Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1993_07_14SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF THE LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL July 14, 1993 A special meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held on July 14, 1993, at 5:30 p.m., in the lower level meeting room, 25 West Market Street~ Leesburg, Virginia. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss #ZM-134 Harper Park. ROLL CALL Councilmembers present George Atwell Georgia W. Bange (absent) Ronald W. Blake Joseph R. Trocino Kristen C. Umstattd (absent) William F. Webb Mayor James E. Clem Staff members present Town Manager Steven C. Brown Director of Planning, Zoning and Development Michael Tompkins Planner Marilee Seigfried Transportation Engineer Calvin Grow Deputy Town Attorney Deborah Welsh Mr. Webb pointed out that there have been 3 public hearings on this issue, two at the Planning Commission level and one at the Town Council level. He stated that after each public hearing we seem to come up with new ideas, or new facts or something that the developer and or the Council or the staff wants to explore. "This project has been before the Planning and Zoning Committee for sometime - about 3 months and each time we tried to make a recommendation to the Council some other evidence would come up. The committee then recommended that the application be brought before the whole Council to see if we could come to some kind of an agreement." Mr. Webb pointed out that this was not a public hearing and asked that each speaker limit their presentation to three minutes. Mr. Brown requested the issue of the wine festival be taken first so that Mr. Cable will not have to sit through the discussion on Harper Park. He stated that the request by the sponsor of the wine festival is to close the streets for the festival. The Council suggested that we take a look at Loudoun Stree% which staff did. Louis checked with the acting fire chief, Terry Frye who said that the fire company would like to keep Loudoun Street open if at all possible. Mr. Frye suggested that Wirt Street might be a possible location. The legislation is prepared to close Wirt Street for the Wine and Arts Festival on September 18 and 19 of 1993. As Louis pointed out in his memo, the event will be conducted from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, September 18th and from 12:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Sunday, September 19th. We will not move forward with this project unless Council so desires. Mr. Brown pointed out that this is a regular meeting of the Council, therefore the Council can go ahead and vote on it. Mr. Cable stated that thLo ~_s the best of all possible worlds at this point. Mr. Trocino ~ceU CLot this would be a heck of a place to have a wine festival. Mr. Cable stated the craft~ and food '~'ould be held on Wi~ Street and the wine tasting, etc., would actually be contained on the Town greens. That's the only way it would be accepted by the ~ Participants wn~,,]d be cont~in~.~l in the frnut and back greens, much in the same manner as the Taste of Leesburg. ~ Mr. Cable answered no. Mr. Trocino stated this is one of the big differences. Wirt Street has private residences and we would be blocking their street. Mr. Cable stated "that's a very solid point." Mr. Trocino stated, "alright if that's the best we can do. Mr. Webb stated that the town is going to have to give the residents access for egress and ingress. Mr. Brown stated that staff will deal with the residents to make sure they can get in and out. Mr. Trocino suggested giving the residents a free pass to the festival. Mr. Cable agreed. Mr. Webb stated that he does not agree with wine being served or any alcoholic beverage being served on town property. "However, since this is the first time, I will support it if it comes up for motion. I would suggest that before this happens again, that we make other arrangements rather than serving it within the town area. We are planning to serve wine on Sunday with two churches right here. I'm sure they won't look very favorably on it." Mr. Brown stated that Mrs. George agreed to push the Sunday start time back to 12:30. '%Ve've never had the serving of alcoholic beverages in this building." MOTION Mr. Trocino made a motion to allow Wirt Street to be dosed on Saturday and Sunday for the wine festival activities. )o Mr. Webb :' i' :, of the rL,~ ons that ions that we c:::: ~ here beck: ',se we're ' time for the ~ i', 5e of the 1:~, son that ...~ ............. ::: ...... ~.~at and that they ,.. ~ a calendm to meet. I'm having a bit of a problem with serving alcoholic beverages on town property particularly since questions were brought up last night about Ida Lee Park. I have a problem with dosing Wirt Street for the very reasons that have just been brought up. We have private residences on that street and I doubt that it has been addressed as it should at this point. This is something that we ought to have the opportunity to spend a little more time on and work it out so that it is to the advantage of everybody. I'm going to have to vote against it for those reasons." Mr. Cable explained that this was a two day festival at Morven, last year and for reasons Morven Park would only like to hold the festival for one day this year. "Mrs. George came to us actually the last week in June for the first occasion to start discussing options and certainly we pointed out some of the concerns which you've raised. I think for all our benefit it's not a case where this affair or festival will leave Leesburg. Mrs. George is going to fail back on Morven Park. It will just be one day instead of two. So we'll still have the benefit of the event in Leesburg." Mr. Blake withdrew his second to the motion. Mr. Trocino withdrew his motion. MOTION Mayor Clem xnade a motion to deny the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trocino. VOTE .... . ..... .... :.; and Ma?r (]lena Nay: None Absent: Councilmembers Bange, Umstattd HARPER PARK Mr. Brown stated that the Council received a lot of material on this rezoning. We have a professional planner that has been assigned to this rezoning. Ms. Seigfried presented the staff report. Mr. Webb asked if there has been any case in the past where the town has transferred development rights from one subdivision to another? Ms. Sei~fried stated that she is not familiar with any instances where the town took density from another location and gave it to another planning section. Mr. Tompkins stated that instead of taking all of the 800 dwelling