HomeMy Public PortalAbout1985_06_26 433
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL, JUNE 26, 1985 .
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Council
Chambers, 10 Loudoun Street, S.W. , Leesburg, Virginia on June 26, 1985 at
7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with the invoca-
tion given by Mr. Tolbert, and followedwith the Salute to the Flag led by
Zoning Administrator, Mark Nelis. Present were: Mayor Robert E. .Sevila,
Councilmembers CharlesiA. Bos, Arl Curry„ Marylou Hill, Brian T. Kelley,
John W. Tobert, Jr. and Charles Williams; also present were Planning
Director, Martha Semmes; Principal Planner, ,Tom Poupard; . Director of
Engineering,, Tom Mason; and Zoning, Director, Mark Nelis.
The minutes of the January 9, 1985 ,Council Meeting were presented... The
motion was made and seconded that the minutes be approved as presented. The
minutes were unanimously approved.
CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION:
A Certificate of Appreciation was presented to Greenscape Incorporated,
for their outstanding voluntary contribution of plantings ,in front of the East
Market Street sign. The contribution toward the beautification: of the East
Market Street Corridor and the Town of Leesburg is greatly appreciated by the
town and its citizens.
PUBLIC. HEARING ON REZONING APPLICATION ZM-6O. LINDEN HILL
The Mayor stated that this matter had been published on June 6 and
June 13 in the ,Loudoun Times Mirror. Martha Mason Semmes stated that she
would let the applicant summarize in more detail for the members of the.
Council. This concerns a piece of property approximately ten. acres in size
located off Route 15 South adjacent to Country ,Club ,Subdivision and is
requesting rezoning from County R-1 designation to Planned Residential
Neighborhood with the building of 62. residential units. The historic home
now existing on the property would remain as a club facility and- some
apartment units and .would ,provide recreational amenities. The development
would be a condominium development that: is intended primarily for adults.
This has been before Planning Commission which recommended denial of the
application based on„the proposed density not being compatible with the
adjacent Country Club Community and- with insufficient-buffers provided for
the Country Club Community-and Route 15. Councilmember Williams asked if
the Planning Commission recommended a density threshold. Mrs. Semmes
stated that no, they, had not. The-Mayor askedif the- density changes had
evolved at all. Mrs. Semmes stated that there had been some discussion ..
between the Planning Commission and the developer but that the developer
was hesitant to changethe density drastically. The density did change
from 72 to 64 units. Councilmember Williams then asked if the town
engineer had the opportunity to look at the damming of the creek that was
proposed. The flood plain study had just been received; this evening which
offers information concerning the size of the floodway and the calculations
which the engineer can now look over. Town Manager Jeffrey Minor stated
that the developer still has to go through a formal development .process and
that all construction, drawings would have to meet- state and local standards
on stormwater management along with-all other .aspects. Mayor- Sevila asked
what the. Planning Commission's concernswere relating to- buffers from the
Rt. 15 and Country Club. The Town Plan calls for a buffer- of a 100' set-
back from 4-lane: roads, the proposed buffer was 20 to 30 feet. Two
dwellings were removed. to bring this buffer to 40 feet whichis still not
near the 100' requirement. If there- are sufficient landscaping measures
taken, they can take the place of the- 100'- setback. Councilmember Bos
asked at what, point this proposed development is. Mrs. Semmes- replied •
there has been one set of hearings- at the Planning Commission level and the
Planning Commission has made its recommendation, now the public hearing and
then formal deliberations will be made. The Council has not yet discussed
this in detail.
•
•
James Tyler. First wanted to- set the record• clear that only one .
stream goes through- the proposed development property. - Regarding the set-
back, was at 100' feet on the- other end of the development and 40' at the
one end. This will be buffered by a solid, antique brick post with lights
every ten feet and shrubbery will- be placed in front of the fence. Mr.
Tyler then stated that he• has lived on the- property for 24- years- and his •
plans for it were developed out of the love of the land they have.
JUN26. 1
434
MINUTES OF JUNE 26., 1985 MEETING
•
The density is a business decision. In the condominium, the unit owners
share the cost. The less people you have the more each -one has- to pay.
Sixty two units plus the clubhouse units were the least that the applicant
•
could operate on. He went on to say that possibly they' could work on
sixty. The sixty are as follows - to the south of the clubhouse there is a
strip of five buildings connected with ten efficiency apartments - popula-
tion• in these should be one person per apartment. Because of the price
range there should be a different type ofperson living there - also
because it is geared toward the adult community. It will -be strictly over
21 years of age - this is legal in Virginia.
