Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1990_04_10 (2)109 MINUTES OF THE REG~ MEETING OF THE LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL APRIL 10, 1990 A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Council Chambers, 10 Loudoun Street, S.W., Leesburg, Virginia on April 10, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., Council having been in executive session from 6:45 p.m., prior thereto. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Mayor Tolbert, with the invocation given by Mr. Tolbert and the Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Mulokey. Present were: Vice-Mayor John W. Tolbert, Jr., Councilmembers James E. Clem, Christine M. Forester, Donald A. Kimball, Claxton E. Lovin and William P. Mulokey. Absent was Mayor Robert E. Sevila. Planning Commission members present included: Chairman Mervin Jackson, Commissioners; Marvin Belles and Ann Darling. Staff members present included: Town Manager Jeffrey H. Minor, Director of Planning, Zoning and Development Katherine Imhoff, Director of Engineering and Public Works Thomas A. Mason, Director of Finance Paul York, Director of Parks and Recreation Gary Huff, Planner Sally Vecchio and Town Attorney George Martin. On motion of Mr. Mulokey, seconded by Mr. Lovin, the minutes of the Special Meeting of March 14, 1990, were approved as written. Aye: Nay: Absent: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey and Tolbert. None Mayor Sevila Petitioners Mrs. Ethel Adams presented, to the Town Council, a book of town minutes dated from 1813, which she found in her family attic. Vice-Mayor Tolbert presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Mrs. Adams. A Certificate of Appreciation was also presented to Mr. Jay Hicks for his hard work and contributions to the Town of Leesburg. Mr. Minor said that Jay Hicks is the town's former Assistant Director of Planning, Zoning and Development. He recently resigned to take a position in the private sector. He did a marvelous job for the town. Mrs. Forester said, as the councilmanic representative to the Planning Commission, she has worked very closely with Mr. Hicks and wished to thank him for his energy and devotion to the town. She has never seen anyone work, to get consensus between development, citizens and the town, as Mr. Hicks did. We appreciate your work and wish you well in your new position. Mr. Stanley Caulkins, addressed the Council, explaining that Mrs. Adams' father Doctor Hobby Littlejohn carried on the best card games behind his drug store, that anyone has ever known about. Mr. Caulkins said that some of us may remember Mrs. Grace Popkins, who was a free-lance writer for the Star and the Washington Post. He presented an aerial photograph, to the Council, of the Town of Leesburg, dated 1937. This photograph was given to Mr. Caulkins by the son of Mrs. Grace Popkins. Mr. Gary Moore, petitioned the Council as follows: Whereas, we the undersigned being owners and residents of the 500 and 600 block of West Market Street, T ....... f Leesburg; and WHEREAS, our homes are being considered into the third expansion of the H-2 Zoning Old and Historic District understand an inclusion in said H-2 Overlay District is voluntary and will not be imposed against the homeowners wishes request and petition the Town Council to remove our homes from consideration of inclusion into this third expansion of the H-2 Overlay District. Mr. Mulokey pointed out that it is the H-1 District that is the Historic District and not the Historic Corridors overlay. He asked Mr. Moore if the petition should be amended to read the H-1 District. Mr. Moore answered yes. Public Hearing:. Joint Public Hearing - ~ZM-117 Linden Hill Ms. Imhoff said there is currently a request for a proffer amendment. Linden Hill was approved in 1985. One of the proffered conditions was that there is to be a maximum of 60 single- family condominium units plus one single-family residential unit and one clubhouse which was to be located in the existing house. The applicant is currently proposing to relocate the clubhouse facility from the existing home and place it near the pool house. The applicant is proposing to take the pool house which is approximately 300 square feet, add another 300 square feet to have a 600 foot facility near the pool. Last week the applicant again revised their proffers to eliminate the pool facility and tennis courts. They would like to not increase the number of units but to take that area and make it passive recreation - a tot lot and some benches. The applicant is finding it difficult, with only 60 units, to support the pool and tennis courts. Tonight's public hearing was advertised for the discussion 110 of moving the clubhouse facility to the pool area. Staffs initial response is that we cannot support the revised proffers at this time. It is staffs recommendation, for the revised proffers, that the applicant hold another public hearing. Mr. Minor said that the applicant will need to fund new advertisements and hold another public hearing if they wish to pursue any change in the pool or tennis court. Tonight's hearing is to look at a change in the clubhouse from the main home to an expansion of the pool house. Mr. George Roberson, a resident of 1108 Rollins Place, said that his property backs-up to the proposed Linden Hill. There are two areas of this project that concern him. He is concerned with the house lines at the back of the project and a storm drain that runs along the side of the project. On the current plan, the homes are about 160 feet from the property line. Based on the newly revised plans those houses are shown approximately 130 feet further back on the property line. That in itself is not a problem but it shows that there is a 40% grade and that there will be a substantial retaining wall built there. How high is the retaining wall going to be? How far back will it be? He is also concerned with the stormwater runoff and the 18 inch storm pipe that will empty onto the hillside. What kind of erosion problems will this create? Unfortunately we are not just talking about 60 units. We are talking about Greenway with several hundred units and another subdivision - we are talking about 500 - 600 hundred maybe 1000 units. All of this water dumps into Tuscarora Creek. There are no improvements or planned improvements to accommodate the extra water flow. This is what concerns Mr. Roberson. He is not opposed to the Linden Hill Subdivision. Mrs. Janet Frey, a resident of 1110 Rollins Place, agreed with Mr. Roberson, her neighbor. We the citizens would like for the Council to establish liaison people in the community that would receive the Council packets so that we would know what is going on and would not have to read it in the paper. If you would work with the citizens - there are times that it might slow you down but there are times that it might keep you from making a mistake. When the Linden Hill project was approved, staff recommended denial, the Planning Commission recommended denial but the Council recommended approval - only one of those Councilmembers is still with us. We don't want things like this happening again. She explained that her home is at the bottom of a hill, which is a 40% slope, on Rollins place and is concerned with flooding. On the map, they have indicated that a pipe will be installed so far, and then convert it into a swale. The reason they are going to do that is because the runoff is going to come down with such velocity. I wonder how much a swale is going to deter this flow - not a whole lot. Another concern, the map shows the flow going into the Tuscarora creek perpendicular - right into the bank. I can see that