Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1991_01_22MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL JANUARY 22, 1991 A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held on January 22, 1991, in the lower level meeting room, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, Virginia at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor. INVOCATION was given by Councilmember Donald A. Kimball SALUTE TO THE FLAG was led by Director of Planning Katherine Imhoff ROLL CALL Councilrnembers present Georgia W. Bange James E. Clem Christine M. Forester Donald A. Kimball Claxton E. Lovin William F. Webb Mayor Robert E. Sevila Staff members present Acting Town Manager Steven C. Brown Director of Planning, Zoning and Land Development Katherine Imhoff Planner Peter Stephenson Zoning Administrator Scott Johnson Deputy Town Attorney Deborah Welsh Clerk of Council Dorothy B. Rosen APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Clem, the regular meeting minutes of November 14, 1990 were approved as corrected by Mrs. Forester. VOTE Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila Nay: None PETITIONERS Mr. Tom Galloway, representing Leesburg Renaissance, addressed the Council. He stated that Leesburg Renaissance has operated as a committee of the Leesburg Business Association (LBA). This has led to some confusion between LBA members and renaissance members. We are trying, by unanimous vote of the Leesburg Renaissance Board, to establish Leesburg Renaissance as a corporation on its own. Ms. Sue Webb addressed the Council. She stated that the LBA was created from the Downtown Business Association (DBA) to be representative of all of Leesburg. The Leesburg Renaissance program has taken off so well and has become very strong that the LBA and the renaissance both are not needed to represent the town. The renaissance should represent the town and the LBA should reveler back to just downtown merchants. Mrs. Heidi Malacarne, a resident of Country Club Subdivision, addressed the Council representing the parents and children of the Leesburg United Methodist Preschool. She stated that there was established parking drop-off and pick up for the school on Wirt Street. The parents have now been told to park on Market Street. This creates a safety problem while unloading the children. There are only six spaces and 74 children. She suggested that the police parking be moved to Market Street and the preschool pick-up and drop-off resume on Wirt Street. Ms. Linda Peters representing the parents of the Leesburg United Methodist Preschool, addressed the Council. She expressed her support in moving the parking spaces back to Wirt Street. Ms. Linda Reeder., a resident of Mt. Gilead, addressed the Council as a parent of the Leesburg United Methodist Preschool. She expressed her concern with the dangerous parking situation on Market Street while loading and unloading the preschoolers. Ms. Valerie Jackson, representing the preschool, addressed the Council expressing her concern and the danger with the situation. Ms. Dana Arnest, representing the preschool, addressed the Council expressing her concern and the danger with the situation. Ms. Linda Rothermel, Director of the Leesburg United Methodist Preschool, addressed the Council. She wished to echo all of the concerns of the former speakers. She also reported that the parking situation is a concern of the preschool board, in that, the parents that are considering registering at the preschool next year may reconsider because of the parking situation. Mr. Brown stated that the police need to be close by to respond to any emergency. He stated that staff will look at the situation and agreed that a solution is needed right away. Mayor Sevila recommended that the Chief of Police, Steve Brown and Mrs. Rothermel get together to resolve this issue and report back to Council on February 5. Mr. Kimball suggested having a police officer assist with the traffic control, during the hours of pick- up and drop-off, on Market Street until this situation is resolved. 11. (a) MOTION On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Ms. Bange, item ll(a) was considered at this time. VOTE Nay: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila None MOTION On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Webb, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted. 91-15 - RESOLUTION - TO AUTHORIZE FUNDING OF LEESBURG RENAISSANCE PROGRAMS AND TO ENDORSE THE ACTION OF THE LEESBURG RENAISSANCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO ESTABLISH LEESBURG RENAISSANCE AS AN INDEPENDENT CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Leesburg Town Council on June 27, 1990, adopted Resolution No. 90-160, which established conditions for funding the Leesburg Business Association's Leesburg Renaissance Program; and WHEREAS, the Leesburg Renaissance Board of Directors has selected an executive director, conducted the Leesburg Alive promotional program on Friday night's and solicited 58 members as of January 16, 1991; and WHEREAS, the Leesburg Renaissance Board of Directors requests Council to authorize their long and short-term objectives; and WHEREAS, the Leesburg Renaissance Board of Directors voted on January 16, 1991, to seek Council approval to establish Leesburg Renaissance as an independent organization with the same conditions as outlined in the June 27, 1990, Council resolution in order to increase the efficiency of the organization; and WHEREAS, the Leesburg Renaissance Board pledges to continue to work closely with the town- wide business community and the organizations representing local businesses to promote Leesburg through advertisement, special events and other programs. THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: The Council hereby endorses the action of the Leesburg Renaissance Board of Directors to increase their efficiency and effectiveness by establishing Leesburg Renaissance as an independent corporation. DISCUSSION Mrs. Forester stated that the proposed legislation does not state how much funding the Council is authorizing, what the Council is authorizing the funding for and it does not mention any matching funds. Mayor Sevila stated that the Council did pledge a certain amount of funding provided that certain conditions were met. He asked that Leesburg Renaissance provide the Council with a report, on February 5, showing that the conditions are being met. VOTE Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila Nay: None Minutes of January 22, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. a. Joint public hearing to consider an amendment to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance regarding signs for gasoline stations Planning Commission Chairman Mervin Jackson, addressed the Council stating that the following Planning Commission members were present for the joint public hearing:. Councilmanic representative Christine Forester, Mr. Williams, Mr. Vaughan and himself. He stated that the Planning Commission has a motion to forward to the Council after the public heating if there is no negative comment. Zoning Administrator Scott Johnson, addressed the Council presenting the staff report. He stated that this item was initiated on December 12, 1990. The purpose is to provide greater flexibility for gasoline stations, within the Town of Leesburg, to have signage that would address the needs. One major change is that the signage itself would be limited to the single logo and single name of the service station. The size is also limited to fifty square feet. The Planning Commission convened outside the room. Further consideration on this item was deferred until the Planning Commission's report. 