Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1983_11_23 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL; PUBLIC HEARING ON q r1y PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT RE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND JOINT 3 1 1 PUBLIC HEARING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEC. 3-A-2 OF ZONING ORDINANCE, NOVEMBER 23, 1983. A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia on November 23, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with the invocation given by Mr. Tolbert, and followed with the Salute to the Flag led by State Delegate and former Mayor Kenneth B. Rollins. 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 and Assistant Manager for Planning and Development • Marc Weiss. Mayor Sevila suggested that the minutes of October 26, 1983 be corrected to show that Rezoning ZM-44 (Brownell) was referred to the next regular meeting after the public hearing (on page 354) . On motion of Mr. Gheen, seconded by Mr. Coffey, the minutes of the regular meeting of October 26, 1983 were approved as amended: Aye: Councilmembers Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. CONay: None. W Abstain: Councilmember Bos. Q PETITIONERS: CO Mr. Alton Echols understood the above action on the minutes of the pre- Q vious meeting closed the hearing on ZM-44 (Brownell) . Mayor Sevila advised Mr. Echols that, on October 26th at the conclusion of the hearing and no-one having appeared, the public hearing was declared closed. Mr. Echols addressed Council concerning the integrity of the expansion of the town transportation system and the over-all Master Plan. In the area known as Brandon or Virginia Knolls, Silver Oaks, Shenandoah, Leesburg Station, Sycolin - the area that runs from Harrison Street at the creek all the way back to Syco- ' lin Road - there are approximately 200 existing townhouses and approximately 130 single-family houses under construction, as well as a proposal for an additional 55 single-family homes and additional acreage for 60-odd townhouses. The town's planning history has been and is very desirous of integrating areas and having developments that are compatible with each other. Had this area been proposed for townhouses, there would have been no question concerning extension of the street. He understood the Planning Commission was unanimous at its hearing in wanting a street open and he felt consideration should be given to having at least one of those streets open. He is concerned as an adjacent property owner, as well as for the people who will be living in Silver Oaks - did they know when they bought their property that traffic from an adjacent development will be turned back through them? How much consideration has been given to Sycolin Road? He doesn't know that Council knows enough to make a far-reaching deci- sion. It's all well and good to talk about Harrison Street for the future, but when will this be done? It's liable to be 1988 or longer before it is actually in as a connection. He has an apartment complex planned for his prop- erty and he doesn't really need a hook-up - the present law says that he would have to run a road only to the next adjacent property line if he goes into any part of another developer's land. If Shenandoah and Roanoke are cut off, is it going to be fair to tell him he has to run a road to hook up to Silver Oaks or to Henry Stowers to give them a way out? One of the reasons for not having a landmark case to change an existing principle of law is because it is like a balloon - you punch it in on one end and you create at times more havoc at the other end than that one special instance that you helped. This is a magnani- mous decision - not one to simply eliminate two streets . to save a developer several thousand dollars and to allow 20 to 40 individuals to have, in es- sence, a private street rather than a public one. It is a decision that will affect the fundamental principles of the overall planning process - plus, Council has an obligation to 130 people that aren't in Silver Oaks yet. They will be coming into an entirely new principle - clustered housing, pipestem lots, etc. - Council should examine both its judgment and its conscience before ask- ing these people to add the extra burden of having only one way out of their development, as well as an additional 55 families behind them with only one way out. He had heard talk of sending them over the grass - is this an accept- able alternate? You also have to think of what would happen if there were a flood and one person there needs rescue services - at times five or ten min- utes is crucial. The reason for an overall transportation pattern is to do r� p MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 1983 MEETING. `� S the most good for the majority - special instances deserve special considera- tion. Please consider whether you are going to have the same consideration available to others and what the resulting factor will be five, ten or twenty years from now. Mayor Sevila reiterated that the public hearing on ZM-44 (the subject 6f Mr. Echols' remarks) was held on October 26 and, at its conclusion, was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT - BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW. Mayor Sevila asked for speakers concerning the above. If adopted by Council, we will be asking our legislators to propose this in Richmond at the next session of the General Assembly. • Ms. Teckla Cox, member of the Board of Architectural Review, said she ap- proves this proposed amendment. She is willing to do some more work, which it would involve. It would be a very good thing for the town. Mayor Sevila declared the public hearing closed and asked for Council dis- cussion. Mr. Bos said this was discussed at length at the last Board of Architectu- ral Review meeting. The majority of the Board approved of the town having the ability to enact legislation referring to this. They also talked about how carefully this has to be done in terms of balancing property rights along with having the town look more presentable in its development in the future. Mayor Sevila referred this matter back to staff and asked that an appro- priate resolution be prepared for action at the next Council meeting. State Delegate and former Mayor Kenneth B. Rollins asked that someone ex- plain to him just what Council proposes to do in this charter change? Is Coun- cil proposing to have the Board of Architectural Review decide on the type of architecture that multi-family, commercial and other establishments can erect? Mayor Sevila said the purpose of this particular amendment is to enable the town to adopt broader and more far-reaching architectural controls and to ex- pand the jurisdiction of the Board of Architectural Review. No-one contem- plates n that it would control or regulate in any way the