Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1984_01_11 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL AND PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCES RE PLANNED DE- VELOPMENT REGULATIONS, JANUARY 11, 1984. A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia on January 11, 1984 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 Mr. Coffey. Present were: Mayor Robert E. Sevila, Councilmembers Charles A. Bos, Edgar L. Coffey, Jr. , Reginald K. Gheen, John W. Tolbert, Jr. and How- ard M. Willis, Jr. ; also Town Manager John Niccolls, Deputy Manager Jeffrey H. Minor, Assistant Manager for Planning and Development Marc Weiss, Direc- tor of Engineering Andrew G. Shope and Town Attorney George M. Martin. Ab- sent from the meeting was Councilmember Marylou Hill. On motion of Mr. Bos, seconded by Mr. Willis, the minutes of the regular meeting of November 23, 1983 were unanimously approved as submitted: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE AND LEESBURG SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. Mayor Sevila announced that this is a joint public hearing with the Plan- ning Commission and that the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance will be considered together. Present for the Planning Commission were Chairman Leach and Commissioners Curry, Jackson, Lay and Webb. Mr. William Chapman, representing the owners of the Leesburg South project, had several items to be considered by Council: (1) The ordinance should allow more than one organization to take care of maintenance of the common areas .- Section 7B-21. (2) He understands that the term "planned employment district", as used in Section 7B-20, includes "planned employment centers" as well as "mixed-use ' centers" - this should be clarified. (3) The time limitations for completion of planned developments in Section 7B-23 need to be clarified to allow the owner or developer to make an application for an extension of time. (4) His major concern is with the criteria for establishment of a planned district - Section 7B-9 - this provides that the plan shall meet all of the nine criteria before approval of the plan. All of these items come under the umbrella of health, safety and welfare. Council could have a planned development it wants to approve but one of those nine criteria is not present. These nine items should not be mandatory, but should be a direction to council to consider - this would give a little flexibility. (5) The document makes subjective references to"aesthetics ", "increased visual quality", "innovative building treatment" - these are difficult terms to wrestle with. Overall, they favor the document - they like the thrust and the flexibility of it and they like the review process . With the above changes, they encourage Council to act on it in a hurry. Mr. Arl Curry, 119 Dry Mill Road, was concerned as a citizen of the town as to what it might affect and asto the review process. The Planning Com- mission should be involved with the sketch plan - this could save the developer a lot of costs down the road should the Commission not agree with the staff. Section (3) concerning the preliminary development plan and rezoning petition is a good process. However, the final development plan stage bypasses the Planning Commission altogether - the same process should apply to this stage. as to the preliminary development plan. There is no input from Council or the Planning Commission on the final plan and site plan - both bodies have always signed off on this final approval. Also, who is going to say whether a build- ing is pretty or is it a monstrosity - the Board of Architectural Review or who? He felt this would be a problem. 2 MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1984 MEETING. Mr. Stephen Robin, attorney representing the Exeter development, had several comments: (1) There is a maximum time of 290 days involved in running through the procedures set forth for a development plan from its initiation to its approval, not allowing time for referrals - it would be close to a year with the referral process. He understands that, if you run the concept development plan and the preliminary development plan on parallel tracks, it is quite permissible to have only one set of referrals to the various departments and agencies involved. The ordinance reads like it anticipates a set of referrals for each of the concept plan stage and the development plan stage - this would considerably lengthen the process. (2) There is a fair amount of detail called for in terms of what the project will look like - if you lock yourself into that kind of detail early in the process, you are talking about projects above the average size that will take a considerable amount of time to develop - probably about five years . A number of changes could occur over this time span, which would probably call for seeking an amendment of the plan. There are two ways to amend - (1) if you want to amend as to change of use, you can go back to Council only for a special use permit; (2) if you change anything else, you have to go back through the entire process. This takes a lot of time and "amendments are "a fact of life." (3) There are no fees listed for the process. The only figure he sees is $200 for a concept plan. The ones discussed at workshop - $30,000, $60,000, $90,000 - are too high. (4) The base densities for existing zoning would actually start you out with what amounts to a down zoning (he is familiar with Exeter) . For the R-1 category in town, if you do not cluster you are talking about three single- family units per acre - if you cluster, it would be about 4.2. The proposal here is to start at a base density of 2 and, by a system of bonuses for various amenities, it would get you up to a level of 4.5. A base of 2, as against exist- ing zoning starting with at least 3, is effectively a taking of the value of the property by the rezoning process. The type of bonuses listed are almost