HomeMy Public PortalAbout1990_01_23MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL
JANUARY 23, 1990
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Council Chambers, 10
Loudoun Street. S.W., Leesburg, Virginia on January 23, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called
to order by the Mayor, with the invocation given by Councilman Kimball and the Salute to the Flag
led by Councilman Lovin. Present were: Mayor Robert E. Sevila, Councilmembers James E. Clem,
Christine M. Forester, Donald A. Kimball, Claxton E. Lovin, William P. Mulokey and John W. Tolbert,
Jr. Staff members present were: Town Manager Jeffrey H. Minor, Director of Planning, Zoning and
Development Katherine Imhoff, Director of Engineering and Public Works Thomas A. Mason, Public
Information Officer Susan Farmer and Town Attorney George Martin. Planning Commission member
Ann Darling was also present.
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Kimball, the minutes of the regular Town Council
meeting of December 12, 1989 and January 9, 1990 were unanimously approved.
Nay:
Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
None
Petitioners
Mrs. Patti Muir, a resident of 1108 Bradfield Drive was present to petition the Council on a sign issue.
The sign was installed by the United Development Corporation at the entrance to the Country Club
Subdivision. It was to be cut down in size and then removed by this morning. As of today, the sign
still remains with only the wording on the face of the sign removed. The residents of the Country
Club Subdivision are upset with this sign. It is inappropriate in style and size. Mrs. Muir asked the
Council to order United Development Corporation to take the sign down.
Ms. Ann Morgan with United Development Corporation addressed the Council apologizing to the public
for offending the residents. She explained that the sign was supposed to be taken down today, but the
appropriate equipment was not available to remove the posts. It will be taken down tomorrow morning.
She asked what type of sign could be used, since one is badly needed. The Mayor stated that a sign
application through the appropriate channels of town staff was necessary. Mr. Minor explained that
the United Development Corporation (UDC) in their attempts to market Fairway Manor have put up
a sandwich board sign, which was promptly removed by Chief Kidwell. They have also used the small
trailblazer signs which get removed by various persons, such as the State police, garden clubs, etc.
Fairway Manor is not like a conventional subdivision, where it is mass-marketed or have a number of
directional signs. It is in the town's interest to get these homes sold. We want to do what we can to
facilitate the sales, within reason. This is an offsite sign and there is not a precise provision in the
Town Code that legally allows this sign. The town has a couple of these signs. One, for example,
advertises Tavistock Farms on the Stratford property. It is there because the Stratford people allow
it. it is attractive and temporary. If the town received a number of complaints about this sign, it would
be removed. These are the same conditions in which the UDC sign was granted. The sign was large
and unattractive and promptly generated a number of complaints. The sign will be taken down
tomorrow by town forces if the developer does not remove it. The Mayor noted that the county has
provisions for directional signs, which is clearly for the purpose of enabling people to market from main
highway properties. The Mayor would like to see UDC and staff work together to resolve this problem,
along with the citizens of Country Club. The Mayor suggested Ms. Morgan meet with the residents
present tonight to discuss the problem and inform town staff of the solution.
Frank Carney, a resident of 7 Country Club Drive said that the sign was put up in November and is
not in accordance with the ordinance. He is very upset with this matter. We have to know how to
live with each other to make a community. When you become a public servant, you have to know what
the citizen wants. You have to know how to respect it and do everything to make sure that the
ordinance and the laws are maintained. This is a distasteful sign and there are no other signs like it.
The residents of Country Club are opposed to it and it should come down and stay down until followed
through the governmental process.
Lee Wall, a resident of 303 Country Club Drive shares Mr. Carney's feelings but can also understand
the point of the real estate company. They need some continuity. Some guidelines or standards to go
by. There is another sign approximately 20 feet further down Route 15 which advertises the Linden
Hill Subdivision and is identical to the Fairway Manor sign. Mr. Minor stated that the Linden Hill sign
is on their property. It is an onsite, legal sign. The other sign is an offsite, illegal sign and not
provided for in the Town Code. Mr. Minor guaranteed the Country Club residents that the Fairway
Manor sign would be gone by tomorrow.
Sandy Carlson, a resident of 1105 Nickels Place in the Country Club Subdivision stated that she does
not like the sign and suggested putting a sign across the street from Country Club on Route 15. It
is open land and if the sign was done tastefully, this could be a solution. Mr. Minor stated that staff
explored this alternative and suggested it to UDC, but they indicated that because of the visibility it
would not work. The Mayor said that this is an unusual problem but is clearly the developer's
lVIINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1990
problem. The Council's first duty is to the residents.
Heidi Maiacarne a Country Club resident said that she has a problem with the temporary signs erected
in Country Club and asked Ms. Morgan if she would like to pick up a couple of temporary signs that
are littering private property.
Councilmember Kimball stated that the town's legislative body and town management body need to
consider equal treatment and the precedent it may set, as it relates to all types of development in the
real estate community. This is not an isolated case. There are others coming up all over the
community.
Public Hearing. #ZM-109 Edwards Landing
Ms. Imhoff - stated that this is a rezoning application, known in the past as Potomac Crossing South.
The Annexation Area Development Policy (AADP) has been very involved with the rezoning because
34 acres of this plan is currently in the county. There has been an agreement to allow ~ his property
to be annexed into the Town of Leesburg through a boundary line adjustment. The:'~ were some
conditions that go with this agreement and are currently under review by town and county legal staff.
Some of the conditions in this agreement are that there would be a limited number of lots within the
34 acres. Of the 34 acres, 31.8 acres of this land will be public and will be dedicated to the Town of
Leesburg. There has been a change in the alignment of the roadway in order to create more of a buffer
strip in this area. Staff has not yet had a chance to do an in depth review of the revised plan and
proffers. There have been some msjor changes. The number of units has been reduced from 420 to
407, which means the overall density has changed from 2.9 to 2.63 dwelling units per acre. There has
been a slight change in the housing mix. Previously 49% single-family and 51% townhouse. It is now
48% single-family and 51.6% Wwnhouse. This falls below the range of density that was approved in
the concept plan. This is a request to rezone 154.9 acres. Of the 154 acres, 10 are in the floodplain.
The Town Plan recommends a low density residential development pattern for this area with a range
of 2/up to 3 dwelling units per acre. Any justifications above the base density of 2 dwelling units per
acre must be approved through a recommendation by the Planning Commission and approved by the
Town Council. There are bonus densities that are outlined in the planned development section of the
town's ordinance. The site is heavily wooded, with some steep slopes, very attractive hard wood,
mature fores~ with some existing trails. The road alignment shown on the plan does conform with the
adopted Battlefield Parkway Alignment. The applicant has asked for more density then they need to
get the number of units currently proposed. The Planning Commission and staff feel that the plan does
meet the planned development regulations in terms of contribution of common and public open space.