6. b. To consider Rezoning Application #ZM-125 and Special Exception Application #SE- 90-05 by Hillcrest Joint Venture Planner Peter Stephenson, addressed the Council presenting the staff report. He stated that the rezoning request is from R-4 Single-family residential to RI-ID. The property is located in the H-1 Historic District Overlay. The neighborhood consists of large lots, single-family residences. The Hillcrest property includes a large residence which is on the National Register of Historic Places and four out-buildings. The Town Plan designates this parcel for low density residential development. The rezoning request for RHD as well as the special exception approval is designed to provide an alternative use for the residence. The intention, by special exception, is to allow a bed and breakfast use. Planning Director Kat Imhoff, stated that staff received proffers at 5:00 p.m., this afternoon. Town staff nor legal staff has had an opportunity to analyze them. It appears that some of the concerns may have been addressed by the revised proffers. The revised proffers now exclude duplex development and also excludes all residential and community services except for recreational projects. With regard to the special exception, the proffers state that they would exclude the ability to have townhouse, single- family attached dwellings. They would like to retain some type of special exception use for cluster development. Peter Stephenson stated that the special exception application is for the adaptive reuse of Hillcrest as a bed and breakfast inn. The specific criteria, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, regarding bed and breakfast inns as a special exception, have been met. There were concerns raised by the Planning Commission regarding access to the property and intensity of the use proposed. The bed and breakfast will accommodate five rooms and the applicant is proposing the possibility of seminars or business meetings with attendance not to exceed 30 people, maximum five meetings a week. Thirty special events per year with attendance limited to a maximum of 150 people. Regarding parking, the applicant was asked to demonstrate that sight distance would be met. There is also quite a bit of parking that is also required - a total of 44 spaces. The applicant has shown the possibility of 12 spaces on site and satisfying the balance of the parking requirement with off-site parking. It is a concern of the neighbors that uses be limited and also parking on the site. The conversion of the residence to a bed and breakfast inn and meeting facility does follow historic practices as far as preservation of homes requiring minimum changes to the building. The Council may recommend conditions relative to this special exception request. For example, staff would recommend that on-site parking and paving be limited as proposed by the applicant and that special events may be limited to fewer then proposed. We suggest 2 a month - 24 a year. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 6, 1991. On January 10, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended denial of both applications for the reasons that the potential bi- right development in the RHD district were not amenable and not appropriate given the surrounding neighborhood. And being inconsistent with the Town Plan which designates the property for low density residential development. The Planning Commission felt that the applicant had not demonstrated that further reasonable use of the property could be achieved under the existing zoning and that the bed and breakfast use with the ancillary, executive meetings and special events as defined by the applicant would be disruptive to the neighborhood given the intensity and frequency proposed. The applicant did state their appreciation and their desire to work with Council on these items. There has been a Zoning Administrator interpretation appeal as part of the bed and breakfast definition. On February 11, the Board of Zoning Appeals will consider this interpretation, therefore, no Council action should be taken on the special exception for the bed and breakfast until after the BZA's decision. Staff would propose following the public hearing this evening that we report back to the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting of February 19. Mrs. Forester, on behalf of the Planning Commission, stated that the Planning Commission recommends approval of item 10.(a) by a vote of 4-0. MOTION Minutes of January 22, 1991 On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Clem, action on lO.(a) is deferred until the legislation portion of the agenda. VOTE Aye.' Nay: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila None Mr. Eric Zimmerman, representing the applicant of Hillcrest, addressed the Council. He stated that the staff report is very comprehensive. "We listened to what the residents and Planning Commission said. We have hopefully answered those questions and have narrowed them down to basically three issues, parking, density and intensity of the use. We are endeavoring to locate offsite facilities where parking can occur, arrange for bus service to and from the site in order to provide the parking that is necessary. The density issue has been addressed in the proffers. We are proffering out townhouses and duplexes. With regard to the intensity of the use, we are proposing an explanation of what we would interpret this type of rezoning and special exception to mean. Frequency with the bed and breakfast would be on a daily basis. There is the possibility that on the third floor there are three additional rooms that could conceivably be used in the future. Hours of operation would be 24 hours and parking on-site. With regard to the executive meetings, our proposal is that these meetings would be during weekdays only. We are not anticipating doing them on the weekends. The numbers of persons would not exceed 30. Hours of operation would be from 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. Parking would be provided on-site. Special events cause a little more concern for the community and we recognize that and want to be responsive to that concern. There would be no more then 30 special events per year and not more then one per weekend. Maximum number of person would be 150. Hours of operation are from 10:00 a.m. until midnight with the exception of Sunday with hours of 1:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. We will have a landscaping plan to maintain substantial landscaping along the eastern edge of the property as a buffer to that property owner. With regard to noise, any outside amplification of music would be restricted." Mr. Zimmerman then read an excerpt from the 1986 Town Plan regarding the use of historic resources in this town. "The town should support the efforts of private individuals, businesses and historic groups in preserving and maintaining historic sites and structures and adaptive reuse of historic structures should be encouraged when compatible with the historic character of the structure and the existing character of the surrounding area." Mayor Sevila asked Mr. Zimmerman if the applicant was making the proffer statement contingent upon approval of the special exception and rezoning? Mr. Zimmerman stated yes. Mayor Sevila stated that if the Council imposes a single condition then arguable we haven't approved or acted on the application as submitted and arguable the proffer statement is null and void as it states on its face. Mr. Zimmerman stated that he hoped that the Mayor's concern would not be an issue when it comes to a vote. Mayor Sevila asked that the town's legal staff review this and report back to the Council with a recommendation. Mr. Tom Jewell, one of the owners of Hillcrest, addressed the Council. He stated that next month will be four years since the contract was put on Hillcrest and he started working with town staff on an adaptive reuse of the property. "We have found ourselves in a legal and bureaucratic nightmare. We have gone through a change in the Zoning Ordinance and have seen the property rezoned from one category to another. We hope for a positive resolution. Immediately after purchasing the property we began the process of placing it on the Virginia National Register. We recognize the fact that it is the most distinctive turn of the century dwelling in Loudoun County. We knew there was a need in Leesburg for more bed and breakfast rooms and meeting facilities not of the motel type. We have attempted to make certain that whatever we did was appropriate to the general character of the area. We were not well received when we came before the town to have the property placed in the H-1 district. However, within a year the rest of the neighbors, including those who opposed us, applied to have their properties included in the H-I. The only reason for this application is for a bed and breakfast inn combination meeting facility." Mayor Sevila asked Mr. Jewell to summarize, over the past four years, what some of the uses have