Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1982_10_27 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL, OCTOBER 27 , 1982 . A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia on October 27 , 1982 at 7 : 30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with Mr. Tolbert giving the invocation, and followed with the Salute to the Flag led by Mr. Taylor. Present were: Mayor Robert E. Sevila, Councilmembers Charles A. Bos, Edgar L. Coffey, Jr. , Reginald K. Gheen, Marylou Hill, John W. Tolbert, Jr. and Howard M. Willis , Jr. ; also Town Manager John Niccolls, Assist- ant Manager Jeffrey H. Minor, Assistant to Manager for Commumity Development Marc Weiss , Director of Engineering Andrew G. Shope, Director of Finance Donald O. Taylor and Town Attorney George M. Martin. CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION : (1) A Certificate of Appreciation was presented to former Mayor G. Dewey Hill, Jr. by Mayor Sevila for four years as Mayor of the Town of Leesburg and nine years as a councilmember. Mayor Sevila personally thanked Mr . Hill for the help he has given him and for the fine service he has given the town. He hoped he will continue to be available and contribute to the town as he has in the past. Mr. Hill said the last four years he served were prob- 00 ably the most rewarding he has ever had - a lot has been accom- , . plished and they have certainly set the wheels turning so that council will be busy for the next four or five years. He felt he O now knows what McArthur meant when he said "Old soldiers never die - OD they just fade away. " This applies to politicians as well . r CO Q (2) Mayor Sevila also presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Stanley D. Herrell, Jr. in recognition of six years as a council- member from 1976 to 1982 . Mr . Herrell thanked Council for this cer- tificate and said he felt Mr. Hill had said it all. (3) Another Certificate was presented to Kenneth B. Rollins, who served capably for over 14 years as Mayor of this town and con- tinues to serve the town and our community as our Delegate to State Legislature. Mr. Rollins hoped this body will continue to do those things council tried to do over so many years . He noted that Mr. Echols is here concerning the Leesburg South development - these things are very important to Leesburg for the betterment of the community and for economic development of this area. He worked very hard for such things when he was Mayor and he appreciates this certificate very much. He congratulated Mr. Coffey on his appointment to council and said "You couldn ' t find a better man. " He will hang his certificate in his office and cherish it very much. PETITIONERS : Mayor Sevila recognized Mr. Alton Echols, or someone on his behalf, concerning his rezoning application with the County for the Leesburg South proposed development. Mr. William Chapman, local counsel for Washington Development Sites, the owner of the Leesburg South project, said they have been in contact with several members of Council today and yesterday because of some apparent confusion that has arisen with regard to the town ' s position concerning their rezoning application pending before the County Planning Commission, and ultimately the Board of Supervisors . This parcel of land is immediately south of the By-Pass between Route 15 and Simpson Middle School. Earlier this week, as a result of discussions with members of the County staff, they were led to believe that they felt the town had some opposition to the proposed project. Council adopted a resolution in March of 1982 concerning the Town ' s posi- tion on this rezoning application. The scale of the application remains the same as the one reviewed by the town at that time - the precise uses are still being generated and defined or rede- fined. They have been led to believe that Council is opposed to the project because of its scale. Their contact, together with his appearance tonight, is to share some thoughts with them as to that perception and to get some indication from council as to whether its view has changed as to its position or, if council stands by its March 25, 1982 resolution, they would MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING . 78 appreciate it if they would reaffirm this resolution as being the position of the town. He has talked with councilmembers individu- ally and has shared some of his discussions with town staff mem- bers . He gave to Mr. Niccolls this afternoon a resolution that he would like council to seriously entertain concerning reaffirma- tion of its previously stated resolution to clarify its position on this particular zoning map amendment . He and representatives of his client are available for questions and there is one techni- cal person here that could answer questions concerning highway matters at this point. Mayor Sevila understood that the primary concern is the immi- nent adoption by the County of the Leesburg Area Management Plan and the fact that it may adversely affect their rezoning petition. Mr. Chapman said this isp one of three primary concerns . Mayor Sevila asked him to briefly outline how their plan conflicts with the proposed LAMP Plan. ! Mr. Chapman said the proposed LAMP Plan talks in terms of a neighborhood shopping center (defined anywhere between 60 , 000 and l00 , 000 square feet) . Their Statement of Justi- fication initially called for 100 , 000 square feet - in discussions with staff , they have indicated and shown them a sketch of 187, 000 square feet. They are planning through 1995 , whereas LAMP was talk- ing ten years from the date of creation. LAMP has "soft language" talking about office areas compatible with theneighborhood shopping center concept. He does not know what "compatible" means - the County staff has taken an interpretative position of LAMP (if it is adopted) to the effect that "compatible" means "equal to" the 100, 000 square feet. Some members of County staff have said this includes both the commercial shopping center, plus the associated or compatible office uses - their project is not in compliance with LAMP in terms of scale of the office park. They know they have a size problem they have to justify, but the imminency of adoption of LAMP and annexation, which may impact on them one way or another, makes it necessary to come back to Council to see if there is any clarification indicated. With respect to the LAMP compliance ques- tion, they also have a question about an inn that needs to be ad- dressed. In terms of housing density, they seem to be in compli- ance with minimum standards of housing density on the LAMP project. Those were a result of amendments after discussion with staff mem- bers . Mr. Bos asked where they are in terms of the rezoning process? Mr. Chapman said their application was delivered to the County in August of 1981 and their check was accepted in December of 1981 . They were to have a public hearing in November, but they were not advertised for November 10 . Mr. Echols said they made settlement in February and had it surveyed and engineered by April . They went to the county and were told that certain items were not acceptable and recommended that they get into the LAMP process, so this delayed their application. When they came out of LAMP , they had them in a position that was consistent - it showed 15 to 20 acres of shopping center - a total of 75 acres plus -. they