Recreational improvements and contributions - 5% bonus density and preservation of slopes greater than
25% - another 5% bonus density. If these bonus densities are endorsed the total number of possible
units would be 433 which is beyond what the applicant is seeking. Ms. Imhoff further discussed the
plan and summarized the proffers. The Mayor stated for the record that there is a signed set of
proffers submitted before the public hearing.
Mr. Tom Nails, representing the applicant of the Edwards Landing rezoning stated that this matter
has been advertised accordingly and letters sent to abutting landowners pursuant to the applicable
ordinances. He recalled that there was a lot of discussion on this plan in regards to density. Shortly
after the Town Plan was amended to reflect a change in density, the applicant applied for the rezoning
of this tract of land. This revised plan, the applicant feels, is a vast improvement over where they
started approximately three years ago. They are pleased that the AADP committee did recommend that
the town/county move forward with the boundary line adjustment. Ms. Imhoff has accurately reflected
the evolution and the status of this plan. The applicant's purpose tonight is to provide the Council and
public with an overview of the plan, to solicit and receive input from the public and to answer any
questions.
Mr. Bill Neville, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates and representing the applicant addressed the
Council. This is a continuation of what the Town Plan recommends and is in conformance with the
planned development ordinance. Some of the revisions to the plan have focused on trying to make sure
that it is a continuous process, both in density and in the character of the development. He reviewed
a sketch that depicts the public space that will be dedicated for town use and the space that will be
available as part of the community itself as part of common open space. The recreational uses take on
the character of the land. There are a number of tot lots located within the townhouse areas. He
reviewed briefly the housing mix and Mghlighted on the plan how residents will be able to get from
their homes to the open space. The architectural character of the units in this development has been
clearly a concern of the town and is an important part of determining if a planned development is
appropriate in this location. The concern of the Town Plan is that this be a balanced residential
community. Our goal is to create one where people can afford to live. We will meet and exceed the
best of what the market is offering. He then showed some illustrations of the quality of the single-
family homes. The single-family lots are approximately 9,000 to 10,000 square feet. The two main
elements from a transportation standpoint on this site are Battlefield Parkway and access from the
bypass directly via Edwards Ferry Road. Another element that has been brought up is the impact on
environmental features on this site. There has been some msjor movement since the Planning
Commission's review of the plan. Mr. Tolbert asked how close the homes are to the Potomac River.
Mr. Neville explained approximately 2,000' to 2,500'.
Mr. Standish P. Kugler, a resident of 1303 Campbell Court addressed the Council. He has been a
resident of Leesburg for approximately 17 years and has worked for the Department of Environmental
Management Division of Design Review for Fairfax County, for 22 years. His main concerns are the
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1990
environmental impacts on Cattail Branch as it will impact the properties immediately downstream from
the Edwards Landing development. Damage to Cattail Branch in terms of siltation, erosion by
development, and toxic pollution. He maintains quarter horses on the property immediately
downstream. Cattail is the sole water point for his horses. He fears poisoning of the animals caused
by oil dumping, shade tree mechanics disposing of waste oil from automobiles, lawn fer~li~ing runoffs
or severe silting at construction phases. He referenced the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook. It is one of the bibles for protection of our environment from increased stormwater runoff
from developments. He read excerpts from General Criterion 7 and the Best Management Practice
(BMP) and referenced other publications. He requests from the Council a letter of intent from the
Town of Leesburg to the property owners immediately downstream from Edwards Landing. Also for
the Council to state their understanding of the environmental sensitivities that this constitutes. He
would like to see a statement of their assurance of environmental protection for Cattail Branch by the
tools and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. He would like the Council to require their
administrators to have the consultant and developer provide a stormwater management plan in
accordance with state regulations and in accordance with the BMP. The one item that might solve the
problem is a lake. A permanent impoundment placed on the property on Cattail Branch immediately
above the Dennis's property and those below it to protect it. A dam is the best insurance buffer that
we have to preserve the environment of the water quality of Cattail Branch. If the creek is poisoned,
then the animals will be poisoned. He hopes that Council is able to comply with his requests. Mayor
Sevila stated that at the last AADP meeting, the issue of downstream siltation, pollution and runoff was
discussed and we were assured that it would be addressed. Ms. Imhoff stated that the town is working
with county staff on this issue. The town does have erosion control in accordance with state law that
the town must follow. The Mayor said that the AADP committee did condition it's approval of the
proposed addition of the 34 acres on the town's ability to work out a solution to downstream problems.
Mr. Alfred Dennis, an adjacent resident to the proposed Edwards Landing project~ of 50 years, said that
the revision of the plan is infamently better. What we have seen with this plan is that the developer
has come back, again and again, seeking additional density. Considerably more than the town and
county had previously proposed. Developers have sought more density and as a result, they have
flipped these properties at a considerable profit which has raised the land in Leesburg to unprecedented
levels. In the last 2-3 years, the price of land in and around Leesburg has risen to an incredible degree.
That price has to be paid for by someone. You get less house for your money and less land with the
house. Leesburg is losing competitively to other areas in the county. He knows many people who are
moving westward because they are worried about the taxes. Each unit that is added to these properties
means a deficit in terms of taxes.
Mary Harris and her husband, reside on Cattail Run Farm and have lived there since 1.945. They are
very much opposed for the rezoning of Edwards Landing. They see the natural environment in this
area far superior. We should try to preserve as much as we can. We have just committed 160 acres
for ten years to an open space and forest agreement with the county. The Cattail stream runs through
our property and feeds into Goose Creek and the Potomac River. It is the main source of water for
our animals. In the last two years we have had to hire a professional bulldozer operator to remove the
silt from our section of the stream in order to keep it flowing. She referenced a letter she received
from the Department of the Army, Norfolk District Corp of Engineers, which states that a Department
of the Army permit does not authorize any injury to property and it is the permittee's responsibility
to protect all such rights. Increased density of housing and the accompanying paving means more
runoff and less land to absorb the water. We request that you deny application #ZM-109 for rezoning
from County R-1 to Planned Residential Neighborhood.
Mrs. Alfred Dennis addressed the Council on density. She has worked with Mr. Tolbert for years on
Keep Loudoun Beautiful. We know that with higher density, there will be more drugs, crimes,
accidents and traffic chaos. She is personally afraid of crossing Edwards Ferry Road and Route 15.
She knows that everyone is very interested in the beauty of Leesburg and Loudoun County and asks
Council to consider this matter.
Mr. Lovin asked that the public refrain from applauding.
Mr. Muloke.y said that he applauds everyone who has the courage to speak before the Council regardless
of what they have to say.