eroding my property and the bank. A study should be given to that. It would be possible to bring the swale down at an angle and perhaps remove one tree. I don't think it would be advisable to bring the runoff down into the creek, perpendicular with that great of velocity. In the proposed wall, there is to be an opening in the wall to preserve a tree. Isn't this going to create another drainage place - more erosion. When the filling takes place they are going to destroy some trees, and trees hold water. That is going to increase surface runoff. What is going to happen with all the down spouts, channeling all the water down that steep hill. Mrs. Frey showed the Council some pictures of her home during a past flood. We have a serious problem with flood control. We need to look very carefully with what is done with the Tyler prope~y and we would like to be included when the Council is considering this. Mr. Minor said that Mrs. Frey has referred to a plan, not the concept rezoning plan which the applicant's engineer has submitted for Phase II. A letter has been sent to the residents along Rollins Place which indicates that, that plan has been recommended for denial by the town's engineering department. It cannot be approved - the construction drawings cannot be approved. We concur with Mrs. Frey. The applicant will have to follow the town's site plan requirements, construction drawing requirements, stormwater management requirements. This is another area like Mosby Drive where this kind of cooperation and communication is justified. From now on all of the comments that we give to the Planning Commission will be copied to the residents that live on the eastern side of Rollins Place and those people that live on the southern side of Country Club Drive to Rollins Place. There are three things being considered right now. The first is the proffer amendments, the second is the applicant, in Phase II, cannot move buildings closer to property lines, and the third is the construction drawings, stormwater management and the wall issues will be reviewed by our engineering department to make sure that nothing will damage adjacent properties. Mr. William Teringo, a resident of 201 Country Club Drive, addressed the Council. His property is at the edge of the proposed development. The issue of the water runoff into Tuscarora Creek is a concern to him. If this plan goes through, something will have to be done with the culverts. The trash, logs and debris that comes down from the creek collects there. For the past ten years he has cleaned these culverts himself and has paid people to clean them. During some heavy sto~ns that culvert has backed up all the way to the road. Shouldn't we also take into consideration the properties further down Tuscarora Creek? Why does the line, in Phase II, constantly keep moving? Ms. Julia Cannon, representing the applicant, addressed the Council. With regard to stormwater runoff and the citizen's concerns, our engineers are working very closely with the town's engineers to ensure that the stormwater facility will adequately contain the runoff and prevent erosion. There may be some misapprehension about shifting the buildings closer to the back property line. The buildings, if scaled out, are moving up the slope rather than closer to the back line. The retaining wall is designed in order to reduce the amount of fill that might be required and would require the 111 Minutes of April 10, 1990 removal of additional trees if more fall were done. We will do everything we can to make sure your properties are not adversely affected. We made application in January to remove the clubhouse facility from the existing dwelling and to relocate it to the pool house. The logic being that the nature of the project has changed somewhat from the way it was conceived by Mr. Tyler in 1985. The applicant has had people inquire about purchasing the home itself. As the public hearing date neared, the applicant came to realize that there was going to be some resistance to the level of monthly condominium fees that was going to be required to sustain the recreational facilities - the pool and tennis court. Therefore, we talked with town staff about the possibility of removing the active recreational elements and replacing them with a passive area - a tot lot, and making a contribution to Ida Lee Park in lieu of providing the active facilities. This product is quite small to sustain economically. Staff gave an initial indication that this request could be included within the scope of this public hearing, tonight. Subsequently, we were advised, last Friday, that it would be preferable to have another public hearing to ensure that everyone had full notice of this additional change. We would like to have a determination, as soon as possible, about the Planning Commission and Council's decision on whether the club facility could be relocated. We will come back at a later date with the subsequent question of removing the pool and tennis courts. We also ask that, that public hearing be as soon as possible. Mr. Muloke¥ asked Ms. Cannon about the promises already made to current owners. Ms. Cannon explained that there are no current owners - only one contract purchaser who has received notice of the proposed change and he is in agreement with the proposed change. The other two contract purchasers are principals in the corporation and are well aware of the proposed change. Mr. William Teringo, 201 Country Club' Drive, stated that the applicant purchased the property because it was approved for an adult comm.unity and to have the various recreational facilities. That is why the neighbors did not fight the rezoning to an extent - they should have because of the land usage factor of the property. Now the applicant wants to relocate the clubhouse and sell the home as a private residence. You are adding additional usage to this property. Ms. Cannon said that was not quite accurate because it was approved as both a single-family residence and a club unit. It will not increase the number of residences. Mr. Teringo said the project has completely changed - it is no longer going to be an adult community - it is not going to be what it was originally approved for. Ms. Cannon disagreed. She agrees that it was conveyed to the Council as an adult community. It was approved by the Council as a planned development. Mr. Minor said the applicant would like the Council to consider the original proffer application, as advertised. Council must act on the first request and then act on the second request when received formally. Council needs a motion to refer this to the Planning Commission for consideration and a report. Mrs. Forester asked if it were the desire of the Council and/or the Planning Commission to deny this application and then look at the whole proffer amendment situation with all the changes. Mr. Minor said the applicant can withdraw this application and file a new application. Council does not have to give the applicant a decision within the time period requested. Those are policy and legislative prerogatives of the elected officials of the town. The only referral that Council can make, legally, is to refer this proffer amendment to the Planning Commission. We will talk to the applicant, in the future, to see if they intend to withdraw this application and proper notification will be given to everyone, or if they intend to let this application be acted on by the Planning Commission and Council and file another proffer amendment, that would require a new application, new advertisements and another public hearing. On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Mulokey, this matter was referred to the Planning Commission for action. Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey and Tolbert. Nay: None Absent: Mayor Sevila The public hearing was closed. Vice-Mayor Tolbert said the Council will receive public comment in writing for a period of ten days. Public Hearing'. Setting fees for Ida Lee Park Recreation Center Mr. Minor said that the Parks and Recreation Department, in conjunction with the Finance Department and the manager's office, has prepared a marketing report and fee study for Ida Lee Park. This document was reviewed by the Leesburg Parks and Recreation Commission and recommended for approval. The Town of Leesburg is not required by statute or charter to conduct a public hearing on the fee schedule. Because we believe that this is such an important watershed issue for the town and one that will allow us to get additional publicity for this facility and give us an opportunity to receive citizen input on the park itself a public hearing was appropriate. Mr. Gary Huff said that copies of the proposed fee schedule are available. We have been working diligently to come up with a fee schedule for the center. One that is fair and economical to our citizens and also to try to maintain an 80% recovery of revenue for the facility. Mr. Huff briefly 112 Minutes of April 10, 1990 reviewed the fee schedule, various passes, and the rental options that will be available. With regard to the fees themselves, staff is still dealing with some issues. One of the issues is the economically disadvantaged. We are trying to come up with a scholarship program and are working with Social Services and various businesses and organizations to sponsor children. Also an adopt-a-kid program is being considered. We want to do everything we can to assist those in getting into this facility. Another issue that has been brought to our attention is the handicapped and disabled. We propose that these fees be the same as the senior adult fees. There will be special classes and programs that will be at reduced and varying costs. Corporate memberships are being considered and we want to encourage businesses. Capacity is another issue that has been brought up. This issue has been brought up, in that, we will have so many people using the facility we may not be able to handle it. My response to that is I certainly hope so. It will be a problem I will enjoy dealing with. We can take care of it through a lot of different ways. Mr. Huff reviewed a chart which shows the comparison of admission fees of neighboring jurisdictions. Mr. Lovin asked if a dependent was defined as 15 years old and under. Mr. Huff answered yes. Mr. Lovin noted that a yearly pass, for a family of 4, would be $420.00. Mr. Minor said that the fee schedule, proposed by the Town of Leesburg, is equal or lower than any indoor facility in Northern Virginia. Loudoun County and the Town of Leesburg, a couple of years ago, entered into an agreement on this facility. The county gave the Town of Leesburg a donation of $800,000.00 to help build the Ida Lee Park Recreation Center. Out of a total $6 million facility that donation was an important contribution and would have amounted into an annual debt service of about $80,000.00 a year. The only stipulation that the county asked is that Loudoun County residents be charged the same fee as Leesburg residents, which was part of the agreement. Mr. Lovin asked how long the county/town agreement was for. Mr. Huff stated 20 years. Mr. Kimball asked if any consideration had been given to the public school system. Mr. Huff said the town welcomes the school system to approach the town. This year's school budget did not include any funding for the facility. We have agreed to work with the school board. Mr. Mulokey asked about cooperation with the YMCA. Mr. Huff said the town is talking with the YMCA, Red Cross, Loudoun County and several other private/public organizations. Our responsibility will be to coordinate those efforts. Mr. Mulokey asked if the proposed fees were recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission and after consultation with the community. Mr. Huff said that the Commission has received input from the community. Mr. Minor said that a key issue is that if the town is going to market this facility then we need to know what the charges are so we can begin to market it and collect money. We are looking at an $800,000 plus budget in the Parks and Recreation Department, of which only 80% of that expenditure will be met by revenues. One of the important factors that will help the financial stability of the town is that this facility be a successful parks department and a successful recreation center. Mr. Paul Bengtson, a resident of 109 Loudoun Street, S.W., congratulated the Council, the Commission and the staff for getting this facility for the Leesburg and Loudoun County residents. It ranks with the best facilities in Northern Virginia. In light of the county's contribution - we are citizens of the county as well as the town and we pay county and town taxes. The fees, as proposed, are fair and equitable. One concern is that it is a town park, we are town citizens paying the $5 million on the bonds and the county citizens will pay the same as the town citizens. He urged the Council to consider reduced fees for the citizens of the Town of Leesburg. Mr. Clarise Teder, a resident of Loudoun County and a parent of a child with physical handicaps, is very excited about the opening of the Ida Lee Park Recreation Center. This will mean so much to all county residents, especially to children and adults with physical disabilities who can take to the water as they may be unable to do on land. She asked the Council to consider special fees for families who have a disabled member. It is appropriate to offer special rates to senior citizens because many live on fixed incomes. Families that have a child or other family member with a handicap can especially benefit from adapted recreational programs, particularly adapted aquatics. These families endure many stresses not the least of which is economic. We appreciate a break on the pool fees, if possible, it would make a difference as to the frequency with which we would be able to use the pool and thus the benefit we would derive from it. Mr. Billy Fiske, a resident of 128 Prospect Drive, said that he is totally against the fees for this park. He thinks it is incorrect and wrong. This park was given to the citizens of the Town of Leesburg so that we would have a park to go to. The citizens did not have a chance to voteeon the bond issue for the park. This happens all the time in this town. I am against bond issues without citizen approval. We are paying double fees. We are paying for the bond issue and pay the fees to use the park. The county made a donation but not what the town's citizens will have to pay. We will have to pay the entire burden. Ms. Pat McMahon, a resident of 1308 Campbell Court, addressed the Council with a few concerns. The first, is the possibility of a family rate. If you have two teenagers at home and you and your husband also join, it is a very excessive bill - almost $1,000.00. What would be the rate ff only your children joined. Mr. Minor said there win be a dependent rate which would not require the entire family to join. Ms. McMahon is also concerned with the county's contribution and that the rate will be the same for town and county residents. She also urged the town to consider special rates for 113 Minutes of April 10, 1990 homeowner's associations as being eligible for corporate membership. Mr. Ken Robinson, a resident of 1103 Nickels Place and chairperson for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, addressed