thought they were working on friendly terms with the county. They filed in August and were told as recently as four weeks ago that things were on target as far as their scale was concerned. Now, even if they were scaling down, they would be un- able to proceed - they would have to go back and seek an amendment of LAMP . Their final plan under LAMP was 10 acres of shopping, 10 for employment and 12 to 1500 for residential . If this is what the town and LAMP wants, it will not meet the requirements of their client. They have been caught up in a cross fire between the town, the county and LAMP, but they are innocent, so they are ask- ing for a reaffirmation of council ' s March 1982 action. The county asked them to go elsewhere with their proposed development - to the Dulles area or perhaps to buy Leegate. It has to be as close as they can get to the town and must have direct access because their element will be coming in to Leesburg to the Visitors ' Center and for the walking tour. It is either that it is what the town wants and the county won ' t approve, or else it is all over. They would have to change their plan and use it as an investment or take their project to somewhere like Gettysburg or Lancaster. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING. Leesburg has the best of history of anywhere in the United States 9 if you define history as Washington, D. C. , Harpers Ferry, etc. The quality is on a 1 to 20 scale - within two hours of here, you have more historical points than any other single location in the eastern United States. The second one is the Fredericksburg area. We have Dulles and National Airports . Leesburg has sewer, water and a good tax base. Mr. Chapman presented a resolution he would like council to consider . He is concerned that there is at least someone saying the town opposes the scale of their project, yet the town has gone on record approving it. He asked if the town ' s position has changed? Mayor Sevila asked if the scale of the project has changed since the town went on record on March 24 , 1982? Mr . Chapman said No, they are still with the original plan in terms of areas involved and their original Statement of Justification - the actual use mixtures have changed a little as a part of the process, but they are still seeking 133 acres to be rezoned to what he calls the "tight" cate- gories, which is what they talked about when this matter was before council at that time. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CONCERNING COUNTY ZONING MAP #314 , LEESBURG SOUTH. T On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr . Tolbert, a resolution stating that Resolution No. 82-35 , adopted by the Town Council on CD March 24 , 1982 , remains the position of the Town concerning ZMAP OD #314 , Leesburg South was proposed. Mr. Bos was concerned as to (n whether this is the appropriate time for this to be brought up. Q He personally favors the concept of Leesburg South and he suspects this Council does, but the question is whether now when the town is in an ongoing process of negotiation with the county, which con- cerns the local comprehensive planning process, whether indeed we are already on record as commenting on this project - he is con- cerned as to whether it is highly inappropriate for this council to make a comment on LAMP at this point. He feels the applicant is caught in a real squeeze with the LAMP process and the seemingly unending County planning process - it costs the applicant money. We are already on record as having commented on this project and have not been brought uptodate on any changes - he didn ' t feel we should vote this up or down tonight. Mayor Sevila said this reso- lution, as presented, simply indicates that we don ' t expect to make any change in our position - it is, in effect, a reaffirmation of the position that was taken. He asked Mr . Bos if he is saying he is not in a position tonight to reconsider? Mr . Bos said his po- sition is no different than it was six months ago but he is won- dering whether the lack of speed on the county process has put this applicant at a real disadvantage, and are we really the body to solve this problem? Mr. Echols said they have been very careful to make sure this resolution is specific only to what they have already gone on record as approving. Mrs . Hill had no objection to reaffirming the resolution adopted last March. Mr. Gheen could see no quarrel, but he is concerned as to what the position of the town will be in the event that annexation is approved with respect to this particu- lar piece of land. Will the same zoning obtain until the town changes it or is there a possibility it will have the same zoning for four or five years, or what exactly might happen? From what he has heard, it seems the County Planning Commission has had a lot of time to debate this issue. He did not see that reaffirming the resolution of March 24 would do any violence to anything - he didn ' t see where it would affect us one way or the other . Mr. Willis said unfortunately we can ' t get into answering Mr. Gheen ' s question but they might be able to clarify it later this evening. He has no problem with reaffirming the March action . Mr. Bos asked Mr. Nic- colls, if after these comments were sent over to the County during • the LAMP process, what answer or comments did we get in return or discussion about the town ' s posture on it? Mr . Niccolls said we have received no direct comments in response to that resolution. Over the past several weeks, we have had numerous discussions with the county ' s planning staff over the ultimate development of that tract and all the others around Leesburg. Councilmembers reviewed a map recently, which conflicted with this proposed rezoning. He MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING. 80 would be glad to give him a statement of pros and cons or some commentary on the issue if he would like. Mr. Bos said he would like this - he feels it is premature to jump into this, especially with three new councilmembers that aren ' t fully aware of the back- ground. Mayor Sevila felt this would be appropriate. Mr. Niccolls said there is an obvious conflict between the map councilmembers have been using with regard to annexation area development plans and this rezoning. It is no secret that the annexation area development plan references the LAMP and it pro- vides that use of the Leesburg South land was to be primarily resi- dential , with a community-size shopping center. This conflicts with the March resolution. Mr. Chapman has been advised that coun- cil has not taken a position subsequent to the March resolution, so he was advised earlier this week to deal with the council . All these other discussions with the county staff have either been at the negotiating team level or primarily the staff level on these planning issues. There are soeme pros and cons to this specific rezoning - he asked Marc Weiss to summarize these. This is not in- tended to be a comprehensive staff report on this specific rezoning, but only to introduce to them some of the arguments that they might then consider. Marc Weiss identified some of the pros and cons concerning the Leesburg South project. As to the pros - (1) the increased tax base a development of that nature would provide to the town if that area were to be annexed into the town; (2) increased employment oppor- tunities that might result from a