Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1998_05_26TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 26, 1998 A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, Virginia 20175, Municipal Government Center. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Mayor William F. Webb, Jr. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT Frank Buttery, Jr. Jewell M. Emswiller Joseph R. Trocino Kristen C. Umstattd B. J. Webb William F. Webb, Jr. Mayor James E. Clem (absent) PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Mervin Jackson Larry Schonberger Clifton Vaughan Gus Glikas A. Blake Thompson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Town Manager Steven C. Brown Deputy Town Manager Gary A. Huff Director of Engineering and Public Works Thomas A. Mason Director of Planning Zoning and Development Michael Tompkins Chief of Comprehensive Planning Jerry Mucci Planner Marilee Seigfi-ied Deputy Town Attorney Deborah Welsh Clerk of Council Barbara Markland 1. INVOCATION was given by Councilmember Jewell Emswiller 2. SALUTE TO THE FLAG was led by Councilmember J. Frank Buttery, Jr. 3. ROLL CALL all members of the Town Council were present except Mayor Clem. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: On motion of, and duly seconded, the regular meeting minutes of May 12, 1998 were approved as written. VOTE: Aye: Councilmembers Buttery, Webb Nay: None Absent: Mayor Clem Emswiller, Trocino, Umstattd, B. J. Webb, William F. 5. PETITIONERS Councilmember B. J. Webb asked that the five minute rule be implemented for all speakers due to the length of the agenda. Jan Ferrell, 9 Memorial Drive, addressed the Council concerning the commuter bus parking in the former hospital parking lot near the residential area. MS. Ferrell expressed concern with safety, speeding and pollution. Mr. Brown stated this is a temporary commuter parking lot used by the County. Mr. Brown will provide a report on this matter by Friday. -2- Bill Zawacki, 129 Chesterfield Place, addressed the Council thanking Councilmembers Bill Webb and Jewell Emswiller for their years of service to the town. Mr. Zawacki asked the Council to look into silencing the fire siren at the Loudoun Street station. Mr. Zawacki also asked Council to look into amending the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit portable sheds in the historic district. Mr. Zawacki expressed concern with bikers speeding through the stop signs on the bike trail. Jerry Shamla, 606 Patrice Drive, expressed concern with a public safety issue regarding the absence of"No Parking Fire Lane" signs in Kincaid Forest Sections 4A, 8B and gA. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) TO CONSIDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION #SE-98-04 SHERRI FAWZI, HOME BASED DAY CARE - Ms. Seigfried provided the staff report. Councilmember Umstattd expressed a concern with the $500.00 fee for a special exception application and suggested the Council review this fee to perhaps implement a way of spreading the payments out over a period of one year. Ms. Fawzi was present and 'addressed the Council. No public comment was received. The public hearing was closed. This matter was referred to the June 2, 1998 Planning and Zoning Committee agenda. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER #ZM-155 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION FOR LOUDOUN COUNTY COURTS COMPLEX - Ms. Seigfi'ied provided a brief staff report. Elizabeth Wheeler, Principal Planner with Loudoun County provided the county's staff report and slide presentation, x Councilmember Umstattd stated, this project will take care of the courts' needs for the next 20 years, and asked what the county's plans were for expansion at~er 20 years? Ms. Wheeler stated the second block where the existing jail is will be planned for future expansion when needed. Councilmember Umstattd asked, to what extent are the county's traffic assumptions based on the town adopting a one-way traffic flow on Market and Loudoun streets? Ms. wheeler stated, the county is aware of the Council's decision to remove the one-way street project from the CIP, therefore the traffic study for this project was re-mn. The results have been given to Calvin Grow for review. The county is willing to take any one of the approaches to any of the intersections that do not meet the town's standards, and proffer a traffic signal in the future when warranted. Councilmember Umstattd stated, in an effort to protect the local restaurants, she hoped the new complex would not have a cafeteria Ms. Wheeler stated, it will not. Councilmember B. J. Webb referenced the Semmones parking lot, and stated the current occupancy of the lot is about 30%, but will increase with the completion of the project. Ms. Webb asked if additional landscaping will be added to protect the residential properties surrounding the lot? Ms. Wheeler stated, the Semmones lot is not part of the rezoning application, therefore