been, the frequency of those uses and the size of the attendees. Mr. Jewell stated that Hillcrest has had up to 300 people on site including parking. Everything that we have done, so far, has been on site. Mrs. Judy Ferguson, a resident of Leesburg, addressed the Council on behalf of Muncey Fergnson a regional advertising agency. Wqe specialize in regional and national advertisers who tend to have fairly large budgets and demands. We have very small meeting facilities and as a company we make use of Hillcrest for some off site meetings with clients. It would be an advantage that we don't have in Leesburg other then the motels with the standard level of meeting facilities. Maintaining the historic flavor of the home is also very important. We should encourage people who want to maintain the historic atmosphere within Leesburg. Our business strongly supports the Hillcrest application. Mrs. Ferguson stated that she is also representing the Bluemont Concert Series, on behalf of Peter Dunning. She read the following letter: This letter is written in reference to the Hillcrest property on West Market Street owned by Mr. Thomas Jewell and Mr. Kevin Goehler. Many organizations have reason to be greatful to Mr. Jewell and Mr Goehler for kindly allowing them to use Hillcrest for a variety of cultural and community events. Tom Jewell who has served on the Board of the Bluemont Concert Series for the past five Minutes of January 22, 1991 years is one of the most energetic and philanthropic business men in Loudoun County. His generosity and commitment to the people to the community work is known throughout the county. He has been a genuine friend in deed to countless organizations throughout Loudoun County. Mr. Jewell has helped Bluemont expand its business and artist education program which last year served more then 90 schools in our community, our outreach program which brings benefit programs to local nursing homes, hospitals and senior centers. As to the Hillcrest property Bluemont held its first board meeting there in 1978 and will undoubtedly continue to use it if it is still available for community use. Since 1978 we have been involved in helping plan and present cultural events at Hillcrest including Mrs. Vinton Pickens' ninetieth birthday celebration, the Springwood's Spring Gala and a business for Bluemont Benefit. We are greatful to Mr. Jewell and Mr. Goehler for allowing us to use I-Iillcrest over the years. Ms. Sue Webb, 9A Catoctin Circle, S.W., addressed the Council. She stated, as a member of the business community, there is a need in Leesburg to have a facility such as Hillcrest. Mr. Peter Chopivsky, 306 West Market Street, addressed the Council. He stated that he has reviewed the submitted proposals, the letters of support and protest. He has listened to verbal petitions at the Planning Commission. He has heard concerns raised about subdivision into smaller lots and residential units of the property and the negative effect that subdivision would have not only on the historic value of Hillcrest but also the real value of the neighbors properties. Concern about the owner holding special events without time limits creating potential for inappropriate and unacceptable levels of noise and volumes of traffic in what is a family neighborhood. Concern about the problem of parking for attendees of the special events to be held at I-Iillcrest. If the changes sought are granted what effects will it have on the surrounding historic neighborhood? A neighborhood rich in beauty and timelessness. A neighborhood who's current and inherent value and appeal to the Town of Leesburg was recognized some time ago when it was included in the Old and Historic District. Implicit in the application has always been the specter that if the zoning change and special exception is not granted Hillcrest will somehow deteriorate or self destruct. What really would happen to Hillcrest if the status quo were preserved? The reality is that sooner or later a buyer will be found for Hillcrest who will be sincerely interested in preserving the inherent calm beauty and character of the building and surrounding property. By granting the changes and exceptions requested we will not be preserving Hillcrest. In deed it will radically change. As the Council considers the applicant's request remember and fulfill what should be a greater obligation and responsibility to preserve Leesburg's Old and Historic District and to maintain the single-family residential character of our neighborhood. Mrs. Betty Poehlman, 18 Morven Park Road, N.W., addressed the Council. She stated that the neighbors would be opposed to anything that suggests that there would be a decrease in lot size and increase in density to below 10,000 square feet presently required in the R-4 district. She read the following letter. I am writing to oppose the rezoning and special exception applications for the Hillcrest property. As proposed the rezoning would allow for high density, single and multi-unit development of the property. This is not in keeping with the surrounding residential neighborhood and the Town Plan. This special exception request for a bed and breakfast inn, meeting and special events facility is not a designated special exception use as defined by RHD zoning and special exception usage. The meeting and special events facility has been arbitrarily added to the designated special exception uses by the applicant and is not justified by the Zoning Ordinance and Town Plan. 1. The property rezoned from R-4 to RHD. In order the achieve the owners request for conversion of the Hillcrest property to a bed and breakfast inn is necessary to rezone the property to RHD. Under their present zoning, R-4, a bed and breakfast is not allowable. However, once rezoned the owners also require the right to further develop the property with decreased lot size and increased density. In contrast R-4 zoning maintains a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and restricts development to single-family detached dwellings. RI-ID allows for minimum lot sizes of 4,000 square feet and in addition to single-family detached dwellings the right to duplexes. The applicant is fully aware of these increased development rights but is unwilling to proffer to the level of the surrounding residential neighborhood. This acquired bi-right development potential is not in accordance with the Town Plan which designates all property west of Ayr Street for single-family residential usage. Furthermore, this high density development right would not be in keeping with any of the surrounding properties in one of the truly older and more gracious neighborhoods in Leesburg which consists all of single-family dwellings on large private lots. 2. The special exception for use as a bed and breakfast inn, meeting and special events facility. The applicants have in a singular manner expanded the list of special exception uses for RHD Section 3(f) 3, Subsection 2 from Bed and Breakfast Inn to Bed and Breakfast Inn Meeting and Special Events Facility. This is not the town's Zoning Ordinance definition of a bed and breakfast inn. The ordinance reads that a bed and breakfast inn is a private residence in which lodging and food are provided by the owner or operator for profit to one or more non-resident guest. Bed and breakfast should not include more then eight guest rooms. The owner or operator shall be a resident of the inn. The zoning interpretation of this additional usage was made by Zoning Administrator Scott Johnson, stating an opinion in favor of the extended usage. Mr. Johnson, however, used as his point of reference in the interpretation as outlined in R-6 not the surrounding R-4 and he ignored the residential limitations outlined for R-4 by the Town Plan. His opinion is under appeal and will be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals on the llth of February. Minutes of January 22, 1991 3. Further development density of special exception uses of RHD. In their request the applicants have further asked for a special exception that the property may be eligible for any special exception uses listed in Section 3(fl 3. Additional uses listed in 3(0 3 besides bed and breakfast are dwelling accessory, dwelling single-family attached townhouse. The applicant would, if the request for special exception is granted, now receive the right to even further development