HomeMy Public PortalAbout1988_07_13SPEC17
MDIUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL
July 13, 1988
A special meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held on July 13, 1988 at 7:30 p.m., in the
Council Chambers, 10 Loudoun Street, S.W., Leesburg, Virginia pursuant to notice thereof having been
delivered to all councilmembers prior thereto, for the purpose of conducting three separate advertised
public hearings. #ZM-99 - Washington -Vagina Traditional Development Sites, Inc., Special Exception
#77-1 - Ward Corporation and the Vacation of the Building Restriction Line on Lot 9, Section 4 of
Leesburg Estates Subdivision. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Robert E. Sevila with the
invocation given by Councilmember Tolbert and the Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Christine
Forester. Present were; Mayor Robert E. Sev" Councilmembers Christine Forester, Donald A.
Kimball, Claxton E. Lovin and John W. Tolbert, Jr. Absent was Councilmember James E. Clem. Also
present were Town Manager Jeffrey H. Minor, Director of Planning, Zoning and Land Development
Martha Mason Semmes and Deputy Town Attorney Deborah Welsh.
PUBLIC HEARING ON #ZM-99 WASHINGTON -VIRGINIA TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SITES
INC. (LEESBURG SOUTH)
r Martha Semmes presented a staff report on #ZM-99 Washington -Virginia Traditional
N Development Sites, Inc. stating that this represents the fourth public hearing on Leesburg South. The
W Leesburg South project includes 455 single family dwelling units, 331 townhouses, 214 multi -family
m units and 100 proposed elderly housing units. The project also includes 200,000 square feet of
commercial development and 442,000 square feet of office development including a hotel site. The
Q town has received signed and notarized proffers which include, transportation proffers to do some offsite
road construction to Route 15, a cash contribution for offsite roads, including $1,000.00 per dwelling
unit and $1.00 per square foot for the non-residential development. Also proposed is a $100,000 lump
sum contribution to the fire and rescue service as well as a $25.00 per dwelling unit, annual
contribution to the fire and rescue services. The property includes the dedication of a 15 acre
elementary school site, which is in conformance with the Town Plan, as well as some park land and
a proposed recreation center. The project, in relation to the current comprehensive plan, does exceed
t the plan in the area of non-residential development. The housing mix does not quite meet the town
plan housing mix goal of 50% single family, 30% town house and 20% multi -family.
Another issue that the town has not dealt with, and is of concern to the citizens, includes
providing buffers from both existing and proposed single family homes from the major roads that
surround this development.
Mayor Savile asked the status of the 100 proposed elderly units. Mrs. Semmes stated that there
is a proffer which speaks to the elderly units, but the town's attorney has not had a chance to
adequately review the proffer.
Peter Kalaris - representing Washington -Virginia Traditional Development Sites, Inc., addressed
the Council. He stated that the rezoning team met with staff in the fall of 1986 to identify some of
the major issues in this application, followed by the sketch plan application, then followed by the
concept plan filing in April At this time, the toll road issue became a live issue in the Town of
Leesburg and has been an issue that has "dogged" this application from the beginning. The Planning
Commission approved this plan on October 1, 1987, in concept plan form. There were several
conditions to that approval and the only major condition that was not met, was the location of
Battlefield Parkway. This application has been before the town for many months, and the applicant
is confident that any issues that may arise, can be worked out with the Council.
John Picard representing the applicant, addressed the Council and described the general layout
of the development and where the activities and uses will occur. The development has been organized
into two major sections. A non-residential section, towards the north and the residential community
towards the south. These two major activities are separated by a collector road. Within the residential
community there are a number of residential units. primarily sinvlr. family units. These units are
deliberately oriented around the outside of the development so that it presents the lowest density to
the east, south and west. Towards the center of the project, the densities become slightly higher.