units out of Section C, as the AADP committee recommended, staff is recommending that there are balances in other sections - over 900 dwelling units. We are recommending that perhaps the Council may want to augment the recommendation from the AADP committee. Mr. Atwell asked how did the application go from the 3 to the 4.75 density range on AADP map 2 or page 2 in the hand out to the 2 to 3 that it shows on the 1992 AADP map? Ms. Seigfried stated, ~vhere that comes from is that the Town Plan designates the base density would come from the Town Plan and what staff has been saying is 2 would be an appropriate base because that is what other planned developments in town have started with. When it went from 3 to 4.75 in area G it is based more on what's actually out there. Mr. Atwell stated, "getting back to the density transfer of Section G, how did it come about that the town would take density ratios or densities from one area to another? Transfer them to another?" Ms. Seigfried stated, "'.,:!,~ :he AADP sas's is that when one planning area is built out t,,vo ;}',ings can happen. One would ~,:.e ~i~a,~ density in excess of ~vhat is sho~vn on the AADP - the town ',retold have to pay the county $1,7,50 1-2' .!welling in excess of that and that would be something that we would look for in a proffer. The ,:. ~:' :!~ing is if there's a planning area that is built out then you ca~ take density from one planning al'ca ~.,~..1 switch it over to another planning area. Mr. Webb pointed out that these were agreed to in the annexation agreement. Mr. Atwell asked why was Section C chosen then to transfer? Ms. Seigfried stated that there was no scientific reason behind it. Mr. Tompkins stated "through our discussion with county staff, we did a joint report on this. Quite frankly it was pretty much the way Marilee said. They thought that this was a large swath of density that could be used. Again keeping in mind that we were going to revisit the whole annexation area development policies beginning this year and the feeling was that would be taken care of before any application for development would come in on Section C - Planning Section C.~ Ms. Seigfried pointed out that staff received new proffers tonight and has not had an opportunity to go over them. "The prior proffers are summarized in this packet of information but I don't know how valid that is anymore. We've also received a revised traffic study and that is still under review. There is an attachment D which discusses how we came up with bonus densities. Mr. Webb stated that receiving more new proffers has been one of the problems we have had for the last 18 months. "Everything keeps changing. How are we expected to make a decision when everything changes every time we have a meeting?" Ms. Seigfried pointed out that Mr. Fletcher is here from the school board and Mr. Trachy is here from VDOT if you have any questions. Mr. Banzhaf stated that he is representing the applicant. Mr. Banzhaf addressed staff's comments and summarized the proposal. 7/x~/93-3- Mr. Webb asked if 6 and 8 million dollars would be the proffered cost? Mr. Banzhaf stated that the transportation improvements, that st_afl is recommending, are about 8 million dollars. What we're proposing to do is about 6 million dollars. All we're required to do by the transportation report is 5 million. So in other words they are asking for about 3 million more and not giving us credit for the interchange which in itself has some value. Mr. Webb asked, "if this application were approved as requested, do you have a developer that's ready to come in and start digging dirt?" Mr. Banzhaf stated that he has been told that by Pat Blue who is the representative at the b~nk. I have been told that there are several developers, one in particular, who would be interested in buying the ground for residential use. You don't have developers interested in buying it for flex-industrial, for straight industrial, or for office use, or for even a commercial site for that matter. It's a dandy commercial location I would think at sometime. But you don't have much of a market today for it. Mr. Fletcher stated that he received, today, a drawing of a proposed school site that Dave Bowers had done for the applicant. It shows 25 acres with 5 acres delineated as a park. We've not had an opportunity to look at it. If the site is within a 30 acre framework and we receive the materials to look at the site, I think the superintendent and the school board would look at whether or not the site is acceptable. The school board and board of supervisors adopted a list of items to be furnished by the developer. These items are not difficult to provide but they must be provided in order that we can look at the site. The proposal that Mr. Banzhaf and his group have presented to us today is kind of irregularly configured. The idea would be to look at a site that could be maximumly utilized if it was coming in less than the 35 acres that the school board's current requirement is. The school board requirement on middle schools is 160,000 square feet. So the building is quite a bit smaller than what the school board would be looking to place on the site. But my point to you is we'll be very glad to look at it and I would be very glad to come back to the council and give them the school board staff's perspective and hopefully the school board would have the opportunity to look at the site and give their official reaction to the council before any action would take place. Mr. Webb referred to the proposed 25 acre site that has been offered, and asked if it is in one location part town and part county? Mr. Fletcher answered yes, "and I believe the Loudoun County Planning Commission, two weeks ago, indicated in an action that it would be possible that the middle school could be located in the county as well as in the town. I'm not sure much is in the town or how much is in the county. Mrs. Cathie Wilt, a resident of 504 Saber Cour~ addressed the Council stating that the citizens group does not want the Council to, at this point, amend the town plan to get rid of employment because we feel that's the most important thing that this land can be used for or the best thing. The applicant has not shown us that it's in the town's best interest to make this change. We have a mqjor concern that every new house built in this town is competing with existing homes for resale. We already have 6 thousand homes in the pipeline and we're very concerned that he's suggesting building another 800 homes. I really think we have to look at the