the Council. He said that he is pleased with the comments and input of the citizenry in general. There has been a number of very worthwhile and substantive issues pointed out. The commission scrutinized this structure very carefully. The commission if a very demanding and curious one. We ask a lot of questions. We feel very good about this fee structure after comparing it to neighboring jurisdictions. This fee structure is a wholesome one but certainly not without need for some fine tuning. With regard to fairness and equity - I don't think that we as citizens can lose focus of the fact that there is a need to sustain the operational objectives. Much of that will come about through the revenue generated from the fees. When we talk about possibly constraining county participation - usage is going to be critical with respect to this facility. The Town of Leesburg cannot generate the level of usage that will enable us to meet our revenue objectives. We need the help and support of the county citizens. We should be careful with respect to how we feel about the county's participation in using this facility. I applaud everyone who spoke tonight. Your observations have been very helpful. All of your considerations and comments will be taken into account. Mr. Frank Carney, a resident of 7 Country Club Drive and a member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, addressed the Council. He noted that he was also on the YMCA Program Committee and said that there is good coordination between the town and the YMCA. He wished to support Mr. Robinson's comments. We should all welcome county residents and be open- hearted, loving and welcome them into our ranks. A policy of the commission is that this facility and park will be made available to everyone, regardless of sex, origin, age, handicap, etc. We need a special needs fee schedule. At this morning's Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission meeting, Mr. Carney was appointed to serve on a committee for the revenue development policy for the park. It will be his mission to make sure that these special needs fees are developed. Lets make it a huge, loving success. On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Clem, this matter was referred to the April 18, 1990, Administration and Public Works Committee meeting, for further consideration. Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey and Tolbert. Nay: None Absent: Mayor Sevila The public hearing was closed. Vice-Mayor Tolbert said the Council will receive public comment in writing for a period of ten days. Councilmember's Comments Mr. Muloke¥ had the pleasure, last Monday night, of joining a number of citizens in support of building a library as soon as possible. The architect was there and a number of people who are in charge of the programs in the library. They described what our Leesburg library would be. In addition to the repository of many books, a technical marvel that will include CD's, video tapes, computers and access to data bases around the country. It is something that will be a wonderful thing for our citizens to have. Mr. Mulokey reminded that group that we as a Town Council have adopted a resolution in support of building a library as quickly as possible. He urged everyone to talk to the Board of Supervisors and urge them to keep their promise to Leesburg - not to delay this library. He wished to remind his fellow candidates, for office, that Multi-Vision has offered to tape a five minute statement from each of us - free of charge. This statement will be aired during the week prior to the election, in conjunction with the Looking at Leesburg show. This is an opportunity for the public to get to know all of the candidates and understand what our positions are on the various issues. Mr. Mulokey read the follow letter: Dear Mr. Mulokey: In the Washington Post and Washington Home and Garden, I have read about the effort in which you are participating to acquire and preserve Dodona Manor, the home of General George Marshall. As a life-long admirer of the General who used to work in that area I have seen the home from the outside and am pleased to learn of this effort. I am not wealthy but I would like to send a small contribution. However, the articles I have seen give neither name nor address for doing so. don't have a complete address to which to send this letter but hope it will reach you or someone who can send me that information. Best Wishes. Mr. Mulokey withheld the person's name, but did say that he is from Sherman, Texas. It is encouraging to see that things that we are doing here in Leesburg are being noticed by people all around the country and around the world. Mr. Tolbert said, with regard to Dodona Manor, that he would be preparing a special luncheon for a delegation from Germany for Mr. Powell Harrison. Mr. Lovin had an opportunity to see the relocation of 6 & 8 Loudoun Street. He commended 114 Minutes of April 10, 1990 Mr. Peter Burnett with the Chapin Company for this project. Mr. Lovin and his family went down the bike path and was able to see Georgetown Park. It is a nice addition to the area off of South King Street and the bike trail. He wished to congratulate Tricia Titus and her sister who were part of the winners in naming the Georgetown Park. Mr. Clem reported on the Saturday Listening Session where several visitors came by. One congregation of visitors was from the business community. They addressed the issue of promoting downtown business. The other visitors were from Potomac Crossing. He reported on Thursday's Planning Commission meeting where he appeared before the Commission on behalf of the fire company. He thanked the citizens for coming and expressing their concerns. It was a productive meeting. The best thing that the fire company could do is educate the citizens on our services. Largely, they would prefer not to have a building in their backyard. It was encouraging to hear the town say they would accommodate our needs in the northeast quadrant. He has heard two major concerns from citizens regarding the pool and park at Ida Lee. First they feel that the prices are too high and that the citizens in Leesburg should have a reduced price from those in the county. Mr. Kimball had no comments. Mr. Tolbert had no comments. Mrs. Forester had the opportunity, along with her daughter Kate, to attend the annual mother daughter dinner given by the Girl Scout Counsel of this area. Girl Scouting is still alive. On Monday, she attended the county workshop on the proposed county complex. She was disappointed in the fact that they have not made a decision. She feels that the Stratford site has come along way in answering the concerns that were voiced by the members of the Board of Supervisors. She encouraged the citizens of Leesburg to keep the pressure on the board to locate that complex in Stratford. It is not only an asset to the town but also to the county. Last week Mrs. Forester attended a neighborhood watch meeting with the citizens of Carrvale and Exeter. Officer Doug Taylor helped the citizens organize the watch. There was enough participation so that we are an official neighborhood watch. The town put the signs up today. She advised any neighborhoods who are interested to contact Officer Taylor. Mrs. Forester was present at the Planning Commission public hearing for the proposed fire station on Plaza Street. She referenced a petition signed by 89 residents, in that area, who are opposed not to the fire department but to that particular site. They feel that the site is the center of a neighborhood residential area and that the town should look and work with the fire department to find a more suitable site. She