development of that scale; (3) the location of that tract in proximity to the major north-south Route 15 and east-west Route 7 corridors; (4) the attraction of tourism and tourists if the project is developed as proposed (a rezoning does not commit a property owner or an applicant to build a specific type of project - rather, it is permissible that any project or use that is allowable in a zoning category can be constructed) , so there is no guarantee of what ultimately will be built there (this can be seen as a bit of a con). (l)There is a concern that there is a large amount of land zoned for non-residential uses, both within the cur- rent town limits and just outside the town - for example, approxi- mately 200 acres of the Carr tract east of the town limits, the Route 7 corridor from the existing town boundaries out to Goose Creek and even beyond is zoned heavily for office, commercial and industrial uses. The potential problems with this kind of zoning are maybe two-fold - (1) a lot of the land is rezoned and never de- veloped - it may lie vacant and unproductive, which could be of some concern to the town in terms of getting additional users for the utility system. (2) overzoning land for non-residential uses can have a negative impact on the housing market - it can have the ef- fect of increasing the price of residential land and ultimately of housing (this needs to be considered when looking at comprehensive planning for the entire area) ; ( 2) The applicant is proposing in excess of 1, 000, 000 square feet of office space as part of this project. This could have a negative effect on downtown; (3) the Route 7 corridor has generally been designated and zoned for em- ployment uses and specifically for regional office uses . An argu- ment could be made that we shouldn ' t protect the Route 7 corridor - you have to go further and look at it and ask if it is really suit- able for any other land use? - the answer is clearly No, you would not want to locate residential land uses here. Looking at the Leesburg South property, could it be used for an alternative land use? - the answer is clearly Yes, it could be - it is in close proximity to Country Club. He spoke this afternoon with the consultants who prepared the proposed Town Plan, recognizing that it has not been adopted yet, to getclarification as to what is proposed for that tract. He did propose commercial and office uses on that tract, but he didn' t in the plan actually specify the extent of those uses. He said /the extent that was proposed in the town plan is about 100 , 000 to 200, 000 square feet of commercial area, specifically neighborhood commercial . The town and the council should be concerned no matter what it does one way or the other - we should be sure there is adequate provision MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING. for neighborhood shopping facilities in the area - it is clear that81 no matter how the Leesburg South property develops, surrounding prop- erties, either approved applications or potential future applications, will result in considerable residential development in the area. The extent of the office would be about another 100, 000 to 200, 000 square feet, but it was his feeling that the council could be flexible on that. He felt, from a market point of view, 1, 000, 000 square feet of office space was just not marketable. In terms of a specialty or tourist attraction, the town should consider this. Obviously the town is an important tourist attraction and a specific proposal should be looked at perhaps favorably if the council feels it contributes to the tourist base of the town. Mayor Sevila said this resolution adopted in March was obviously the result of or at least had the benefit of some staff comment. He asked Mr. Weiss if he participated in the evaluation or is there a staff report that led to the adoption by the council of the resolu- tion that went to the Board? Mr. Weiss said Yes, it was his opinion that the question of extent of the use was not addressed by Council one way or the other. It was not really in the context of LAMP, but in the context of staff referral from the county. Those items were addressed, but not specifically the intensity of the use. OD Nt Mr. Bos felt it is inappropriate to comment on something of this o magnitude in a matter of two hours in one day - it doesn ' t make sense. OD Mayor Sevila said council has had its opportunity to appear be- n fore the county in the last month and express its wishes and desires Q as they relate to the LAMP plan that was being adopted at the time. He was not a member of council on March 24 , 1982 when this resolution was adopted - he was not conversant with Leesburg South nor with the discrepancies between Leesburg South and the LAMP plan proposed. He had the opportunity to appear before the Board of Supervisors and make certain presentations relating to it. He pointed out that the Board and the LAMP committee favorably considered most of the things that we discussed with them. Had we had the opportunity to give this resolution the mature consideration he feels it requires, we would have been able to make a presentation in time to have it considered by the Board of Supervisors and, hopefully, it may have been reflected in the LAMP plan that is ultimately adopted, which he understands is presently scheduled for next Monday. He is concerned also that there is a strong possibility that the land we are discussing tonight may find itself in the Town of Leesburg in the very near future - he doesn ' t want to tie the hands of this council with respect to any application, whether it be rezoning or development plan relating to this property, by a vote tonight with little less than two hours con- sideration (we were all contacted today by the developer and his representatives and discussed this) . In that brief period of time we have not had the opportunity to give it the consideration it abso- lutely requires . His fear would be that premature reaffirmation to- night of a land use plan could somehow tie our hands in the future when we have to sit here in a rezoning proceeding and we would be possibly embarrassed and perhaps even defeated in a court suit should we vote against a rezoning plan at a subsequent date. For that rea- son, he would urge councilmembers to consider that we have spoken on this rezoning and it ' s not necessary every six months to reaffirm our position. We are not tonight entertaining a motion to rescind the past decision that this applicant should get all the mileage he can get out of this March 24 , 1982 resolution and he did not think it would be appropriate to reaffirm it tonight. Mr . Bos asked if it might not be appropriate to withdraw the motion and have no negative comments against this process that might harm the developer . The makers, Mrs. Hill and Mr. Tolbert, withdrew their motion. Mr. Chapman asked that Council consider tabling this matter. He apologized for springing this matter on them - they had to do something in a hurry - it just surfaced yesterday afternoon and that ' s why it was so late getting to them. They will be in touch with the Mayor and councilmembers in the future concerning this . p MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING . 82 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS : Mr . Bos said it is a pleasure to have the three mayors and councilmembers here tonight - he has certainly benefited from as- sociation with all of them. Mr. Gheen said he appreciates the effort and the service these three have given the town over the years. Especially, he feels Mr. Hill, his neighbor, has given his very best to the town and the town is better for what he has done. The same goes for Mr. Rol- lins and Mr. Herrell . Mrs. Hill asked what we would need to do to study the traffic lights at the corner of S . King and Catoctin Circle? There have been so many accidents there. Mr. Niccolls said he will ask the Highway Department to conduct a study. The basic signal controller : these intersections is capable of accommodating left turns, lead lefts, etc. At the time the highway improvements were made, they were not warranted by the number of turning movements, but that situation may have substantially changed - we will have a look at it. It will probably take two months . Mr. Willis echoed the comments made by Mr. Bos and Mr . Hill concerning the former mayors and councilman. He also reported there are several street lights out on West Market Street from • Ayr Street to the Clem residence . Mr. Niccolls said he would check on this. Mr. Coffey thanked former Mayors Rollins and Hill for their contribution to the town. He hoped he can do just a little of what they have done a lot of. Also, the people on Madison Court are very happy that corrective action will be taken concerning parking problems out there. Mr . Gheen understood that action will be taken. Mr. Tolbert said Mr. Rollins was late tonight and so missed the prayer he offered for him. He also asked Mr. Hill if he is hiding fron him? He also advised that glass is still in the area of King Street and Catoctin Circle from an accident several weeks ago - he felt the people who remove wrecks should sweep up this glass - they get the money and we get nothing from it. There is also some glass at Second and King Streets . MAYOR' S REPORT: Mayor Sevila echoed the sentiments of all the councilmembers who have thanked and expressed appreciation to the two past mayors and Mr . Herrell. He felt their mark and their contribution is ob- vious to all of them who serve on it on a day to day basis . Mr. Rollins continues to serve his community on the State Legislature. He hoped Mr. Hill will continue to serve also - his knowledge, ex- perience and dedication to the community uniquely qualify him to continue this same meaningful contribution. He was pleased to have all of them here tonight. He received this week a notice of the regional legislative meetings of the Virginia Municipal League and VACO. The regional one in our area will be held in Manassas on November 23rd. The letter he received from the Executive Director of VML is to en- courage all of them to attempt to attend. It is convenient and is at 6 : 30 p.m. There will be some special legislation that is of considerable concern to the town as it goes through this annexa- tion process. We are also asked to encourage our State senators and our State delegate to attend those meetings on our behalf. He extended this invitation to Mr. Rollins. Mayor Sevila said the mayor receives a lot of mail from day to day - much of it you try to respond to and you circulate those things that need to be brought to the attention of the council. He re- ceived one this week from Marjorie Hutt of 25 South Wirt Street. He read this poem to the council and staff concerning broken side- walks . MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING. 83 MANAGER' S REPORT: (1) Mr. Niccolls said there is a written Activity Report. He asked them to read this later and call him if there are any questions . (2) He asked Marc Weiss to give an overview of the Economic Development Advisory Committee ' s work program and goals that were submitted in a report in August. REPORT ON ECONOMIC STRATEGY : Mr. Weiss said the economic effort goes back to an objective setting session the previous council held in the fall of 1980, at which they identified as their first priority objective to en- courage and promote economic development for Leesburg as a dominant employment center in Loudoun County. They had in mind three things: (1) increased and balanced employment; (2) tax base and (3) bal- anced land use and development in the community. The direct re- sult of the first objective was the creation of the South Harrison Street Community Development project and the filing of an appli- cation with HUD for the project. South Harrison Street obviously 00 emphasizes economic development activities and the revitalization t of downtown and flows directly from the objective. CD February 10 , 1982 , Council adopted five economic development objectives : (1) the creation of an Economic . Development Advisory m Committee; (2) promotion of Leesburg as a site for tourists, busi- nesses and residences, including the preparation of a community data profile and an ad campaign; ( 3) increased support for the County' s tourism program; (4) preparation of a design plan for East Market Street and (5) mandating of a study of the development review process in the town . Following up on those objectives , at the same meeting, Council adopted an ordinance creating the Economic Development Advisory Committee and, on April 14 , 1982 , appointed seven members to that committee . In addition to these seven citi- zen members, there is the town manager or his representative and a councilmanic member , making a total of nine members. The EDAC held its initial meeting in May of 1982 and decided to go through an ICMA economic development training course entitled "Economic Development - Building a Strategy" . The purpose of the course was two-fold : (1) we had a diverse group of people on the committee - some had been involved in economic development issues for years and others were new to this field. The feeling was that, if they all went through this process together, they would all end up with a common basis of understanding and a common foundation of knowledge on the subject. (2) The other purpose was to develop an economic devellpment strategy, which would be a road map for the committee ' s activities in the next couple of years and would help the council focus more clearly on the economic development of objectives and what kind of things the town could do to promote economic develop- ment. Specifically to the strategy, the first session was to identify some of the pros and cons about economic development in general. Some of the pros were increased tax base, healthy competition, planned development, improved quality of life, increased diversity, increased employment opportunities. The cons were things like the possibility that there could be a greater cost for growth than there would be benefit, unwanted growth, a negative impact on the existing quality of life because of too much growth, an increased demand for services and incompatible development. On the whole though, the committee felt that the economic development effort would be well worth it and that the pros really did outweigh the cons, although the feeling was that the committee, the council and everybody had to be aware of the possible negative effects and always on guard to try to mitigate those as much as possible . The committee went through an identification of some of the problems and opportunities which really presented themselves to Leesburg. They .looked basi- cally at three areas : (1) retail assets - the image of