no. plans have been made regarding the lot. Ms. Wheeler stated the county would be happy to discuss this matter. Claire Larson, President of the Exeter Square HOA, addressed the Council regarding the proposed project. Ms. Larson read from a written statement which is attached and made a part of the official record. Bob O'Connor, 108 Church Street, stated the residents on Church Street are provided with on-street parking only. He asked the Council to consider resident parking only signs. -3- Stanley Caulkins a resident of Leesburg for 61 years and business owner in Leesburg for 46 years addressed the Council in support of the project. Peter BurneR, read a letter from Mr. B. Powell Harrison in support of the project. Mr. Harrison's letter is attached and made a part of the official record. A letter was received from Teckla H. Cox regarding the project. Ms. Cox's letter was read into the record, is attached and made a part of the official record. A letter was received from Mary R. Mack regarding the project. Ms. Mack's letter was read into the record, is attached and made a part of the official record. Chairman Jackson stated, the Planning Commission will be happy to work with the residents. Councilmember Umstattd asked staff to make sure that Ms. Mack's and Ms. Larson's concerns are accommodated. Ms. Wheeler stated the county's staffwill be happy to meet with these residents. Councilmember Buttery_ suggested involving the town's arborist. The public hearing was closed. This matter was referred to the June 2, 1998 Planning and Zoning Committee agenda for further consideration. (c) TO CONSIDER LEEGATE CENTER TOWN PLAN AMENDMENT #TP98-01, REZONING APPLICATION #ZM-153 AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION #SE-98-03 Councilmember Trocino abstained from all discussion. Mr. Mucci provided the staff report and slide presentation. Councilmember Umstattd stated, she heard the applicant made a statement that no large business/corporate headquarters would locate next to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mr. Mucci stated, corporate headquarters are a fraction of employment uses that the town might want to attract. However there is the other 70-80-90% of employment uses - small scale, research, development, medical businesses, etc. Councilmember B. J. Webb stated, the site is not ideally suited for more than a 3 story- high building. Ms. Webb asked, what is the chance of a developer building 800,000 SF so the town gets Battlefield Parkway built in accordance with the proffers on this land? Ms. Webb asked, if you can't put the kind of FAR on the property in terms of building height because of the sewage treatment plant - and a developer builds townhouse/development - could the town get 800,000 SF of townhouse/developmenffoffice and surface parking? Mr. Mucci stated he will prepare a table showing various FAR's to see what kind of square footage those FAR's generate. Ms. Webb asked if the town has prepared a fiscal impact study on the financial side of this plan and what this retail would create for the town as opposed to its current I-1 zoning? Or if the applicant requests a rezoning to planned employment? Mr. Mucci deferred to the information provided by John King, Assistant Town Manager for Economic Development. Ms. Webb asked, if this property remains I-1 and the owner chooses to develop a b~fright use on the property, would the applicant be allowed curb cuts on Route 7 and hox~,, many? Mr. Mucci stated staff would have to look at the particular plan, the arrangement and size, etc., Mr. Mucci stated he will research the matter. Councilmember Emswiller referred to the language in the Route 7 Corridor Study and stated she recalls that when and if the collector road (Russell Branch) is in place, you are required to have an access to a road - which would be Russell Branch not Route 7. Mr. Mucci stated, that has been the design for the Route 7 Corridor - to provide access to the employment uses from the parallel roads and not from Route 7. Ms. Emswiller stated, -4- regarding rezoning the property to retail and the concern of the wastewater treatment plant, the use itself wouldn't make a difference. Whether it is an office or a retail store. Councilmember Umstattd stated the applicant has provided a financial impact statement that proposes the proposed center would generate about $361,000 tax dollars annually to Leesburg and the applicant is proposing to proffer a lump sum payment of $300,000. $200,000 for parks and $100,000 to the fire department. Ms. Umstattd asked that this fiscal impact statement be analyzed to see what the property is bringing in as tax revenues right now and what it might bring in under a b~right use. Mr. Frank McDermott and Mr. John McCn'anahan, attorneys representing the applicant were present. Mr. McDermott gave a presentation of the proposed Leegate project. Councilmember Umstattd asked if a power plant would be a b~-right use on this property? Mr. McDermott answered