In combination, the park land and the YMCA site, within the development, are being proffered
in lieu of contributions to Ida Lee Park. The proposed shopping center is not a traditional shopping
center layout. We are trying to make both sides of the shopping center very attractive. The loading
for the shopping center will be from both ends of the center. In the back of the shopping center, there
is proposed some plazas' and a restaurant. Next to the shopping center, the elderly housing has been
deliberately located so that the elderly can walk to the shopping center, without having to cross any
streets. Next to the elderly housing is a site for a church and day care center. On the east side of the
lake, there will be some town house offices, 2 or 3 story for small businesses. North of Route 621 there
r
are a couple of sites, which have visibility from the bypass, that will be corporate offices. The school
site is on Route 621, opposite of the middle school and can be accessed by the trail system.
Mr. Lovin questioned the proposed hotel site and whether the applicant has decided what hotel
chain would be in this development. Mr. Picard stated that the hotel was not under active discussion,
at this point.
Mr. Kimball asked if there was access from the Battlefield Parkway onto Route 621. Mr. Picard
stated yes, this will be an intersection.
Mr. Tolbert questioned whether there would be a nursing home at the elderly housing site.
Mr. Picard stated that the elderly care facility would have nursing, a centralized cafeteria, some doctors
offices, and centralized meeting rooms.
Mrs. Forester questioned proffers 11, 12 and 13 stating that Mr. Picard did not address the
community center, tennis courts, pool and the tot lots. Mr. Picard responded by stating that there are
a couple of tot lots, one located in the center of the single family area, another located next to the park.
Another recreation focus will be located within the garden apartment complex. Mrs. Forester also
questioned the proposed buffering of the commercial from Route 15. Mr. Picard stated that the
applicant is proposing on the length of Route 15, to dedicate land for the widening of the road, so that
it becomes a four -lane facility with a median. There will be a landscaped, buffered area Mrs. Forester
asked how the $25.00 per unit, per year proffers for the fire and rescue services, would work. Peter
Kalaris responded to Mrs. Forester's question by stating that in addition to the $100,000 lump sum
donation, the applicant proposes to have a legal mechanism whether in the homeowners association
covenants or restrictive covenants, to insure that the homeowners would pay $25.00 per household,
per year for fire and rescue services.
Mayor Sevila stated that the applicant is very close to the maximum of 4 units per acre on the
residential part of the development. The Town Plan calls for a density of 2 to 4 units per acre. Mr.
Picard stated that the applicant is at 3.95 units per acre, which is close to 4. The base density is 2 and
the Town Plan calls for certain amenities, which hopefully entitles one to add density above the 2 units
per acre up to a maximum of 4 units per acre. The applicant believes that there are more than
sufficient density credits within this development to arrive at 4 units per acre. Mayor Sevila asked Mr.
Picard to describe the buffers along Route 621, Masons Lane and along Route 15. Mr. Picard stated
that the buffers proposed along the back of the existing homes on Route 621, vary in width, from a
minimum of 60 feet to a maximum of 120 feet. Within this area is proposed a foot path traiL On '
Masons Lane, 25 feet of landscaped buffers are proposed and tree screening is proposed for Route 15.
Mr. Kimball questioned the location of the shopping center asking if it would be more suitable
to locate the shopping center, further south, considering the development in this area Mr. Picard '
stated no, in that, the whole of the mixed use, non-residential component is placed in this area because
this is the narrow part of the site, where the traffic comes together. Further -more, if these uses in the
mixed use center are generating traffic shoppers would want to get onto regional roads as quickly as
possible. We do not want the traffic to have to go through the residential area at all. We want to get
the traffic onto the bypass as quickly as possible.
Mr. Lovin questioned the type of restaurant that would be located in the shopping center. Mr.
Picard stated it would be a "table cloth" type restaurant.
Mr. Minor made a correction in the Leesburg South Summary Statistics report, stating that it
was completed before the Council rezoned the Stratford Development. In terms of the Town Plan the
25
mixed use center would no longer show 0,000 square feet of commercial and 100,000 square feet of
office, because the mixed use center has already been designated on the Stratford property. Only one
mixed use center is shown in the Town Plan. In terms of retail and commercial, what would be
available, is a maximum of 50,000 square feet, which is a community shopping center.