the town, sufficient utilities, safety, location, the business mix or climate and quality merchants . (2) liabilities - the growth restrictions in the core area, parking, traffic, Route 7 East and an inadequate MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING. 84 business mix in the downtown area. (3) Industrial assets and lia- bilities - some of the assets are the same, our proximity to govern- ment at all levels, the availability of utilities, the low tax rate, adequate labor force, the town' s attitude toward new development. The liabilities - lack of land and building inventory, the fact that there is no interstate highway or railroad in close proximity to Leesburg; also how to finance new development. Some opportunities were also identified - things like annexation or potential annexa- tion, public private cooperation, planning for economic development (being able to formulate a plan and to do what they want to do with economic development) , defining their specific market. After that, the committee ranked the major problems and oppor- tunities and developed a list of its three highest priority prob- lems : (1) the need to improve the appearance of the Route 7 east corridor as a major entrance into Leesburg. The feeling of the com- mittee was that the Route 7 entrance - East Market Street - does not reflect truly the character of the town as a historic place and a place with unique character. When you come into town, it looks like you could be anywhere. The committee felt that improving the appearance would strengthen Leesburg ' s particular assets that other places don ' t have; and they felt it would be good for business on the east end of town. (2) the need to promote the town as a good place to visit, work and live in . ( 3) the need for a strong and ongoing public-private cooperation - this is really the heart of the whole economic development effort. It will take the effort of not only the town council, but the efforts of people in the pri- vate sector, to come together and help take advantage of our assets. This will be necessary along the Route 7 corridor, East Market Street - it will be necessary in providing the financing of cooperating and making sites and buildings available to prospects. The committee identified the resources available to the committee to achieve these objectives - there are a wide range of resources available both from the public sector and the private sector. We would have to make maximum use of all of these if we are to be successful in our economic development efforts . The committee then took the three top priority issues and laid out what they really want to see happen. They identified things like making it more attractive, improving traffic flow, improving the business climate, improving the zoning mix. Actions they identi- fied were a design study of the corridor, involvement of businesses and VDH&T in any plan. Some of the obstacles identified were the potential opposition of the business owners down there (perhaps they would misunderstand what the emphasis was) ; misinformation that could get out about the project; a lack of money to implement it and poten- tial problems with VDH&T. Outcomes sought by the committee are new business attraction, tourism, new customers and new residents . Some of the actions the committee set out for itself include the need to identify our market, our product, to prepare information on our mar- ket and product, to develop an advertising campaign, maintain a liai- son with the State Division of Industrial Development, develop a tourism brochure and create a tourism sub-committee. Finally, on public-private cooperation, the committee identified steps like con- tinuing the Economic Development Advisory Committee, which is a good example of public-private cooperation. It is created by the Council, there is a Council representative on the committee, but most of the members are private businessmen, real estate, attorneys, land plan- ners and small businessmen in the town. This is definitely a good start. They suggested that we develop an effective communications system to communicate what the council and the committee are doing out to the business community and the citizens in general . Some of the specific suggestions were a survey of existing businesses to find out what their perceptions were of the town, the town government and economic development, a mailing list of people who might be interested in the activities of the committee, development process brochures, an ombudsman who would work with businesses to help them solve their problems, help locate new businesses in town and several other things like that. Some of the obstacles that were identified would be the potential lack of private sector support, too much self-interest, misinformation and lack of long-range plan- ning. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING . The committee then laid out a timetable for each of these 85 three major issues - this is contained in the plan. At this point, they are sticking very closely to the timetable. As an example, the design study was one of the early recommendations for the Route 7 corridor - we have already invited three firms to submit propo- sals - there was a review committee composed of three staff members and two members of the EDAC and they have made a recommendation to the council . On the promotion side, there is a sub-committee that is currently working on the data profile. There is a tourism sub- committee that is working on some suggestions as to what the town can do to supplement and complement the county' s efforts in the tourism effort. Under the public-private cooperation, we have not done as much as we need to do because we have been focusing on some of the other areas, but they plan to put out information in the Lamplighter establishing on-going contact with media in the town. 7 It is the goal of the committee to get out to all the civic organiza- tions in the community and let them know what this committee ' s ac- t tivities are and what the economic development program is all about. • The committee is very interested in strong support from the council and a strong liaison with the council because the committee realizes that, if the council doesn ' t support its efforts, those efforts won ' t get very far. The committee feels, at this point, that the council 00 has supported its efforts, but would like to maintain that liaison NT and the lines of communication that do exist. The committee is pre- pared at any time, in a workshop setting or a committee meeting, to come in and discuss the specifics of the economic development strat- m egy with the council or any other concerns the council may have CD about what the committee is doing or not doing and should be doing. Q Mr . Bos said you can see how busy this committee has been - they have put - - a lot of hours into it. Now you have a little better idea as t9hwwhich direction the committee is going . Mr. Weiss also hinted at risk of economic development - he would like the council to look at this. There are some possible negative aspects - council should look at these too - it is a calculated risk. The priorities were difficult to establish - there are other things beside these three. If anyone is disturbed about the way we are going, please raise this question. The monthly meetings are at 7 : 30 a .m. on the first Wednesday of the month. Mr. Gheen felt