Mayor Sevila. Stuart Woods in Herndon is an adult community with no
children or pets allowed and have been in operation for ten years.
Councilmember Williams. If someone has a child, can they constitu
tionally be asked to sell their property? Has this ever been challenged?
Not really, they buy the place with the knowledge that these are the rules.
In all initial material the clubhouse and club facility was mentioned and
the only residential unit involved would be one on the second floor of' the
facility. The decision has not yet been made on whether to lease the lower
floor to the unit owner ' s association with option to buy in the future.
Nothing will be added- in density since this is an already existing
building. What you see is sixty-two units plus- the clubhouse facility. If
the Council is happier with sixty units plus the clubhouse- facility, the
developer would do his best to reduce the plan by two. Are there any
questions?
•
Councilmember Bos - Could 'you describe briefly what you want to do
with the creek and the damming of it.
We plan to build a -Gazebo and put walking paths between the two six
unit clusters. To maintain privacy for the- owners of the property there,
it will need to be fenced - on the back side as well? Yes. -.
Mayor Sevila - What is the distance between the western most units and
the houses in Country Club.
Approximately 160 feet on one side and 170 on the 'other. Because of
the topography, it could be as much as 300 feet;
Mayor Sevila - I have a question about the mechanics of creating a
clubhouse out of your residence. My difficulty in concept is that would be
an amenity of the association and would normally be dedicated at time of
restrictive covenants.
Staff people tell me that swimming pools, etc. cannot be leased but that
this would be leasable and could be bought.
Mayor Sevila - What if the cost of the lease becomes prohibitive and they
decide they don't- need the clubhouse, they have the tennis court and swimming
pool and don't use the clubhouse.
In that event it would probably be converted- to a residential unit. But
first it will -be part of the common ground. There will be a low lease with CPI
cranked in over the years.
Mayor Sevila - Will the clubhouse be subject to the same architectural
controls and restrictive covenants as the remainder of the project?
Yes.
Councilmember Williams. How much will these units cost?
They will range from about $140,000 to $180,000 and the additional four
units will be around $200,000. This is subject to go up - not down.
Mayor Sevila - Have you determined what the overall maintenance and opera-
tion cost might be to the homeowner's association per unit?
Slightly under $200 per month based on the 64 units.
There will be no state maintenance. There will be all private streets
with a guard gate, medic alert system will be hooked into that. All main-
tenance will be done by the homeowner' s association.
435
MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 1985 MEETING
Rosser Payne — Planning Consultant for Linden Hill. Gave an overview
of his involvement with this project. He stated that many people did .not
realize that the project is within the limits of Leesburg. This is not on
the outer fringes but should end up being around the center of the future
Leesburg. Mr. Payne stated that he had done some comprehensive plan work
for the town about 15 years .ago. He said that the density. is- compatible
with zoning in the area. This development fits within the Leesburg Area
plan. He believes the staff endorses the philosophy but may disagree on
density. This would be a unique entree to what the future middle of
Leesburg should offer.
There was a question on the density with comparison to neighboring
Country Club. Development as spacious as the quarter acre land cannot be
economically feasible for this type of project.
The size of the land in question is 350' by 1450'
The floor was then opened to the public for comment.
Janet Frye said she thinks his plan is unique. She is concerned with
the stream that joins the stream on the property. Occasionally this stream
floods and that a solid board fence will act ,as a dam causing flooding on
her property.
Frank Carney said he is concerned about doubling the density of Country
Club. He feels that allowing this to go through will only allow a lot of
high density housing. -? Also opposed to the adult community concept. The
fence was also a concern. What will happen to- it in years to come when it
begins to deteriorate. The buffers are not adequate either. The pond is
simply a hole in the ground to catch storm water. If there is proper
drainage, this pond will never have much water in it.
Jack Slaughter basically agreed with Mr. Carney's comments. , He also is
opposed to the density and the entire concept of the development in the area
where it is proposed.
William Turingo feels that the way his property backs up to the- proposed
development, he will lose the privacy that he has enjoyed for many years. He
realizes that there will be- a mid—management market soon- with the high tech
coming into the area. -There is definitely a plus forthe tax base and the
business market because of the- cost of, the housing and the- type of- people
that this will attract. He feels the benefits of the project outweigh the
negatives.
Bob Zoldos- commended Mr. Tyler on the time and effort put into the
development. He just doesn-' t think that the development is compatible with
the existing Country Club development.