density. Single-family attached townhouses in RI-ID requires only 2000 square feet per unit. Thus allowing townhouses in the center of a residential neighborhood. A very unattractive proposal. In summary, I am not opposed to a bed and breakfast inn as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. But this is not what the applicant is requesting. The applicant under the guise of a bed and breakfast is actually requesting the right to run a commercial entertainment center in the heart of a residential neighborhood. A center that could be used 30 times per year representing the equivalent of every weekday from May through August and would allow for traffic, noise and confusion of 150 people per event with no restriction on hours. Furthermore the applicants if granted the rezoning and special exception as written would acquire the right to high density development for their property. Specifically townhouses on 2000, duplexes on 3000 or single-family dwellings on 4000 square feet. All in the center of a residential neighborhood R-4 which has 10,000 square feet as its minimum lot. You should be aware that this application was reviewed by the Planning Commission and denied unanimously on the 10th and I ask that you likewise deny this application for the same reasons. We are all in favor of preservation but preservation should not apply to a single dwelling but rather should apply to an entire neighborhood. If this rezoning and exception are granted there will be a loss of a whole neighborhood for the sole benefit of a single property owner. This would not represent conscionable town leadership. Mayor Sevila asked Mrs. Poehlman what the impacts are from some of the activities that have been conducted at Hillcrest over the last four years. Mrs. Poehlman stated that with the exception of being aware that events are taking place because of the disruption of the routine in the neighborhood, we are not affected where we live. She expressed concern with the possibility of lighted tennis courts and swimming pool. We are not impacted by traffic on Market Street although if off-site parking is necessary some of it may spill over to Morven Park Road. Mrs. Poehlman referenced a letter written by Mr. Donald Shea, a resident of Market Street, which states that he is in opposition to the rezoning and special exception application. The letter reads: We believe your approval of this application would be counter to the residential character of the neighborhood adjacent to the applicant's property and would place the singular interest of one property owner above that of his neighbor. The operative Town Plan designates all property West of Ayr Street as single-family residential usage. This application if granted would allow the establishment of a commercial enterprise in the midst of an established single-family residential neighborhood while concurrently granting authority for greater density usage of this property then envisioned in the aforesaid Town Plan. The impact upon current properties would be devastating and limited of any beneficial value to the town. While a bed and breakfast inn properly administered with the owner residing on the premises comport with the letter and spirit of the Town Plan this application does not limit itself to that singular use. This is what causes me considerable concern. The possibility of higher density development, increased traffic, noise and other features associated with a special events facility are not in keeping with either the letter or the spirit of the Town Plan or the surrounding properties. We would not oppose the applicant's request if it were specifically limited to the operation of a bed and breakfast as defined under RHD Section 3(fl3 Subsection 2. However, the applicant's request must be interpreted to go well behind the specific intent to include the probability of a conference center, meetings and special events and increased development. This would drastically alter the character of the town west of Ayr Street. We would remind you that the Planning Commission unanimously denied this application similarly we ask you to deny it as well. Donald B. Shea and Victoria L. Shea. Mr. Mike Banzhaf, a resident of 102 Morven Park Road, addressed the Council on behalf of Mr. Mike Clemmer a resident of Route I Box 72 Paeonian Springs. Mr. Clemmer owns property that abuts the Hillcrest property. Mr. Banzhaf read the following letter written by Mr. Clemmer who was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Relative to Rezoning #ZM-125 and concurrent #SE90-05. I am the owner of the property located at 14 Morven Park Road together with other contiguous property owners we are likely to be the most adversely affected by approval of the cited applications. My property abuts the back of the Hillcrest property. This is the area most subject to special exception development if the rezoning application is approved. The rear entrance to my house is within 30 feet of the common property line. Any potential development of the current open-space behind Hillcrest to support either a bed and breakfast inn and conference center or what would become a possibility if a rezoning application were approved the construction of townhouses would have a direct and adverse affect on my property. At the current time the Hillcrest property is occasionally used for open houses and various social functions. The impact of multiple cars being parked behind the mansion house and directly adjacent to my property has created significant noise and disruptions to the usual tranquil nature of the open setting. To allow greater and more frequent use of this area under the requested special exception would place my home Minutes of January 22, 1991 adjacent to a parking lot subject to slamming of car doors, exhaust fumes, horns honking, etc. On several occasions trash has been deposited on my property evidently by individuals attending functions at Hillcrest. While the incidents have not been frequent they have been annoyance. Increased use of this property would surely increase this problem. To approve without appropriate safeguard a bed and breakfast inn conference facility would most likely lead to the construction of various amenities at the rear of the property. Such amenities as a swimming pool, tennis court and public facilities would increase the use of this area during both daylight and evening hours. Installation of lights, increased noise at all hours and a general disruption of the peaceful setting of single-family homes would surely occur. It is my understanding that if a rezoning application is approved from an R-4 to RI-ID a subsequent special exception could be sought to allow the construction of townhouses on the back portion of this property. While I applaud the efforts being pursued to define some proper and acceptable use of this historic property I do oppose the approval of this pending rezoning application since it would permit the current and future owners to seek special zoning exceptions that are not available or desired by the adjacent property owners. A situation that would have an adverse affect on the tranquility of our homes. ! ask that the Leesburg Town Council accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny this application as submitted. To allow the Planning Commission to work with the current applicants to find a way to resubmit an application that offers the necessary, protection to the adjacent property owners relative to the potential development of this prope~y. Leesburg is a wonderful family environment and the historic district is a national treasure. We cannot let it be lost. It must be protected. Sincerely, R. Michael Clemmer Mr. Banzhafs letter of appeal is attached and made a part of the official record. He stated that the application is inconsistent with the Town Plan. The Town Plan calls for low density residential uses west of Ayr Street. The application is more like multi-family density or commercial use. It is spot zoning. Spot zoning, in this situation, is a commercial use in an otherwise residential neighborhood. It is not saved by the adaptive re-use language in the Town Plan. That language says that it is a great idea to preserve something that is going to be a historic property and a benefit to the community. It goes on to say that the adaptive re-use must take into account the surrounding properties, traffic