this is a good report and he feels more uptodate than he did before . Mrs . Hill agreed. Mr. Bos said council postponed adopting the economic develop- ment strategy at the last meeting - he suggested that this be for- mally adopted at the next meeting. Mrs. Hill said they will take this up at the Finance and Administration Committee meeting. Mr . Niccolls said this was the reason this report was made tonight. MANAGER' S REPORT (Continued) : Mr. Niccolls presented to Council the staff ' s report entitled "Development Review Processes Study" prepared by Marc Weiss, who did most of the writing and worked with an ad hoc committee that has been providing information to the staff in response to the council ' s request last February. It was also referred to and re- ceived the valuable counsel of the Economic Development Advisory Committee . The committee endorsed the general concept of the re- port, but did not endorse each specific recommendation. There are significant recommendations as follows : (1) The report suggests the preparation of a development process manual - this would be an aid to persons interested in developing land in Leesburg both for commercial , residential or institutional purposes. It would give them an overview of the process for an approved project. (2) There is a recommendation that we establish a staff review group to expe- dite project review - something to improve coordination within our office, including the assignment of a facilitator to each non-resi- dential project. The facilitator would be the primary contact point the developer would have with the town because there are several town departments involved. (3) They also recognize. a need and make a recommendation to increase staff support to the Planning p MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING. o6 Commission - not an increase in the number of staff, but to increase the concentrated effort to help the Commission with its work. They feel it important that the Planning Commission be better prepared. This might also be extended to some of the other Boards and Commis- sions that work in these areas. (4) Another recommendation is the revision of some Zoning Ordinance provisions and then adoption of both the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances as a single development manual - a concept that is not particularly new, but it is relatively unused in Virginia. He recommends this report to Council and feels Marc has done an excellent job on it. He has made some recommenda- tions that could provide substantial benefits to the town, without giving up the show to just developer interests . Council ' s task is to filter through these, see which are truly viable and then ask the staff to prepare legislation or take necessary steps to imple- ment it. Mr. Bos suggested that councilmembers read this carefully and think about it a lot. Mayor Sevila declared a five-minute recess, after which Council resumed session to consider proposed legislation . 82-138 - RESOLUTION - ACCEPTING DEED OF EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC FACILI- TIES FOR THE SOUTHGATE II DEVELOPMENT. On motion of Mrs . Hill , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, council authorized extension of town water and sewer facilities to the Southgate II development being constructed by Richard O. Gore and Tedence, Inc . ; and WHEREAS, the public facilities are being installed by the de- veloper; NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Lees- burg in Virginia as follows : SECTION I . The deed of easements made October 27 , 1982 be- tween Richard O. Gore, Trustee and Tedence, Inc. and the Town of Leesburg is accepted and the mayor is authorized to acknowledge the same on behalf of the town. SECTION II . The town ' s acceptance of this deed does not re- lieve Richard O. Gore, Trustee and Tedence, Inc . of the re- sponsibility under the Contract for Public Improvements for initial installation of the public improvements and is not formal acceptance for maintenance by the town. Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila . Nay: None . 82-139 - RESOLUTION - EXTENDING AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND TIME FOR COMPLETION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR BROWN ' S MEADOW SUBDIVISION. On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr. Bos, the following resolution was proposed : WHEREAS , Council resolution 80-106 authorized an agreement for installation of public improvements for Brown ' s Meadow sub- division which required the improvements to be completed on or before October 8 , 1982 , and WHEREAS , the developer has requested a one-year extension of the time for completion of public improvements; THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING. The contract for public improvements and performance guaran-87 tee for installation of public improvements for Brown ' s Mead- ow subdivision is extended to require completion on or before October 8 , 1983 . Mr . Tolbert asked if Mr. Brownell ran into some difficulty? Mrs . Hill and Mr . Bos said things are slow. The resolution was unanimously adopted : Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay : None. I/ 82-140 - RESOLUTION - APPROVING WATERWORKS AND SEWER EXTENSION PER- MIT FORMS . On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr. Coffey, Council voted unanimously to dispense with the reading of the proposed ordinance. Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay : None. 00 On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following Oresolution was proposed and unanimously adopted : CO RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia (n as follows : Q SECTION I . Waterworks extension permits shall be submitted for approval in substantially the following form: WATERWORKS EXTENSION PERMIT The Developer, being the (owner, lessee, tenant, etc. ) of the property described as U hereby requests a permit to extend the Town of Leesburg ' s waterworks . In consideration of the granting of this permit, the De- veloper agrees to : 1 . Accept and abide by all applicable local, state and federal regulations for extension of public water- works . 2 . Enter into a contract for public improvements (Form PC-2) with the town which provides for installation of waterworks and other public facilities by the de- veloper. 3 . Install all facilities in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a certified professional engineer and approved by the town ' s Director of En- gineering and maintain the waterworks until such time the facilities are accepted by the town. 4 . Furnish the town with as-built construction draw- ings . 5 . Convey, by appropriate instrument, all permanent easements and fee simple title to required land to the town. The Developer agrees that after accept- ' ance by the town the waterworks facilities installed are the property of the town. Developer Date By Title Approved by Council : Address Date Issued (Town Manager) (Date) MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING. { 88. SECTION II . Sewer extension permits shall be submitted for approval in substantially the following form: SEWER EXTENSION PERMIT The Developer, being the • (owner, lessee, tenant, etc. ) of the property described as hereby requests a permit to extend the Town of Leesburg ' s sewer system. In consideration of the granting of this permit, the De- ! veloper agrees to: 1 . Accept and abide by all applicable local, state and federal regulations for extension of public sewer . 