Mr. Templar Titus, a resident of Mason Lane, addressed the Council stating that he favors the
Battlefield Parkway and the toll road concept. He respects the right of the developer to develop
Leesburg South and respects the responsibility of the Council He has studied the Leesburg South
development, with interest and stated that major concerns abound in this proposal. First are roads,
intersections and traffic flow. .qao rapro n. fr ..e...�..- -.fit .,�-u _ ,,; .t`_. t
•�Wv .. densitieG. Thbrd4
buffering and compatibility with the present communities and finally, the attitude of the applicant
toward the town and concerned citizens, surrounding this project. Mr. Titus briefly elaborated on each
of these concerns.
Mr. Hubbard Turner, a resident of 1107 Bradfield Drive, S.W., addressed the Council raising
an issue regarding the VDOT recommendations, which have not been presented to the public. The
public is entitled to see what VDOT is proposing and what the impact will be on this proposed
development. He recommended that this development be referred back to the Planning Commission.
1__�i9
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 1988 SPECIAL MEETING. i
Mr. William Wolf, who lives in Country Club Estates, said the back of his
house faces Route 15. He is not against planned communities - it does a great
service for the community, but it doesn't enhance Leesburg. Looking at this as
a total area, there would be residential on one side and a supermarket on the other,
with King Street running down the middle. He understood the parking lot would be
25 feet, with a total buffer of 100 feet. The supermarket will be higher than
the surrounding area and the lights will glow at night. So their back yards would
be glowing from the supermarket. They are being asked to accept this. His house
is presently worth upwards of $200,000 and he will lose half of its value when the
supermarket is in his back yard. This would be true of everybody around him. They
would be the losers. This would be like K -Mart is on East Market Street. Concern -
the traffic flow, he doesn't think Country Club Drive was designed to be a major
intersection. It is a connector road with two entrances. The purpose of the con-
nector road is to take the traffic off of Route 15 - it could become a major thoro-
fare. It is very naive to think parking will not spill over into their streets.
The proposed commercial square is bound to double and triple over the years. He
asked that the town reconsider their plan and think of the people in Country Club
and the effect it will have on their lives.
Mrs. Patti Muir of 1105 Bradfield Drive, agreed with the other people who
have spoken. She asked two of the planning staff who have dealt with developers
in the past and have had proffers established to protect their communities how
they dealt with this. This doesn't buy anything with them. These people have
homes and investments they have to protect. They haven't found anything that
couldn't be changed legally. Proffers are more delicate than in the past, but
they started talking about nursing homes and elderly care. This doesn't guarantee
the people of this community that any of these will come in here. There are a lot
of different levels of day care, etc. People in the community are starting::to_see
where the developers are not going to give. Your homeowners should control the
parks, not the people in Leesburg who are telling you about what they feel about
the Town Plan - look at the whole situation very closely.
Mr. Ben Lawrence, who lives in the first section of Country Club and who was
one of the original families moving in 1964, said this was a big farm with a lot
of cattle. He was proud to be a part of the new families. He was concerned as
' to whether the sites for the nursing home, the shopping center and the building
sites will be commercially sold and whether the land will be available to the pur-
chaser or the buyer. How much control will they have over all of this? Is a stop
light proposed from Country Club and Governor's Drive, along with a light that will
be located off of Clubhouse Drive? In Northern Virginia and Loudoun County, the
ratio of new families is 2.7 cars per family. This will give an indication of
what you can expect in traffic in the mornings and afternoons - 1100 at 2.7 cars =
3,000 cars per day. Will you provide any access into downtown Leesburg? Will
there be any way to go from your area to downtown Leesburg? He would recommend
that they send this back and that the VDOT proposal be brought to their attention
so that they will be aware of the lots proposed and where VDOT says they will go.
