use in the district.
Sec. 1511. Use Regulations [RT-2 Resort Tourist District]
(a) The following chart lists those uses permitted within the RT-2 Resort Tourist
District as either principal uses, as indicated by a "P" or as conditional uses, as indicated
by a "C." Conditional uses shall be subject to the provisions of Part C of Article 2 (section
220 et seq.). No uses or structures other than those specified shall be permitted. All uses,
whether principal or conditional, should to the greatest extent possible adhere to the
provisions of the Oceanfront Resort Area Design Guidelines.
Use
RT-2
Wind eneray conversion systems.
roof-mounted. exceot as orovided
below
E
Wind eneray conyersion systems.
roof-mounted. in excess of one (1) oer
12
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
principal structure
c
COMMENT
The anu:ndments allow one (1) roof-mounted wind energy conversion system (WECS) as a
principal use in the RT -2 Resort Tourist District and more than one such WECS per principal
structure as a c(Jnditional use in the district.
Sec. 1521. Uue Regulations [RT-3 Resort Tourist District]
(a) This following chart lists those uses permitted within the RT-3 Resort Tourist
District as either principal uses, as indicated by a "P" or as conditional uses, as indicated
by a "C." Conditional uses shall be subject to the provisions of Part C of Article 2 (section
220 et seq.). Except for single-family, duplex, semidetached and attached dwellings,
buildings within the RT -3 District may include any principal or conditional uses in
combination with any other principal or conditional use. No uses or structures other than
those specified shall be permitted. All uses, whether principal or conditional, should to the
greatest extent possible adhere to the provisions of the Oceanfront Resort Area Design
Guidelines.
Use
RT-3
Wind enerav conversion svstems.
roof-mounted. E!XCept as provided
below
E
Wind enerav ccnversion systems.
roof-mounted. in excess of one (1) Der
principal structure
c
COMMENT
The amlmdments allow one (1) roof-mounted wind energy conversion system (WECS) as a
principal use ill the RT-3 Resort Tourist District and more than one such WECS per principal
structure as a conditional use in the district.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this
,2009
day of
13
I I
I II I
573 Approved as to Content:
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581 CA-1082
582 July 9, 2009
583 R-12
Approved as to Legal Sufficiency:
/AJ~ M,/JIOlJ
City Attorney's Office
14
Item #15
City of Virginia Beach
An ordinance to Establish City Zoning Ordinance Regulations Pertaining to
Wind Energy Systems including definitions, Application Requirements,
Locational and other Requirements, and Zoning Districts where prohibited
July 8, 2009
REGULAR
Donald Horsley: The next item is item 15. The City of Virginia Beach for an ordinance
to Establish City Zoning Ordinance Regulations pertaining to Wind Energy Systems,
including Definitions, Application Requirements, Locational and other requirements, and
Zoning Districts where permitted. Ms. Lasley.
Karen Lasley: I'm going to give you the whole show on wind turbines as fast as I can.
She's going to put up the PowerPoint. We can get started. She can't get it on the screen.
Do you want me to try? You have a color copy.
Janice And(:rson: We'll follow along with you and she'll catch up.
Karen Lash::y: Right. We start out with definitions. A wind energy conversion system is
defined. It converts wind energy into electricity. There are two types. Free standing and
roof mount(:d. Then under free standing, you have two types. You have a horizontal axis
and a vertical axis. The first draft that you had in your agenda in May didn't allow for
the vertical axis turbine, so we made some changes here in your version today. Okay.
The second slide shows the free standing turbines. These are vertical axis, up and down,
kind of more traditional. Let me check one thing with Mr. Macali.
Bill Macali: The horizontal ones are the ones that are traditional. It has a pole. A
cylinder goes round, round and round.
Karen Lasley: The vertical are more compact. They are shorter. It is a real positive
development in the industry so we certainly didn't want to exclude those. There are a
couple of pictures in there showing the vertical axis, the new type that we want to allow
for. There is a slide that says general knowledge at the top. It shows how wind turbines
work. The wind comes in and the energy from the wind is converted into electricity. It
can be used in a home or it can be stored. It can be stored and saved for later or it can be
sold back into the grid system to the electric company. Okay. Then we have some
pictures of roof mounted antennas. There are about two slides that show that. There is a
roof type example, again showing how the energy from the wind is converted into
electricity and used. Then you have the, I call it the "Horsley Farm Slide" showing the
wind turbine farm. That's possible in this amendment, but requires a Conditional Use
Permit. Okay. The purpose of the regulations is we want to promote energy
conservation. Wind is, of course, a renewable energy source and we want to make that
available. At the same time we want to minimize the visual, safety and the
environmental impacts of wind turbines. Wind energy conversion systems free standing.