big picture that in many ways we all want to jump at any chance to have any kind of growth in this town. We can't jump at every single residential opportunity we have, or we're not going to have any land left. Also, Mission B~nk is not a local bank. They have no vested interest in the quality of life of this town. They have a piece of property they want to get rid of. I understand their problem, but I don't think it's the citizens or residents of Leesburg's problem." Mr. Hamblett, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Council stating that he has appeared before the county to request the rejection of this application. "I refer the council members to my letter to Mayor Clem in May of this year which I briefly highlight that much of the proposed development area falls within an area designated by the town as for future planned employment. Mission Bank's submitted plan calls for an abandonment of this aspect of the plan in favor of high density residential. I request that the plan submitted be rejected because it does not follow the town plan. In every case, the submitted plans seek concessions. Road density or road width, density, lessening of lot width, increasing the number of units accessing public street~. I request that the town council reject this rezoning request. I refer the council's attention to the petition dated June 12, 1993, which was submitted by 5 adjacent land owners. Representing 3 adjacent properties requesting that our interests be considered in this matter. As none of these matters has been considered, or included in Mission Bank's plan, to the best of my knowledge, I request that the rezoning request be rejected until our points are addressed." Mr. Alton Echols, addressed the Council stating that the applicant is seeking to rezone land designated 7/14/93 -4- for employment, which is in short supply. Between Herndon and the Cornwell Industrial Park in Purcellville, there are no small tracts. Half acre, three quarter acre tracts with water and sewer that are employment. Not including offices. "I'm talking electrical services and service industries. The applicant seeks to change this to residential and commercial office which currently is an over-zone and even in certain respects over-built. There are some 14,000 existing units,' residential, in the Town of Leesburg. If the new Economic Development Committee is an A+ in its efforts, there are at least 3 to 5 years worth of commercial and office existing in the town today. There are millions of square feet that are zoned. The town has an obvious need for employment uses, properties suitable for employment. There has been no justification for change in its' current land use. Mr. Banzhaf, in response to Ms. Wilt, stated, "employment is the best and most important use, I don't deny that the tax base is important to the town. At the CAC lengthy discussions were held about the toll road hopefully coming into the town sometime at the south end of town and that juncture together with the airport would be a logical place for employment. The area that we're talking about is difficult to develop for employment use because to get there you have to drive past zoned property along 28 and 7. You have to compete with Landsdowne. You have to compete with Ashburn Village's office park - Janella, GW and the Lerner's Center. There are lots of office parks that are out there. Mr Echols makes that point. There is a lot of land that's available for office. It's because of that and because of the trips that are on Route 7 today, that we chose residential use. In fact, we sat down before we ever filed this application with the staff and said you know we don't think we can put an office park out here. We thought residential would be a better use. Justification for the application was that it was a less intense use, generated fewer trips, impacted your roads less. We were not in the mode at that time of putting in a school site, but we are now. That certainly is a benefit for the town. We have a lot of open space that we have offered because our density is not what we would like to see frankly. We don't think that this is the kind of application that merits a denial." Mr. Trocino stated, "that there are two issues at hand. Both of them are important. One is a greater issue and one is a lesser issue. The lesser issue is the detail of the rezoning. Whether it stands on the merit of the law the way it's written, whether there's merit to it or dismerit to it, whether the proffers are sufficient to warrant the rezoning, design issues, the question of the school, the new proffers. I think we can begin to answer these questions now. I know it's been tracking for a year and a half, two years now, but maybe a little bit more time will be what we need to do terms of fairness. The greater the issue is the e~icacy of the use. Whether we want that plan amended for mixed use and residential uses or do we want to leave it the way it is. Each one of us is going to have to answer that question as to what we think's appropriate. Perhaps we ought to try to bring closure to this in September." Mayor Clem asked that staff prepare a report on what went on with the county portion of the school site. '~Ve have no idea. The county has not shared that with us and I know it was at my suggestion that before we enter into any kind of work on Harper Park that it should be a joint venture bet~veen both bodies. I asked that the Planning Commissions from the town and the county get together and hammer out issues as well as the Board and the Council. We have been very positive on that side and the response from the Council or the County was, well we didn't receive anything. But we've not been kept informed, nor has there been any joint meetings. I think when you've got two pieces of land like there are or one large body of land that is split by a boundary and you know that in 94 or shortly thereafter we will probably go into annexation, I'm not sure if we're going to be happy living with what they've done on their portion. What has the CAC had to say about this particular quadrant? What changes are they recommending if anf I'm concerned about the road access. I want to insure some way that we maintain these setbacks. The county is already beginning to violate those setbacks by allowing the nursery down here on Route 7 Mayor Clem asked for a definition of a business park, light industrial, etc. Another special meeting was scheduled for sometime in August. On motion of, and duly seconded, the meeting was adjourned. Clerk of Council · Clem, Mayor 7/14/93-5-