all amenities, with practically none for essentials. The idea of planned unit de- velopment is for both the developer and the town to benefit - not to start some- one at a lower zoning and make him work his way up by a series of gifts. The base for an R-1 should start at a higher level than 2 - perhaps 3. Likewise with R-3 which, under present zoning, allows 8 units per acre - the draft docu- ment starts at 4 and a developer would have to work his way up to 8. (5) In Section 7B-19, density limits are applied to the gross area of a planned development"less acreage devoted to commercial and employment uses." "Floodway areas" should be added to this. (6) Concerning density bonuses, something more than Council's "sole dis- cretion" should be used to determine them. The way this is written, if Council found that any one of the items listed in the draft exists, it could trigger the whole system provided on the next two pages. He was not sure this is what is intended. Exeter has a proposal for some housing for the elderly and they would like to see that included in the bonus section. (7) The draft provides for 25,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial space in a planned neighborhood of 100 acres of more. Exeter has close to 300 acres in theirs, so he would like to see this provision multiplied by three, giving them 75,000 square feet. This could also be done in terms of units. (8) Phasing of the development is something that should be required, but the requirements of the preliminary development process call for "a time schedule for start and completion of each section of the proposed development." This can't be complied with as a practical reality. He suggested saying "X" number of units to be built in a given period of time. (9) TDR's are not a fact of life in Loudoun County and, if they do become so, it won't be for some considerable period of time. Therefore, the density bonus provided for them is "up in the air" as far as developers are concerned. (10) Something should be added to the process concerning "time for comple- tion" so a developer would not lose everything if he didn't build in a two-year period of time. (11) As to the criteria for approving a PUD, he has difficulty with the one which says your project "better achieve the purposes of Section 7B-2 than would development under other zoning district regulations." This is not a MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1984 MEETING. 3 proper criteria - one doesn't get a zoning district because it is better than every other zone in the ordinance. A PUD provides attractive as- pects to both the town and the developer in terms of flexibility. The proper test is appropriateness. ). (12) They hope Council will get on with this process since it will take them almost a year to run an application through the ordinance. They were hopeful they could move forward on an earlier time span - they have existing zoning on the property. There are others too that want to "get on with the show." Mr. Alton Echols, 1 West Loudoun Street, commented on several sections of the proposed ordinance: (1) Section 7B-23 provides that a planned unit development can be re- voked by Council if the developer has not timely proceeded - in two years. This could present a problem for a developer with financing - the land evalua- tion being a substantial part of the surety and the evaluation being on its zoning. He has talked with two attorneys in Virginia and finds that the majority of zoning ordinances in Virginia are like this one, with the ex- ception that they have no time limit. He suggested that Council reconsider this and, if there is a need for time limit, make it five years rather than two. (2) He supports giving bonuses for densities such as TDR's, school sites and other items we need, but there is none for colonial design. Lees- burg is unique - it is the last of the towns in the Washington area and re- tains a large part of its charm because of its colonial areas. He suggested that an item be included for colonial style under "Innovative Design" for both land planning and architectural style of the buildings. (3) The ordinance should encourage owners of B-2 zoned land to apply for planned unit development so they might recycle their land to a more pro- ductive use to the town as well as to the owners. (4) The low density limits in Section 7B-4, particularly in the B-2 and II/ and R-3 zones, would practically prohibit anyone from working with the town under the planned unit concept. In his case, he would have to start out with four units and work his way up to eight. These restrictions are fair for new land, but it is too low for land that is already zoned at a higher level. Perhaps Council should supplement this with other groupings that would help recycle the acreages already in town and in higher zoning. Colonel Michael C. Grenata referred min r to the review process - after the e Planning Commission is through with Buie development plan and the rezoning petition, it is out of the process altogether. This puts the emphasis on the staff entirely - the staff should be neutral but his contact in the town office has shown that this is not always true - it sometimes favors the de- veloper. The Planning Commission should be broug}t in on the final develop- ment plan and final plat. The staff, the Planning Commission and the Council are equal partners in the process and, when it comes to the rights of the citizens, the Council should make the decisions - its members are elected. Mike Rich, of 159 Edwards Ferry Road, felt the review process should include the Planning Commission and the Town Council. He asked for a show of hands by those who felt the same way - about six to eight people agreed with him. Determination on the final plat or site plan is made by the Di- rector of Engineering, the Town Attorney and the Manager - there should be some Planning Commission and Council review at this stage also. Mr. Bos felt that, based on the comments tonight, there seems to be some confusion as to the interpretation of the proposed ordinance. Clari- fication should answer a lot of these questions. There seems to be some concern about the length of the review process - his interpretation is that the idea is to quicken the process as much as possible within reasonable con- straints of protecting the general health and welfare of the community. The goal of this ordinance is that it is a partnership to the advantage of both the town and the developers. If this is kept in mind, they should end up with a good ordinance. Mr. Gheen thought the comments made tonight are helpful and will try to give them as much consideration as possible. This is not something that is easily understood. 