understands the difficulty of the fire department, in terms of funding and responding in that area. We want to work together to solve that problem. Mrs. Forester wished to welcome all the visitors in town for the holidays. She thanked Susan Farmer and Doug Taylor for doing a great job with the Looking at Leesburg show. Mr. Clem said, with regard to the Neighborhood Watch Program, that Officer Taylor is offering a device for all the homes that enables you to flip a light switch on the outside of your house that blinks and aids the police and emergency medical services in finding your home. Manager's Report Mr. Minor said that one of the principal concerns of the citizens that spoke at the CIP public hearing was that the town develop the athletic fields at Ida Lee as soon as possible. On Friday the town received a check for $70,000 from the Fox Chase Condominiums. One of the special exception conditions was this contribution when Phase II of this development began. This is a very important head-start on the money the town needs to make the ball fields a reality, next year. Mr. Minor submitted, to the Council, the proposed Budget for FY 1991. The Council will conduct a public hearing on May 22 on this budget. This proposed budget includes about $11 million for the general fund, $6.5 million for the utility fund, $1.8 million for the airport fund, and $4 million for the capital projects fund. This represents a decline of over $17 million in last year's expenditure levels or about 31%. The total proposed expenditure is about $23.6 million. The proposed budget intends to fund these improvements at this year's tax rate of 17 cents. Assessed values in Leesburg are up about 15%. Our assessed values are $1.6 billion. Of that increase $45 million reflect new construction, therefore the actual increase to the conventional property owner will be about a 12% increase. To pinpoint the impact on the typical Leesburg homeowner, Mr. Minor used a mythical home. He explained that if that home was accessed, last year, at ~]~,500.00, this year it would be assessed 115 Minutes of April 10, 1990 at approximately $167,440.00. This yields an additional $31.00 a year in tax or $2.58 per month. Leesburg, compared to other Northern Virginia towns, the Leesburg homeowner pays almost 30% less than a Vienna or Herndon resident and 13% less than Falls Church. That percentage is based on the $1.08 county tax rate. We are confident that the actual tax rate adopted by the county will not be $1.08 but will likely be substantially below that number. The Town of Leesburg imposes the third lowest tax rate of any of the largest ten towns in Virginia. Last year we had the fourth lowest tax rate of the top ten towns. This year we are the third lowest. One of the important things that the Town Council has recently done to help ease the burden of general taxes on our citizens, is the improvement to our tax relief for the elderly program. That program eliminates the real estate tax on the elderly citizens who have an income of up to $40,000.00 and a net worth of $150,000.00. That net worth excludes your principal residence. The proposed budget includes a sale of $4.5 million in general obligation funds to complete the capital program, authorized last year. Those projects primarily include; the parking facility at $4.4 million and the West Loudoun Street storm drainage project at $180,000.00. With regard to revenues in the general fund, one of the key elements will be the sale of real property. However, this year's budget does not include proceeds from the sale of the Harrison Street property. It does propose the sale of other real property - this is an important issue for the Council to consider over the next several months. It includes the sale of the Liberty Street property which was recently paved for our interim parking area. This property has very good potential value for the town and is a property, if left as a surface parking lot, will be grossly under utilized. The parking structure will generate about 240 net parking spaces. In addition, the Presbyterian Church recently opened an 80 space permit lot that is also paved. This amounts to about 320 net gain of paved parking in the Town of Leesburg. This is about 2.5 times more than what we had a year ago. We will have a half million dollar O&M debt service on this parking structure. We want to make sure we get customers in that parking structure to help pay that debt. Another source of revenue will be the infill project on Loudoun Street which is proposed as a lease. Expenditures in the general fund - 7% of our general fund budget is parks and recreation. The parks and recreation operations include a big part of the $1.8 million debt service this year. Other general fund categories include; the police department - 17%, engineering and public works - 34%, planning, zoning and development - 8%. In terms of personal services, this budget proposes a cost of living adjustment of 3.5%. We have shown a tremendous restraint in terms of new positions. Only one new police officer is proposed and two public works positions. The major category for general fund positions is at Ida Lee Park. There are eight positions proposed. The hallmark of our utility fund will be the beginning of our 6.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant expansion. This project is very critical to the future of the Town of Leesburg. We have retained the firm of CH2M Hill to begin the design work. Even though the Town Council was successful in saving $35 million in this next plant expansion, over what an AWT plant would cost, the new plant will be expensive and will have to be funded through a general obligation bond issue of about $25 million. The balance of the proceeds, for the expansion, would come from availability fees and other utility fund reserves. Other important utility fund projects include; the western pressure zone project, and the water treatment plant upgrade to 5.0 MGD. In conclusion, Leesburg begins this decade prepared to meet the service and operating demands of a new population fueled by the growth of the exuberant economy which marked the last half of the 1980's. Evidence of the town's initiatives to address long standing needs abound. Leesburg's downtown municipal government center and parking structure will open next year. Our residents will enjoy Ida Lee Park's new pool and recreation center this summer. Major utilities, storm drainage and other public works projects will be completed soon, as well. While Leesburg has harnessed the resources of growth to meet long standing needs and to improve our quality of life, this budget and future budgets must balance the changing resources of our community with the restraint justified by leaner times. The Town Council's overriding commitment to maintain a stable tax rate is the fundamental principal by which this budget was developed. Public/private partnerships improve productivity and creative use of town properties are common themes which underline this budget and will keep our government strong despite economic fluctuations which we must expect even in Northern Virginia. Leesburg's Town Council and partnership with an active citizenry have played the lead role in ensuring that this government is responsive to the needs of the community it serves. This challenge will become increasingly complex and more difficult to meet in the coming years. Leesburg's elected lea~lership must continue to forge the consensus necessary to create public support for a balanced community. With government and citizens challenging each other will ensure that Leesburg remains a special place in exiting Northern Virginia. Legislation On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Mulokey, the following ordinance was proposed and unanimously adopted. 