One of these towers is allowed by right in the districts listed there. The Agricultural
Districts, in the larger residential districts, R-40 down to R-15, 15,000 square foot lots,
also in the General Business Districts, B-1, B-IA and B-2. Not in the specialized
commercial districts like B-3 A for Town Center. And they are allowed in both of the
II I
II I
Item #15
City of Virginia Beach
Page 2
industrial districts. If you want to have more than one free standing tower, you need a
Conditional Use Permit, and two or more are allowed with the Use Permit in the districts
listed there; the Agricultural Districts and only in the R-40 Residential District, just on
the very largest residential lots in town, in the B-1, B-IA and B-2, and of course, in both
industrial districts. In the P-l District, and the 0-1 and 0-2, the Office Districts to put
any type ofa free standing system, one or five, you have to have a Use Permit. Roof
mounted systems are less intrusive. So the ordinance is more lenient there. And one is
allowed by right in all of those districts listed on that slide, Agricultural, all of the
Residential Districts, the Hotel District, the Office Districts, all of the commercial
districts, industrial, and all three of the Resort Tourists Districts. There is a lot of wind at
the oceanfront and we hope there will be many of these mounted onto hotels at the
oceanfront. If you want to have more than one wind turbine on your roof, that takes a
Conditional Use Permit in the districts listed there on that slide. And in the P-l District,
any roof mounted system would require a Use Permit. And we have a picture of an office
building that shows a whole row of wind turbines roof mounted and how that might look.
Alright. You have some requirements. If you're going to go through the Conditional
Use Permit process you need a site plan. You need certification that the building code
requirements are met, and that the structure meets the structural integrity. You need
elevations showing what the tower is going to look like, and even if you don't need a
Conditional Use Permit, if you only want to put up one of these by right, you have to
submit all this information with your building permit application.
Karen Prochilo: Karen, it's on the screen now.
Karen Lasley: Okay. Do you want to go to minimum lot area? Show the picture
because they don't show up very well on the printed copy. Okay. That is the free
standing (pointing to PowerPoint) horizontal axis. That's the vertical axis, also free
standing. There are a couple ofthose. That's the new type oftower that this amendment
now allows. Okay. You can just go over to the minimum lot area slide. I don't know
what number it is. Sorry.
Janice Anderson: Karen, what is the height restriction on those?
Karen Lasley: Okay. We have a slide on that in a few minutes.
Janice Anderson: Okay.
Karen Lasley: Lot area, if it is not residential, you need 40,000 square feet for one free
standing tower, and 20,000 square for each beyond one. In excess of one, for a roof
mounted, you just have to meet the minimum lot size for each district. With a Use Permit
though, you can vary minimum lot size. If you have a real small property and still want
to erect a tower, you can come in for a Use Permit. Here are the setbacks for free
standing towers. The tower has to be at least 110 percent of the height from the property
line or from the right-of-way. So, if you want to put a 35 foot tower, you have to have a
38.5 foot setback from your property lines. You can't be any closer to any residential
structure or overhead utilities than 110 percent, again. Everything that I have in red is
what we changed from last time. That used to 130 percent, which doesn't work for the
Item #15
City of Virginia Beach
Page 3
vertical axis turbines. So, now this works. Then everything has to meet the required
setbacks for your district. Okay. Here is height. The height regulations of the
underlying zoning district have to be met. In residential, usually the height is 35 feet, so
you have to meet that. For free standing and roof mounted, the ordinance clarifies how
we measure height, and that is of course to the top of the blade. Roof mounted turbines
may project eight feet above the roofline so if you want to put one of these on your
home, and you have a 35 foot height limit, you can go up eight feet up to 43 feet.