residential zones. He was not sure how it will apply to multi-family - it will permit the adoption of regulations. This would enable us to adopt the legislation, but the legis- lation itself is something that would have to be considered upon public hearing at the appropriate time. Delegate Rollins again asked if it is the town's in- tention, if this is passed, to dictate the type of architecture for multi- family dwellings, as well as commercial and industrial? Mayor Sevila said they don't intend to dictate architectural styles, etc. It would be a matter of legislative prerogative as to whether or not they chose to exercise a level of control. Right now the town's ability to regulate under its BAR is limited geographically and in scope. The attempt here is to generally expand so areas such as strip-commercial (such as Catoctin Circle) would have some architectu- ral regulatory authority. Again, this is simply enabling legislation to strengthen the powers of the Board in the entire corporate limits. Mr. Bos said East Route 7 has been considered by most people to be some- what of an eyesore the last number of years - not so much architecturally as with other planning and development effects, such as set-backs and signage (a part of architecture) . The town has just gone through a recent long-term de- sign study of the East Market Street area involving many of those businesses. Many of the people owning businesses along that area have cooperated with the town and are quite enthusiastic about tighter development regulations for that area - not only for better appearance but it would bring them more business in the long run. This enabling legislation would allow the town to work in a co- operative manner with many of the businesses and come up with an ordinance that is somewhat restrictive compared to present development regulations. This would work to everybody 's benefit and net us a nicer looking town. Delegate Rollins said that, having served this town for many years, he has sat in the mayor's chair and thought he would like to dictate the type of archi- tecture that every developer put in but, in reflection, he asked himself if this is a prerogative of government? He would like everything to be colonial but not everybody likes colonial. The question is how far government should go in dictating the type of architecture they must build. The commercial and in- dustrial development could probably be approved without any problem, but you MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 1983 MEETING. 379 get into a more restrictive area when you talk about residential. Mr. Bos said residentials are not really within the scope of this request at all, but commercials are primary. He doesn't envision the town's proposed ordi- nance as really controlling architectural styles other than very broad lim- its - he doesn't think we will dictate that a commercial or an apartment building has to have a certain style of architecture, but certain types of landscaping, signage and perhaps setbacks within a given area. Delegate Rollins felt it does have its place - the downtown area of Leesburg cer- tainly ratifies the concept the town has taken over the past years in guiding people who have restored and who have built in that area as to what type of architecture but, when you expand it outside the historical district, you are going a long way. Mayor Sevila said they are attempting to give to the town the power that it is permitted to exercise under 15.1-503 (under which the council adopted its current regulations) . He too pointed to the success of the Old and Historic District as an indication and the hope for success in the annexed area, as well as the existing town areas. Architectural control is a proper government function recognized by our State Legislature and we are only seeking to exercise those powers which the State has said jurisdictions with appropriate measures in their charters can exercise. We look forward to Delegate Rollins' support on this measure when it goes to Richmond and his trust that we will exercise that power responsibly. Delegate Rollins said there is no question of trust in this body, but in those who come hereafter. CO He believed the legislature would see a big distinction in the old and his- toric area and in including the entire incorporated area of a municipality. 0 Mayor Sevila pointed to the towns of Vienna and Herndon, both of which have CO municipality-wide charters and architectural ordinances - he believed their CO success is obvious to anyone who observes. Council's interest in expanding its architectural authority came as a result of a field trip Council and the Q BAR, along with members of the Task Force, went on in June, during which they visited many of the communities in Northern Virginia and Herndon, where they saw some very apparent effects of this type of architectural participation - the responsible exercise of a governmental power to the benefit of the com- munity. That is what they envision here. Delegate Rollins said his concern is whether this body, or any body, should exercise authority over someone who is restoring or building - should that architecture have to be approved by the government? Who is to say what is the best architecture for a given site? He felt this is only for historic districts. Mayor Sevila said this section has been interpreted to permit towns to expand it within its jurisdictional limits and this is what they seek to do. We have a legal opinion that says we need a Charter amendment and look forward to his support on this measure. (b) PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - SEC. 3-A-2. It is noted that this is a joint hearing with the Planning Commission. The following members of the Commission were present, constituting a quorum of that body: Commissioners Curry, Hill, Jackson and Webb. Mayor Sevila said this amendment would permit government offices as a conditional permitted use in the R-2 Residential District. Mr. Bos asked for a review of what has been done on this. Mr. Weiss explained that the Planning Commission approved a commission permit on October 26th to allow Loudoun County to use the property at 37 East Cornwall Street as an office under certain conditions. The County had to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable land development regulations of the town. The property is presently zoned R-2, which would not permit a county office building in that particular zone. Some alternatives were explored - one being to rezone the property to a commercial district which would allow offices . However, the County had met with property owners in the area and they did not object to the County office use, but did have some prob- lem with a general commercial zoning. They were afraid what might happen if the County sold the building, it might be converted to some other use permis- sible under the B-1 district. They explored the possibility of a proffer, but there were problems with that. They finally settled on allowing govern- ment offices in the R-2 District as a conditionally approved use. This would be a satisfactory solution - it would be strictly limited to government use. This is compatible in that neighborhood - the County has a number of office buildings already in use there. A B-1 zone might allow some future incom- patible uses. Also, much of the land near the County Office Building is zoned R-2 - this would avoid the necessity of rezoning to B-1. A conditionally per- mitted use means they would have to come before the Council for approval and meet conditions that are specified in the ordinance now and any other addi- tional conditions Council may wish to place on that use to insure that it is MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 1983 MEETING. 