Mrs. Heidi Malacarne passed around, to the Council, some pictures of Potomac Crossing showing
pollution, erosion, siltation, improperly constructed silt fences and the overcrowded, closeness of the
homes. There have been a lot of complaints from Potomac Crossing residents which should be taken
into consideration. The Edwards Landing plan should not be approved based on the many conflicts
with the Town Plan, provisions of federal and state permits, soil limitations, existing vegetation, streams
and steep slopes, stormwater control, wildlife habitat, park land agreement and development and
inconsistencies in the plan itself. The fact that the Planning Commission unanimously denied approval
of this rezoning is one worth considering. It is difficult to ascertain why a plan for development in this
area, which is so unsuitable for development, was even considered. The liberal granting of bonus
densities is to further burden the unsuitability of the environment. This is not just a question of
impact on the environment. It is a question of the impact that the development will have on the
environment and the impact the environment will then have on the development once it exists. As the
pictures show, there is a definite impact. It is disconcerting to know that there has been ignorance of
federal regulation, environmental conditions and the Town Plan itself. It is important to know that
Leesburg has many wetlands which serve an important ecological function. It is up to the federal
government to decide whether a stream can or cannot be a wetland. President Bush said that there
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1990
will be no more net loss of wetlands. They are 'beefing up" on protecting these wetlands. Here is a
situation where wetlands are involved and the applicant did not come forward with the '~-alculation of
the total wetlands. He has not at this time applied for his permits. I called the Army Corp of
Engineers and after two months, a meeting was set up. These are the facts that were presented. The
applicant must calculate total wetlands. If over an acre will be affected in the developing of Edwards
Landing, then the applicant must go through the permit process. If the applicant does not file, yet
begins construction, the penalty of $25,000.00 per day could result. It is in the developer's best interest
to file at the rezoning stage because they may not be able to construct as many houses as planned.
Many banks require federal and state permits prior to loan approval on projects such as this. Other
municipalities require all federal and state permits prior to the rezoning stage. There are some
potential problems in regards to Edwards Landing. The neighboring PoWmac Crossing Phase I may
have filled over I acre in wetlands without a permit. This may affect phase II and HI. It is _difficult
to determine how much has been filled in. An important factor to note is that there may be a very
critical problem. It seems that the town nor the contractor of Battlefield Parkway has applied for
permits from the Army Corp of Engineers. The parkway alignment adopted by Council i~ September,
1989, states that the portion of Battlefield Parkway which bi-sects Edwards Landing mu? be bonded,
dedicated and built to full right-of-way. It appears that the fate of Battlefield Parkway is ~.~ the permit
process of the Corp of Engineers. The corp also requires an archeological survey - I wonder if one has
been completed. This is a quote from the Town Plan -.. "in order to seek harmony with the Wwn's
natural features, future growth must protect the areas sensitive environmental characteristics which
include steep slopes, problem soils, floodplain and watersheds and vegetation and airport noise." This
quote from the Town Plan was not used for direction in Edwards Landing. The Town Plan does not
encourage any kind of development on 15-20% slope, yet houses are proposed on 15-20% slopes. In
addition, there are problem soils - Class 4 soils. It is encouraged not to develop in these areas also.
We have areas of steep slopes with poor soils. Ms. Malacarne described the various types of soils and
discussed floodplains and watersheds. In regards to parMand - the acceptance or the actual dedication
of the parkland has not taken place. Yet bonus densities were granted for the open space proffer prior
to the acceptance. There is a tentative agreement for annexation but in order to proffer the land the
agreement must be ratified by both jurisdictions. When does this ratification occur. Has establishment
of fi;lfillment of responsibilities for providing and maintaining the parkland occurred. Will the
ownership really be the town. Ms. Betsey Brown suggested that the Regional Park Authority control
the land to the north and south. Can the town permit an increase in density for parkland when
dedication has not occurred. To complicate this problem, the town manager does not t~.:~k parkland
development is a priority, even though homeowners will pay for it in the price of their ~,::~'.~e. A letter
from Gary Huff to Ms. Imhoff - "as future proffered park and recreation appear we wouL.! ~.uggest that
recreation facilities be constructed along with initial development." The AADP agreed that development
of the park would be coordinated between the town, county and regional authority. As of last week,
the county park director had not seen the plan nor had the town's park director. There seems to be
an unresolved question about the actual provision of bonus density. For public improvement and fire
and rescue donations an increase of 5% bonus density was given. This means $200.00 per unit and
$100.00 per unit - 400 units times $200.00 times $100.00 equals $120,000.00 total donation. This does
not seem like a whole lot when unimproved lots may cost $120,000.00. She has several unanswered
questions that require answering before the decision is made on the rezoning. Will there be a
homeowners association for this subdivision. When does the town plan to update it's yard requirement
ordinance. Are the regional detention ponds shown on this plan the same regional stormwater areas
that are shown in the proposed Stormwater Management Master Plan that will cost taxpayers $2.5
million. Will the stormwater detention ponds be built prior to construction or will the ponds be
constructed with each phase. Will the detention ponds be enclosed by fencing and will the fencing be
screened. Why is the tot lot located near a stormwater management area. Will the police be able to
provide adequate protection to an increased population produced by this rezoning. The balance between
urbanization and environment has been tipped by the granting of bonus densities in an area where two
units per acre will cause irreversible damage. The future of Leesburg seems gloomy. I see many
existing and future problems based on a weak and inconsistent zoning ordinance, lack of respect for the
science of nature and ignoring the goals and objectives of the Town Plan. This rezoning should never
be approved.
Mrs. Patricia McMahan, a resident of 1308 Campbell Court in Potomac Crossing addressed the Council.
She explained that she and her husband had a very educational and interesting experience when they
purchased there home in Potomac Crossing. One concern is the affect of density on the services of
what the Wwn has to offer. Currently, Leesburg is served by volunteer fire and rescue services and
they do a fine job, but how long can we continue to depend on volunteers. How long can they depend
on commuters who are absent from the town during the day and are leaving vacant homes which is
what the m~jority of the Leesburg residents are doing. There is a tremendous impact on roads and
school services. The recreational facilities for PoWmac Crossing are contingent upon the sale of homes -
homes are not selling now. Our homeowners dues are based on the fact that we have these
recreational facilities now. We are paying the same amount of money as the people who will be moving
in five years from now. She suggests that the Wwn require an planned developments, proposing any
recreational facilities, to build these facilities up front This is the only way you can count on getting
them on time. This holds true for the roads and street lights. This whole area of Wwn is going to
become very densely populated in a short time and I am not sure that the town is prepared for the
amount of services that will be required from these residence. She also requests that the town get
specifics from the developer on what type and size of landscaping. Another concern in regards to
recreational facilities and their installation, the town needs to determine who is going to pay for them
and thier operation until enough homes are sold so that they can be self sustaining. These are
problems that the homeowners in Potomac Crossing are experiencing. She heard tonight that
Battlefield Parkway is going to have a trail and bike area. Battlefield Parkway is going to be a road
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1990
that will circle Leesburg - the speed is going to be 35 MPH - I have concerns about anybody riding a
bike along it. These proposed homes and townhouses are going to be very expensive. What are we
looking at for our children to live in.