4 MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1984 MEETING. Mr. Willis echoed the foregoing comments by Mr. Bos and Mr. Gheen. It would be nice to have this kind of participation on other matters. Mr. Coffey said he had some questions on his draft and was glad to know he was not alone. Mr. Tolbert commented that the more he read, the more confused he was. Mayor Sevila declared the public hearing closed. The resolution setting the hearing on these matters calls for the Planning Commission to respond with- in 60 days. He asked that the Commission begin its deliberation and report back to Council within the time limit set. When that report is received, it will be set for action by Council. He thanked those who came to this hearing and those who spoke. Notes have been made by councilmembers regarding com • - ments and they will consider everything that has been said. Mayor Sevila declared a five-minute recess, after which Council reconvened. CDUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Bos said the ER2Romic Development Advisory Committee meeting this morn- ing was postponed due to7weather. He commented that, with the New Year starting, one of his personal priorities is the town and his work on the Council. He is still enjoying it, though it has been stressful at times. He is proud of what the town has been doing and the direction in which it is heading. Council is faced with greater responsibility as the town grows - especially with annexa- tion. He welcomed the people in the annexation area and their participation in the meeting tonight. Mr. Gheen said he has enjoyed being on Council and finds it very challeng- ing. He was on Council from 1953 to 1957, but there is no comparison to this period. The Town will move forward and the Council and its Boards and Commis- sions have a lot before them in the coming years. Mr. Coffey said the Town Plan Task Force has not met since lastcbuncil meeting. However, the staff has received the transportation information. The staff is pre- paring the draft copies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Task Force will probably meet about the end of this month when it will review the transportation element and the rest of the Plan in draft form. There is work going on. Mr. Tolbert commented that he is going into his ninth year on the Council so he must be enjoying it too. He reported that everything seems to be going along very well at the airport. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Sevila has received several comments and statements in the last few weeks from the public about stop lights at various intersections, particularly the new intersection at Harrison Street and Catoctin Circle. Mr. Minor has fur- nished a staff report indicating that no light was warranted by VDH&T in the fall. Council will continue to watch this and see that it is controlled appropriately when it is warranted. He noted that it is encouraging to receive responses from interested citi- zens who would like to serve on one or more of the town's boards or commissions. These will be given consideration. This being the first meeting of 1984 and the first since annexation took effect, he commented that it has been a pleasure to be a -.part of this body during this historic time. Overnight the town tripled in size and went from 8400 to al- most 10,000 in population. So far it seems to be going smoothly. Council and its boards and commissions face a lot of challenges in this next year. ;MANAGER'S REPORT: Mr. Niccolls reported that a written Activity Report went out last Friday. He called attention to a memo from Mr. Shope designating areas of responsibility for his employees. They are looking forward to a new technical employee in the department on February 1st to carry part of the burden. He also called attention to the report from Mr. Minor regarding the airport terminal and flight service station project. 1 MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1984 MEETING. PROPOSED RESOLUTION REQUESTING PERMISSION FROM THE STATE HIGHWAY AND 'TRANS- • 5 PORTATION COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA TO RELOCATE THE BALLS BLUFF ROAD/ I LEESBURG (ROUTE 15) BYPASS INTERSECTION. Mayor Sevila said a public hearing was held on this matter on December 14th, however, Council wanted to be sure they had heard from all affected landowners. A letter was received from Eugene F. O'Connor this week and he received a letter today from Mr. Mahan stating he has been retained by several interested land- owners to protect their interests in this matter as of January 10th. He has not had time for research or preparation of a statement concerning this. After seve- ral inquiries of staff, it has been determined that it would not be prejudicial to delay this matter for two weeks. Both Mr. O'Connor's daughter and daughter- in-law have contacted him and would appreciate a delay as well. On motion of Mr. Coffey, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, Council voted unanimously to delay this item for two weeks and to place it on the workshop agenda for January 18th if Mr. Mahan and others want to discuss it at that time: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Coffey, the following ordinances and