generated, noise, glare, etc. This is a concern to those residences that abut the Hillcrest prope~,. The increased density permitted in the RHD zone is inconsistent with the surrounding properties. In response to the concerns about clustering and increased uses, the applicant has responded by stating he will not change that and not proffer those uses out. The applicant states that he wants to retain the opportunity to duster which is not permitted in the RHD zone. The traffic generated from the special exception - the Town Plan states you have to take cognisance even if your doing an adaptive re-use. The applicant has had a vail threat saying if you don't like my off-site parking proposal I'll just park all the cars on-site. According to the town's parking regulations - off-site parking must have pedestrian access available within 500 feet for non-residential use and 300 feet for residential uses measured from the nearest entrance to the building to the nearest point of the parking area. With respect to how many cars can be put on-site, the ordinance states that if you have an existing driveway in the H-1 overlay district you can only park so many cars if you only have one entrance. If you have two entrances you can park more cars. If you have a single access you can only park ten cars. The applicant is proposing 13 cars. Mr. Fred Williams, a resident of 21 Wirt Street, N.W., addressed the Council stating that he is speaking as a citizen not as a member of the Leesburg Planning Commission. He stated that he was speaking against Hillcrest. He has problems with the application, both from a conceptual overall point of view as well as for some specific elements. From the zoning and planning concept, Leesburg has never created a single, small lot zone of more intense usage. Where you have taken a type of zoning that was more intense then everything else around it and put it down on one single lot. The rezoning that has been requested which would create a commercial meeting center in the middle of a stable residential neighborhood is not good planning. The Zoning Ordinance specifically excluded bed and breakfast inns from the R-4 zone. This application is trying to go around what the town's stated policy is. The special exception provision provides that the town can place any restrictions that they want to on the property. The applicant has said that they would have daily meetings of up to 30 people a day and anything above that would be called a special exception. When the applicant was asked how this would be enforced, his answer was simply trust me. If I go over 30 I will tell you. You may be able to trust the current applicant but the problem is that the property is for sale. You cannot allow a condition to be placed on the property and on the use simply as the enforcement mechanism "trust me" this will lead to problems. Another concern is the effect of creeping commercialism. Commercialization of residential areas. Once you get commercialization into a residential neighborhood it tends to act as a wedge and this is why we don't take single zones and put them into residential neighborhoods. Hillcrest is a grand house and it is not a valid reason for rezoning to look at the expensive upkeep of a house. This is a stable residential neighborhood. Mrs. Patricia Friedman a resident of Mosby Drive, addressed the Council. "The owners, tonight, have addressed parking, density and frequency of usage. Identification of the special functions is a concern. What are the activities that will be occurring during these events? If an owner of a building receives a rezoning he has an intent to change the usage of the structure and an intent to increase the occupancy load and that fact invokes a portion of the Virginia Code. The citizen would go to Loudoun County to obtain a form. On that form he would have to declare very specifically what he intends to do, what functions he intends to have occurring in that structure. This is invoking that system of building classification. The state of Virginia provides a very specific definition of functions that are Minutes of January 22, 1991 going on in buildings. In delineating these classifications that will be assigned to buildings there is a feature that says if three things are occurring within a building, music, alcohol and space for dancing, this is defined as an A2-night club. Therefore, when you get into those usages of buildings and you have the lack of clarity of usage, we would like to know what would be occurring. Many of the citizens would say that this is an improper function of a building that is in the heart of a family residential neighborhood." Regarding the parking, staff made a suggestion to the owner that the owner enter into a contract to put all excess parking into a parking lot of a nearby church. This is introducing a parking lot on a much more frequent basis then what the neighbors are experiencing now. Mr. Julian Shrink, treasurer of the Waterford Foundation, addressed the Council on behalf of Catherine Ladd, Executive Director, in support of the application. The Waterford Foundation has had some experience in adaptive re-use dealing with both commercial and private interests in a small area. There are three bed and breakfast inns in the Waterford village. Adaptive use is a commonly used tool to permit preservation of historic properties to bring them into the modern world on an economically viable basis. We have had a good deal of success living with the basic conflict that has been presented tonight. We have addressed all of these problems and there is a resolution to them. Mayor Sevila closed the public hearing stating that the record would be kept open until February 19, 1992, to receive additional written comment concerning the public hearing. Mr. Lovin stated that he received 7 phone calls and letters regarding this application. He was a resident of Hillcrest from June 1989 until October 1989. Several people have asked him to abstain from voting on this issue citing a conflict of interest with leasing the property as a resident. He does not find it to be a conflict of interest and will vote on the issue. Mayor Sevila read the following letter written by Mrs. Steven Hawk Adams a resident of 711 Anne Street: As an adjoining property owner I have some concerns. When I first heard about this rezoning it was my understanding that the house would be used for a bed and breakfast. I thought those plans were fine. But now it is my understanding that the RHD rezoning could allow increased density up to one house per 2000 square feet. I am opposed to that. My concerns are heightened because the property has not proffered out the high density uses. The traffic impact that a commercial conference facility in a residential area concerns me. It seems to me that if this commercial zoning were to be approved we would have spot zoning. Ethel L. Adams Mayor Sevila assured the public that the Council would give full consideration of the concerns raised by the citizens. MOTION On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Webb, this matter was referred to the February 19, 1991 Planning and Zoning Committee meeting for further discussion and consideration. VOTE Aye' Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila None MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Sevila read the following proclamation: JAYCEE WEEK WHEREAS, the Greater Leesburg Jaycees has become a vital part of the development of young leaders for our community; and WHEREAS, the Greater Leesburg Jaycees has contributed to the betterment of the community through involvement in such programs as "Santa at Market Station", "Bellwood Commons Santa", Cup of Cheer" and the "Loudoun County Animal Program Trust Fund"; and WHEREAS, the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce and its affiliated state and local organization in 1920: THEREFORE, I, Robert E. Sevila, the Mayor of the Town of Leesburg, proclaim the week of January 20 to 26, 1991 as JAYCEE WEEK and urge all citizens of our community to give full regard to the past and continuing service of the Greater Leesburg Jaycees. Mayor Sevila announced that this was Ms. Imhoff's last Council meeting. He stated, on behalf of the town, Ms. Imhoff has served the town professionally and courageously. Ms. Imhoff was the planning director charged with completing the draft Zoning Ordinance and getting it through the process. The Minutes of January 22, 1991 Council and town owe Ms. Imhoff a debt of gratitude and wish her well as she takes on her new job. MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Brown noted that the Council did receive a copy of the written Activity Report. He expressed his appreciation for Ms. Imhoffs tenure with the town and wished her luck in the future. LEGISLATION 10. (b) MOTION On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Webb, the following ordinance and resolutions were proposed as consent items and unanimously adopted. 