Minimum rotor clearance is 25 feet for horizontal axis, and ten feet for vertical axis
turbines. That was a change that allows for those vertical turbines. Here are some other
regulations. No signs on the wind turbines, We don't want any LED signs up there
spinning around. The towers all have to be monopole unless another type is allowed by
Use Permit. If you want a lattice tower out on the farm and you think a lattice is
appropriate, you can apply for a Use Permit for that. There is a maximum noise limit on
them. They cannot be lighted. They cannot be lighted unless the FAA requires it and
they have to be sited to minimize shadowing and flickering. The electrical wires and
everything have to be underground or otherwise hidden. They have to have a braking
system that engages in accordance with the manufacturers specifications. That was the
other change that we made since you saw this last time because of some of them the
manufacturer requires them to brake at 45 mph or some at 35 mph. They are all a little
bit different and we agree they should comply with the manufacture's standards. They
know best on that. This slide shows the shadowing effect that we're going to try to
minimize. ] think that is all the slides that I have. That was kind of quick. Are there any
questions? Did you have any speakers?
Janice Anderson: Yes.
Karen Lask~y: Okay. I'm sorry. There is another slide that fell off of mine. Inspections
are conducted every two years for compliance. They have to submit a report to the
Planning Director and if a turbine is not used for one year, it has to come down.
Karen Prochilo: Thank you.
Janice Anderson: Question?
Donald HOTsley: Question.
Janice Anderson: Ron first.
Ronald Ripley: Two questions. One is about safety, hurricanes and storm events. What
kind of caution is built into it? I guess it's a technology question.
Karen Lasl<ey: That's the braking system. If the winds become too high, the turbine
shuts down and doesn't keep spinning.
Ronald Ripley: It has a mode where it will just lock down. It can withstand a hurricane?
II I
I
Item #15
City of Virginia Beach
Page 4
Karen Lasley: It can withstand the wind. Yes. Structurally, that would be part of the
structural integrity certification that has to be submitted.
Bill Macali: That is also the reason for the setbacks, the 110 feet so if it falls it doesn't hit
anyone.
Ronald Ripley: The second question and I noticed there is no "A" zoning in here.
Karen Lasley: Apartment?
Ronald Ripley: You eliminated apartments and looks like if you stand away from the
urban, you will eliminate mixed use? How did we do this? There are big benefits here.
Karen Lasley: They are allowed in the mixed used. Among staff we debated a lot on
which districts were appropriate and which they weren't, and this is kind of our first shot
at it. I think we're thinking we'll see how this works, and how they fit into the City.
Ronald Ripley: I'll give you an example. A parking garage. It takes a lot of energy to
light an apartment garage. It would be a big benefit to the supplemental energy for that,
and that would certainly be in a residential zone in an urban environment. It's a practical
example that comes to mind. I think the ordinance is well written. I just noticed that
when I read 'it there was nothing in there that covered it.
Karen Lasley: The Apartment Districts were left out.
Ronald Ripley: A lot of your apartment zones also have land areas that really are
suitable. They are away from buildings or whatever your concerns that fall onto a
building. There is usually meaningful open space and a lot of times meaningful open
space in multi-family. It just seems were omitting a segment, and we're really omitting a
segment that would probably produce more energy than a single-family.
Karen Lasley: I love it. The more, the better for me. Mr. Macali, do you have an
objection to that?
Bill Macali: The reason we did it is because it is something that is entirely new. It has
never ever been seen before in Virginia Beach. And most other places in the whole
country, and especially in Virginia. We thought that if we started a little bit on the
conservative side, it is not really that conservative an ordinance because it came into
residential areas and all of these other areas. Most urban areas, as well that if it were a
success and the problems weren't great, we would probably expand the advent of the
ordinance to include at least some apartment districts, possibly all of them and maybe
more by-right things like that, but we did want to start a little bit on the conservative side
just to see how it went because you could always add stuff later on. If somebody puts a
bunch of wind mills up by-right and then you change the ordinance because you think
you were too liberal, you're stuck with it.
Item #15
City of Virginia Beach
Page 5
Ronald Ripley: I think you could apply for a Conditional Use Permit if you wanted that
control. I appreciate what you're saying but it seems like you wouldn't want to foreclose
that segment because they usually have more means in which to do things like this, and
the is financ:ing that is going to be available, green type funds or whatever that gives them
an axis, and they may want to for whatever reason. They might get a better interest rate.
Those types are being made available for need properties, properties that meet
environmental and benefit the environment. So, I would encourage that just, to add that
in the multinfamily. Add it as a Conditional Use Permit so you would have control so
you want to make sure.
Karen Laslf:Y: Free standing and roof mounted use Permit in "A" Apartment Districts.