Michael McMahan, a resident of 1308 Campbell Court addressed the Council. A large issue in Leesburg
has recently been the proposed zoning ordinance. The business community claimed that all the town
is out for is proffers. The proffers on the Edwards Landing plan consist of the 34 acres of parkland,
which is basically steep cliffs that are not going to be a usable park. Battlefield Parkway is proposed
to be 4 lanes, the developer is going to pay for two of the 4 lanes, which means it is going to cost the
taxpayers of Leesburg a fortune to build the other two lanes. Another issue is density - when it was
before the Planning Commission they questioned the steep slopes - why are we giving this percentage
for steep slopes for additional density. You cannot build on steep slopes. In terms of traffic congestion
- it will be 10 to 15 years before the Route 7 Corridor Plan is implemented - if ever. In the meantime
we will have chaos on the Route 15 bypass. Another concern is wetlands. It seems that there needs
to be a lot more work done to this plan in these terms, before it is approved.
Mr. Bob Snyder - representing Rehau Incorporated was here tonight to listen to the concerns of the
citizens and to also listen to the proposed Edwards Landing in terms of how it affects Rehau. He is
concerned with some of the environmental impacts that were discussed this evening. He is involved
with finding affordable housing for employees of Rehau. He is very concerned because he has been
unable to find affordable housing for them in Leesburg. In terms of Edwards Ferry Road and Route
15 - to make a left hand turn or to go straight ahead across the bypass, everyone knows that everyday
someone's life is in danger. This is a concern to everyone. He hopes that these concerns are taken
into consideration. Rehau will be watching this very closely to see it's impact.
Peter Mitchell, the farm manager at Murray Hill Farm on Edwards Ferry Road was present tonight
on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Paul Sheetz who are out of town. He spoke in opposition to the proposed
increase in density for the Edwards Landing development. Mr. Mitchell and his wife are the managers
of Loudoun Lamas one of the leading Lama farms in Northern Virginia and on the east coast. We have
recently completed a large barn to accommodate the future growth of our herd. It has been a very
substantial investment. Across the road is Mr. Figg who has planted Christmas trees on his land. To
the west are the Harris' who have dedicated 100 acres of land to common open space. They also have
a landscape nursery, as well as horses. In a sense, what we have is a farming community. The town
is planning to put in all of these houses, armpit to elbow - this density is not necessary. This
development will impact us. The deer population is a main concern that we have. The deer carry a
snail in them and when the deer pass the snail and it is ingested by the Lamas, the Lamas get what
is called meningeal worm, which can be fatal. As this development progresses the deer will be pushed
up to our land. He asks Council to not allow any more density then what the town has to give the
developer. The Sheetz have been farming this land for over 50 years. We ask that the town place a
buffer as large as possible - 200 feet is not adequate.
Mr. Norman Terry, a resident of 826 Balls Bluff Road stated that he is an elected member of the
Potomac Crossing homeowners association and after hearing some of the discussions concerning
stormwater management, he is mad. We as new buyers, expect the town to look out for our
investments. We are moving into a new area and do not know all of the "why nots" of this area. If
we are not going to the federal government, we should be and we should be seeking the advice and
help of professional people. It seems that an individual citizen has done more research then the Town
Council and the planning and zoning committees. We will remember these things at election time.
The Mayor wished to invite Mr. Terry to the appropriate committee meeting when the issues raised
here tonight will be responded to. You will find that your staff and Council has been at work and most
of the questions that have been raised have been addressed in various ways in the past. The public
hearing was closed. Mayor Sevila said the Council will receive public comment in writing for a period
of ten days. On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, this matter was referred to the
Planning and Zoning Committee on February 7, 1990.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Public Hearing. #ZM-110 Kincaid Farm
Ms. Imhoff stated that this is a request to rezone 186 acres from County PDIP to town planned
residential neighborhood. The applicant is proposing 298 single-family homes, 203 townhomes and
20,040 square feet of retail commercial space. This is a proposed density of 2.84 dwelling units per
acre. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application. This property is located
off of Lawson Road bounded by the W&OD and Tavistock Farm planned development. The applicant
is requesting 501 units bonus densities which will have to be approved in order to obtain that density.
We can support the requested bonus densities for construction of the pavilion on parcel A. The proffers
speak about dedication of that acreage and the type of water and sewer and restrooms. Also in the
proffers is offsite regional road contributions - a 5% bonus density is recommended. There is a
$1,500.00 per unit contribution to offsite road improvements. The total is over $800,000.00. A
contribution to Ida Lee Park, a proffering of a tree preservation plan, a provision for a comprehensive
trail system and the applicant has also proffered development of ultimate channel designs on stormwater
and drainage control on this property. These proffers have not been reviewed by ~ nor have they
been approved by the town attorney. The applicant has taken on full responsibility for providing four
lanes and the right-of-way for six lanes of Battlefield Parkway.
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1990
Mr. Joe Trocino, the staff consultant for First Potomac Development Corporation addressed the Council.
He feels that planned developments, like this project, are a public and private partnership. We have
worked very hard on this innovative plan and have followed the guidance of the Town Plan. The
density range of 2.8 is a fair density and gives us the flexibility to be good designers.
Mr. Bill Neville, an engineer with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates addressed the Council. He
explained that the residential density range of 2-4 units per acre is at the half way mark if not below.
The most important feature has been the environmental and natural characteristics of the land. We
have a major feature in the W&OD trail and Tuscarora Creek. There was a concern if the singie-
family homes would have a recreation area and a certain amount of open space. The developer has
provided significant open space and a commitment to build recreational facilities in that area. The
community design has settled into a theme of being a walkable community. Mr. Neville passed out a
booklet that commits to the style and quality of building materials that will be used. We believe that
our package of proffers are quite extensive and are a very fair approach to recognizing our responsibility
in this area of Wwn. Our transportation improvements include the construction of Baalefield and
reference a full six lane section. There will be a homeowners association, which is in¢iuded in the
proffers.
Mr. Clem questioned the basic size of the proposed lots. Mr. Neville explained that the townhouse lots
would be a minimum 20' wide. Single-family minimum is 9,000 square feet, the average is 11,800 and
goes up to about 14,000.
Mr. Kimball asked what schools would service this area. Mr. Neville stated Cool Spring Elementary
and Simpson Middle School.
Mayor Sevila asked if a traffic analysis has been performed on Kincaid Boulevard that would show
potential offsite uses. Mr. Neville explained that the road system has been studied in detail in the
transportation report. The Mayor's concern is the potential conflict between the road serving as an
internal spine road within the development. Mr. Neville said that this road has been designed and
planned to be a regional road. The Mayor asked what will happen to the intersection of Battlefield
Parkway - it is shown at an at-grade T. Doug Kennedy, also with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates
came forward to answer the Mayor's question. He explained that they modeled in development south
in the County and show acceptable levels of service at this intersection. Mr. Neville, in conclusion,
wished to press upon the general public that the town does have a very strong set of regulations and
requirements that will control and enforce the features that have been suggested. Town staff has
brought a lot of the technical issues up front and into the zoning process.