•
E. B. White is not a resident of Country Club. Addressed his remarks
to people versus building density. This development will certainly be good
for the tax benefits.
Mayor Sevila declared the hearing closed.
On a motion by Mrs. Hill, and seconded by Mr.: Williams the matter was
referred to the Finance and Administration Committee for further consideration.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Hill, Kelley, Tolbert, Williams and Mayor
Sevila.
Nay: None.
The meeting was recessed for seven minutes.
JUN26.3
1 436
MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 1985 MEETING
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Sevila- who then called- Darryl-
Johnson to come forward. Mr. Johnson was the representative from- Greenscape,
Inc. who- was absent when the Certificate of Appreciation was presented earlier
in the meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS -
Mr. Bos. No comments.
'Mr: Williams reported that the Environmental Advisory Commission had .
met on June 25. Mr. Raflo announced that he was resigning and going back
to graduate school. The Commission said it was noteworthy that the Council
had taken the action on legislation regarding flagpoles, structures, etc. _
for the community. Suggested that the Council consider an award for Mr.
Rust for his very generous donation of Ida Lee Park. They stated that they
thought the Parks and Recreation Commission was a very good idea. Mr. -
Williams stated that he met with Colonel James to discuss- an alternative to
the national guard site. Col. James said they are actively pursuing
renting the old C&P Telephone administrative building on Catoctin Circle.
He did mention that the realtors for C&P are taking an unreasonably long
time to negotiate a relatively short term contract. They are going to •
request a variance from the BZA to locate at the VFW for the four months or
so that it will take to negotiate this contract. Councilmembers-Tolbert
and Williams, along with Assistant Town Manager Steve Owen- and Delegate
Rollins went to Washington last week to hear Secretary Dole, Congressman
Wolf and Senator Warner speak on behalf of the transfer of Dulles and _
National Airports back to the state of- Virginia. A resolution supporting''-
this transfer will be before you this evening.
Mrs. Hill had no cable report since they had not met.
Mr. Curry had no report.
Mr. Kelley had no report.
Mr. Tolbert concurred with Mr. Williams on the Washington Trip regarding
I
the transfer' of the airports. The Airport Commission will also prepare legisla-
tion endorsing this transfer.
MANAGER' S REPORT
1 . Monday a lengthy activity report was submitted to the Council.
Mr. Bos asked that the street light in front of the First American Bank be
fixed. '
Mr. Williams asked whether a letter had been sent to the people in Country
Club regarding the road.
LEGISLATION
On a motion of Mrs. Hill and seconded by Mr. Kelley, the following items
were proposed and unanimously adopted as consent items.
85-0-13 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING CHAPTER 12.1 OF THE TOWN CODE, SECTION 12. 1-25
OF THE PERSONNEL MANUAL REGARDING GENERAL PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
•
WHEREAS, town staff has reviewed the Personnel Manual for policies per-
taining to performance standards; and
i .
WHEREAS, the town' s performance evaluation system should be more com-
petitive, with top percentage merit increases reserved for ,outstanding perfor-
mance, and
WHEREAS, these changes will not require additional funds:
THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as
follows:
SECTION I. Chapter 12. 1 of the Town Code, Section 12. 1-25 of the Personnel
Manual, General Performance Standards, is repealed and a revised Section 12. 1-25
is adopted to read as follows:
JUNE26.4
437
MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 1985 MEETING
Sec.- 12. 1-25. General PerformanceStandards
The rater's written employee evaluation shall be provided on forms
furnished by the Personnel Director. These forms shall measure employee-
performance numerically. Each performance element is evaluated using the
following numerical ratings: "U"-Unsatisfactory - I ; ='F"-Fair - 2; - "S"-
Satisfactory - 3; "G"-Good - 4; "E" Excellent - 5. - The individual- element
ratings are then totalled. The service increment percentage awarded will
reflect the evaluation score as follows:
Performance Evaluation Score Merit Increment (%)
26-30 5
21-25 4.5
15-20 4
10-14 3
Less than 10 0
The forms shall measure the following performance elements:
(1 ) Job Understanding - This factor should not be restricted to the
technical knowledge an employee is required to bring to a specialized job. It
is much broader and includes particularly- the range- of pertinent policies, regu-
lations, 'and procedures relating to his/her assignment. It does relate to the
mental 'and/or 'physical skills required in a given position. A craftsman' s basic
skills are readily identified, while many office occupations include job- skills
which are' relatively obscure. - Does- the employee consistently demonstrate at a-
proper level the job- knowledge prerequisite- in the job classification? Has- the
probationary employee- acquired an acceptable level of job- knowledge?- Is- the
permanent employee keeping up to date with changed policies and procedures and
with technological advances in his or her occupational field?