Ronald Ripley: I would appreciate that.
Karen Lasley: Good!
Janice Anderson: Phil.
Phil Russo: I just have a question about the practicality as we presently stand. Does
Planning have any knowledge about the technology on this? It seems from what I read
that right now we're probably at a point where it is probably going to cost about equally
the amount of the useful life of the product. What is the cost benefit of it?
Karen Lasley: Right. It doesn't pay right now. But I still have at least a dozen people
that call all the time, that want to do this just because they think it is the right thing to do.
They are en vironmentally conscious.
Phil Russo: Well, I was wondering perhaps if staff was aware of the technology that is
out there. Because I don't think we're going to see a pleather of these things out there
right now but with the increase in technology a few years from now are we going to see
probably things that will make those things look archaic.
Karen Lasley: No.
Bill Macali: We could well. No one knows. That is the thing.
Karen Lasley: Right now, the School Board wants to put one up at their new
maintenance facility, so I think that will probably be our first. They are industrial so they
would be able to do it by-right under this ordinance. That will be one of the first to go
up.
Janice And(:rson: David had a question and then AI.
David Redmond: A couple of quick things. Just to follow up on what Ron said. I
imagine the economics probably wouldn't work, but if you got some sort of money
probably some other source, federal, state or local or whatever, then maybe it would
mitigate if it you were in a condo. You can do three of those or four of those or whatever
II I
"I
Item #15
City of Virginia Beach
Page 6
works, and sell it back to the power company then you can mitigate. You would have a
revenue stream that could therefore conceivably reduce your condo association fees. It is
an exciting prospect. I think down the road I would think in a lot of these multi-family
have a lot less of multi-family in Virginia Beach or across the United States. I'm sure
that technology is going to grow and change with leaps and bounds. I don't know if you
know the answer to my next question Karen, if someone does build or Bill shout it out. I
thought you were required to sell any kind of power like that back to the power company.
Can you have some sort of cell in your home or in a place of business that stores and then
you use it?
Bill Macali: There is this program that the State Corporation Commission operates called
"Net Energy Metering". I you set it up to meet all the requirements the electric company
is required to buy it from you. You are not necessarily required to sell it to them but if
you have access they are required to exactly pay you for your electricity. I don't think
that is going to be the case in a whole lot of systems just because you have to have a
pretty big system to be able to do that. In a home system, it certainly wouldn't be .
because you really need a lot of these things to be able to create enough power to pay for
all of your needs.
David Redmond: Okay. Thanks.
Bill Macali; But there is that requirement that you c~n sell it back to the electric
company.
David Redmond: Thank you.
Janice Anderson: AI.
Al Henley: Just for information. I have a question on inspections. Imagine that?
Karen Lasley: Inspections?
Al Henley: If anyone is interested in this, there is a lot of interest. I visited Edenton,
North Carolina some months ago and we went to a farm. It is an agricultural industry
obviously, and it sits on a real pleasant atmosphere. It is an old plantation that has been
restored. But they have one of the largest photocell energy collecting farms in North
Carolina. And of course, they have a fairly large one. It looks like a utility shed if you
will but it stores this energy, and they can sell that back to the power company. If anyone
is interested there is a website. You can find that out. My question is on the inspections.
Are the inspections performed by the industry or is it performed by city inspections.
Karen Lasley: By the industry and then it is sent to the City for review.
Al Henley: That is what I assumed. Also with the new technologies coming in and not
knowing what the towers or the manufacturer units are made of a lot of stainless steel,
some are fiberglass and so forth, being that we're living in a salty environment, corrosion
and especially with the metallic material would become very corrosive and dangerous, so
Item #15
City of Virginia Beach
Page 7
I'm assuming that is one of the elements that the industry will be checking because of the
corrosive environment that we live in.
Bill Macali: That is true. This area is one of the best areas on the east coast for wind. As
you know, lhey are contemplating building one out in the ocean. Obviously, the
corrosion from the salt area and the water is a concern so they have addressed that.
Al Henley: There are a lot more intelligent people than I am that are inventing this
technology, so I'm sure they looked into that. I just wanted to question it. Thank you.
Janice Anderson: Gene.
Eugene Crabtree: Comment. The question was asked if anyone on the staff have
information on this as far as cost and projected and all. I think that Clay Bernick has all
of this information because we looked into alternative energy. As Al knows, as part of
the Comprehensive Plan and Clay researched this, and I think Clay has all of this
information as far as type, cost, where it can be information on this. So there is someone
on staff.