90-0-9 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE AND DISTRICT ZONING MAP TO EXPAND THE OLD AND HISTORIC LEESBURG (H-l) DISTRICT 116 Minutes of April 10, 1990 WHEREAS, the properties proposed for inclusion into the Old and Historic District contain architecturally and historically significant or compatible buildings such that their preservation would be warranted and would contribute to the integrity and enhancement of the District; WHEREAS, this Council through special notices, hearings, mailings and various publications has worked to keep the affected residents informed; and WHEREAS, a m~jority of the property owners have indicated support for the expansion of the Old and Historic District; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 1990, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended this expansion to the Council for approval; and WHEREAS, approval of the proposed Old and Historic Leesburg District expansion is in the best interest and public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice: follows: THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as SECTION I. Section 3B-3, rifled Historic District Created, Established, of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: A historic conservation district v:~ is hereby created within the town ~ as an overlay of the official zoning map under authority of Sec. 15.1-503.2 of the State Code to be known as the H-1 Historic District with original boundaries ~ bc th~ ~mc ~ shown on a map designated "Gray's New Map of Leesburg" drawn from special surveys in the year 1878, as hereby amended and described as follows: "Beginning on the east at the intersection of Loudoun and Market Streets and running northeast parallel to Church Street to the intersection of a line in projection of North Street; thence northwest in a straight line to and along North Street to the intersection of Church Street; thence northeast in a straight line parallel to King Street to the intersection of a line in projection of Union Street; thence in a straight line northwest to and along Union Street to the intersection of a line in extension of Liberty Street; thence southwest in a straight line to the intersection of Liberty and North Streets; thence northwest in a straight line in extension of North Street until intersecting a line in projection of Ayr Street; thence southwest to and along Ayr Street to a point on the east right-of-way of Dry Mill Road; thence right along the curve of said right-of-way having a radius of 225.43 feet to the center of the Town Branch; thence along Town Branch S 41°10'41" E to the projection of Ayr Street, thence southwest along the projection of Ayr Street 100 feet; thence in a straight line in extension of South Street southeast to Town Branch; thence S 36010'42" E along Town Branch to the Washington and Old Dominion Trail; thence paralleling the trail and Town Branch 594.12 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 3646.36 feet to the extension of the western right-of-way of Liberty Street; thence N 22°45'00'' E to the intersection of a projection of South Street; thence in a straight line in extension of South Street southeast to a point 200 feet west of King Street. still on an extension of South Street; thence in a straight line southwest parallel to King Street to a point 500 feet south of the railroad; thence east across King Street in a straight line parallel to South Street for 1700 feet; thence northeast in a straight line parallel to King Street to the intersection of Loudoun and Market Streets, to also include properties at 406 through 414 South King Street and 416, 418, 420, 422, 424 and 426 South King Street; 305 through 430 West Market Street; 6 Wilson Avenue N.W., 10, 14, 18 and 102 Morven Park Road N.W. and 9 and 21 Ayr Street, N.W. SECTION II. The Zoning District Map is hereby amended to incorporate the H-1 Historic District overlay zone as described in Section I above. Section III. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. 117 Minutes of April 10, 1990 Ms. Imhoff said that there had been concern with three residences, those have been deleted. Nay: Absent: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey and Tolbert. None Mayor Scylla On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Lovin, the following resolutions were proposed as consent items and unanimously adopted. 90-66 - RESOLUTION - COMMENTING ON COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION ZM-MAP 89-15, "RIVER CREEK" WHEREAS, the River Creek Limited Partnership of Silver Spring, MD. has submitted rezoning application ZM-MAP 89-15 to the Loudoun County Planning Commission to rezone approximately 612.68 acres from County A-3 to PDH-24 and a maximum proposal of two dwelling units per acre; and WHEREAS, this property is located within the Leesburg Area Management Plan (LAMP) area and is accordingly governed by the Annexation Area Development Policies (AADPs); and WHEREAS, the AADPs provide for town review and comment of applications within the LAMP area and prohibit the extension of central water and sewer extensions to this area, unless agreed to by the town and county or as necessary to meet public health needs; and WHEREAS, this proposed rezoning does not presently conform to the AADPs, LAMP and Resource Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the Loudoun County Planning Commission is processing this rezoning application in advance of their work underway to develop a General Plan for the county; and WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg, under the AADPs', is authorized to consider annexation petitions or to initiate by ordinance annexations after January 1, 1994; and WHEREAS, approval of this rezoning prior to 1994 and in advance of the county's underlying planning documents would be premature and not in the best interest of the citizens of Leesburg and Loudoun County; and WHEREAS, this Council recognizes that this area may be appropriate for future development at a similar scale as proposed in the current rezoning proposal; and WHEREAS, a low density, high quality golf course community similar to the River Creek proposal is not now available or planned within the corporate limits of Leesburg; and WHEREAS, this type of development can be an important community asset; and WHEREAS, this Council has reviewed a report, dated April 3, 1990, from the Leesburg Department of Planning, Zoning and Development which evaluates and analyzes the proposed application. THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The staff comments dated April 3, 1990, concerning the proposed River Creek ZM-MAP 89-15 rezoning application are endorsed and the manager is directed to transmit a copy of these comments and this resolution to the Loudoun County Planning Commission and applicant. SECTION II. The Loudoun County Planning Commission is encouraged to consider future land use changes in the River Creek area as well as others within the LAMP area to reflect a more urban development pattern, as part of the preparation of the Loudoun County General Plan and any future area plan modifications. 