yes. Councilmember Emswiller asked how many empty buildings were in the Potomac Run project? Mr. McDermott answered, zero un-leased and one empty. Ms. Emswiller asked if there was access from Route 7 into Potomac Run? Mr. McDermott answered no. Ms. Emswiller asked what the setback was from Route 7 to the Potomac Run project? Mr.. McDermott answered 100 feet. Councilmember Umstattd pointed out that Mr. McDermott stated the applicant is committed to acquiring the right-of-way for the southeast portion of the cloverleaf and that the applicant has a signed contract with the land owner. Ms. Umstattd asked, if the applicant is willing to provide the town with a copy of the contract to ensure the town would get the land? Mr. McDermott stated the contract is proprietary but the way the applicant has drat~ed the proffer - the project does not go forward until it is established, to the town's satisfaction, that the parcel of land has been acquired. If the applicant is unable to acquire the land, there is a provision in the proffer to ask the town to exercise it's power of eminent domain. The applicant would pay the cost of the eminent domain including all court costs and land acquisition. Mr. McDermott stated, "we are committing to extend Russell Branch offsite over to Cardinal Park. There is existing right-of-way. With respect to this right-of-way, if we cannot construct that extension of Russell Branch to Cardinal Park - if there is not adequate right-of-way or easement area then we are asking the town to acquire that or to obtain it by donation from those property owners. But we are not committing in a proffer to pay for those costs. Our rationale is, there is right-of-way there, we are told it is adequate - it is offsite to us and those property owners should have been required to develop or build that at the time they were approved and developed." Councilmember B. J. Webb asked what the per square foot proffer contributions are? Mr. McDermott stated he would compute this information and forward it to the Council. Councilmember Umstattd pointed out that she heard that an applicant would not chose to develop this property in any b~right category because the applicant could not make as much a profit as could be made from a retail center. Mr. McDermott stated, "the applicant is not in the practice of buying land without knowing that they can use it. The applicant has a contract for a user that will go in regardless of the zoning. The land will be utilized. The applicant knows how to bring users to the site. The one use that the applicant has a contract with already will reimburse us for the cost of all the land. There is absolute incentive to go forward with the deal with that use and then go forward with other bi, right uses if we can't get the zoning. But we think the right way to go is with the zoning with these kinds of uses and limitations." Councilmember Umstattd asked, what b~right use is going to go in? Mr. McDermott answered it is a lumber and/or building materials sales facility. Mr. Mucci addressed the Council stating the Planning Commission recommended denial of this application as noted in the staff report. -5- Mr. Steve Nicklin, 19582 Gleedsville Road, Vice President of the Coalition for Leesburg's Future, addressed the Council stating the project undermines the Town Plan. Mr. Nicklin recommended denial of the application. Ms. Winnifred Rapp, 221 North King Street, addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed project. Mr. Gary Spetz, resident of Kincaid Forest and President of the Kincaid Forest HOA, addressed the Council in opposition of the project. Mr. Spetz read from a written statement which is attached and made a part of the official record. Mr. Craig Lane, Cobblestone Terrace, S.E., addressed the Council in opposition of the project. Mr. Ken Meyer, 316 Lawford Drive, S.W., addressed the Council in opposition of the project. Ms. Laura Lieberman addressed the Council on behalf of Ms. Gem Bingo[ Ms. Lieberman read Ms. Bingol's written statement which is attached and made a part of the official record. Ms. Lieberman also opposed the project. Ms. Barbara Emmons, 775 Gateway Drive, S.E., addressed the Council in opposition of the project. Ms. Emmons read from a written statement which is attached and made a part of the official record. Mr. Jerry_ Shamla 606 Patrice Drive, addressed the Council stating the staff and public hearing speakers have given excellent reasons why the application should be denied. He urged the Council to vote no on this application. Mr. Hubbard Turner, Bradfield Drive Country Club Subdivision, addressed the Council stating he agrees with the staff report and urged the Council to deny this application. Mr. Greg Mitchell, 810 Duncan Place, addressed the Council urging the Council to vote no to retail along Route 7. Ms. Lisa Speck, 150 Clubhouse Drive, S.W., addressed the Council agreeing with the former speakers. Ms. Speck stated the entrance to the town should be attractive