Karen Lash:y: I have a lot sitting in my drawer.
Eugene Crabtree: There is someone on staff that is on top of this, Clay, in his position as
the Environmental individual in the Planning Department.
Janice Anderson: Thank you Karen.
Karen Lash:y: Thank you.
Janice Anderson; Do you have speakers?
Donald Horsley: Okay. Our first speaker is Jeremy Hayes.
Jeremy Hayes: Good afternoon.
Janice Anderson: Welcome.
Jeremy Hayes: My name is Jeremy Hayes. I'm the President of Skyline Turbine and I'm
here in support of this ordinance. I would also like to offer that I am considered by a lot
of Zoning Offices already to be the professional and should you all have any other
questions, I know the answers to many of them that have just been asked. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Janice Andl~rson: Thank you for coming down here today. Are there any questions of
Mr. Hayes at this time? Go ahead Jay.
Jay Bernas: What is the minimum wind speed that makes this economical?
II I
II I
Item #15
City of Virginia Beach
Page 8
Jeremy Hayes: Typically about 12 mph. It is lowering everyday with new technologies.
Janice Anderson; Just a quick question. We saw those examples here. Are they changing
at a rapid pace?
Jeremy Hayes: The equipment itself seems to change somewhat quickly. All of the basic
apparatuses are, as and have been described horizontal and vertical axis turbines. To
answer another question about the technology and corrosiveness, just about every maker
on the market has some aspect of either designed specifically for marine environment or
is entirely graded for any environment.
Janice Anderson: Okay. Go ahead Jay.
Jay Bernas: For the roof top mounted or the household wind turbines, what is the wind
return period for what it can withstand, like a 50 year return period or like, I'm talking
about hurricanes. 50 year or 100 year return period before the braking system fails?
Jeremy Hayes: For braking, I'm not quite clear.
Jay Bernas: You know, like when the braking engages like at 45 mph, what are they
rated relative to hurricanes when the winds start blowing?
Jeremy Hayes: Most of them are rated at somewhere around 140. Many others are at
150 mph. Quite a few them have been survived in all sorts of extreme environments
much worse than we have here. Model (inaudible) for instance is used as the energy
production source for base camp at Mount Everest. Many other of their turbines in
particular have been in the Polynesian Islands in other areas in service for 20 years, and
have survived multiple typhoons of 140 to 150 mph winds.
Janice Anderson: Go ahead David.
David Redmond: A quick question. I don't want to hold us up, but ifI'm mounting a
roof top unit, how do I mount it. Do I just mount it right into the sheeting or into the
rafters or underneath the sheeting? How is that done?
Jeremy Hayes: There are really only a couple of units that are on the market currently
that are suitable for mounting on a roof, and they are small brackets, really nothing
terribly more so than a roof bracket that expanses the actual ridge. There are only a
couple of models that are small enough to be mounted without other engineering. Those
models themselves typically can generate about 400 watts or less. Maybe it might
approach the lighting use of a residential home. A lot of them are even installed by
homeowners, very simple installations. What we focus on more would be units that are
capable of powering an entire home, and or reclaiming the electricity that would be
brought from the grid and putting it back, more or less zeroing out somebody's energy
use.
David Redmond: But you can't do much with a little rooftop unit?
Item #15
City of Virginia Beach
Page 9
Jeremy Hayes: No.
David Edmond: You're talking then about a pole or something like that?
Jeremy Hayes: Right. Most of the units that will produce that much power will either be
a monopole mount on the ground a roof top mounted apparatus that must be engineered
and secured to more less the super frame of the building.
David Redmond: Okay. Thank you.
Janice And{:rson: Okay. Jay.
Jay Bernas: One last question.
Janice And{:rson: I know you like this.