resolutions were proposed and, after some minor amendments, were unanimously adopted as consent items: N 84-0-1 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE THE N NUMBER OF REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES AT HOUSING w FOR THE ELDERLY. CO WHEREAS, on September 14, 1983, the following proposed amendment to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance was initiated by this Council and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on October 20, 1983 conducted a public hearing and heard all persons desiring to express their views on the proposed amendment; and ' WHEREAS, on November 3, 1983, the Planning Commission recommended to Council approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, this Council conducted a public hearing on December 14, 1983 and heard all persons desiring to express their views on 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) Elderly households are smaller and own fewer automobiles, and (2) One of the town's planning objectives is to promote the develop- ment of housing for the elderly: THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council for the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. Section 2-7-2-(a) of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows: Types of uses Required No. Parking Spaces (a) Residential (1) Single family dwelling, detached 2.0 per dwelling (2) Single family dwelling, attached 2.0 per dwelling (3) Multi-family dwelling 2.0 per dwelling (4) Rooming/boarding house 1.0 per sleeping room (5) Tourist home 1.0 per sleeping room (6) Family care homes 0.25 per occupant (7) Group homes 0.25 per occupant (8) Mobile home parks 1.5 per dwelling (9) Housing for the elderly 2.0 spaces for each three dwellings e MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1984 MEETING. U SECTION II. Article 15 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is amended to add a new section to be known as Section 15-1-35.2 to read as follows: Housing for the elderly shall mean dwellings within multi-family dwelling projects, which projects are occupied by persons aged 62 years or over or by handicapped persons of any age. SECTION III. All prior ordinances in conflict herewith are repealed. SECTION IV. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. 84-0-2 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE PROFFER POWERS CONTAINED IN SECTION 15.1-49(a) OF THE CODE OF VIR- GINIA, AS AMENDED. WHEREAS, on September 28, 1983 the following proposed amendment to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance was initiated by this Council and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on November 3, 1983 conducted a public hearing and heard all persons desiring to express their views on the pro- posed amendment; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 1983 the Planning Commission recommended to Council approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, this Council conducted a public hearing on December 14, 1983 and heard all persons desiring to express their views on the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and this Council find that the following amendment is required by the public necessity, convenience, general wel- fare and good zoning practice because: 1. This authority is required under the terms of the annexation agreement between the town and Loudoun County. 2. This authority will provide greater flexibility to the town in II/ the provision of public facilities and amenities. 3. This authority will allow the town to exercise greater control over large scale development expected in the annexation area. THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. Section 11-8-4 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows: 11-8-4 Those proffer provisions provided for in Section 15.1-491(a) and Sections 15.1-491.3 through 15.1-491.6 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, are incorporated as part of this Zoning Ordinance as if set out fully herein. Proposed proffers shall be presented to the Council and Planning Commission at any time prior to the Planning Commission's recommendation on the proposed map amendment to the Council. SECTION II. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. 84-0-3 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING SECTION 10-157 OF THE TOWN CODE. WHEREAS, the 1983 General Assembly adopted amendments to the state enabling statute for the authority to restrict and remove inoperative vehicles from private property; and WHEREAS, these amendments will facilitate such authority to restrict and remove such vehicles: THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: i MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1984 MEETING. SECTION I. Section 10-157 of the Town Code is amended to read as 7 follows: Sec. 10-157. Parking or storing inoperative vehicles on property located within the town. (a) The provisions of this section shall not apply to licensed businesses which are legally engaged in business as motor vehicle dealers, salvage dealers, or scrap processors as of June 26, 1970. (b) As used in this section the word "inoperative motor vehicle" shall mean any motor vehicle which is not in operating condition; or which for a period of ninety days or longer has been partially or to- tally dissassembled by the removal of tires and wheels, the engine, or other essential parts required for operation of the vehicle; and for which there is no valid license plate and inspection sticker. As used in this section the words "motor vehicle" shall be construed as any motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, as such are defined in Section 46.1-1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to park, store or otherwise keep, except within a fully enclosed building or structure, on any prop- erty as defined in Sec. 15.1-11.1 of the Code of Virginia, located within the corporate limits of the town any inoperative motor vehicle except