Mr. Minor noted that Mr. Neville's firm does a lot of work in other jurisdictions and asked Mr. Neville
if he would characterize the review that he received in the Town of Leesburg, as more stringent, as
stringent as, or less stringent than some of the other jurisdictions. Mr. Neville stated that the Town
of Leesburg has the advantage of being a size that can pay attention to the level of detail that the other
counties wish they could pay attention to. This is a real advantage of having a good, strong town
government and town staff that can look at the details of each individual project. The general feelings
are they are very strict regulations, a very tight review process which is often a real challenge for us.
The town is very concerned with details and making sure that these things get worked out right.
Mrs. Heidi Malacarne thinks this plan is more in line with the needs of the community. She spoke
on this plan this summer and some of the needs that she spoke on were addressed by the developer.
She appreciates this. She is somewhat concerned with the rezoning from industrial to residential, with
two of the major businesses leaving the Town of Leesburg and locating in other areas of the County.
There aren't too many industrial areas left. We moved from Pennsylvania to Leesburg and found that
it was cheaper to rent in Herndon than in Leesburg. Affordable housing is an issue. The developer
is receptive to my request of affordable housing, whereas, the town was not. She reminds the town
that this area has Class 4 soils, poor soils. Tuscarora Creek is a headwaters of the United States and
that possibly the construction of the bridge will impact those headwaters. She asked if there are any
wetlands in this area because nobody in this room can determine or is certified to determine whether
there are wetlands. She spent 4 hours with the Army Corp of Engineers to go over this. She must
go on public record and then if somebody does not apply for their permits and begins filling in the
wetlands, it is up to her or some other citizen to call. No other body or person except the Army Corp
of Engineers can make that determination.
Mayor Sevila said that his understanding of wetlands is the presence of certain vegetation, certain
hydric soils and certain types of animal life. Is this so mysterious that no consultant can determine
the presence of wetlands. Mr. Mason explained that there are many capable people not working for
the Corp of Engineers that can follow the same criteria and process. According to the legislation, the
final determination is left up to the Corp of Engineers. There are a number of different types of
wetlands. What other experts may determine does not always turn out to be what the Corp of
Engineers determine. The Mayor said that when the presence of these indicators is found or
determined by a capable consultant then the corp is called to determine, yes or no, on wetlands. Mr.
Mason said that the proof is upon the developer to show the town that he does not need a permit. The
Mayor asked, to Mr. Mason's knowledge, with respect to Potomac Crossing Phase I, were there
determined to be wetlands. Mr. Mason answered no. Are there any with respect to Kincaid Farms.
Mr. Mason said this determination is usually handled at the final subdivision stage. Mr. Minor added
that the language that the town uses for proffers, conditions lot size, lot layout and density on the town
being permitted to modify those densities if engineering or other regulations dictate that those be
modified.
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1990
Mr. Lovin commented on one of the allegations made by one of the speakers that two major
employment centers in Leesburg, the county government and hospital, were moving out of town. I
don't share the finalness of the speaker's thought. Her view is that the county has already left and
the hospital is right behind them. There are three locations being considered by the county government
and one is in the Town of Leesburg. I am optimistic, along with everyone on this Council and the
citizens that have worked hard to retain the county seat in Leesburg. To publicly state that it is
moving out of town is one perception, I do not share that perception. We will be speaking with the
hospital and everybody on this Council is going to hope that we can also accommodate the Loudoun
Health Center within the Town of Leesburg. I felt very depressed to hear someone say that they have
already written both of these employment centers off. Mr. Minor stated that immediately next to the
Kincaid Farm property is about 5 million square feet of office and industrial land that is already zoned.
It is a myth to think that there is not a tremendous amount of zoned industrial and commercial land
in the Town of Leesburg.
The public hearing was closed. Mayor Sevila said the Council will receive public comment in
writing for a period of ten days. On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mrs. Forester, this matter was
referred to the Planning and Zoning Committee on February 7, 1990.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Councilmember Comments
Mr. Muloke¥ in view of the hour, forewent any comments.
Mr. Lovin and Mr. Kimball were present at the past Listening Session, where several citizens were
present. It was a nice opportunity to talk with them.
Mr. Clem and Mayor Sevila had the opportunity to attend the graduating class, of 17 students, at the
Loudoun Country Day School. He complimented Officer Taylor for the fine work that he is doing with
the DARE Program.
Mr. Kimball reported that on Thursday, in his neighborhood, there was a water problem. He wished
to compliment Mr. Shoemaker and his crew for handling the situation very efficiently and effectively.
An employee of the water department, Jim Maddox, went to several homes to let the residents know
what was happening.
Mr. Forester had no comments due to the lateness of the hour.
Mr. Tolbert reported that the Environmental Advisory Commission met and discussed the Arbor Day
Celebration to be held sometime in April and also a new project called "Earth", a project founded by
the United Nations in 1970. The town received $100.00 in donations for trees.
Manager's Comments
Mr. Minor had no comments this evening.
Mayor's Report
Mayor Sevila introduced his daughter Tracy and her friend Jeff Tooten. Tracy is a recent graduate of
the University of North Carolina.
On motion of Mr. Tolbe~ seconded by Mr. Clem, the following Resolution of Respect was
proposed and unanimously adopted.
RESOLUTION OF RESPECT
WHEREAS, William "Bin-Bin" Wright, a Lieutenant with the Loudoun County Sheriff's
Department for 21 years, and well known resident of Leesburg and Loudoun County, died January 3,
1990 after a long illness; and
WHERF_u~, Lt. Wright was a member of the National Sheriffs Association and the Virginia
Sheriffs Association; and
WHEREAS, Lt. Wright served the community in many areas of law enforcement including
communications, civil process, field operations, and corrections:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED that the Mayor and members of the Council of the Town of
Leesburg do extend their sympathy to his family and to all who knew him; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution of Respect be spread upon the minutes of
this meeting and that a copy be sent to his wife and children.