PIs. Pam Thompson said that between Country Club Drive and Governor's Drive,
there are approximately six homes on Route 15. Not one of them has been contacted
by the developer for an opinion. They have asked for a proffer. Any of them could
be asked what they think the impact will be on their homes. She would think there
would be more stress, because they are all right there.
Tom Muir felt this public hearing is child's play - the developers are making
sales against the community. Their job is to maximize the profit they can make by
selling this land. He explained several ways to do this. He doesn't want anyone
to be filled with bike paths, etc. - it is a flood plain. He would expect to
keep the land for a bridge, would hope to get Potomac Stores. He hoped someone
would have a day care center. They will probably take land from their side to widen
Route 15. Regarding buffers and trees, they are part of selling houses. He had
' never seen a development where the town has benefited in the long run from de-
velopment. With their proffers, they are out of here. This is swamp land - you
can't build on it. That is why they gave it to them. We have been told we will
like our new neighbors. Traffic won't increase - density is just right. They
leave us with what they leave behind. Don't try to fill them with buffers and
footpaths. Historically, statistics prove you wrong.
Carole Boehler said they were here on May 25th for a public hearing on build-
ing restriction lines. Several speakers talked about their large front lawns.
They and other residents along Mason's Lane don't have historic and large homes,
but they do appreciate the openness they have enjoyed for at least 20 to 25 years.
This was County land when they moved there and. since then, that land and other
land around them has been annexed to the town. As town land, they have a density
20
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 1988 MEETING.
of up to four homes per acre. What can be done legally and what is done would
be two separate things. It is easier for a developer to cram into the land all
that he can. If we continue to acquiesce to the developer on every square foot
available, we are soon in that quality of life. She asked that they require the
developers to comply with road size, to be consistent to those adjacent to that
development. This would see at least three-quarters to one acre lot size along the
perimeter of Leesburg South development adjacent to her across from the homes al-
ready there.
Dennis Boehler did not feel this is ready to go on. There are too many
changes - VDOT does not feel this should be passed until the citizens have an
opportunity to see what the developers are going to do in the way of changes.
The mixed use center is big - he was not sure there would be enough left for
anything else. He asked Council to "let the market decide". This is one of the
reasons we have planning commissions, zoning laws, etc. He believed the decision
rests with the Town of Leesburg. He would like to see the figures for the drain-
age across Mason's Lane - during the recent rains there -were three separate plcaes
where water runs across the road.
Alfred Phillips, who lives on 621 and has been there for 35 to 36 years,
said that when they started this they were promised a 100 -foot buffer behind
their home. Now they are down to 60. Why not an even number of 100 feet? They
have kept the four -lane highway away from the two schools and he hoped they would
keep it away from them..
Roy Smith would like to see this kept down to a two-lane road.
George Atwell, who has attended some 19 meetings on this application, said
there have been five public hearings and it still isn't right. He concurs with
just about everybody that has spoken. Where are some architectural renditions
that can show them what this will look like? They don't know because they let
somebody else design it. This is not a good application from many points, and
certainly not from a public relations point of view. With regard to the walking
path, how far are these single-family houses going to be from the school? This
has not been addressed. How are these youngsters going to walk across these four -
lane paths? The Battlefield Parkway report shown was delivered a couple of
months ago. He said he has been told that before these can be changed, the
Master Plan has to be amended and a public hearing held on it. Approving a de-
velopment such as this is paramount to amending it without due process.
Doug Rowell, 1205 Bradfield Drive, said that, until there is a real justifiable
need to modify the plan, we should follow along with it. Also, the location of
the road opposite Country Club is of concern to them. Surfacing any roads will
encourage traffic through the community in the entire southern sector of town.
Len Sutphin, of Mason's Lane, said there is a spring in the middle of the
field. Ten months out of the year it stays very damp. The other idea of having
a four -lane highway right in front of our house = everything is directed toward the
houses to be built. Everything around it will suffer.