2 . Enter into a contract for public improvements (Form PC-2) with the town which provides for installation of sewer facilities and other public facilities by the developer. 1 3 . Design and install all facilities to serve the entire watershed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a certified professional engineer and ap- proved by the town ' s Director of Engineering and main- tain the sewer facilities until such time the facili- ties are accepted by the town. 4 . Furnish the town with as-built construction drawings. 5 . Convey, by appropriate instrument, all permanent ease- ments and fee simple title to required land to the town. The Developer agrees that after acceptance by the town the sewer facilities installed are the prop- erty of the town. I/Developer By Title Date Approved by Council : Address Issued (Town Manager) Date (Date) Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila . Nay: None. 82-141 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING CONTRACT FOR SMOKE DETECTORS AND DIALING EQUIPMENT FOR CERTAIN TOWN-OWNED PROPERTIES . On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Coffey, the following resolution was proposed : RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : The manager shall enter into a contract with J. B. Anderson, 134 Valley View Avenue, Leesburg, Virginia, for smoke detec- tors and dialing equipment at 15 West Market Street, 10 West Loudoun Street, 16 West Loudoun Street and 20 South Wirt Street, at a price not to exceed $3 , 730 . Mr. Willis found it interesting that Mr. Anderson was the only one that complied with the town ' s request to break these down into the four separate properties . Mr. Niccolls said the building at 6 and 8 West Loudoun Street is not under our ownership at this time, it' s a total lease-out, to include insurance, to a private party. He MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING. 89 didn ' t see any benefit to the town. This is why the difference in the price and the appropriation. Mr . Coffey asked if there is any reference as to how long it will take to do this work? The answer was No. Mayor Sevila asked if there is any effect on the town ' s insurance cost as a result of this installation? Mr. Niccolls said he will check and report to councilmembers . The resolution was unanimously adopted : Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 82-142 - RESOLUTION - MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30 , 1983 . On motion of Mrs . Hill , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolution was proposed : RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : An appropriation is made from the Utility Fund to Account No. CO 5200 . 711 , Telephone Installation in the amount of $715. 00 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1983 . CD It was explained that this is for the new water plant. The resolu- m tion was unanimously adopted: Q Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 82-143 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF PRO- POSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDI- NANCE AND SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS REGARDING PIPESTEM LOTS . On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Bos, the following resolution was proposed : RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : A Notice of Public Hearing to consider certain proposed amend- ments to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision and Land Development Regulations regarding pipestem lots shall be published in the Loudoun Times Mirror on November 4 , 1982 and November 11, 1982 for public hearing on November 24 , 1982 at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia. Mr. Gheen had a question concerning reference to two different sec- tions in the Zoning Ordinance amendment and the Subdivision Ordi- nance amendment. Mr. Niccolls said this will be clarified before the hearing. The resolution was then unanimously adopted : Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay : None. 82-0-37 - ORDINANCE - AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE. OF AN $88 , 135 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BOND OF THE TOWN OF LEESBURG, VIR- GINIA, AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM, DETAILS AND PAYMENT THEREOF . On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr . Willis, the following ordinance was proposed : WHEREAS , as a part of a public improvement program that in- cludes road construction and the development of a public park in the Town of Leesburg (the Town), the Town Council has contracted to buy a tract of approximately 8 . 8 acres of land (the Land) from Arl Curry and Katherine R. Curry (the Sellers) ; MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING . 90 BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia : 1 . There is hereby authorized to be issued an $88 , 135 general obligation public improvement bond of the Town to be delivered to the Sellers in partial payment for the purchase price of the Land . 2 . The bond shall be dated on the date of its issuance and shall be issued as a fully registered bond without cou- pons in the denomination of $88 , 135. Principal of the bond shall be payable annually on its anniversary date in install- ments of $5, 000 in each of the years 1983 to 1987 , inclusive, $10, 000 in each of the years 1988 to 1992 , inclusive, and $13 , 135 in 1993 , without option of prepayment. Interest on the unpaid principal is payable annually on the anniversary date of the note at the rate of 9% per year. Both principal and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft mailed to the registered owners at their address as on file with the Director of Fi- nance, except that the final installment of principal and interest shall be payable upon surrender of the bond at the office of the Director of Finance . 3 . The bond shall be signed by the manual signature of the Mayor, shall be countersigned by the manual signature of the Clerk of the Council, and the Town ' s seal shall be affixed thereto. 4 . The bond shall be in substantially the following form: TRANSFER RESTRICTED: Transfer of this bond is re- stricted in accordance with the ordinance authoriz- ing the issuance of this bond adopted by the Town Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia, on Oc- tober 27 , 1982 . $88 , 135 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA TOWN OF LEESBURG The Town of Leesburg, Virginia, for value received, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to Arl Curry and Katherine R. Curry the principal sum of EIGHTY-EIGHT THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($88 , 135) with interest on the unpaid principal from the date hereof until payment at the rate of nine percent ( 9%) per year. Principal is payable annually on November in installments of $5, 000 in each of the years 1983 to 1987 , inclusive, $10 , 000 in each of the years 1988 to 1992 , inclusive, and $13 , 135 in the year 1993, without option of prepayment. Interest on the unpaid principal is payable annually on No- vember Both principal and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft mailed to the registered owners at their address as on file with the Director of Finance, except that the final installment of principal