within a fully enclosed building or structure or otherwise shielded or N screened from public view. m (d) Upon information that a motor vehicle exists in violation of Q this section, the town manager shall cause a written notice and order to be served by certified mail to the owners of the premises upon which the motor vehicle or motor vehicles is situated requiring removal of the inoperative motor vehicle or motor vehicles within ten days of receipt of the notice in violation of this section. (e) If the owners have not acted to remove such inoperative motor vehicle or motor vehicles the town through its agents or employees shall remove the motor vehicle or motor vehicles in violation and, following additional notice by certified mail the town may dispose of said motor vehicle or motor vehicles after five days receipt of the second notice. The cost of said removal and disposal shall be chargeable to the owner of the premises. (f) If the sum due to the town for such removal and disposal has not been paid within 15 days of said owner's receipt of an itemized statement by certified mailing, the town manager shall and is author- ized to distrain therefor goods or chattels within the town to collect the sum due, or to treat the unpaid sum as a lien against the property superior to the interest of any owner, lessee or tenant, and next in succession to the town real estate taxes thereon and to add the charges to the amount due for the current town real estate taxes on said property. (g) Any person convicted of violating this section shall be fined not less than $25.00 nor more than $500.00 for each day that such auto- mobile is kept in violation of this section. SECTION II. All prior ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage. 84-1 - RESOLUTION - INITIATING AMENDMENT OF SECTION 13-52 OF THE SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO RESCIND EXTRA-TERRI- TORIAL JURISDICTION. WHEREAS, the November 15, 1983 annexation agreement between the town and the County of Loudoun provides that Leesburg will rescind the extra- territorial subdivision regulation jurisdiction found in Section 13-52 of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: 1 p MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1984 MEETING. O SECTION I. An amendment of the Leesburg Subdivision and Land Development Regulations is initiated to amend Section 13-52 to read as follows: Section 13-52. Purpose, Jurisdiction. This article provides procedures and regulations for the subdi- vision and development of land within the town. SECTION II. The manager shall refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for hearing and report and the Planning Commission shall report its recommendation to the Town Council on the proposed amendment within sixty days of its public hearing. 84-2 - RESOLUTION - REQUESTING TRANSFER OF ROUTES IN THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION TO THE TOWN. WHEREAS, the January 1, 1984 annexation of 7.5 square miles of territory to the town includes the primary and secondary system of state highways; and WHEREAS, the town assumed responsibility for maintenance of certain routes formerly in the primary and secondary system of state highways as a result of annexation: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transporation is re- quested to transfer the following routes from the State Primary System of Highways to the Town of Leesburg in Virginia: Route From To Length in Miles 15 Route 650 SCL Leesburg 1.61 15 Route 7 1.94 Mi N Rte 7 1.94 15 Bus NCL Leesburg Route 837 0.61 TOTAL 4.16 SECTION II. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is requested to transfer the following routes from the Secondary System of State Highways of Loudoun County to the Town of Leesburg in Virginia: Route From To Length in Miles 621 Route 15 New SCL Leesburg 1.00 643 Route 15 Bypass New SCL Leesburg 1.60 654 Route 7 Route 15 3.20 698 C.L. Leesburg New C.L. Leesburg 0.20 773 N Route 15 Bypass New ECL Leesburg 0.60 773 S Route 15 Bypass New ECL Leesburg 0.90 874 Route 7 Cul-de-sac 0.25 1024 Route 621 Dead End 0.20 1025 Route 1027 Route 1028 0.25 1026 Route 15 Route 1028 0.45 1027 Route 1026 Cul-de-sac 0.20 1028 Route 15 Route 1031 0.55 1029 Route 1028 Cul-de-sac 0.05 1030 Route 1028 Cul-de-sac 0.11 1031 Route 1028 Cul-de-sac 0.32 1032 Route 1028 Route 1033 0.36 1033 Route 1032 Cul-de-sac 0.09 1034 Route 1032 Cul-de-sac 0.03 1035 Route 1031 Cul-de-sac 0.04 TOTAL 10.40 SECTION III. The manager shall make all necessary reports and requests to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to complete transfer of the above-described routes to the Town. MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1984 MEETING. 84-3 - RESOLUTION - EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO LOUDOUN COUNTY FOR RESTORATION 9 OF STRUCTURES ALONG EDWARDS FERRY ROAD. WHEREAS, preservation of the old and historic district is a goal of the adopted comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, one of the objectives of the Town of Leesburg is to promote adaptive re-use of historic buildings; and WHEREAS, renovation of the buildings at 30, 34, 38 and 42 Edwards Ferry. Road has greatly improved the streetscape; and . ' WHEREAS, the town desires to express its appreciation to Loudoun County for these renovations: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The Council of the Town of Leesburg extends its thanks and appreciation to Loudoun County for the restoration and adaptive re-use of structures along Edwards Ferry Road. SECTION II. The manager shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors. N 84-4 - RESOLUTION - ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASING THE PERFORMANCE W GUARANTEE AND APPROVING A MAINTENANCE BOND FOR WESTGREEN CO SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS, the developer of Westgreen Subdivision has completed public im- provements in accordance with town standards and specifications and these have been inspected and approved and the as-built drawings have been sub- mitted and approved: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The public improvements for Westgreen Subdivision are accepted for public use by the town. SECTION II. The irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $67,523.50 from Farmers and Merchants National Bank of Hamilton, Virginia is released and a cash maintenance bond to be in effect for a period of one year from this date in the amount of $3,376 is approved. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. • 84-0-4 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING SECTION 10-131 OF THE TOWN CODE. On motion of Mr. Coffey, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following ordinance was proposed: WHEREAS, the annexation effective January 1, 1984 will make the town responsible for establishing-.the :maximum speed limits on streets and highways added to the town's jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, an engineering and traffic investigation has been conducted by the town which substantiates the need to adjust speed limits within the expanded town: THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows : SECTION I. Section 10-131 of the Town Code is amended to read as fol- lows: Sec. 10-131. Speed Limits The maximum speed limits on streets within town shall be 25 miles per hour, or as prescribed in this section, and no person shall drive a motor vehicle in excess of such maximum limits. Upon the following MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1984 MEETING. 10 streets within town, between the points hereinafter indicated, the • maximum speed limit shall be the speed hereinafter indicated and_no person shall drive a motor vehicle between such points in excess of such maximum speed limit: (a) King Street: 55 miles per hour from Balls Bluff Road to 500 feet north of the 1983 corporate limits. (b) King Street: 35 miles per hour from 500 feet north of the 1983 corporate limits to the 1983 corporate limits. (c) King Street: 35 miles per hour from First Street to Gov- ernor's Drive. (d) King Street: 45 miles per hour from Governor's Drive to Country Club Drive. (e) Edwards Ferry Road: 35 miles per hour from Plaza Street to the east corporate limits. (f) King Street: 55 miles per hour from Country Club Drive to the south corporate limits. (g) Market Street: 55 miles per hour from the east corporate limits to 600 feet east of Lawson Road. (h) Market Street: 45 miles per hour from 600 feet east of Lawson Road to 500 feet west of Lawson Road. (i) Market Street: 35 miles per hour from Route 15 by-pass (north entrance) to Ft. Evans Road. (j) Evergreen Mill Road: 35 miles per hour. (k) Masons Lane: 35 miles per hour from South King Street to Evergreen Mill Road. (1) Long Lane: 35 miles per hour from Evergreen Mill Road to Sycolin Road. (m) Lawson Road: 35 miles per hour from Sycolin Road to 1200 feet east of Sycolin Road. (n) Sycolin Road: 45 miles per hour from the Route 15 by-pass to the south corporate limits. (o) Route 15 and Route 7 by-pass: 55 miles per hour exclusive of access ramps. SECTION II. The manager shall clearly indicate by markers or signs the maximum speed limits established by this ordinance. SECTION III. All prior ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed. SECTION IV. This ordinance shall be effective upon the placement of appropriate signs and markers indicating the maximum speed limits es- tablished herein. Mr. Niccolls explained that the purpose of this ordinance is to establish urban- style speed limits on streets and roads in the annexed territory. Those roads that were not marked had an automatic speed limit of 55 mph and there were several of those. The Engineering Department, the Police Department and Jeff Minor looked over the area and decided on appropriate speed limits. These were reviewed at workshop and are passed on in this ordinance. Mr. Gheen said they discussed at workshop the advisability of erecting signs at the entrances to town indicating that the speed limit is 25 mph. Mr. Niccolls said the Public Works Department is working on this. Mr. Bos suggested that a sign be placed to indicate the location of the Middle School. Mr. Niccolls thought the sign could be made by the state and erected by the town. Mr. Coffey asked how long it will take to erect these signs? Mr. Niccolls thought just a matter of a few • days. Mayor Sevila asked for support from the media on this. The ordinance was unanimously adopted: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1984 MEETING. • 11 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE II, CHAPTER 13, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN CODE. On motion of Mr. Gheen, seconded by Mr. Bos, a proposed ordinance amend- ing Article II, Chapter 13, Planning Commission of the Town Code was deferred to the next workshop and next regularly scheduled Council meeting so that it might be adopted at the same time that vacancies on the Planning Commission are filled. The vote was unanimous: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. PROPOSED RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A PORTION OF CATOCTIN CIRCLE AS CONTROLLED ACCESS. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Willis, a proposed resolution designating a portion of Catoctin Circle as controlled access was unanimously deferred to the next workshop for additional consideration: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 84-5 - RESOLUTION - INITIATING AMENDMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CONCERNING ACCESS TO THROUGH COLLECTOR ROUTES. N On motion of Mr. Bos, seconded by Mr. Gheen, the following resolution was proposed: WHEREAS, the creation of lots with direct vehicular access to through Q collector routes can increase traffic congestion and decrease safety; and WHEREAS, the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations do not pres- ently contain provisions concerning the location of vehicular access from subdivisions containing or adjacent to through collector routes: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. An amendment of Section 13-73 of the Leesburg Subdivision and Land Development Regulations is initiated to add subparagraph (m) containing provisions concerning the location of vehicular access from subdivisions containing or adjacent to through collector routes to read as follows : Section 13-73. (m) Whenever a proposed subdivision contains or is adjacent to a through collector route, vehicular access to lots within the subdi- vision shall be provided by a system of local collector routes and local streets without direct vehicular access from the lots to the through collector route. Variances of this requirement under Section 13-91 shall be made only after consideration of traffic safety re- quirements. SECTION II. The town manager shall refer this proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for hearing and report. The Planning Commission shall make its recommendation to the Council within sixty days from the date of its hearing. Mr. Niccolls explained that the present Town Plan has a thoroughfare plan com- ponent which classifies streets and roads in town into about six categories - through collector is one and they are identified on a map. The proposed plan will likewise have a classification and use the same terminology and criteria for designation. The concept of the function of the road will be the same. The resolution was unanimously adopted: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 84-6 - RESOLUTION - MAKING APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Coffey, the following resolu- tion was proposed and unanimously adopted: n MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1984 MEETING. 12 RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: An appropriation is made from the Airport Capital Project Fund unap- propriated fund balance to account number 8300.707, Obstruction Re- moval, in the amount of $700.00 to remain in effect until the project is complete. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. ! Nay: None. I ' 84-7 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT AND APPROVING A PERFORMANCE BOND FOR PARKER SUBDIVISION, LOT 25. On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mr. Coffey, the following resolution was proposed: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission granted preliminary approval for a de- velopment plan for Lot 25 of Parker Subdivision for construction by Ran- dall W. DeHart of warehouses: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The manager shall execute the contract for public improvements for the development plan for Lot 25, Parker Subdivision. SECTION II. The cash performance bond in the amount of $10,955 guarantee- ing installation of public improvements in accordance with plans approved by the Director of Engineering for the development of Lot 25, Parker Sub- division, is approved. Mr. Terry Titus, engineer for this project, explained that he prepared the plan for Mr. DeHart, to be located on East South Street between his two existing fa- cilities. The use of the proposed building has not been definitely decided, how- ever, he may use it for his own office and storage of equipment. This is for curb, gutter and pavement on East South Street. Mr. Niccolls said the prelimi- nary plan was approved by the Planning Commission last Thursday. The resolution was unanimously adopted: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 84-8 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SEC. 8-2-2.1 OF THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE. On motion of Mr. Bos, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted: RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: A Notice of Public Hearing to consider a proposed amendment of Sec. 8-2-2.1 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance shall be published in the Loudoun Times- Mirror on January 19, 1984 and January 26, 1984 for public hearing on February 8, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 84-0-5 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS BY COUNCIL. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Coffey, the following ordinance was proposed: WHEREAS, the following proposed amendment to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance was initiated by this Council on November 9, 1983 and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, this Council and the Planning Commission conducted a joint public hearing on December 14, 1983 and heard all persons desiring to express their views on the proposed amendments; and MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1984 MEETING. 1° WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to Council approval of the 1 proposed amendment on January 5, 1984; and 1 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 Town Plan establishes a goal to provide a mix of housing in Leesburg; 2. The Town Plan calls for preservation and enhancement of the Old and Historic District; and 3. Development of residential uses in the Old and Historic Dis- trict is critical to the viability of the District. THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is amended by adding new sec- tions as follows: 5-2.1 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. N The following are permitted in B-1 Community Business District when authorized by special exception under Section 8-2-11-10 of w this ordinance. 1 Q 5-2.1-1 One and two bedroom dwellings not subject to the limitations and requirements of Section 8-1-2. 6-2.1 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. The following are permitted in the B-2 General Business District when authorized by special exception under Section 8-2-11-10 of this ordinance. 6-2.1-1 One and two bedroom dwellings not subject to the limitations and requirements of Section 8-1-3 of this ordinance. 