Jay Bernas: What is the easiest way for a homeowner to know what they're wind speeds
are at the 30 to 35 feet, whatever their rooftop is, without having to go through an
anemometer measure for 12 months, and run the calculations against the power curve
Jeremy Hayes: To give you a basic idea, there are many wind maps available. One that
we promote and we would ask people to use is something called "First Look". It is
widely avai:lable and a free resource. That would give you a pretty good idea. When it
comes right down to it individual locations even as much as a few 100 feet apart quite
frequently can have a 4, 5 or 6 mph difference, and that much of a difference can put
somebody in a wind reign that allows them to overcome at least half of their electricity
bill. It is sometimes important to look for those specific avenues. Examples of things like
that would he closer to the beach front where there are obviously wind tunnels that come
through the larger buildings. In this area, you're probably going to have a little bit more
on the cost range due to the vast amount of area the wind speed can increase. Many of
the other situations will actually decrease the overall wind speed and are not capable of
being looked at right now. I do have some anemometers up just so that when people
show up a wind resource is valuable, close to bottom of those valuable layers, and they
want to know if they are above or below it before they engage in something. We
typically do an anemometer mounting for at least two months and then extricate the data
for the entire year based on what their difference is to the overall average.
Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions? Thank you very much.
Jeremy Hayes: You're quite welcome.
Donald Horsley: John McClung?
Erin McFarland: He just wanted to be here to support the ordinance.
Janice Anderson: Okay. We'll put his name underneath. Are you going to go grab him?
II I II
Item #15
City of Virginia Beach
Page 10
Erin McFarland: He just wanted to support it.
Janice Anderson: Okay.
Donald Horsley: Okay. How about John Schmidt?
John Schmidt: I'm just here to support as well, and I represent Skyline Turbines.
Donald Horsley: How about Erin McFarland.
Erin McFarland: Same thing. I'm in support.
Donald Horsley: Same thing.
Janice Anderson: Thank you all for coming.
Donald Horsley: Thank you all. That is it Madame Chairman.
Janice Anderson: Okay. I'll open it up for discussion. Jay?
Jay Bernas: I would like to applaud staff for bringing this forward because I think it really
moves Virginia Beach into the alternative energy world, and looking at renewable
energy. That is where we're going. My only comment is for City Council to consider
designating a staff person or enhancing their website because this is very complicated.
And it is a lot of money for people to be doing it. There is a lot of money out there to get.
There are a lot of stimulus funds. There are 30 percent buy down grants. There are all of
these energy grants available from the government. Understanding what a power curve
and what an anemometer is can be very overwhelming; so, I would encourage City
Council to consider through either education through the website, in conjunction with
hopefully if they pass this ordinance or designating a staff member to help residents
navigate through this because I think it is very valuable. It is another piece of the puzzle
to get off our dependence on foreign oil.
Janice Anderson: Very good. Gene?
Eugene Crabtree: Someone in the Planning staff and all that works with what Clay is
already doing, to some extent what Jay has just recommended, assisting people, and on
top of all of this, am I correct in that? I know that we don't have anybody designated per
say. I know we talked about this I know when we talked about alternative energy
sources.
Karen Lasley: The city is investing a lot more resources in that area. I can't say
definitely right now we're going to be able to do that. Jack, do you want to add
anything?
Eugene Crabtree: Clay is the only one I know and his staff.
Item #15
City of Virginia Beach
Page 11
Jack Whitney: Clay and other members of the staff from a technological and green
ribbon kind of bigger picture perspective, and Karen and other members of staff from a
regulatory perspective.
Eugene Crabtree: But they are available to assist the public if necessary. Right?
Janice Andl:rson: David?
David Redmond: I just sort of want to amplify what Jay said. I hope we have the good
sense to continue try to be at the forefront of this. Too often, I think a lot of these green
initiatives get caught up with the wackos in Hollywood and I just seem not to trust. But
there is something very real here off the coast and in lots of other places, and if we could
continue to be a real leader in this sector, it will define us in ways that I think most any
community in the United States would like to be defined but at the same time we
accomplish a lot of the objectives that Jay sorted hinted at, so I appreciate all the work
you did. I hope that when you look around the Commonwealth of Virginia, we're the
jurisdiction other folks look at and say, "wow we have to follow what Virginia Beach
did, those are the guys who really know, let's get a hold ofthem". Then I move approval
of the ordinance.
Janice Andl:rson: A motion by David Redmond. Does this motion include the addition
of the "A" Apartment Districts for free standing and roof mounted energy conversion
systems?
David Redmond: I understood that you wanted to sort of hold back on that.
Bill Macali: That is just what we proposed to the Commission. If the Commission feels
like it wants to add Apartment Districts, we could certainly do so. That is not an issue.
We just need to know exactly what you had in mind, which I understand to be, not
allowing thl~m by-right but only by Conditional Use Permit. Even one would require a
Use Permit in an Apartment District. If that is correct, we can make that change?