380 compatible with surrounding development. Mayor Sevila assumed that, under the commission permit of October 26th, the County would not be able to oc- cupy and use the building as a government office. Mr. Weiss said this is correct - under the present Zoning Ordinance regulations they could not. Mrs. Patricia Devine asked if permission is specific for that particular property? Mayor Sevila said Yes, they are amending the Zoning Ordinance so that all R-2 districts could then be used for government offices, but that use could only be upon a conditional use permit granted by Council. Mrs. Devine asked if most government use of R-2 property is not already legal? Couldn't the federal, state or county government do this without permission? Mayor Sevila said the town takes the position that our zoning regulations are applicable to all users - governments and private sector alike. Mrs. Devine understood then that this would open up all R-2 zoning for federal, state, local and county use in the future if they satisfy whatever requirements specified by the town? Mayor Sevila said they would have to satisfy the requirement that the conditional use is compatible with the surrounding uses - this would probably be true in a limited number of cases . Yes, anyone with an R-2 property could apply for a conditional use for government offices. What we are doing tonight would amend the Zoning Ordinance - this must be done before they can apply for such a use. Mrs. Devine said this will make it easier for any government body to ask for that conditional use. Mayor Sevila felt it will make it possible - not easier. We have not avoided any of the tests or essential inquiries that we have to go through in granting such a conditional use. Mr. Niccolls explained that any state government use is bound to request a com- mission permit of the Planning Commission, which is then acted upon by Coun- cil for the acquisition or use or development of a government facility in any zone in Leesburg. That process is required for government uses - state or local (he didn't believe it would apply to Federal) . Also, the conditional use per- mit in our ordinance calls for action by the Planning Commission and Mr. Martin has ruled that the way the state law reads, it applies to the BZA, so BZA must also apply on it. There is a three-step process that would occur for any government application - first, the commission permit - second Planning Com- mission approval of a conditional use and then BZA final approval - each with authority to make findings of incompatibility. Mr. Donald Devine noted that the mayor, being a lawyer, has chosen his words carefully. The town takes the position that the county and the state (the same would apply to the federal government) are bound by the Leesburg zoning laws, but they are not. The county can locate any facility it wishes within the Town of Leesburg without asking and without complying with the Zoning Ordinance. They have chosen another course - "comity" - because they want to get along with the local jurisdiction. So Council is establishing a , zoning category where you can establish governmental uses (and there are many) which the residents will probably not like. The most recent one was a home for "disadvantaged children"-the county was cautious enough to apply to the town for permission to put this into the town and the town turned it down, so the county abided by that. His objection is that the town is opening up an R-2 zone to governmental uses, which is really limited to local government. He would like to see the town, if it wanted to put a town office next to him or anyone else in an R-2 zone, have to go through some sort of rezoning process but, under this amendment, it would not have to do so. This does not do what Council is saying it will do (which is control the county) because it can' t legally - the county is the superior jurisdiction, as is the state and the federal government. They are not subject to the town's zoning laws. This is a nullity - Council is doing something to control two powers - the state and the county - which they have no power to control by this ordinance; and allowing future councils to put any governmental office any place they want to in an R-2 zone without any public hearing at all. Mayor Sevila sum- marized Mr. Devine's statement to say that the county can locate at 37 East Cornwall regardless of what the town does and we shouldn:t do anything be- cause we may be opening up the entire R-2 district for use by them, which they could have done anyway. Is there anything he feels the town can do? Mr. Devine felt the town could sit tight and tell them they could put it there if they want to, and hopefully they will do as the town wants because they too are a political entity and are responsive to the wishes of another jurisdiction. He thinks they probably will. He told the county supervisors the same thing and they didn't think he was right either. However, he thinks he is right on the law and feels that Mayor Sevila knows enough zoning law to suspect that he is. Mayor Sevila said he would not challenge him. The word he is using is "comity" - a legal term. The hearing was declared closed. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 1983 MEETING. 381 Mayor Sevila referred this matter to the Finance and Administration Committee and asked that Mr. Niccolls refer it to Mr. Martin for evaluation of some of the legal issues that have been discussed here tonight. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Bos reported that Council and the Planning Commission had a combined meeting last week when they went through a goal or objective process, trying to see where these two bodies were or were not in agreement and where the town is going. He feels this was a healthy process and that it was a successful meet- ing. Questions were raised that warrant further discussion and he would en- courage these two bodies to meet once or twice more to complete this process. Mr. Gheen called attention to the announcement in the Post yesterday cont cerning the fact that Storer Cable is going to sell its holdings in Loudoun County; also, the fact that the Times-Mirror is suspending its cable news. Mrs. Hill reported that the Planning Commission unanimously approved the commission permit for the police substation at 317 Fort Evans Road at last meeting. Mr. Willis asked about the December 14th meeting - there is a VML meeting CO that night. Mr. Niccolls said we have several hearings scheduled for that meeting and one of them has already been advertised. Mayor Sevila felt it 0 would be appropriate to delegate someone from staff to attend that meeting - CO there are some things we want to present to our State legislators there. CO Mr. Coffey reported that the Task Force has met three times in the past Q month. Last night they worked on the public services section of the Compre- hensive Plan, which encompasses local government services - buildings, public utilities, public safety, recreation, open space, schools, etc. They made some suggestions on these. The last element deals with transportation, which will be forthcoming maybe as late as the first of next year - they don't have the report from the Highway Department yet. The land use portion is not com- pleted yet - they are waiting on some input from some interested parties on this - when this comes in they will be ready to discuss this portion of the ' plan and make recommendations. There is a lot of work going into it and they hope it is going to be successful. There is a meeting scheduled for November 29th, when they will discuss land use - the information should be in their hands by then. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Sevila recalled that a group of third graders were present at the last meeting and invited councilmembers to visit the schools during National Education Week (last week) . A group of them visited Leesburg Elementary School last Friday and were hosted by those students who spoke at the meeting and by Mr. Whitmore, their principal. They had a nice lunch and a very good time. All but two of the councilmembers were able to attend. The proposed sale of Storer Cable was news to him. He understood the pro- posed purchasers of the system would have to make application under the town's ordinance. He asked that Council be provided with some background information on this so they will be familiar with the steps to be taken concerning this. He noted that we have on the agenda for consideration tonight adoption of the ordinance changing from five years to two years the time for activation of a non-conforming use. At the hearing on November 9th, they discussed adopting into our ordinance all the provisions of the State-enabling legislation. A letter has been received from staff concerning this, stating that this matter, along with other issues raised concerning the Zoning Ordinance, will be con- sidered after the first of the year with the Zoning Ordinance overhaul that will have to be done as a result of the annexation and other things going on. He has no objection to that, but did ask Mr. Niccolls what he meant by "few problems associated with non-conforming uses are anticipated." Mr. Niccolls said "None." Mayor Sevila said this then can be considered along with other comprehensive revisions that will be taking place. A complaint was received during the last week about the early morning hours of our town street cleaner. He has received a response from Mr. Niccolls that an inquiry has been made to determine if the mufflers on that machine need overhauling and what the hours of operation are. He will await a response on this . - - MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 1983 MEETING. 332 MANAGER'S REPORT: Mr. Niccolls reported that another concerned citizen had a lost cat last week, the recovery of which was assisted by public works forces (they raised the manhole cover to get the cat out) . There was a compliment issued in con- nection with this incident. That 's nice to hear from time to time. The winter issue of the Lamplighter is in the mail - he thinks it is a better looking one than turned out in the past. Jeff is doing a good job with it. Council received a written Activity Report on Monday. The Deed of Easement from the School Board has been recorded, so this im- portant transaction has been successfully concluded, with the only remaining issue being the signal. We have advised the School Board personnel that the State's initial review of the warrants for that signal was not favorable, but there is an interim report, pending traffic counts to be completed later this year. We have assured them we will continue to provide police assistance at that intersection that has been done for years. LEGISLATION: On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Willis, the following were pro- posed as consent items and unanimously adopted: 83-0-36 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE TO REVISE SECTION 1-3(b) ON ANNEXATIONS. WHEREAS, on October 12, 1983, a proposed amendment to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance regarding a revision to Section 1-3(b) , Annexations, was ini- tiated and a joint public hearing was ordered to be held by this Coun- cil and the Planning Commission on November 9, 1983; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 1983 this Council and the Planning Commission held a joint public hearing and heard all persons desiring to express their views on the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on November 17, 1983, recommended to Council approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and this Council find that the follow- ing amendment is required by the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice because: 1. The annexation agreement requires continuation of existing county zoning on a temporary basis to provide for smooth transition during initial stages of annexation, and 2. This will allow the Town Council to consider comprehensive zoning classifications after adoption of the town plan. THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : • SECTION I. Section 1-3(b) of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows: The Zoning Ordinance of Loudoun County, as effective on November 23, 1983, is made a part of this ordinance by reference as if set out herein to provide temporary zoning regulations applicable only to property which may be annexed or otherwise added to the incorporated area of the town pending the orderly amendment of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance following such annexation or addition. All property annexed or otherwise added to the incorporated area of the town shall be auto- matically classified in the same zoning district as the property was classified under the Zoning Ordinance of Loudoun County as adopted herein and shall be governed by the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of Loudoun County including any existing proffered conditions. When- ever reference is made to a particular officer, department, board, com- mission or other agency in the Zoning Ordinance of Loudoun County adopted herein, such reference shall be construed as referring to the comparable 1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 1983 MEETING. 