91-0-8 - ORDINANCE - REAl)OPTING SECTION 10-97 OF THE TOWN OF LEESBURG TOWN CODE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 18.2-266 et. Seq. OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, a recent ruling of the Virginia Supreme Court requires the town to annually update its local ordinance on Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and WHEREAS, to ensure that the town continues to collect revenue from the fines issued under this ordinance, Section 10-97 of the Town Code must be readopted. THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: Sec. 10-97. Driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; adoption of current state law. Article 2, Chapter 7, of Title 18.2, Sections 18.2-266 et seq., of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, is hereby adopted and made a part of this chapter as fully as thought set out herein, and specifically, but not exclusively, Sections 18.2-266; 18.2-267; 18.2-268; 18.2-269 and 18.2-271.1 of the said Code of Virginia. 91-16 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE OPERATIONS OF SHENANIGANS IRISH PUB UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ALL MEALS TAXES DUE TO THE TOWN ARE PAID WHEREAS, Cavalier Investments Inc. trading as Shenanigans Irish Pub is delinquent in payment of meals taxes to the Town of Leesburg for quarters ending March 30, 1990, June 30, 1990 and September 30, 1990 for the estimated amount of $3,067.81; and WHEREAS, other normal legal channels have proven to be unsuccessful in an attempt to collect these taxes: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia that the Director of Finance and Deputy Town Attorney, are authorized to file a suit in the name of the Town of Leesburg pursuant to Sections 58.1-3953 and 58.1-3954 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended to enforce the collection of the said taxes by obtaining an injunction prohibiting the defendant, its agents or employees from conduct of its business, as a restaurant, until such time as all past due meals tax liabilities are satisfied. 91-17 RESOLUTION MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR A PICNIC SHELTER AND PLAYGROUND AT IDA LEE PARK WHEREAS, in December 1990, Mr. William F. Rust donated $50,000 to the Town of Leesburg for the development of a picnic shelter and playground at Ida Lee Park; and WHEREAS, Mr. Rust requested that the construction of these facilities be completed as soon as possible; and WHEREAS, the Leesburg Parks and Recreation Department and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission desire to construct the facilities in fiscal year 1991: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: Appropriations are authorized to the following Capital Project Fund Accounts: 900-9007-700-010 900-9007-700-020 Construction $30,000 Equipment $20,000 91-18 - RESOLUTION - MAKING AMENDMENTS FOR AQUATIC AND RECREATION CLASS BUDGETS AND AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE AQUATIC CLASS BUDGET Minutes of January 22, 1991 WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg Parks and Recreation Department offers aquatic, recreation, sports, special events, and special services/projects programs funded from collected user fees; and WHEREAS, program instructors have to date been paid on a contractual basis; and WHEREAS, Internal Revenue Service regulations require that these instructors are to be paid as regular town employees; and WHEREAS, aquatic class revenues and expenditures have exceeded estimates requiring additional revenue and expenditure appropriations: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. Aquatic class reimbursable budget is amended to include Part-time Salaries, FICA and Worker's Compensation line items and appropriations of $40,000 to the aquatic class budget and revenue account are hereby authorized to the general fund budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1991. Aquatic Classes Description Amount General Fund Account Revenue: $40,000 200-2403-030-000 Expenditures: Part-time Salaries $30,000 FICA $ 2,295 Worker's Compensation $ 675 Contractual Services $5,925 Materials and Supplies $1,105 Equipment No change SECTION II. Recreation class FICA and Worker's Compensation line Description Expenditures: Part-time Salaries FICA Workman's Compensation Contractual Services Materials and Supplies Equipment 200-7109-100-030 200-7109-200-011 200-7109-200-110 200-7109-300-010 200-7109-540-010 200-7109-700-010 reimbursable budget is amended to include Part-time Salaries, items. Recreation Classes Amount General Fund Account $5,550 200-7111-100-030 $ 425 200-7111-200-010 $ 125 200-7111-200-110 ($4,125) 200-7111-300-010 ($1,975) 200-7111-540-010 No change 200-7111-700-010 91-19 - RESOLUTION - COMMENTING ON THE VIRGINIA TOLL ROAD PRELIMINARY PLANS AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AND AUTHORIZING ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW ON FURTHER PLAN SUBMISSION WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg remains in strong support of the Dulles Toll Road Extension from Route 28 to Dulles Airport to the Town of Leesburg; and WHEREAS, town staff has reviewed the preliminaw plans and final environmental report within the town; and WHEREAS, consistent with previous policy, staff comments to date have been reviewed and endorsed by the Town Council prior to distribution; and WHEREAS, in the future, plan review will be subject only to administrative staff review so that the agreed to 45 day initial review and 30 day review commitments can be met. THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. The Leesburg Town Council hereby endorses the attached Dulles Toll Road Extension staff review comments, dated January 11, 1991, on the project's preliminary plans and final environmental report. SECTION II. Further Dulles Toll Road Extension detailed engineering and design plans will be subject only to administrative staff review. 91-20 - RESOLUTION - ENDORSING THE PRESERVATION ALLIANCE SPRING CONFERENCE Minutes of January 22, 1991 WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg is committed to historic preservation and proudly promotes its Old and Historic neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Town provides an example for other jurisdictions similarly concerned with retaining their historic character and sense of place; and WHEREAS, the Preservation Alliance of Virginia is a non-profit statewide consortium of 135 local and regional preservation and conservation organizations, including the Town of Leesburg; and WHEREAS, the Alliance has honored the town by choosing Leesburg as the site of its Twelfth Annual Conference scheduled for April 5 and 6, 1991; and WHEREAS, the Loudoun Restoration and Preservation Society will be a co-sponsor for this conference along with the State Department of Historic Resources and participation in this annual event is expected from across the State: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia, as follows: The Town of Leesburg hereby heartily welcomes the Preservation Alliance of Virginia, and in support of this annual conference the Council authorizes the use of the new municipal building conference rooms for meetings to be held on Friday, April 5th and Saturday, April 6th. 91-21 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND ARTICLE V, SECTION 11-81 "REGULATIONS FOR USE OF PARKS" OF THE TOWN CODE WHEREAS, the opening of Ida Lee Park, existing, and future parks will increase citizen participation in public area~ and WHEREAS, Town Council desires to maintain the security and promote the health, safety and general welfare of ail persons within these public areas; and WHEREAS, Town Council also desires to increase protection of public properties; and WHEREAS, the existing Article V, Section 11-81 Regulations for Use of Parks of the Town Code needs further definition: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: A notice of public hearing to consider amending this section of the Town Code shall be published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on January 23, and January 30, 1991, for a public hearing on February 12, 1991 at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg. 91-22 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING APPLICATION #ZM- 124 BROWNELL, INC. RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: A notice of public hearing to consider rezoning application #ZM-124 by Brownell, Inc., shall be published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on February 6, 1991 and February 13, 1991 for public hearing on February 26, 1991 at 7:30 p.m., in the lower level Council Committee meeting room, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, Virginia. 