and interest shall be pay- able upon surrender of this bond at the office of the Di- rector of Finance. This bond is authorized by an ordinance adopted by the Town Council on October 27 , 1982 , and is issued pur- suant to the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Town Charter and the Public 1 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 . Finance Act, as amended, in partial payment of the pur- 9 1 chase price of a certain parcel of land from Arl Curry and Katherine R. Curry. The full faith and credit of the Town are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal of and interest on this bond. All acts , conditions and things required by the Con- stitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the 1 i issuance of this bond have happened, exist and have been performed, and this bond, together with all other indebted- ness of the Town, is within every debt and other limit pre- scribed by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town of Leesburg, Virginia, has caused this bond to be signed by its Mayor, to be counter- signed by the Clerk of its Council , its seal to be affixed Ihereto, and this bond to be dated November 1982 . 00 COUNTERSIGNED: O (SEAL) OD Clerk of the Council , Town of Mayor, Town of Leesburg, m Leesburg, Virginia Virginia Q 5. The full faith and credit of the Town are hereby ir- revocably pledged for the payment of principal of and in- terest on the bond. Unless other funds are lawfully avail- ' able and appropriated for timely payment of the bond, the Town shall levy and collect an annual ad valorem tax over and above all other taxes authorized or limited by law on all locally taxable property in the Town sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the bond, as the same re- spectively become due and payable . 6 . At the request of the Sellers the bond may be exchanged for two bonds in denominations totaling $88 , 135 registered in the names of the Sellers , or either of them, in sub- stantially the same form as the single bond authorized above. The bond or bonds shall be registered in the names of persons other than the sellers only when there has been furnished to the Director of Finance evidence satisfactory to him that the transferee has been provided information relating to the Town of the kind which would be required under rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission if the same were applicable to such bond in order to exempt the bond from the registration requirement of the Securi- ties Act of 1933 , as amended. 7 . All other actions of officers of the Town in conformity with the purposes and intent of this ordinance and in fur- therance of the issuance of the bond are hereby approved and confirmed. 8 . Such officers of the Town as may be requested are here- by authorized and directed to execute an appropriate cer- tificate setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the bond issued pursuant hereto in order to show that such expected use and investment will not violate the provisions of U 103 (c) of the Internal Reve- nue Code of 1954 , as amended, and regulations issued pur- suant thereto, applicable to "arbitrage bonds. " Such certificate shall be in such form as may be requested by bond counsel for the Town. 9 . The Clerk of the Council , in collaboration with the Town Attorney, is hereby authorized and directed to see to the immediate filing of a certified copy of this ordi- nance with the Circuit Court of Loudoun County and within MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING. 92 ten days thereafter to cause to be published once in a news- paper of general circulation in the Town a notice setting forth (1) in brief and general terms the purpose for which the bond is to be issued and (2) the amount of such bond. 10. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict here- with are hereby repealed. 11. This ordinance shall take effect immediately. Mr. Bos asked about the exchange of, bonds mentioned in Section 6? Mr. Niccolls explained that, in the event of any kind of separation or death of the owners of the land, it may be part of an agreement that they would separate the bonds . It doesn ' t change the obliga- tion of the town - we would make payment to two people rather than one. The payments would not be any more than the aggregate. Mr. Gheen asked if the interest rate was negotiated when the option was made? How long ago? Mr. Niccolls said it was negotiated at that time - it will be 16 months December 15th. The ordinance was unani- mously adopted : Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 82-144 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM THE UTILITY FUND TO THE AIRPORT FUND AND MAKING AN APPROPRIATION. On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolution was proposed: WHEREAS, grant funds to pay for construction costs are forth- coming and it is the town ' s interest to pay its contractors promptly; and WHEREAS , there is not sufficient airport fund operating cash at this time to make the full payment to the contractor; I/THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : SECTION I . A loan is authorized to be made from the Utility Fund to the Airport Fund in the amount of $25 , 000 at an in- terest rate of nine percent simple. SECTION II . An appropriation is made to the Airport Fund, Account No. 6000. 901, interest in the amount of $300 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1983 . Mrs. Hill asked what "nine percent simple" means? Mayor Sevila said this would be noncompounded. Mr. Gheen said he does not relate "interest in the amount of $300 . . . . " - what is this? Mr. Tay- lor explained that this is interest to the Utility Fund for this fiscal year. Mayor Sevila said this is just a brief loan for two months to see that our contractors are paid promptly, rather than letting the contractors wait until the funds arrive. He asked when it is expected the grant funds will be received? Mr. Taylor said in about five to six weeks . Mayor Sevila also asked if this money will be sufficient to be invested - to accrue interest? Mr. Taylor said idle funds are always invested. Mr. Bos asked what our rules are concerning interest rates from one fund to another? Mr. Nic- colls said we have stipulated interest rates before. We feel that since the Airport Fund is really an enterprise-type fund operating more like a business that it should pay interest to the Leesburg utility users , who are, in fact, loaning this money to the air- port operations . Mayor Sevila explained further that this money that is being borrowed is presently earning interest, so the idea is that the Utility Fund would not lose any funds . The resolution was unanimously adopted: Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Coffey, Gheen, . Hill , Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , 1982 MEETING. On motion of Mr. Willis , seconded by Mr . Bos, Council voted 93 unanimously to go into executive session, pursuant to Section 2 . 1-344 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (a) (6) to dis- cuss legal matters pertaining to annexation, and (a) (1) to dis- cuss personnel policies : Aye : Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay : None . Council reconvened, with no action taken. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Willis, Council voted unanimously to adjourn. terarrisaa Mayo Clerk of he Council CO NT O m m Q