383 officer, department, board, commission or other agency of the town. Fees to be charged for applications for zoning permits, variances, special exceptions and interpretations of the zoning district map, appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals and petitions for amendment of the zoning map pertaining to all property annexed or otherwise I added to the incorporated area of the town shall be as set out in the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance. 1 SECTION II. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. 83-0-37 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE TIME LIMIT FOR RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF NON-CONFORMING USES. WHEREAS, on July 27, 1983, a proposed amendment to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance regarding the time limit for re-establishment of non-conform- ing uses was initiated by this Council and referred to the planning commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on September 1, 1983 conducted a public hearing and heard all persons desiring to express their views on the proposed amendment; and W WHEREAS, on October 6, 1983 the Planning Commission recommended to Ct Council approval of the proposed amendment; and OCOWHEREAS, this Council conducted a public hearing on November 9, 1983 CO and heard all persons desiring to express their views on the proposed amendment; and Q WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and this Council find that the follow- ing amendment is required by the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice because: 1 1. Non-conforming uses often conflict with adjacent conforming uses; I 2. The existing amortization period contributes to neighborhood decline; and 3. The proposed change increases the town's ability to control non-conforming use. THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : SECTION I. Section 2-6-1 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows: Section 2-6-1 a. Changed to another non-conforming use b. Re-established after discontinuance for more than two years. SECTION II. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. 83-184 - RESOLUTION - OPPOSING ANY FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND FINANCING. WHEREAS, one of the Town of Leesburg's top priority objectives is to en- courage increased economic development; and WHEREAS, industrial revenue bond financing is important to the town's economic development program; and WHEREAS, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 placed additional requirements and restrictions on the use of industrial revenue bonds; and WHEREAS, legislation currently before Congress would impose further re- strictions, threatening the viability of the industrial revenue bond program in Leesburg: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 1983 MEETING. 334 SECTION I. This council opposes any further restrictions or require- ments on the use of industrial revenue bond financing. SECTION II. The manager shall send a copy of this resolution to Congressman Frank R. Wolf and Senators John W. Warner and Paul S. Trible, Jr. 83-185 - RESOLUTION - CONCERNING THE NEED FOR RENTAL HOUSING IN LEESBURG. WHEREAS, this council stated in the November 15, 1982 annexation agree- ment its objective to provide a wide range of housing opportunity by type, density and price dispersed throughout the town to meet the needs of all residents; and WHEREAS, recent studies indicate a demand for family rental housing: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: The town council recognizes the need for appropriately located family rental housing within Leesburg. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. PROPOSED RESOLUTION REQUESTING STATE LEGISLATION CONCERNING LOCAL CELEBRATIONS. On motion of Mrs Hill, seconded by Mr. Gheen, a proposed resolution re- questing State legislation concerning local celebrations was unanimously re- ferred back to committee for report and consideration by the Loudoun Restora- tion and Preservation Society: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 83-0-38 - ORDINANCE-AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING MAP IN RE ZM-44. On motion of Mr. Bos, seconded by Mr. Willis, the following ordinance was proposed: WHEREAS, Rezoning Application ItZM-44 by Brownell, Inc./ Sycolin Forest Associates was referred to the Planning Commission on July 27, 1983; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on September 1, 1983 held a public hearing on the application for rezoning; and WHEREAS, on September 15, 1983 the Commission recommended to the Coun- cil approval of the rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the applicant's written proffer was presented to the Council prior to a public hearing held by the Council on October 26, 1983; and WHEREAS, it is determined that the public necessity, convenience, gene- ral welfare and good zoning practice require the amendment: THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change from R-3 to R-2 the 13.1 acres of land shown on a July 26, 1983 plat prepared by Bengtson, DeBell, Elkin and Titus, CLS, titled "Rezoning Plat, Land of Brownell, Inc. and Sycolin Forest Associates," subject, however, to the following con- ditions proffered by the applicant pursuant to Sec. 15.1-491 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and Sec. 11-8-4 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance: (a) No through street connection shall be made to connect Shenandoah Street in Virginia Knolls Subdivision to Shenandoah Street in Silver Oaks Subdivision; and MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 1983 MEETING. 385 (b) Duplex dwellings developed under the cluster option pro- visions of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance shall not be a permitted use for the property rezoned by this ordinance. SECTION II. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. Mayor Sevila explained the proposed ordinance sets forth two proffers by the ap- plicant. Mr. Coffey supported the rezoning at the last meeting, but not the proffer to make no connection of Shenandoah Street in Virginia Knolls to Shenandoah Street in Silver Oaks. Since that time, he has done some investi- gation to try to justify this proffer. He met with a Highway Department repre- sentative and pulled the plats, which call the ends of those two streets "Ease- ments for turn-around which will be null and void at such time as the streets i . i are cut through and dedicated." This indicates to him that these streets were proposed to go through into this undeveloped area at some future time. The Highway Department said the streets could handle 3,000 vehicles per day, how- ever, they felt this was absurd. He agrees with this. From Silver Oaks, they figure perhaps 50 percent would use Virginia Knolls and 50 percent Sycolin Road. Out of the 55 proposed units, it was estimated that perhaps 80 percent would come through Virginia Knolls and 20 percent back through Silver Oaks (something like 765 vehicles utilizing the two streets - about 380 odd addi- tional) . It is their opinion that the streets should be cut through from a safety angle to provide a good flow of traffic and enable snow removal, mail delivery, emergency vehicles, etc. He believed we will be faced with the same situation as other land develops out there. The Fire Marshal, in our staff report, indicated he saw no immediate hazard by closing off the streets, however, he did recommend that an alternate route through there would cer- tainly be desirable for all people. Our Planning Commission has looked at this and it is their recommendation that some method of cutting these streets through be provided. The Highway Department believes it will not create a hazardous condition and that, once other land is developed and tied in together, traffic through Roanoke and Shenandoah will actually lessen. As he tried to support the proffer and the more he got into it, the more convinced he was that those streets should go through as originally planned. He, therefore, can't support the proffer, although he supports the rezoning and would really like to see the Planning Commission work with the developer and see if something i can be worked out to meet some of the criteria recommended by the Highway De- partment. Mrs. Hill agreed - the street should either go through or be bonded. She could not support the proffer. Mr. Gheen said he has done considerable study on this and, the more he studies, the less sure he is what is best. At the last meeting, Mr. Brownell stated there is a "mountain" of rock out there so they had never anticipated using this connection. This is probably one of the reasons it was never ex- tended. He doesn't know how much rock is under there, but it appears that if Shenandoah is extended, Roanoke should be opened also. The staff memo of Aug- ust 29th said the change to R-2 would not change the maximum theoretical den- sity of 8.71 dwellings per acre, but it would permit the development of single- family or duplex clustered projects . Of the 55 lots proposed, 25 have 4,000 square feet and one has 4100. There are seven major clusters (or five clusters and two that might be considered pipestems) and the front footage is narrow. There are four acres of common open space that is not taken up by flood plain - the 55 lots would take approximately 5.5 acres, the streets .8 acres. He didn't understand what difference it makes which zoning you have. Under this proposal, you will have cul-de-sacs - one street going through (Shenandoah) and no provision made to connect Roanoke. He would, therefore, vote not to connect unless Roanoke could be connected as well. Mr. Bos was in favor of accepting the proffer as stated, assuming that the appropriate land for eventual connection of the street is dedicated to the town. Closing the street later on would be more difficult to do. There are a lot of unanswered questions. The impact in the Brandon area would be how many ve- hicle trips per day there are - 50 percent increase or whatever - it's a signi- ficant impact in that neighborhood. He is in favor of not connecting the two streets until it becomes absolutely necessary. Mr. Gheen had some reservations about retaining that connection for later. If you require posting of bond to complete it sometime in the future, the town could be in the position of having a lawsuit filed to force it open. 1 386 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 1983 MEETING. Mr. Willis favored this as presented, but it doesn't say anything about being deeded to the town for the future. Mayor Sevila said the plat provides for dedication to the town (although the plat can't be filed until the Zoning Ordinance is amended) . Mr. Niccolls suggested that the plat say "Dedicated to the Town for public purposes." Mr. Willis said he spoke with the Assistant Fire Chief and he was not in favor of having them connected. Also, there were some few people attending the public hearing and they were opposed to having it open. He supports this ordinance in its present form. Mr. Tolbert said he went over and observed today and he couldn't see how those people could get out in case of a flood. He could not support the proffer. Mr. Coffey felt this could go further than just the streets they are talk- ing about. The northeast quadrant - North, Wildman, Marshall, Queen, North Catoctin Circle - all of these have barricades against undeveloped land. As he looks at these and many other subdivisions where the streets dovetail to- gether, it seems it was the planned thing to do and we shouldn't be turning around now in the middle of the stream. He would hate to see North Street and some of the others blocked off without some real justification. Mayor Sevila said he has considered all four proposals with spin-offs of each one. He started out with a pretty firm view that he did not want Shenan- doah to connect through the existing Shenandoah in Brandon and, having considered both sides of this question extensively, he still has the same view. He was astounded that VDH&T would say it could accommodate as many as 3000 to 3500 vehicle trips per day when our own staff comment indicates that the level of around 400 overcrowds it. VDH&T looks at it from a technical standpoint, but there are many other considerations that have to be weighed equally or perhaps outweigh those technicalities. He believes it is safe to use the minimum fig- ures given by the applicant - 1256 - that could use Shenandoah Street - even this could result in overcrowding. He doesn' t think the problem can be alle- viated by making some kind of convoluted connection with this proposed Shenan- doah Street at the connection of Roanoke and Shenandoah - you would only create two problems there. He complimented Mr. Coffey on the time he has spent and for his hard work on this problem, but he still feels we are serving the pub- lic interest by not permitting these two roads to connect. However, we are leaving a way for council to connect them in the future if it becomes feasible. Traffic will take the course of least resistance and, were these streets con- nected, it would change the character of the neighborhood. He feels the prece- dent we are eablishing in closing the road off is a healthy one - we are stat- ing we will consider these things on a case-by-case basis. He supports the adoption of this ordinance, with the understanding that Mr. Brownell will be filing his proposed plat on Friday. The ordinance was adopted by a roll call vote of 4 to 3 in favor: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Gheen, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: Councilmembers Coffey, Hill and Tolbert. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 15-14 AND 19-23 OF THE TOWN CODE. On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Gheen, it was proposed that an ordinance amending Sections 15-14 and 19-23 of the Town Code concerning availa- bility charges for water and sewer service for elderly housing be referred back to committee for further consideration. Mr. Gheen was concerned about the amount involved. Mayor Sevila wanted to go ahead and act on it - his ac- tion would be to vote against this amendment and let the one-bedroom dwelling availability fees remain the same as other one-bedroom units. Mr. Bos sug- gested discussing it now. The motion to send this ordinance back to committee was withdrawn. On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mrs. Hill, a motion to defeat the ordinance was proposed. Mr. Bos felt the concern of several councilmembers is whether this is lowering the rate too much so that the town will be losing too much money in availability fees. His support for this ordinance is based on keeping these fees on a proportional usage that would encourage one of the town's goals of mixed types of housing. He felt it would encourage building apartments for the elderly. He, therefore, is in favor of this ordinance and would vote against the motion on the floor. Mr. Gheen's reason for wanting to send it back to committee is to consider it along with other things - the need for utility funds is going to increase. While this might be a small amount, he is opposed to decreasing fees until they have a better look at overall needs. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 1983 MEETING. p Mr. Willis said that, while this is not a great amount, if multiplied 387 7 out over 100 units it is quite sizeable. He thinks too we should wait until we get a further report on the Utility Fund. He is not opposed to housing for the elderly, but doesn't think it is appropriate action at this time. Mr. Coffey felt this is an attempt to create another category of useage that is somewhat less than a normal one-bedroom dwelling because the elderly do not consume as much water. Though he is concerned about the financial situation too, he thinks it is appropriate to have such a category. When they need to re-evaluate the availability fees, they would be re-evaluating all categories. He, therefore, sees nothing wrong with the mathematics, logic and rationale in computing the amount set forth here and would support this ordinance at this time. All these fees will probably be considered the first of the year. Mr. Tolbert asked why we have different categories? Mr. Niccolls explained that Leesburg adopted an availability fee system for financing larger elements of its utility facilities a number of years ago when it found regular service charge revenue was not sufficient to pay the debt on major plant expansions. Originally, the fee schedule was rather modest ($300 each connection) . After a number of years and some study, these funds were inadequate, so the rate was raised to $1,300 each. In 1978 Council authorized a rate study by Municipal CO Advisors, Inc. - they recommended the establishment of a proportional availa- Wbility fee schedule that reflected how much water a user was expected to de- mand. In 1979 the present schedule was adopted and established three resi- dential categories. The proposal to establish another category came when de- m veloper Lester Shor suggested that he might be interested in developing a hous- m ing project for the elderly on Edwards Ferry Road beyond Heritage Square. He asked if Leesburg's fees could take into account the fact that elderly people use less water. The staff came to the conclusion that this is a bona fide separate category of residential use and, after checking with other water au- thorities, found they had a similar experience. So, if a use is proportion- ately less, it is logical to have a lower availability fee. It is not some- thing that is being promoted - we don't have an active project. The number in this ordinance is based on State waterworks regulations. Mr. Tolbert commented that, when he hooked up to the system, the total cost was $600, including ' plumbing costs. Mayor Sevila is also concerned with this legislation, particularly due to the increased attention we have been forced to pay to our Utility Fund balances because water and sewer hook-ups are running considerably below what was antici- pated in 1979 . He feels certain that, to some extent, development in the com- munity is related to the price charged for water and sewer availability fees, though there are many other factors that control the obtaining of those permits by developers. It is helpful that everybody here supports the concept of housing for the elderly in our community (Council adopted a resolution a couple of months ago stating that there is a pronounced need for such housing) and they are not going back on that if they vote against this ordinance. This has to be balanced against the pressing economic issue that this town is confronted with - the ability to retire the debt on the sewer and water available to the developers. The volume of use by the ultimate user is a factor that goes into determining what the availability fees will be. He also thinks a price can be charged for the fact that the water and sewer are available. The town has paid a price to make it available and we are only asking for a fair contribution back. This is a considerable reduction on a per unit basis - 560 units times 100 units = $56,000 - over a 12 to 24-month period, that amount of money could contribute considerably to our ability to retire the debt. We are soon going to have to look at sewer and water rates and availability fees, etc. and if, at that time, it appears they can create a separate category for the elderly, that would be the time to do it. But it is premature to do it now. He sup- ports this motion to defeat this ordinance. The motion to defeat the ordinance was adopted by a vote of 6 to 1: Aye: Councilmembers Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: Councilmember Bos. 83-186 - RESOLUTION - OPPOSING STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC WORKS BY PUBLIC WORKERS. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mrs. Hill, the following resolution was proposed: 388 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 1983 MEETING.. WHEREAS, House Joint Resolution No. 7 of the 1983 Virginia General Assembly called for a continuation of the study to. consider restrict- ing public bodies from using their own personnel and equipment in non-highway construction projects; and WHEREAS, this subcommittee will meet in a work session on November 28, 1983 to formulate a proposal to the 1984 General Assembly; and WHEREAS, any restrictions on public works performed by local public employees will not be in the public interest: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Vir- ginia as follows: SECTION I. This Council opposes any restrictions or limitations on the authority of elected officials to employ their own forces to per- form public works for the following reasons : (a) Locally elected officials, not private contractors, are responsible to the tax paying public for the efficient construction and operation of local public works projects within their jurisdiction. (b) Leesburg's experience with storm drainage projects, sidewalk con- struction, sewer line installations and well construction demon- strates .local force account projects can save taxpayers money through reduced mobilization expenses, exemption from sales, fuel and other taxes, and reduced overhead. (c) Force account work enhances coordination among various municipal departments, and other construction work in progress, and places the construction schedule directly in the hands of the locality. (d) Force account work reduces public works construction claim disputes and litigation. (e) Municipal work forces are protected from unionization, strikes and work stoppages. (f) Limits on force account work could mean layoffs among municipal and county employees and more expensive (and therefore fewer) public works projects . SECTION II. The manager shall transmit a copy of this resolution to each member of the House Joint Resolution No. 7 Subcommittee, Senator Charles Waddell, Delegate Kenneth Rollins and the Executive Director of the Vir- ginia Municipal League. Mr. Niccolls believed that HJR No. 7 was merely a study committee bill estab- lishing a between sessions study commission composed of Delegates Hall, Moran, Bevelous, Cranwell, Green, Jennings, Waddell and Ward. This subcommittee has been looking into the issue of public works construction by government em- ployees. A weekly report from the Virginia Municipal League indicates that it is believed that the subcommittee intends to design a project cap, based on a set dollar limit, the effect of which would be to limit the use of public employees to only those projects in which costs fall below the level of the cap. Those projects exceeding the cap would be required to be contracted with private contractors. Obviously, in all cases of caps, as the Task Force is learning, it all depends on where they draw the line. If it is drawn at a reasonable limit, Leesburg won't be affected because we don't have hundreds and hundreds of workers that might be used on a large project, but we do have projects that come up from time to time in the range of half a million dol- lars. that would engulf our current project limit. If they provide a cap this year, you can bet the association of general contractors will be back to the General Assembly to reduce the cap and squeeze out one element of competition. Mr. Bos supported this resolution - if the. economy is engendered by a flexible public works department such as Leesburg has, it can carry out cer- tain kinds of projects that sometimes amount to substantial money and result in substantial savings. There are certain areas where there is no question that the private sector could do more things, in which case we get competi- tive bids. We are moving that flexibility from local government and this is not a good thing. He would like to see this attempt to put a cap on defeated. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 1983 MEETING. 389 p9 Mr. Niccolls said the bill being considered doesn'-t affect the Virginia Department of Highways, which is probably the largest public works agency in the State. The State iself, speaking from two sides of its mouth, knows full well that it needs to have this flexibility in its own agencies, but it wants to deny it for local government. Mr. Coffey said it appears that the govern- ing body should have that prerogative to decide which is the most economical way to go. That's to the taxpayer's benefit. The resolution was unanimously adopted: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. Delegate Rollins reminded Council that Charter changes have to be intro- duced on or before the first day of the Session. If they want him to have them drawn, it takes a couple of weeks before January 10 for these changes. Mayor Sevila said it is intended to act on this on December 14 and we will collaborate with him on the draft. Delegate Rollins said the only deadline is on Charter changes. Mayor Sevila thanked him for attending and for his comments. 83-187 - RESOLUTION - MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984. CO On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolution O was proposed and unanimously adopted: CO RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: W Q SECTION I. An appropriation is made from the Airport Capital Project Fund unappropriated fund balance to account number 8300.702, Airport Sewer Line Construction, in the amount of $35,000 to remain in effect until the project is complete. SECTION II. An appropriation is made from the Utility Fund unappro- priated fund balance to account number 5100.102, Overtime, in the amount of $4,000 for the fiscal year 1984. SECTION III. An appropriation is made from the Sewage Treatment Plant Expansion Capital Project Fund unappropriated fund balance to account number 8400.261, STEP II Design, inthe amount of $30,000 to remain in effect until the project is complete. SECTION IV. An appropriation is made from the General Fund unappro- priated fund balance to account number 4102.703, Street Signs, in the amount of $7,000 for fiscal year 1984. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Hill, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. There was discussion concerning the Virginia Municipal League legislative meeting on December 14. Since Council has already scheduled several public hearings, members will not be able to attend this meeting. However, we will be represented. We will have our response to HJR 7, but we won' t have our Charter bill and the cultural events bill. Mr. Niccolls said this meeting is primarily used to disseminate information to the local officials . Mayor Sevila left it to Mr. Niccolls to send a representative to this meeting from the staff. There being no further business, on motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the meeting was adjourned at 9 :40 p.m. _ gailArrIZA/1:h Mayor �1 Clerk of e Council