David Redmond: Are you comfortable with that Ron?
Ronald Ripley: Yeah sure.
David Redmond: Okay.
Janice Anderson: Yes. Okay. So, by Conditional Use Permit?
David Redmond: Correct.
Phil Russo: Second.
Janice Anderson: A second by Phil Russo.
II
"I
Item #15
City of Virginia Beach
Page 12
Ronald Ripley: If it is determined later that there are some by-right uses, like they say,
you can tweak the ordinance but I think having it in there opens the door up for additional
energy savings whether you have to go through the public process or not.
Janice Anderson: Yes.
AYE 11
NAY 0
ABSO
ABSENT 0
ANDERSON AYE
BERNAS AYE
CRABTREE AYE
HENLEY AYE
HORSLEY AYE
KA TSIAS AYE
LIVAS AYE
REDMOND AYE
RIPLEY AYE
RUSSO AYE
STRANGE AYE
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved the ordinance for wind turbine
energy systems.,
II '!
M. APPOINTMENTS
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
BA YFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COMMUNITY MEDICAL ADVISORY COMMISSION
HEALTH SERVICES BOARD
PARKS AND RECREA nON COMMISSION
PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
REGIONAL TASK FORCE
REVIEW AND ALLOCATION (COG)
WETLANDS BOARD
WORKFORCE HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD
I I
'I '! I
N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
I I
'I 'I I
O. NEW BUSINESS
P. ADJOURNMENT
**********************************
PUBLIC COMMENT
Non-Agenda Items
Each Speaker will be allowed 3 minutes
and each subject is limited to 3 Speakers
**********************************
COUNCIL SCHEDULE FOR AUGUST
August 18th Workshop
August 25th Briefing, Informal, Formal, includinl! Planninl!
Virginia Beach City Council
Will Host a
PUBLIC MEETING
7:00-8:30 PM
THURSDAY, AUGUST 13TH
Virginia Beach Convention Center
Purpose: 2010 General Assembly Legislative Agenda
Thursday, November 12th
ANNUAL JOINT MEETING
General Assembly, City Council and School Board
***********
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 8/11 /09atb
www.vbl!.ov,com
II II
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
SUMMARY OF COUNCU ACnONS
V
I
DATE: 07/14/2009 L
PAGE: I D S L
E D H E A W
AGENDA D S I E J S U N I
ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE A T E D N 0 S H U L W
V E Z Y L N 0 R E S 0
I P E E E E M I V 0 0
S H L R Y S S N A N D
I/A CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING:
BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE PRIORITIES James Flinchum,
CFP - Chair,
Virginia Beach
Chamber of
Commerce
IUA CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS:
PLANNING ITEMS - Pending City Jack Whitney,
Council Agenda Director -
Planning
B INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENT Patricia Phillips,
Director - Finance
I1I1IVNNI CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED CERTWIED 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
-E SESSION
F MINUTES - July 07, 2009 APPROVED 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
GII-I PUBLIC HEARING:
REALlPERSONAL PROPERTY TAX No Speakers
EXEMPTIONS
1/1.I.a From ReaI/Personal Propeny Taxes: DEFERRED TO 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
8/11109, BY
I. Mercy Medical Airlift CONSENT
2. Virginia Baptist Children's Home and
Family Services
b. From Personal Propeny Taxes:
I. Faith Works Coalition
2, National Alliance on Mental Illness
(NAMI) - Virginia Beach
3. Recovery for the City International
4. Tidewater Memorial Bicycle Park Fund,
Inc.
5, Virginia Wild Horse Rescue
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
V
I
DATE: 07/14/2009 L
PAGE: 2 D S L
E D H E A W
AGENDA D S 1 E J S U N I
ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE A T E D N 0 S H U L W
V E Z Y L N 0 R E S 0
I P E E E E M I V 0 0
S H L R Y S S N A N D
2 Ordinances to AMEND the City Code re: ADOPTED, BY 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
CONSENT
a. ~ 16-39 re spot blight abatement
b. ~ 10-1 re absentee voting at ADOPTED, BY 6-1 Y Y Y Y N A Y Y A A A
Courthouse Fire Stationlboth "full CONSENT
service" DMV OffiCI:S
3 Ordinance to AUTHORIZE purchase of ADOPTED, BY 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
mulching equipment from SPSAI CONSENT
TRANSFER $377,000 ~;avings to
Contin~encies.