90-67 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A CHANGE ORDER TO THE CONTRACT WITH CGC, INC. PROVIDING COMPREHENSIVE MATERIALS TESTING SERVICES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT CENTER COMPLEX WHEREAS, On April 28, 1989 the Town of Leesburg entered into a Contract with C(~C, Inc. for comprehensive materials testing and inspection services at the Municipal Government Center and Parking Structure with an estimated total cost of $95,750.00; and WHEREAS, during the process of excavating for the building foundation and footings of Phase I, unsuitable soil materials and debris were encountered which required removal and replacement with suitable material over and above original estimates; and WHEREAS, additional testing and inspection services totaling $36,143.81 over the $50,000.00 estimate for Phase I were required to identify, test and monitor the removal and replacement of the unsuitable materials encountered; and WHEREAS, a budget for inspection and testing services for the Phase II Parking Structure is estimated to cost $42,250.00; and 118 Minutes of April 10, 1990 WHEREAS, sufficient funds for the extra work in Phase I and the services required for Phase II of the Municipal Government Center Complex are funded in the proposed Capital Improvements Program for FY91 through FY95 and the proposed FY91 Budget; and WHEREAS, Phase I expenditures and the estimated expenditures for Phase II soils testing will exceed 25% of the original contract estimate; and WHEREAS, Section 8.1-20 of the Town's Purchasing Policy requires Council authorization for change orders in excess of 25% of the original amount: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: The Manager is authorized and directed, to execute on behalf of the Town, a change order to the contract with CGC, Inc., increasing the limit of Phase I services by $36,143.81 and establishing the limit for Phase II services at $42,250.00 for a total estimated contract amount of $128,398.81. 90-68 - RESOLUTION - AWARDING A CONTRACT TO BLAKE LANDSCAPING FOR ANNUAL AND PERENNIAL FLOWER BEDS ON SOUTH KING STREET WHEREAS, a major objective of the Leesburg Town Council is to continue beautification of major entrances to town; and and WHEREAS, Town Council on July 25, 1989, adopted the South King Street Streetscape Plan; WHEREAS, the South King Streetscape Plan called for annual and perennial flower beds to be planted in the median areas in fiscal year 1990; and WHEREAS, bids were solicited under Section 8.1, Competitive Sealed Bidding of the Leesburg Purchasing Regulations for annual and perennial flower beds; and WHEREAS, two firms submitted bids on March 19, 1990, and were evaluated pursuant to the bid documents, Town's Purchasing regulations and the Virginia Public Procurement Act; and WHEREAS, Blake Landscaping submitted the lowest bid of $33,800 and has been determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: The manager is authorized and directed to enter into a contract on behalf of the town with Blake Landscaping in the amount of $33,800 for the installation of annual and perennial flower beds in the median areas according to the South King Streetscape Plan. 90-69 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT AND APPROVING A PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE AND WATER AND SEWER EXTENSION PERMITS FOR THE JEWELL BUILDING 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 the Jewell Building. SECTION II. The extension of municipal water and sewer for the Jewell Building 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 Sovran Bank in the amount of $60,000.00 is approved as security to guarantee installation of the public improvements shown on plans approved by the Director of Engineering and Public Works for the Jewell Building. Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey and Tolbert. Nay: None Absent: Mayor Sevila New Business On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Mulokey, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted. 90-70 - RESOLUTION - ENDORSING THE ALTERNATIVE MASTER PLAN PROPOSED FOR STRATFORD; SETTING AN APPROVAL TIMELINE FOR THE STRATFORD PROFFER AMENDMENTS; AND COMMITTING TO A PURCHASE OF THE ORCHARD SITE IF AN ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL SITE IS NOT LOCATED WHEREAS, this Council considers retention of the county government, including the Board of Supervisors hearing room and offices, county administrator's office, and the principal offices of the agencies and departments of the county now located in Leesburg to be of the utmost importance to 119 Minutes of April 10, 1990 the future of the Town of Leesburg and its relationship with Loudoun County; and WHEREAS, NVCommercial has tendered a proposal to the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors to develop the proposed consolidated county government complex at the Stratford Planned Development within Leesburg; and WHEREAS, this Council supports the Stratford proposal to develop the consolidated county complex on this property; and WHE~, this Council wishes to reaffirm its support of the Stratford proposal and convey to the Board of Supervisors its commitment to provide the county with the most economic site and full cooperation between the town and county. THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. This Council has reviewed the alternative master plan for Stratford as proposed by NVCommercial and has authorized a joint public hearing by this Council and the Planning Commission on April 24, 1990, to consider the revised plan. The Planning Commission and Council will promptly review this latest proposal. The Council supports relocating the government center towards Sycolin Road as is shown in this alternative plan. SECTION II. If the Board of Supervisors selects Stratford for the county complex, the Town of Leesburg, in order to coordinate its approval process with the county, will agree to 30-day comment periods for the government center site plan or. alternatively contract processing of site plan approvals by appropriate county officials and agencies. SECTION III. By prior resolution, this Council has endorsed Mayor Sevila's February 23, 1990, letter to Matthew Slepin of NVCommercial. To provide further assurances to the Board of Supervisors that a high school site will be available when needed in accordance with the AADPs, NVCommercial has agreed not to develop or sell this site except to the Town of Leesburg for a period of ten years if an alternative site acceptable to the county and town has not been located. The Town of Leesburg agrees to purchase this site from NVCommercial for $1,525,000 (as inflated by the Consumer Price Index from the date of construction start on the government center) at any time during this period, if it determines that this is the only site available to meet the town's high school site obligation under the AADPs. SECTION IV. The Council understands that the Board of Supervisors is considering alternatives to a fully consolidated complex. The Council would accept a proposal that would locate the School Board and a satellite service center outside of the town if the balance of county functions are located at Stratford and authorizes the mayor and town manager to discuss such alternatives with the county. SECTION V. The town manager is authorized to transmit a copy of this resolution to the County Board of Supervisors, county administrator, Loudoun County Board of Education, County Superintendent of Schools, the Staubach Company and NVCommercial. Mr. Minor said that the town has received an alternative master plan which moves the government center closer to Sycolin Road and improves the internal transportation as well as access to the property. Section I of the proposed resolution says that this change is supported in concept. It has nothing to do with the Council's support of the rezoning itself or the proffers. This also takes the government center completely away from the Leesburg Airport and further away from the flight path. Section II of the resolution says that the town would offer a 30 day review for any of the government center's site