8-2-11-10 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS BY COUNCIL. The Council may grant special exceptions to permit a greater num- ber of one-and/or two-bedroom dwellings than permitted under Sec- tions 8-1-2 and 8-1-3 of this ordinance on zoning lots located in the H-1 Historic District. 8-2-11-11 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. The Councilshall issue aspecial exception under the provisions of this section when it determines that: (a) The proposed use generally conforms to the provisions of the Town Plan and is not detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. (b) The proposed or existing structure has architectural or historical significance or contributions to the charac- ter of the Historic District; (c) The plan for use of the lot includes adequate provi- sion for off-street parking within three hundred feet of the lot; refuse storage and removal; and light, air and space for residents; (d) The improvements to the structure are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and exterior alterations of all structures are approved by the Board of Architectural Review; (e) The size or shape of the lot or existing structure on the lot or the use or development of lots in the surround- ing neighborhood effectively prohibits or unreasonably re- stricts the economic and beneficial use of the property in furtherance of the Town Plan; i MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1984 MEETING. 1 (f) The applicant provides for life safety improvements to any existing structure involved in accordance with appli- cable codes; and (g) Adequate public services are available to meet the needs of residents of the structure. 8-2-11-12 APPLICATION AND APPROVAL. (a) Application for a special exception by the Council shall be made on forms provided by the zoning administra- tor who shall transmit a copy to the Planning Commission for recommendation. The Planning Commission shall trans- mit its recommendation to the Council no later than thirty days after the first meeting of the Commission after the application has been referred to the Commission. (b) The Town Council shall conduct a public hearing pur- suant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, after receipt of the Planning Commission recom- mendation. (c) The Town Council may establish reasonable conditions, safeguards and restrictions on the proposed use as deemed necessary to protect nearby properties and the public in- terest. SECTION II. All prior ordinances in conflict herewith are repealed. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. Mr. Niccolls explained that a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission was held on this ordinance on December 14th. .Its purpose is to permit by special exception approved by Council the conversion of existing structures in the his- toric district at greater housing densities than would normally be permitted . under certain conditions. The Planning Commission has recommended this ordi- nance. This was specifically directed to some problems with the redevelopment of property on North King Street, but it has general applicability to anything in the historic district. He explained in detail the requirements necessary to obtain such a special exception. Mr. Bos endorsed this ordinance whole-hearted- ly - it will continue promoting mixed use in the downtown area, including re- taining some residential use. However, he is concerned as to how many units it will allow in a specific building and whether this could become a problem. Is it totally discretionary on the part of the Council? Mr. Niccolls thought it will be dependent on parking availability, along with other public facili- ties and the architectural changes compatible with the neighborhood. These would all work together as a package of requirements with the burden on the applicant to show that it is suitable. Mr. Bos's7question concerned the park- ing facilities for the specific property on North King Street. This will be our first test. Mr. Coffey felt this is a good tool and hopes it can be used properly. Mayor Sevila questioned the word "shall" in Section 8-2-11-11 - he didn't feel it should be mandatory for Council to issue such a special exception - this could invite a lawsuit or strengthen the applicant's position. It was agreeable to change this word to "may'.', making this section read: "The Council may issue a special exception The ordinance, as amended, was unanimously adopted: Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. 84-9 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT AND APPROVING A PERFORMANCE BOND FOR BERNARD M. CARLTON/GOOD YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN. On motion of Mr. Bos, seconded by Mr. Willis, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission granted preliminary approval for a de- velopment plan for Bernard M. Carlton/Goodyear on East Market Street conditioned upon the vacation of prior dedication of Spencer and Fen- ton Streets in Woodbury Downs Subdivision: MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1984 MEETING. THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Vir- 15 ginia as follows: SECTION I. The manager shall execute the contract for public improve- ments for the Bernard M. Carlton/Goodyear development plan. SECTION II. The cash performance bond in the amount of $5,812.62 guaran- teeing installation of public improvements in accordance with plans ap- proved by the Director of Engineering for the Bernard M. Carlton/Good- year development on East Market Street is approved. SECTION III. This resolution will become effective when the condition of the Planning Commission preliminary development plan approval is satisfied. Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Coffey, Gheen, Tolbert, Willis and Mayor Sevila. Nay: None. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Willis, the meeting was ad- journed at 10:00 p.m. / I Mayor w /- -d-1p 'tem CO Clerk of the Obuncil Q I