4 Ordinance to AUTHORIZE temporary ADOPTED, BY 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
encroachment into ponion of City proper1y CONSENT
for Janelle A. Thomas/JI:nnifer A. Hedrick
re bulkheadlwharflboat I ift/f1oating dock at
2031 Echo Cove, DlS1RICT 5 -
LYNNHAVEN
5 Resolution to EXTENII Bayfront ADOPTED, BY 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
Advisory Committee to June 30, 20141 CONSENT
CHANGE composition to 4 ex officio
members representing tI1 e Baysidel
Lynnhaven Districts plu!: II citizen
members.
6 Ordinance to AMEND Budget of ADOPTED, BY 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
HousinglNeighborhood CONSENT
Preservationl APPROPR IA TEl
TRANSFER funds from HUD re Housing
Choice Voucher DrOl!ram.
7 Ordinances to ADOPTED, BY 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
ACCEPT/APPROPRIA TErrRANSFER CONSENT
Grant funds to Juvenile P,'obation Court
Service Unit through JAI8G
a. $43,828 re a part-time employee
b. $13,360 re electronic training
equipment
8 Ordinance to TRANSFEH. $90,000 re ADOPTED, BY 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
court appointed attorne:1 fees. CONSENT
K-I PLANNING - NO ACTION
AME UNITED, INC.lGI~EEN RUN DEFERRED BY
SQUARE ASSOC., LLC CUP re a bar THE PLANNING
and nightclub at 3320 Holland Road. COMMISSION
DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL FOR 30 DAYS
II
II I
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
V
I
DATE: 07/14/2009 L
PAGE: 3 D S L
E D H E A W
AGENDA D S I E J S U N I
ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE A T E D N 0 S H U L W
V E Z Y L N 0 R E S 0
I P E E E E M I V 0 0
S H L R Y S S N A N D
L-I TRUTH FAITH & DELIVERANCE APPROVEDI 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
MINISTRIES/GREA T EASTERN CONDITIONED,
RESORT CORPORATION CUP re BY CONSENT
church at 3386 Holland Road.
DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL
2 LIGHTHOUSE FELLOWSHIP APPROVEDI 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
CHURCH/James Harrell CUP re CONDITIONED,
church at 463 South Lynnhaven Road, BY CONSENT
DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL
3 BLACKWATER BAPTIST CHURCH to APPROVEDI 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
MODIFY AND ADD Conditions (approved CONDITIONED,
on August 17, 1981) for Addition of youth BY CONSENT
activity room/classrooms at 6000
Blackwater Road, DISTRICT 7 -
PRINCESS ANNE
4 HOWARD R. TABOR/DEEPAK APROVEDI 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
PATEL CUP re motor vehicle sales at CONDITIONED,
300 S. Rosemont Road. DISTRICT 3 - BY CONSENT
ROSE HALL
5 GARYW.!ANNA T. WYATTCUPre APPROVEDI 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
residential kennel at 1817 Indian River CONDITIONED,
Road. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE BY CONSENT
6 ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. DEFERRED TO 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
COZ from AG-1/2 to Conditional B-IA/P- 8/1112009, BY
I at Chestnut Oak Way. DISTRICT 7- CONSENT
PRINCESS ANNE
M APPOINTMENTS
HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY RESCHEDULED BY C 0 N S E N S U S
BOARD
PARKS and RECREATION Appointed 2 year 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y A A A
COMMISSION term - 09/0 I /2009
- 06/30/20 II
Delana Smith -
Junior, Tallwood
Hiph School
NIO/P ADJOURNMENT 6:09 PM
I I
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
V
I
DATE: 0711412009 L
PAGE: 4 D S L
E D H E A W
AGENDA D S I E J S U N I
ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE A T E D N 0 S H U L W
V E Z Y L N 0 R E S 0
I P E E E E M I V 0 0
S H L R Y S S N A N D
COUNCIL SCHEDULE FOR JULY AND AUGUST
Virginia Beach City Council
Will Host a
PUBLIC MEETING
7:00-8:30 PM
THURSDAY, AUGUST 13m
Virginia Beach Convention Center
Purpose: Discuss 2010 General Assembly
Legislative Agenda
NOVEMBER 12m
ANNUAL JOINT MEETING WITH
CITY COUNCIL, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SCHOOL BOARD