Mayor Sevila said for those of us who knew Bin-Bin Wright grew to know him, like him and respect
him. We will an miss him. The tremendous outpouring of support to his family at the funeral services
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1990
demonstrates the kind of man he was during his life.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following ordinance was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
90-0-2 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING A
NEW ARTICLE 10-B - HISTORIC CORRIDOR REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, this Council desires to enhance and protect the entrance corridors to the Town's
National Register Historic District; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-503.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides enabling
authority for the Town to establish architectural control districts that encompass parcels of lane
contiguous to arterial streets or highways found by the Town Council to be significant routes of tourist
access to the Town or its historic landmarks, buildings, structures and districts;
WHEREAS, on August 9, 1988, the Town Council initiated a new Article 10-B to the Leesburg
Zoning Ordinance, which would create such a district; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 1988, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
proposed Article and subsequently recommended to Council the adoption of this Article; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 1988, and December 12, 1989, the Council held public hearings
on this Article; and
WHEREAS, as a result of these hearings, and written comments from the development
community and the citizens of the Town as well as a meeting with leaders of the business and
development community, modifications were made to the original proposed ordinance and Corridor
Design Guidelines were developed with the assistance of a professional architectural and planning firm;
and
WHEREAS, this Council has found that a historic corridor overlay district will ensure the Town
Plan goal of quality urban design compatible with Leesburg's historic, architectural and tourism
resources through architectural control along the Town's arterial routes leading to the Olc~ and Historic
District~ and will ultimately promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the
Town:
THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The Leesburg Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended by adding a new article to
be numbered, Article 10-B, which said Article shall read as follows:
Section 10 B-1. PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of these historic corridor regulations is to implement the Town Plan goal of ensuring
quality urban design compatible with Leesburg's historic, architectural and tourist resources through
architectural control along the Town's arterial routes to the Old and Historic district. The protection
of these vital corridors which form the traditional gateways to Leesburg's historic district will stabilize
and improve property values; protect and enhance the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; and
will support and stimulate complimentary development appropriate to the prominence afforded
properties contiguous to Leesburg's m~jor arterial routes. Benefits attributable to the promotion of
superior design and appearance of structures constructed and altered along the Town's arterial highways
will ultimately promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the Town.
Section 10 B-2. APPLICABILITY
The regulations contained in this Article shall apply to the Historic Corridor Architectural Control
District established herein.
Section 10 B-3. HISTORIC CORRIDOR ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL DISTRICT CREATED
A Historic Corridor Architectural Control District is hereby established as an overlay on the official
zoning map under authority of Section 15.1-503.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, to be
known as the H-2 District with boundaries to include all or parts of parcels, exclusive of the H-1
overlay district, within 1,000 linear feet of the right-of-way centerline along Route 7 from the east
corporate limit to the Route 7/15 by-pass; 500 linear feet of the right-of-way center line along Reute
7 from the Route 7/15 by-pass to the east side of Catoctin Circle along its intersection with Route 7,
East; 300 linear feet from the right-of-way center line along Route 7 from the west side of Catoctin
Circle along its intersection with Route 7 East to the west corporate limits, and 500 linear feet of the
right-of-way centerline of Route 15 from the north corporate limits to the southern corporate limits.
If any part of a structure to be erected, altered or restored is located within these boundaries, the entire
structure shall be governed by this Article. Any structure proposed to be erected, altered or restored
within a parcel, partly located within the H-2 District, shall be exempt from this Article, if said
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1990
structure is located entirely outside the H-2 District corridor.
Section 10 B-4. APPLICATION TO BOARD FOR H-2 ARCHITECT~ CONTROL DISTRICT
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
(a) Board Power to Approve
No structure, building, or sign, excluding single-family detached dwellings and construction within
approved Planned Development districts, located on land within the H-2 District shall be erected,
reconstructed, altered or restored until the plans for such shall have been approved by the Board of
Architectural Review (hereinafter referred to as Board) in the form of an issuance of an Historic
Corridor Architectural Control Certificate of Approval (COA) as being architecturally compatible with
the historic landmarks, buildings, structures, and the H-1 overlay historic district located within the
Town; provided, that the provisions of this article shall not apply to the regular maintenance of the
~me as opposed to the reconstruction, alteration or restoration.
(b) Definitions
For the purposes of this section, changing the exterior color and/or materials of a structure, building
or sign shall be deemed an alteration and not regular maintenance. For the purposes of this section
a structure shall also include, but not be limited to outbuildings, fences, walls, lamp posts and light
fixtures.
(c) l~equired Contents of Applications
Except as hereinafter provided, when filing application for a CO.A, applicants must submit information
for consideration by the Board, including ten (10) copies of the following.
(1) all architectural elevations drawn to scale;
(2) site plans;
(3) complete exterior materials samples
(4) photographs or drawings relating the proposed project to the surrounding streetscape;
(5) proposed colors;
(6) lighting;
(7) landscaping, as required by Article 9A of this ordinance; and
(8) proposed signage, as required in Section 10 B-4(e) of this ordinance.
(d) Waivers of Certain Requirements
Upon written request from the applicant, the Land Development Official may tentatively waive any of
the above requirements deemed not to be necessary for review of the application. These waivers may
be over-ruled by the Board if additional information is determined to be required at the Board's meeting
to consider the application. The Land Development Official may promulgate rules and procedures for
the filing of applications under this Article not in conflict with the provisions of this Article.
(e) Signs
When filing application for a COA for signs, applicants must submit the following information:
(1) a scale drawing of the proposed sign;
(2) proposed materials for the sign, including supports, and the lighting method to be used;
(3) the style and size of the lettering;, and
(4) a sketch or photograph showing the proposed location of the sign on the building or site.
(f) Historic Corridor Architectural Control Certificate of Approval
Applications for COA's must be made on forms provided by the Department of Planning, Zoning and
Development. Complete applications must be submitted at least 17 days before the next regularly
scheduled meeting of the Board. The land development official or board may require a revised
application with a new application date when alterations or mollifications are made to the accepted
application.
(g) Review of Plans in a Timely Manner
The Board shall vote and announce its decision on any matter properly before it not later than 45 days
after the conclusion of the public meeting on the matter, unless the time is extended by mutual
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1990
agreement between the Board and the applicant.
(h) Board Actions on Applications
In response to applications for COA's, the Board shall approve, deny, or approve in modified form the
applications.
(i) Public Meetings Required
The Board shall meet at least twice monthly to consider applications for COA's. The meetings of the
Board shall be open to the public and a full and impartial hearing shall be granted to the applicant.
(j) Forms of Decision
Ail decisions of the Board granting or denying a COA shall be in writing, a copy of which shall be sen~
to the applicant and a copy filed with the Town Office.
(k) Explanation of Disapproval
In the case of denial of a COA request, the Board shall state the reasons for such denial in writing and
transmit the written statement to the applicant. In the statement, the Board may make suggestions
that would assist the applicant in the resubmitting of an application.
(1) Accurate Drawings of Approved Plans Required
Before issuing permits for any work which has been approved by the Board, the Land Development
Official shall require applicants to submit plans that accurately reflect any changes or conditions
imposed by the Board in its approval of projects.
(m) Conformance with Certificate Required
All work performed pursuant to issuance of a COA shall conform to the approved plans and
specifications and to any modifications required by the Certificate. In the event work is performed not
in conformance with the Certificate, the Zoning Administrator shall notify the responsible person or
firm in writing of the violations and shall take the necessary legal steps to ensure that the work is
performed in conformance with the Certificate.
(n) Change of Plans After Issuance of Certificate
Any change in the approved plans subsequent to the issuance of a COA shall be promptly submitted
to the Land Development Official prior to construction of the modified feature. The Land Development
Official may administratively approve non-substantive modifications with notice thereof to the Board
at its next meeting. Copies of any proposed revisions deemed substantive by the Land Development
Official shall be forwarded to the Board, accompanied by additional application materials as determined
necessary by the Land Development Official and Board to render a decision.