plan reviews and in fact would contract out the review to the county staff and other agencies, such as, VDOT and the Sanitation Authority, using town standards. The town would remain a consultant in this instance. Section III deals with the high school site and simply says the Council and the town has an obligation to the AADP's to provide school sites to the county when they need them. When the demand is there, based on growth in the annexation area, to justify a new school whether it is a middle, high school or primary school, the town will be responsible for providing that site at no cost to the county. The process the town has used to acquire those sites is the proffer system. This proposal says the 66 acre Stratford tract will be released and the value of that can be applied to enhance the offer of Stratford to the county government which has been done. NV, the applicant, is saying that they will reserve that site for ten years and the town will pay the $1.525 million if at anytime we cannot find another alternative site through the proffer process in the future prior to the date the county needs the site. It is very, very remote that the Town of Leesburg will ever have to acquire that site. In about 4 years from now, the Town of Leesburg will be~'able to annex, and in annexing we will incorporate other additional large areas of land. We can foresee future proffers of 40 to 45 acres for a school site. The county's capital improvements program, today, does not include a new high school site. Section IV states that we recognize the Board is evaluating other alternatives to a fully consolidated government complex and we are stating the Council has no objections to the school board or a satellite service center being located outside the Town of Leesburg. Mrs. Forester said that she fully supports this resolution. Mr. Mulokey agreed and said that we should do everything we can to make the Stratford site acceptable to the county and to show them the value of retaining the county administration in Leesburg. Mr. Lovin supports the resolution and said that out of the three sites, the only one that has any citizen participation and support comes from the Town of Leesburg. There is no citizen support 120 Minutes of April 10, 1990 for Lansdowne. Mr. Clem also supports the resolution. He believes it has come down to a political issue. The town has gone the extra mile. Mr. Kimball referenced the alternative master plan map and wanted to be sure that only the proposed government site would be relocated. He noted that the piece of property adjacent to Sycolin Road, the Council recently took a position on for commercial development with the understanding that, that section of land on Stratford, was also earmarked for commercial development. He fully endorses this plan and supports the resolution. Mr. Minor said that the resolution says that Council only endorses relocating the government center towards Sycolin Road. This resolution endorses no other elements. Nay: Absent: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey and Tolbert. None Mayor Sevila On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted. 90-71 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LETTER AGREEMENT WITH THE TOLL ROAD CORPOP~TION OF VIRGINIA AND REPEALING COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 90-52 WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg remains a vigorous supporter of the proposed Dulles Toll Road extension from Route 28 at Dulles Airport to the Leesburg by-pass; and WHEREAS, the Toll Road Corporation of Virginia (TRCV) has applied to the State Corporation Commission (SCC) for issuance of a Certificate of Authority to construct and operate the Dulles Toll Road from Route 28 to Leesburg, terminating at the Route 7/15 by-pass; and WHEREAS, this Council, by Resolution No. 90-52, conditionally endorsed this application, subject to three conditions set out in the resolution pursuant to Section 56-539 of the Virginia Highway Corporation Act of 1988; and WHEREAS, Ralph L. Stanley, Chief Executive Officer of the TRCV has submitted a letter to the Mayor dated April 9, 1990, which attempts to respond to the three outstanding conditions; and WHEREAS, it is the position of the TRCV that resolution of these issues in advance of the Certificate of Authority will be helpful with the processing of its application before the SCC and will aide the necessary financing for the project; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned letter does address the conditions set forth in Resolution No. 90-52, subject to modifications as hereinafter set out: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The application of the TRCV, filed with the SCC on February 2, 1990, is hereby endorsed, subject to the commitments made in a letter from TRCV Chief Executive Officer Ralph Stanley in a letter dated April 9, 1990, as amended, to include the following language: Development of Alternative II--initial construction for relocated Route 654 shall be accomplished as shown on Sheet 6B of 39 in Exhibit 12 to include two lanes from the proposed eastern ramp to Route 621, when the right-of-way is made available to the TRCV at no cost to TRCV and construction of the Route 654/ Battlefield Parkway interchange No. 8 shall occur within three months of a submittal of a capacity study performed by the TRCV, which shows a level of service at any two approaches to the Sycolin Road/Route 7/15 by-pass of level of Service D or worse, and when the year 2000 toll road projections prepared by TRCV for traffic flow and revenue as previously submitted to SCC are achieved. The service level study will be performed at the request of the town or the TRCV and will follow accepted methodology found in the Highway Capacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board National Resource Council. SECTION II. Upon execution of a letter agreement between the Toll Road Corpora~don of Virginia Chief Executive Officer and the Mayor to include the language set forth in Section I above, Council Resolution No. 90-52 is effectively repealed. Mr. Minor recalled when Resolution 90-52 was adopted and said that one of the sections in that resolution stated that in the future, the town may have a letter agreement that would substitute for those conditions. We have been working to try to put together some language that would satisfy those concerns. He referenced a letter from Mr. Ralph Stanley of the TRCV. That letter stands with the addition of this amendment regarding item number 2 - Battlefield Parkway interchange. That is an extremely important interchange. There are two things that we want to see done in that area. One is that we do not want a temporary overpass built north because it will have to be torn down. The TRCV said they will build that overpass and two lanes of the proposed eastern ramp to Route 621 when the right-of-way is available to the TRCV at no cost to them. The next step is the Battlefield Parkway interchange, itself. The TRCV is saying that when the Sycolin Road bypass intersection operates at a level of service D or worse and the year 2000 toll road projections for traffic flow and 121 Minutes of April 10, 1990 revenue are met, then they will build that interchange. We think that is far superior to the original language in the letter. This is a good compromise. It sustains a vast majority of our interests. Aye: Councilmembers Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Mulokey and Tolbert. Nay: None Absent: Mayor Sevila On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Mulokey, the meeting was adjourned. ~o~'-~. Tolbe~ Jr., Vice-mayor Clerk of Council 122 (This page intentionally left blank)