Unsatisfactory - Inept to incompetent within- his own classification
Fair - Limited to selected duties or assignments-within his classi-
fication;- has fair working knowledge of related work.
Satisfactory - performs most of the duties-within classification; has
good working knowledge of related work.
Good - Performs all of the duties-within his classification; has good
- working knowledge of- related work. -
Excellent - Excellent knowledge- of all duties or assignments-within
classification; exceptionally good working knowledge of
related work.
(2) Job Performance: The degree of excellence of the work
performed over the entire rating period- is- measured here. In rating this factor
attention should be paid to the consequences of poor quality work.- Is the-
employee' s work neat, accurate, thorough,- and acceptable? Must the work be
redone, thus reducing the potential volume of acceptable work which could have
been produced? Do errors in the employee' s work affect the efforts of others?
Does poor work too often reflect adversely upon the office or agency?
Unsatisfactory - Work- seldom meets specified quality, many errors,
- rejections or rework. -
Fair - Work frequently below specified quality, apt to mistakes,
moderate amount- of work. - - -
Satisfactory - Work meets normal standards; a- careful worker; minor
amount of rework. - - - - -
-
Good - Work consistently meets specified quality; an accurate worker
- with negligible errors. -
Excellent - Work of exceptionally higher quality; an outstanding
precise and accurate worker. S.
(3) Job Productivity: Refers- to the amount of satisfactory work
turned out during a given period of time. Does the employee consistently
accomplish-a- day's work for- a day' s- pay? Does he produce enough work so that he
or she is clearly a net-asset to the department?- Supervisors should- not make
undue allowances for such reasons as- the• employee' s poor health, home problems,
age or length of service. - While short- term exceptions to the quantity standard
can sometimes be made, care should be exercised to see that proper warnings are
issued when indicated.
•
JUNE26.5
MINUTES OF THE JUNE 26, 1985 MEETING 438
Unsatisfactory - Output consistently low on most operations; a slow
worker.
Fair - Frequently turns out less than normal on many assignments
Satisfactory - Consistently- turns out satisfactory amount of work
Good - Frequently turns out more than normal assignments; a fast
worker.
Excellent - Output outstandingly high; consistently turns out excep-
tionally large amount of work.
(4) Dependability. This factor refers to the employee' s attendance,
appearance, and utilization of time. Does the employee- appear indifferent to
his or her work and responsibilities? Does the employee spend a good deal- of
time loitering around the office 9r otherwise wasting time? - Does he or she pre-
sent an appearance consistent with that desired for a representative of your
operation?
Unsatisfactory - Undesirable habits of work- expemplified by indif-
ference, tardiness, and inefficient use of time.-
Fair - Tends to seek easy and avoid difficult- tasks, performs some
tasks willingly, but occasionally wastes time.'
Satisfactory - Usually displays work habits that conform to office
guidelines. -
Good - Applies self in such a manner as to not raise any question
about wasting time. -
Excellent - Demonstrates work habits that should serve as a model for
all employees.
(5) Cooperation. Refers to the degree of willingess an employee.
exhibits when given responsibility and the manner in which he or she relates to
other personnel in carrying out that responsibility.- Does the employee
demonstrate that he or she accepts instructions by performing his duties to the
best of his ability? Does he or she- chronically challenge supervision, instruc-
tion or orders? Is the employee resentful of direction or supervision? ,Does
the employee readily accept responsibility or does he or- she avoid it? Does he
accept direction but complain about it to fellow employees? Does the employee
voluntarily assist others and maintain cooperative relationships?
hipsUnsatisfactory - Undesirable or unsatisfactory working relationships
with others.
Fair - Tends to be uncooperative in normal relationships with co-
workers and supervisory personnel.
Satisfactory - Works well with- others. -
Good - Voluntarily assists others in the performance of job related
functions. •
Excellent - Respected and well regarded; excellent facility for work-
ing in harmony with others.
(6) Initiative. Measures the manner and method in which an employee
approaches his assigned duties, and how successful his planning and organizing
are in achieving desired- results. Does the employee take- time to plan the -
sequence of steps required in carrying out his tasks? Does he or she "attack" -
the job thoughtlessly or without enthusiasm which ultimately results- in lost time
or needless mistakes? Does- the employee' show• self reliant enterprise? Does- he
or she take opportunity to exercise initiative or-must the employee. be prodded
into action? - Is the employee alert to operating efficiency-and cost cutting?