91-23 RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING PLAN AMENDMENT, SIGN PACKAGE, EXETER PRN #ZM-126 RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: A notice of public heating to consider rezoning plan amendment application, Exeter PRN, #ZM- 126 shall be published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror. The notice shall be published on January 23, 1991 and January 30, 1991 for the public hearing on February 12, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the lower level meeting room, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, Virginia. VOTE Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila None 10. (a) Ms. Imhoff stated that this is a section of the Zoning Ordinance that was not updated when the rest of the Zoning Ordinance was updated. An old definition is being used. The previous Zoning Ordinance used gasoline stations and automobile gasoline stations. Now they are referred in the Zoning Ordinance as service stations. MOTION Minutes of January 22, 1991 On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Mr. Clem, the following ordinance was proposed and unanimously adopted. 91-0-7 ORDINANCE - APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 10A-14 (5) REGARDING SIGNS FOR GASOLINE STATIONS WHEREAS, on January 22, 1991 the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia during a Joint Public Hearing with the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance Section 10A-14 (5) regarding signs for gasoline stations; and and WHEREAS, the proposed revisions are narrow in scope and applicable to only gasoline stations; WHEREAS, these amendments will promote greater visibility for gasoline stations without an appreciable impact on the existing sign regulations: THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. An amendment to Section 10A-14(5) of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is hereby approved which will delete the current text in its entirety and replace as shown below: ; ..... +~ .... ;-+~r-v~a~+ ^? +~ monu:r, cnt $;~..~.. mn~ aro 10A-14(5) Signs for Gasoline Stations. Automobile gasoline stations may erect signs as follows: a_. Maximum Number of Signs. Three. Types of Signs Permitted. Wall, ground mounted (Monument Style), awning, canopy or marquee. c_. Maximum Size of Signs: Wall and Marquee. Same as individual businesses (Section 10A-14(2). Ground mounted (Monument Style). Same as for individual businesses (Section 10A-14(2), but may include within the allowable square footage a provision for changeable fuel price sign. The location of the ground mounted (Monument Style) sign must be demonstrated as not interfering with entrance sight distances. Canopy or Awning. One square foot per linear foot of the canopy or awning, with signage comprising a single reference to the name of the gasoline station and/or identification logo, up to a maximum of fifty square feet of signage per side of canopy. Gas Pump Signs. Each gas pump shall be permitted a total of two square foot of sign area to identify the product dispensed. SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage. VOTE Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila Nay: None 10. (c) Minutes of January 22, 1991 MOTION On motion of Mr. Webb, seconded by Ms. Bange, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted. 91-24 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1991 WHEREAS, the town recently concluded operations for the second quarter of fiscal year 1991; and WHEREAS, an evaluation of the town's financial performance has been made in a memorandum to Council dated January 14, 1991, for the conclusion of the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, due to the present economic climate facing Leesburg today as well as a continuance of this economic condition into the future, it is recommended that the General Fund budget be amended to incorporate changes identified in the attached Fund Balance Projection; and WHEREAS, Council will continue to review the town's budget on a monthly basis: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: The budget for the General Fund is hereby amended to provide for the elimination of the amounts identified on the attached Fund Balance Projection. VOTE Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila Nay: None 10. (e) MOTION On motion of Mr. Webb, seconded by Mr. Lovin, the following resolution was proposed and adopted. 91-25 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE OPERATIONS OF ELECTRIC VENTURES, INC. T/A EASY STREET UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ALL MEALS TAXES DUE TO THE TOWN ARE PAID WHEREAS, Electric Ventures, Inc. trading as Easy Street is delinquent in payment of meals taxes to the Town of Leesburg for quarters ending March 30, 1990, June 30, 1990 and September 30, 1990 for the estimated amount of $6,024.67; and WHEREAS, other normal legal channels have proven to be unsuccessful in an attempt to collect these taxes: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia that the Director of Finance and Deputy Town Attorney, are authorized to file a suit in the name of the Town of Leesburg pursuant to Sections 58.1-3953 and 58.1-3954 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended to enforce the collection of the said taxes by obtaining an injunction prohibiting the defendant, its agents or employees from conduct of its business, as a restaurant, until such time as all past due meals tax liabilities are satisfied. Mayor Sevila stated that his law firm has done some work for Electric Ventures, Inc., and may be currently representing them. Because of that it would be a conflict of interest for the Mayor to vote in favor of this resolution. Therefore, Mayor Sevila will refrain from participating in the vote. VOTE Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin and Webb Nay: None Abstain: Mayor Sevila lO. Ms. Imhoff addressed the Council briefly summarizing the proposed resolution. MOTION On motion of Mr. Clem, seconded by Mr. Kimball, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted. 91-26 - RESOLUTION - INITIATING AND REFERRING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 11, SPECIAL EXCEPTION REGULATIONS OF THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE Minutes of January 22, 1991 WHEREAS, since the adoption of the special exception regulations were approved in April 1990, the town has accepted eight applications and of those, four have been filed jointly with rezoning applications; and WHEREAS, in the instance of these joint applications, the rezoning application process has been abbreviated to meet the requirements of the special exception process; and WHEREAS, past experience in handling concurrent applications have shown that it would be beneficial to the review process to allow the special exception application and the rezoning process to proceed under the same time frames: THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. An amendment to Article 11. Special Exceptions of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance by inserting a new section to Section 11-A-4(9) as shown below, is hereby received and referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation under Chapter 11, Title 15.1-431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. Section 1 LA-4. APPLICATION, REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Pre-Application Conference. Prior to fding an application for a