Peter Kalaris, attorney for the developer, said they do not have answers
to all of these questions tonight, but they will try to answer them. He doesn't
agree with Mr. Minor concerning the joint review process initiated by the town
in February. They don't believe that activity by NV Land has changed the fact
that they are going after a mixed use center.
Mayor Sevila said the record will remain open for comments for ten days.
He received into the record a letter from Gary Lee James of 1103 Dailey Place,
S.W.
The public hearing was closed.
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, duly seconded, it was moved that this application
be sent back to committee (next Wednesday, July 20 at 4:30 p.m.). Ms. Semmes
said they need to take a close look at that part of the Zoning Ordinance that
provides these amenities. There really aren!t any guidelines. Mayor Sevila
commented that we really aren't sure that these amenities have worked to see
if we need some revisions. One is Ila, where you can get half that amount of
another 115 units, by giving up another 30 homes. We need some way of address-
ing that - we should be sure to get something of similar or equal value. He
was not sure this was our intent = perhaps now is a good time to work on it.
1
1
1
U
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 1988111EETING
PUBLIC HEARING ON SPECIAL EXCEPTION #88-1 - WARD CORPORATION
Planning Director Martha Semmes explained that this application is for an
outdoor storage yard and a special exception is required for such a use. The
applicant would enclose the area with a chain link fence in order to store gene-
ral plumbing supplies and related items. It would be screened from the pub-
lic by the building itself. It would be visible from our Airport property there
and is adjacent to our airport hangar facility. The applicant also proposes to
screen it with an eight -foot high board -on -board fence. He has been asked to submit
some drawings as to what the fenced area would look like.
Mayor Sevila suggested they work up a list of conditions the applicant should
adhere to. This could have some bearing on our decision in this matter. The user
is known in plumbing and is looking at an extension to our second building
of possibly 6300 feet of outside storage. This would have an 8 -foot high chain
link fence for structural support. There would be a gate for trucks to unload
material, which would basically be plastic pipe and conduit, and occasionally an
air conditioning unit that would probably be shipped out in a day or two. Council
started this process about 30 days ago. The tenant was pretty excited to find
our building. He showed them the space he wanted - down at the southern end of
the building they could literally "tuck" this into it. It is screened from the
right-of-way and is visible from the Airport t -hangar. Tree screening is already
in place and a pretty substantial berm on top of that. He was under the impression
they would be able to obtain approval tonight:. The tenant has a person who wants
twenty-five percent of his building. He asked if there is anything they can do
tonight? Terry Titus asked what the other users of this building think of this?
The one other tenant is very much in favor -of -this.
The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Kimball asked if this would promote any additional traffic that would impact
this? Mayor Sevila asked if staff has a recommendation on the proposed outdoor
storage? Mr. Minor said they definitely recommend this and can have legislation
for the July 26th meeting. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mrs. Forester,
this matter was referred to the Planning and Zoning Committee for its July 20
meeting at 4:30 p.m.
PTIRT.TC HEARING ON VACATION OF BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE ON LOT 9, SECTION
LEESBURG ESTATES:
Planning Director Martha Semmes explained that this vacates a 35 -foot build-
ing restriction line on Lot 9, Section 4, Leesburg Estates Subdivision, thus
reducing it to 25 feet. This will give him an additional 35 feet to'build on
the front of his house. Council has already done this for some of the lots in.
Leesburg Estates - some of the lots close to Country Club had 35 -foot building
restriction lines, which made it difficult to build a house. Several builders
asked for this at that time. They have changed this all along and will be happy
to get hold of Mr. Cochran and see if he is still interested. Mr. George Atwell
was in favor of this. Mayor Sevila also remembered a similar situation on Wood -
berry Road. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Kimball, Council voted
unanimously to refer this matter to the Planning and Zoning Committee on July 20
at 4:30 p.m.
Aye: Councilmembers Forester, Kimball, Lovin and Tolbert.
Nay: None.
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by :ors. Forester, the meeting was.adjourned
at 10'}5 p.m.
Clerk of Council
Robert E. Sevila, Mayor
21