Is the employee inventive? Does he or she offer practical constructive
criticism?
•
Unsatisfactory - Lacks confidence and ability to proceed along. .
Fair - Needs guidance or direction in the performance of majority
of duties or assignments. - -
Satisfactory - Able to proceed alone in the performance of routine
duties or assignments.
Good - Resourceful and alert; shows constructive thinking in the
performance of duties or assignments.
Excellent - Highly- creative and constructive; plans and suggests
improvements in assigned or related duties;
JUNE26.6 -
439
MINUES OF THE JUNE 26, 1985 MEETING
This section shall not be construed-as limiting the Town Manager from
employing other means to fairly and effectively evaluate the performance of
Department Heads. -
SECTION II. All prior ordinances and resolutions in conflict are hereby
repealed.
85-95 - RESOLUTION - INITIATING AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE 8A-SIGNS OF THE LEESBURG
ZONING ORDINANCE -
WHEREAS, the Annexation Area Development Policies require the, consolida-
tion of Town and County sign regulations for the annexation area; and.
WHEREAS, the adopted East Market Street Urban Design- Study recommends re-
vising Townisign regulations to better promote Leesburg development objectives;
and
WHEREAS, the revision and consolidation of Town. sign- regulations is necessary
to promote public safety and welfare to facilitate the creation of a convenient,
attractive and harmonious community; and to protect property values:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED- by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as
follows:
SECTION I. A comprehensive amendment of Article- 8A- Signs- of the Leesburg
Zoning Ordinance is hereby initiated- as set out in the draft "Revision Draft of
Article 8A-Sign Ordinance" dated June 26, 1985.
SECTION II. This amendment upon its adoption shall replace Article-8A of
the Leesburg Zoning' Ordinance and Article 5, Section 523 of theiLoudoun County
Zoning Ordinance, as adopted and administered by the Town of Leesburg for the
annexation area
SECTION III. The Planning Commission shall-conduct a public hearing as
soon as permitted by law- and shall report its recommendations on the pro-
posed sign ordinance amendment to the Town Council within 60 days of its
public hearing.
85-96 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING THE TOWN ATTORNEY TO SUBORDINATE THE THIRD
DEED OF-TRUST ON THE McKIMMEY PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the Town received a 1.35 million- dollar Community Development
Block Grant to improve the South Harrison Street neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the relocation of the McKimmey business was an essential part
of the execution of the South Harrison Street plan; and -
WHEREAS, the Town contributed $40,000 in CDBG funds for this relocation
and accepted. a five:-Year third- deed of trust to insure the establishment of
this business for five years; and
WHEREAS, McKimmey wishes to increase his deed of trust; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Attorney advises said subordination will not
materially increase the town' s exposure with respect to recovery of funds
if McKimmey relocates within the next three years:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows: ' -
•
The Town Attorney is directed to subordinate the third deed of trust on
the McKimmey property to the Sovran Bank. -
85-97 - RESOLUTION - RELEASING A DEED OF TRUST FOR PUBLIC IMPROVMENTS IN
PARCEL M ,
WHEREAS, a development plan was approved for Parcel M in 1977 by the
Leesburg Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the plan- showed certain public improvements, exclusive of. impr-ove-
ments to Tuscarora Creek; and
JUNE26.7
440
MINUTES OF THE JUNE .26, 1985 MEETING
WHEREAS, the contract for public improvements was approved and
extended for a one year period of five occasions; and
WHEREAS, the contract for public improvements expired on January 1, 1985
and there is no practical- value to this deed of trust as it guarantees public
improvements not now contemplated; and
WHEREAS, the trustee for Harvest Square (formerly Parcel M) has executed a
letter of agreement to construct the Tuscarora Creek Channel Improvements:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
The Town Attorney is directed to release the first deed of trust in the
amount of $106,072.00 for part of Parcel M.
85-98 - RESOLUTION - MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FOR FINAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR
THE FOXRIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
WHEREAS, the August 24, 1981 agreement between the Town and Alfred A.
