Loading...
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 .