(o) Appeals
(1)
Appeals to the Board. The Board shall not hear the subject matter of any application
which has been denied except in cases where an applicant submits his
application so amended that it substantially addresses the Board's
reasons for denial of the original application.
(2)
Appeals to the Town Council. Appeals to the Town Council from any final decision oz'
the Board may be made by any person by filing a petition with the Clerk of Council,
setting forth the basis of the appeal, within 30 days after the final decision of the Board
is rendered. The filing of the petition shall stay the decision of the Board pending the
outcome of the appeal to the Town Council, except that the filing of such petition shall
not permit any construction activity which was the subject of the application on appeal
to the Town Council. The Town Council may reverse or modify the decision of the
Board in whole or in part~ if it finds upon review that the decision of the Board is
contrary to the law or that its decision is arbitrary and constitutes an abuse of
discretion, or it may affirm the decision of the Board.
(3)
Appeals to the Circuit Court of Loudoun County. Appeals to the Circuit Court of
Loudoun County from any decision of the Town Council may be made by any person
by filing a petition at law, setting forth the alleged illegality of the action of the Council
within 30 days from the final decision rendered by the T, own Council. The filing of the
said petition shall stay the decision of the Town Council pending the outcome of the
appeal to the Court, except that the filing of such petition shall not permit any
construction activity which was the subject of the application on appeal to the Town
Council. The court may reverse or modify the decision of the Town Council in whole
or in part, if it finds upon review that the decision of the Town Council is contrary to
law or that its decision is arbitrary and constitutes an abuse of discretion or it may
affirm the decision of the Town Council.
IVIINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1990
Section 10 B-5. DESIGN CRITERIA
The Board, and on appeal, the Town Council shall find that the application meets all of the following
standards and criteria stated below in approving applications filed under this Article. These standards
and criteria are further defined in the H-2 Corridor Design Guidelines, dated January 23, 1990, which
are hereby adopted and shall be used by the Board in evaluating COA's.
(a)
Whether or not the proposed external architectural features, represented by the general
design and arrangement, texture, color, line, mass, dimension, material and lighting
reflect desirable design for the Town of Leesburg.
Co)
Whether or not the proposed structure, building or improvement is compatible with well
designed structures, acceptable to the Board, in the vicinity of the proposed structure.
(c)
Whether or not proposed free~anding buildings use the same or architecturally
harmonious materials, color, texture and treatment for all exterior walls; and in the
case of partially freestanding buildings, whether or not the same or architecturally
harmonious materials, color, texture and treatment are used on all portions of all
exterior walls.
(d)
Whether or not the combination of architectural elements proposed for a structure,
building or improvement, in terms of design, line, mass, dimension, color, material,
texture, lighting, landscaping, roof line and height conform to accepted architectural
principles for permanent buildings reflecting the character of Leesburg, as contrasted
with engineering standards designed to satisfy safety requirements only.
(e)
Whether or not the proposed structure, building or improvement, in terms of design,
material, texture, color, lighting, landscaping, dimension, line, mass roof line and height,
is designed to serve primarily as an advertisement 'or commercial display, exhibits
exterior characteristics likely to deteriorate rapidly, would be of temporary or short-
term architectural or aesthetic acceptability, or would otherwise constitute a reasonable
foreseeable detriment to the attractiveness and stability of the Town's historic arterial
corridors.
Section 10 B-6. NO ARCHITECTURAL STYLE TO BE REQUIRED
The Board, and on appeal, Town Council shall not adopt or impose any specific architectural style in
the administration of this Article.
SECTION II. All prior ordinances in conflict herewith are repealed.
SECTION III. This ordinance shall become effective March 1, 1990.
Mr. Minor said that this document amends the town's Zoning Ordinance to establish an overlay district
along Route 7 and Route 15, excluding the historic district, approved planned developments. The
overlay district's principal purpose is to invest with the BAR architectural control over development
that occurs in these corridors for both new construction and modifications. The document adopts
guidelines that have an errata sheet that incorporates comments from the development community and
other citizens during formal hearings. This document is a guide book. It is not a law or regulation.
It is a tool for the BAR to use in evaluating these applications. This was the most important and
fundamental request the town received from the first public hearing held on this issue. We have
reduced the time that it takes to review applications. The submittal requirements have been reduced.
It has a similar appeal process as the H-1 district and includes signs. Architectural control along these
corridors has been a major issue that Council has wanted staff to address.
Mr. Kimball asked if these guidelines would affect the proposed zoning ordinance. Mr. Minor stated
that it would have no effect on the ordinance.
Mr. Lovin reported, as a member of the BAR, that the BAR is supportive of this ordinance. All
members of the BAR are willing to meet twice a month, should it be necessary.
Mr. Minor added that this will not be effective until March 1, 1990 and any plan that has a conditional
or unconditional approval prior to March 1, win not need to comply with these regulations.
Mr. Mulokey is glad that the town has gotten to this point. This is the establishment of a more
attractive visual order in the Town of Leesburg. It represents a significant amount of work and
listening to the citizens, on the part of the town st~ff and Council, without being overly obtrusive on
our citizens. I am proud to vote in favor of this ordinance. Mayor Sevila said that an ad hoc
committee was formed and consisted of representatives of the general public. The ordinance was
favorably reported out of that committee with regulations.
Mrs. Forester reported that the Planning Commission recently had a developer who is going to develop
along Route 7, voluntarily take the H-2 guidelines. He did not find the guidelines difficult to follow
and the guidelines did not deter his process nor his development. We have a quality product.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1990
Nay: None
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Clem, the following resolution was proposed and
unanimously adopted.
90-8 - RESOLUTION - COMMENTING ON THE PROPOSED DECISION TO RELOCATE LOUDOUN
HOSPITAL CENTER EAST OF GOOSE CREEK AND INVITING THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF LOUDOUN HEALTH CENTER, INC., AND
ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO A FUTURE COUNCIL COMMITTEE
MEETING
WHEREAS, Loudoun Hospital Center, formerly named Loudoun Memorial Hospital, has been
a vital part of the quality of life of the Town of Leesburg for over 72 years; and
WHEREAS, the medical, professional and clerical staff of this institution have ind: dually and
collectively made many contributions to the Town of Leesburg and represent a source of c, ~ivity and
energy to the town and its government; and
WHE~, Leesburg and Loudoun citizens have made substantial contributions in the form
of time and money to financially support the hospital; and
WHEREAS, Leesburg area residents and the Leesburg and western Loudoun area rescue
squads depend on a central location for the hospital to provide necessary medical and emergency health
care; and
WHEREAS, the Loudoun Healthcare, Inc., Board of Directors on Friday, December 1, without
notice to the town, voted to build a new eighty bed acute care hospital in the Route 7 corridor between
Goose Creek and Route 28 to replace the former Loudoun Memorial Hospital in Leesburg; and
WHEREAS, while this Council recognizes the Healthcare board's desire to enhance its position
in the regional health care market and to strengthen the financial condition of Loudoun Hospital
Center, this decision, if implemented, will adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of Leesburg as well as future economic growth of our community; and
WHEREAS, as the Commonwealth's second largest town, geographically, with a total area of
11.45 square miles, Leesburg has excellent sites available appropriate for the new hospital with access
to Route 7, the Leesburg bypass and the future Toll Road extension, less then one mile from the
arbitrary Goose Creek western boundary:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. This Council strongly encourages the Loudoun Healthcare, Inc., Board of Directors
to locate any new hospital west of Goose Creek within or adjacent to the Leesburg corporate limits
and requests that the Loudoun Healthcare Board modify its decision to exclude the Town of Leesburg
from any further consideration as a site for the new acute care facility.