Perry, et.al. , regarding the Foxridge Subdivision requires the town to ensure
the final design and construction of the Foxridge neighborhood park; and
WHEREAS, the town issued a request for proposals for final park design
services on May 21 , 1985; and
WHEREAS, four proposals for these services were received and reviewed;
and
WHEREAS, Patton, Harris, Rust and Associates submitted an outstanding
proposal:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
SECTION I. An appropriation is made from the FY 85 General Fund,
unappropriated fund balance, to account no. 4301 .703, Neighborhood Park, in
the amount of $10,000
85-99 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A STANDARD PURCHASE ORDER FOR CONSULTING
SERVICES FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF
GOVERNMENT FOR ASSISTANCE WITH TOWN PLAN ISSUES
WHEREAS, a proposal- was received from Mr. Russ Linden, Director of
Executive Programs for the University of Virginia Institute of Government
on June 10 to assist the Council in the consideration and adoption of a
town plan; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of a Town Plan to replace the town' s• current 1973
Comprehensive Plan is a priority project of this Council; and
WHEREAS, professional assistance is desirable to expedite an effective
exchange of ideas among the Council, manager, staff during the con-
sideration of the town plan; and
•
WHEREAS, this Council desires to incorporate strategic planning concepts
within the Town Plan document.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as
follows:
The manager is directed to execute a standard purchase order with the
University of Virginia Institute of Government to provide professional
consulting services to the Town of Leesburg in accordance with their proposal
dated June 10, 1985 for a professional fee of $2,200.
JUNE26.8
441
MINUTES OF THE JUNE 26, 1985 MEETING
85-100 - RESOLUTION - APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF CATOCTIN VIEW CLUSTER
SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the Town Council has authority to approve cluster subdivisions
under Section 13-59(e) of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations;
and
WHEREAS the preliminary plat of Catoctin View Subdivision was approved
by Council Resolution number 83-230 on December 12, 1984; and
•
WHEREAS, the final plat for Catoctin View Subdivision meets the
requirements of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
The final plat of Catoctin View Subdivision is approved contingent upon
final construction drawing approval by the Director of Engineering.
85-101 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT, APPROVING A PERFORMANCE
GUARANTEE FOR INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND
APPROVING WATER AND SEWER EXTENSIONS FOR CATOCTIN VIEW
CLUSTER SUBDIVISION
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The manager is authorized to execute on behalf of the Town
an agreement with Capitol Investors Development for installation of public
improvements shown on the plans approved by the Director of Engineering for
this subdivision.
SECTION II. The extension of municipal water and sewer for this sub- -
division is approved in accordance with Sec. 15-9 and 19-18 of the Town Code.
SECTION III. An irrevocable bank letter of credit in a form approved by
the town attorney from Suburban Bank of Bethesda, Maryland in the amount of
$279,089 is approved as security to guarantee installation of the public impro-
vements shown on plans approved by the Director of Engineering for this
subdivision.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, 'Curry; Hill, Kelley, Tolbert, Williams and Mayor Sevila.
¶VybasN?Fen requested that a staff member comment on the Ordinance
amending the Zoning Ordinance with regard- to parking requirements in the H-1
Historic District. Martha Semmes commented as follows: Currently if you are
within 500 feet of a municipalparking lot- you do not have to provide off-
street parking if you develop or build a- new building. The amendment-would
state that you either have to provide the parking or pay an in lieu -fee
that would go into a 'town parking fund that- would be used for planning,
acquiring, designing and developing off street parking facilities. This
would now apply to the entire historic district rather than just buildings
within 500 feet.
85-0-14 AN ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING
PARKING REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE H-1 HISTORIC DISTRICT
On a motion by Mrs. Hill and seconded by Mr. Tolbert the following ord473::,,
nance was proposed;and unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, on May 22, 1985, this Council initiated the following proposed
amendment 'to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance and set a date for a joint public
hearing with the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on June 12, 1985 the Council and Planning Commission held the-
joint hearing pursuant to Section 15. 1-431 of the Code of Virginia as amended;
and •
WHEREAS, on June 20, 1985, the Planning Commission recommended to Council
approval of the proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, this Council finds- that the following amendment is required by
public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice;
'THEREFORE ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
JUNE26.9
442
MINUTES OF THE JUNE 26, 1985 MEETING
The Zoning Ordinance is amended to read that rather than providing
required off-street parking on-site due to- a change of use, expansion of an
existing use, or new construction, developers of land within the H-1 Historic
District may provide a portion or all of such parking by means of payment
to the town' s:•parking fund. This will be in the form of- a one time payment
per space and no refund will be made if there is a change requiring less
parking.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Hill, Kelley, Tolbert, Williams and
Mayor Sevila.
Nay: None
Mayor- Sevila then requested that Planning Director, Martha Semmes
explain the resolution establishing an in-lieu parking fee for parking
requirements in the H-1 Historic District.