special exception, the applicant may confer with the Planning, Zoning and Development Department to discuss the requirements of this Article and the nature of the special exception use proposed. For the p~wposes of this conference the applicant may provide a sketch plan of the proposed use drawn to scale, showing the general layout of the special use and its relationship to the surrounding ares. (2) Who May A~olv. An application for a special exception may be fried with the Planning, Zoning and Development Department by a property owner, board or bureau of any government or their agent, or other parties provided by law. (3) Submission Requirements. All applications for special exception uses shall be accompanied by the following items: An application on a form provided by the town, completed and signed by the applicant and owner of the property. Written statement with supporting evidence cegaL'd;~g com[,liance with l.h~.. General Review Criteria and Specific Review Criteria, if applicable. Disclosure statement, on forms provided by the town which lists the names and addresses of all "real parties in interest" in the property. do Fi/teen copies of a concept plan, drawn to a scale of i inch = 100 feet, or a scale agreed to by the town, containing the following information: 1. Boundaries of the entire property. 2. Total area of the property in square feet and acres. 3. Location of all existing and proposed structures, (including, but not limited to lighting, signs and buildings). 4. Location and distance of all off-site structures within fifty (50) feet of the property, (including, but not limited to lighting, signs and buildings). 5. All required minimum yards and the distances of all existing and proposed structures to the lot lines. 6. Public right(s)-of-way, indicating names, route numbers, and width. 7. Proposed means of ingress and egress to the property from a public street. 8. Parking spaces, existing and/or proposed, indicating minimum distance from the nearest property line(s). 9. Where applicable, seating capacity, usable outdoor recreation area, emergency access, fencing, limits of clearing, landscaping and screening, outside lighting, loudspeakers, required and/or proposed improvements to public right(s)-of- way. 10. Existing zoning designation and use of subject and adjacent properties. Minutes of January 22, 1991 Written statement describing information: 1. 2. 3. the proposed use and providing the following Type of operation(s). Hours of operation. Estimate of traffic impact of the proposed use, including the maximum expected trip generation and the distribution of such trips by mode and time of day based on current ITE Manual. (4) Request for Waivers or Modifications. Any submission requirements of this Article may be waived by the Land Development Official. The applicant must clearly indicate by section and paragraph numbers in the application, or in a letter attached to the application, which modification or waiver is requested, together with the justification for review. (5) Planning, Zoning and Development Department Review. Upon receipt of the application, the Land Development Official shall acknowledge acceptance or rejection of the application within five (5) working days of submission and forward it to the Planning Commission and all appropriate reviewing agencies. (6) Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission shall forward the proposed special exception to the Council, together with its recommendation(s) and a statement fully setting forth its reasons for such recommendation(s) prior to the Town Council public hearing. (7) Public Hearing by Town Council. A public hearing by the Town Council shall be held within ninety days of receipt of a complete application. (8) Town Council Action. The Town Council shall take action to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application within sixty days after the public hearing. (9) Jointly Filed Applications. The review process set forth in Sections llA-5 through ll- A(8) herein shall not aoolv to_. special exception, applications fried concurrently with a rezoning application affecting the same parcel of land or fried while a rezoning is being considered. Instead, jointly filed applications as described herein shall be considered by the Planning Commission and Town Council concurrently in accordance with Section 15.1-493 of the 1950 Code of Virginia,. as .amended and Sections 13-A(8) through 13- A(12) of this Zoning Ordinance. (910) Reapplication. No application for a special exception use which had been denied wholly or in part by the Town Council shall be resubmitted until the expiration of one year or more from the date of such denial, except on grounds of newly discovered evidence or proof of changed conditions found to be sufficient by Town Council to justify consideration by the Town Council. (~011) Amendment. An amendment is a request for any enlargement, expansion, increase in intensity, or relocation of any previously approved and currently valid special exception use or condition thereof. The application and review process for an amendment of a special exception shall be the same as specified for the approval of the original exception. The Land Development Official may waive any submission reqtfirement deemed not necessary for an adequate review of the proposed amendment. (-1-~:1_~) Termination. A special exception use shall be deemed terminated upon the occurrence of any of the following conditions: ao Non-Use. If the special exception use approved by the Town Council has not commenced within five years of the approval date, the approval shall become null and void. Cessation. If a special exception use should cease for any reason for a continuous period of two years, the special exception use shall automatically terminate. SECTION II. The Planning Commission shall reports its recommendation to the Town Council on the proposed amendment pursuant to Chapter 11, Title 15.1-431 o~' the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. Minutes of January 22, 1991 DISCUSSION Mayor Sevila stated that it makes good sense that the time limitations imposed by the ordinance now apply to special exceptions that are jointly filed. It may also make sense to include within the waiver, the time limitations on any special exceptions that are filed while a zoning application is pending on a particular piece of property. VOTE Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila Nay: None MOTION Mrs. Forester made the following motion: Pursuant to Section 2.1-344 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, I move that the Town Council of the Town of Leesburg convene in Executive Session. The authority for this executive session is found in Section 2.1-344(a), Subsections (1) and (7) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The purposes for this executive session are to discuss litigation pending styled as Mike's Madness versus Thomas A. Mason and other and Georgelas and Sons, Inc., versus the Town of Leesburg and Howard Savings Bank and AGLR II Corporation versus the County of Loudoun and the Town of Leesburg and personnel issues related to the Town Manager selection process. The acting Town Manager, Deputy Town Attorney and Special Counsel Bob Corish are requested to remain for the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clem. VOTE Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila Nay: None MOTION 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 Ms. Bange. VOTE Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila Nay: None MOTION On motion of Mrs. Forester, seconded by Ms. Bange,the following resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted. 91-27 - RESOLUTION - CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE SESSION OF JANUARY 22, 1992 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 Town Council of the Town of Leesburg 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 matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Freedom of Information Act were discussed in the Executive Session to which this certification applies; and 2) only such public business 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. VOTE Aye: Councilmembers Bange, Clem, Forester, Kimball, Lovin, Webb and Mayor Sevila None MOTION On motion of, and duly seconded, the meeting was adjourned. Clerk of Council Robert E. Sevila, Mayor