SECTION H. In order to facilitate the location of a new hospital within the Town of Leesburg,
this Council intends to include hospitals and other related health care facilities as permitted uses within
the proposed B-3 and proposed I-1 zoning districts now under consideration by this Council.
SECTION I/I. The Town Manager's office and town departments are directed to work with the
management and staff of Loudoun Health Center, Inc., to help identify possible locations appropriate
for hospital development and to provide such other assistance as may be necessary to encourage the
location of this facility within the Town of Leesburg.
SECTION IV. The Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Loudoun Healthcare, Inc., and
the Chief Executive Officer are invited to attend a 7:30 p.m., meeting of the Town Council
Administration and Public Works Committee Wednesday, February 7, to discuss how the town and the
hospital can work together to ensure that Loudoun Hospital Center remains an integral part of our
community.
SECTION V. The manager is authorized and directed to forward a copy of this resolution to
the Board of Director of Loudoun Healthcare, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer, the Leesburg news
media, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors and the Loudoun Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Kimball suggested forwarding this resolution to other Mayors of nearby Wwns and to various
org~_ni~.ed groups in the Town of Leesburg.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Lovin, the following resolutions were proposed as
consent items and unanimously adopted.
90-9 - RESOLUTION - RECEIVING AND REFERRING THE APPLICATION OF EVERGREEN
MILLS INVESTMENTS (STRATFORD IN LEESBURG) FOR REZONING
31-'
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1990
P .LAN/PROFFER AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR JOINT
PUBLIC HEARING WITH TOWN COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER 11, TITLE 15.1 - 431
OF THE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA, AS AMENDED.
WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg is committed to retaining the County of Loudoun
government offices within the Town of Leesburg; and
WHEREAS, the Stratford in Leesburg development is the best location for the proposed County
of Loudoun government complex; and
WHEREAS, this Council desires to convey it's support for the proposed County of Loudoun
government complex at Stratford in Leesburg to the County Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, this Council desires to expedite the required amendment process for the proposed
revisions to the approved rezoning #ZM-95 Stratford in Leesburg by Evergreen Mills Investments and
retain the County of Loudoun offices in the Town of Leesburg; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted modified rezoning plans to the Town of Leesburg on
January 10, 1990 which propose inclusion of the County of Loudoun government complex and
accommodate the expanded clear zone due to the proposed runway ILS at the Leesburg Municipal
Airport; and
WHEREAS, the retention of the County of Loudoun offices and accommodation of the proposed
airport ILS are both critical to Leesburg's economy;
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The application of Evergreen Mills Investments (Stratford in Leesburg) for
rezoning plan modifications and proffer amendments to approved Ordinance No. 88-0-20 adopted June
22, 1988; which amended the Town Plan, the Leesburg Zoning Map and approved a rezoning concept
plan and rezoning plan, for Planned Employment Center (PEC) and Planned Residential Community
(PRC) zoning as proffered is received and referred to the Planning Commission for a joint public
hearing and recommendation to the Town Council.
SECTION II. A joint public hearing with the Planning Commission and the Town Council
shall be held on February 13, 1990 regarding the proposed amendments/modifications pursuant to
Section 15.1 -431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The public hearing shall' begin at 7:30
p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be reached, and shall be held in the Council Chambers,
10 Loudoun Street, S.W., Leesburg, Virginia. The clerk shall publish notice of this hearing and the
Council's intention to consider the proposed amendments/modificaiions in the Loudoun Times-Mirror
on January 25, 1990 and February 1, 1990 and shall advise the Planning Commission of the purpose,
time, and date of the hearing.
SECTION III. The Planning Commission shall report its recommendation to the Town Council
on the proposed amendments/modifications within 30 days following the first Planning Commission
meeting after the public hearing - on or before March 15, 1990.
90-10 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT AND APPROVING A PERFORMANCE
GUARANTEE AND WATER AND SEWER EXTENSION PERMITS FOR FOXCHASE
SECTION II
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows:
SECTION I. The manager shall execute the contract for public improvements for the
improvements shown on the plans approved by the Director of Engineering and Public Works for
Foxchase Section II.
SECTION II. The extension of municipal water and sewer for Foxchase Section II is approved
in accordance with Sections 15-9 and 19-18 of the Town Code.
SECTION III. The irrevocable bank letter of credit in a form approved by the town attorney
from First American Bank in the amount of $397,499.00 is approved as security to guarantee
installation of the public improvements shown on plans approved by the Director of Engineering and
Public Works for Foxchase Section II.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Executive Session
Mrs. Forester made the following motion:
Pursuant to Section 2.1-344 of the Code of Virginia, I move that the Leesburg Town Council
go into Executive Session. The authority fo~ this Executive Session is found in Section 2.1-344(a),
Subsection (1) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The l~ublic business matter to be discussed
is the Planning Commission vacancy.
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1990
The motion was seconded by Mr. Tolbert.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Mrs. Forester made the following motion:
I move that the Executive Session be adjourned, that the Town Council of the Town of
Leesburg reconvene its public meeting and that the minutes of the public meeting reflect that no
formal action was taken in the Executive Session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Tolbert.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
Mrs. Forester made the following motion:
I move that the Resolution Certifying the Executive Session be adopted and reflected in the
minutes of the public meeting.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Tolbert.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
90-11 - RESOLUTION - CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE SESSION OF JANUARY 23, 1990
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Leesburg has this day convened in Executive
Session in accordance with an affirmative recorded vote of the Committee and in accordance with the
provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Leesburg does
hereby certify that to the best of each member's knowledge, 1) only public business m ers lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements under the Freedom of Information Act we: ~:iscussed in
the Executive Session to which this certification applies; and 2) only such public busin, ~ matters as
were identified in the Motion by which the said Executive Session was convened were heard, discussed
or considered by the Town Council of the Town of Leesburg.
Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey, Tolbert and Mayor Sevila
Nay: None
On motion of and duly seconded the meeting was adjourned.
l~bert E. Sevila, Mayor
Clerk of Council