Ms. Semmes said this specifies that the in-lieu parking fee would be
established from time to time by resolution of Council. This resolution
sets the fee at $1600 per parking space. This is payable prior to issuance
of a zoning permit.
On a motion by Mrs. Hill and seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed and adopted:
85-102 - RESOLUTION - ESTABLISHING AN IN-LIEU PARKING FEE FOR PARKING
REQUIREMENTS IN THE H-1 HISTORIC DISTRICT
WHEREAS, adequate parking is essential to the viability of business and
tourism in the downtown historic district; and . -
•
WHEREAS Section 2-7 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance requires the pro-
vision of off-street parking in conjunction with certian development acti-
vities, and
' WHEREAS, Section 2-7-1(c) of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance provides that
developers within- the H-1 Historic District may provide- a portion or all
required off-street parking by means of an in-lieu payment to a town parking
fund, such payment to be based on a fee to be established from time to time by
resolution of this Council:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in- Virginia
as follows:
The parking fee will be set at this time at $1600 per parking space in
lieu of providing required- off-street parking within the H-1 Historic
District-. The fee shall be! paid• to the- town in one- lump-sum prior to the •
issuance of a zoning permit. Funds derived from these fees shall be depo-
sited in a special account to be used exclusively for the purpose of
planning, designing, acquiring and developing parking.
Mr. Williams commented that he was not-sure that you could have two
motions on the floor at the same time. •Mayor:Sevila said he was Con-
sidering both items as a limited consent motion.
Mr. Bos commented that he hoped this didn' t backfire and that he didn't
think we would get much money and that we should look toward other alternatives
for the parking in the historic district.
Mayor Sevila said that part of a building or green space could poten-
tially be- taken away in an avoidance factor of paying this fee. Staff will
have to monitor this closely.
Aye: • Councilmembers Bos,' Curry, Hill, Kelley, Tolbert, Williams and
Mayor Sevila. -
•
Nay: None
JUNE26. 10
443
MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 1985 MEETING •
On a motion by Mr. Tolbert and seconded by Mrs. Hill, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted.
• 85-103 . RESOLUTION — MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE LEESBURG AIRPORT COMMISSION
WHEREAS, David Moyes has resigned from the Airport Commission effective
immediately, and
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Town Council and Airport Commission have unanimously
endorsed the following appointment:
THEREFORE RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as
follows:
The following appointment is made. to the Leesburg Airport Commission for
the term indicated herein:
Meredith Royston, Jr. is appointed for a term expiring June 30, 1986.
Mr. Williams said Mr. Royston was an excellent choice for the Commission
and he feels that the Airport will be a great economic asset to the town."
Mr. Sevila is encouraged by the communitywide interest in the Airport
Commission and the appointments to it.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Kelley, Hill, Tolbert, Williams and
Mayor Sevila.
Nay: None.
On a motion by Mrs. Hill and seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
proposed resolution was unanimously adopted:
85-104 — RESOLUTION — MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The following appointment is made to the Board of Architectural Review
for the term indicated herein:
Sally Rich is appointed for a term expiring June 30, 1988.
Mr. Williams pointed out that his own observation is that Mrs. Rich
replaces Mr. Brownrigg and wanted to say that Mr. Brownrigg has done an
excellent job for the past twenty years on this Board. He feels that Mrs.
Rich will have the insight to serve on this Board in a positive capacity. .
Aye: . Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Hill, Kelley, Tolbert, Williams and'
Mayor Sevila.
Nay: None.
On a motion by Mrs. Hill and seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
proposed resolution was unanimously adopted:
85-105 — RESOLUTION — MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the present terms of the members of the Economic Development
Advisory Committee are due to expire on June 30, 1985;
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
All current members of the Economic Development Advisory Committee are
reappointed to the committee for a term of three years, pursuant to. Section
5.2 of the Town Code, said terms to expire June 30, 1988.
The Councilmanic member shall serve on this committee for his Council
term.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Hill, Kelley, Tolbert, Williams and
Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
JUNE26. 11
444
MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 1985 MEETING
NEW BUSINESS LEGISLATION
On a motion by Mrs. Hill and seconded by Mr. Bos, the following pro.-
posed resolution was unanimously adopted:
• 86-106 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT, APPROVING A PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE
FOR INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING
WATER AND SEWER EXTENSIONS FOR EXETER HILLS SUBDIVISION,
SECTION 4.
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The manager is authorized to execute on behalf of the town an
agreement for installation of public improvements shown on the plans
approved by the Director of Engineering for the Exeter Hills Subdivision
Section 4.
The extension of municipal water and sewer for the Exeter Hills
Subdivision, Section 4 is approved.
An irrevocable bank letter of credit from Providence Savings and Loan
Association in the amount of $193,256 is approved as security guarantee
installation of the public improvements shown on the plans.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Hill, Kelley, Tolbert, Williams and
Mayor Sevila.
Nay: None
On a motion by Mrs. Hill and seconded by Mr. Kelley, the following
resolution was unanimously adopted:
85-107 - RESOLUTION - SUPPORTING THE TRANSFER OF DULLES AND NATIONAL AIRPORTS
TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Dulles and National Airports are the only civilian airports
in the nation that are owned and operated by the federal government; and
WHEREAS, the Secretary of Transportation has appointed the Holton
Commission to explore the feasibility of transferring Dulles and National
Airports to the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Holton Commission has recommended that- in order to maintain •
and improve these airports a substantial capital investment is required; and
• WHEREAS,' the "federal government does not intend to fund these needed
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the 1985 Virginia General Assembly agreed to finance the improve-
ment as part of a transfer agreement; and
WHEREAS, Dulles and National Airports are cornerstones of Northern
Virginia's economic development efforts.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows: -
The transfer of Dulles and National Airports from the federal govern-
ment to the Commonwealth of Virginia has the full support of the Leesburg
Town Council.
The manager is hereby directed to transmit copies of this resolution
to Congressman Wolf and Senators Trible and Warner.
Mr. Williams amended the resolution to include a copy be transmitted to
Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Transportation.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Hill, Kelley, Tolbert, Williams and
Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
JUNE26. 12
445
MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 1985 MEETING
NEW BUSINESS
'i
Mr. Minor reported that the budget this year included $25,000 for the
East Market Stieet project. Mr. Blake came in with the low bid of $8,100.
The funds were budgeted but have not been appropriated.
On. a motion by Mrs. Hill and seconded by Mr. Kelley, the following
resolution was unanimously adopted:
85-108 - RESOLUTION - MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FOR LANDSCAPING SERVICES FOR
EAST MARKET STREET
WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg and the Environmental- Advisory Commission
adopted a study- entitled the "East Market Street Urban Design Study" to
improve the appearance of the primary entrance ,to town; and
WHEREAS, the Town wishes to continue landscape improvements along East
Market Street; and ,
WHEREAS a request for proposal for landscape improvement has been
received by Blake Landscaping which is the low bid.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows:
An appropriation is made from the FY 1985 General Fund, unappropriated
fund balance to Account 7102.701 , Market Street Improvements in the amount
of $9,315.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Hill, Kelley, Tolbert, Williams and
Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Mr. Minor addressed the floor regarding the VEPCO tract property and
the Market Station agreement. There has been some difficulty in closing on
the sale of the residential portion of the- VEPCO- tract. There were title
problems related to the language used in the agreement. The marketing- plan
is- no longer a problem. It is uncertain whether legislation is required.
The legislation that was addressed earlier need not be acted upon. The
Council may want to consider authorizing the following statement:
"Ask the town for certification of construction- of a project con-
sisting of fourteen townhouses on• 32,902 square feet of land has
been begun within the time- required in paragraph 4 on page 8 of
the sales contract and development contract of the Town of Leesburg
and Market Square Associates,- Inc. dated May 24, 1985, and that- said ,.,-„ ;.._
32,902 square feet of land therefore cannot revert to the Town of
Leesburg pursuant to paragraph 8a on page 11 of said contract” -
Mr.
ontract" _Mr. Martin has reviewed this, and the project has begun. - A- resolution
needs to be considered so that the town manager may sign the necessary ,
document.
The following resolution was proposed on a motion by Mrs. Hill and
seconded by Mr. Williams.
JUNE26. 13
446
MINUTES OF THE JUNE 26, 1985 MEETING
RESOLUTION - VEPCO TRACT SALES CONTRACT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
The manager is directed to certify to First American Bank that the deve-
loper of parcel 3- of the VEPCO tract has satisfied- paragraph 4 on- page 8 of
the Agreement dated May 24, 1985 to the Town of Leesburg and Market Square
Associates, Inc.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Curry, Hill, Kelley, Tolbert, Williams and
Mayor Sevila.
Nay: None
On a motion by Mr. Kelley and seconded by Mr. Williams the meeting was
adjourned.
Eul
rn•% '.
Mayor
Clerk of •ouncil
•
r •
•
tnr
.