and urged the Council to phase in retail as the town grows. Mr. Bill Zawaki 129 Chesterfield Place, addressed the Council in support of the staff report. He urged the Council to deny the application. Ms. Sandra Kane, 815 Kenneth Place, S.E., member of the Kincaid HOA Board of Directors addressed the Council stating she is vehemently opposed to the application. Mr. John Shea, Kenneth Place, S.E., addressed the Council in opposition of the application. Mr. Leonard McDonald Pershing Avenue, stated it is very clear the wishes of the citizens. He urged the Council to deny the application. Mr. Robert Pence, the applicant, addressed the citizens who spoke in opposition of the application and asked to meet with them to further discuss their concerns. Mr. Frank McDermott read into the record the Order Approving Assumption of Option Agreement and the Sale of Real Property Free and Clear of Liens. This Order is attached and made a part of the official record. -6- The public hearing was closed. This matter was referred to the June 2, 1998 Planning and Zoning Committee meeting for further consideration. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS Due to the lateness of the hour the Councilmembers forewent their comments. Councilmembers Bill Webb and Jewell Emswiller stated they appreciated the comments made by the citizens this evening. 8. MAYOR'S REPORT - No comments were made. 9. MANAGER'S REPORT - Mr. Brown reminded the Council of the June 2, 1998 special meeting regarding Potomac Station. 10. LEGISLATION: 10. (a) MOTION: On motion of Councilmember B. J. Webb, seconded by Councilmember Emswiller and amended by Councilmember Buttery, the following ordinance was proposed and adopted. 98-0-09 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING ORDINANCE #98-08 APPROVING SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION #SE-98-08 UNIWEST VOTE: Aye: Councilmembers Buttery, Emswiller, Trocino, Umstattd, B. J. Webb, William F. Webb Nay: None Absent: Mayor Clem 10. (b) was referred to the June 2, 1998 Administration and Public Works Committee meeting for further consideration. Councilmember Umstattd expressed concern that the proposed changed may violate Title 7. 10. (c) through 10. (f) MOTION: On motion of Councilmember B. J. Webb, seconded by Councilmember Buttery, the following resolutions were proposed as consent items and adopted. 98-122 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF A 1998 VIRGINIA RECREATION TRAILS 98-123 - RESOLUTION - MAKING A REDUCTION OF THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED IN WOODLEA MANOR PHASE 4 98-124 - RESOLUTION - MAKING A REDUCTION OF THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED IN WOODLEA MANOR PHASE 5 98-125 - RESOLUTION - CANCELING THE AUGUST 18, 1998 PLANNING AND ZONING, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND THE AUGUST 25, 1998 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING VOTE: Aye: Councilmembers Buttery, Emswiller, Trocino, Umstattd, B. J. Webb, William F. Webb Nay: None Absent: Mayor Clem Text of Remarks to the May 26 Leesburg Town Council Public Hearing Good evening. My name is Gary Spetz and I am President of the Kincaid Forest Homeowners Association. Currently, Kincaid Forest is a 230 family community located just south of the W&OD Trail and is adjacent to the Leegate Center property that is owned by Leegate Corporation, N.V. Speaking on behalf of our Board of Directors, let me go on record as being adamantly opposed to this rezoning application and its attendant special exception rider. I also stated our opposition to this rezoning application during the Planning Commission's April 2 public hearing. For the benefit of the Town Council, let me briefly summarize the points I made at that hearing: Leegate Corporation, N.V. (through its operating agent First Potomac Development) was the developer of Kincaid Forest. I say "was" as Leegate Corporation, N.V. fried for bankruptcy protection on April 23, 1997, just 22 days after this rezoning application was accepted by your Department of Planning, Zoning, and Development. On June 10, 1997, this Council first declared Leegate Corporation, N.V. in default of their performance bonds. As far as I understand, all of the bondshave been declared in default in the amount of over $2 million. The Kincaid Forest Homeowners Association filed a Proof of Claim with the US Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District on July 21, 1997, to recover over $80,000 from Leegate Corporation, N.V. in working fund arrears and developer maintenance costs borne by our HOA. I concluded my remarks at this hearing by imploring the Planning Commission to choose wisely with whom the Town entrusts its development and furore. I stated that it would be insensitive, if not bad, government to help Leegate Corporation, N.V. to make a sale while Kincaid Forest's problems are still unrectified. I noted how devastating it would be for our homeowners to look across the W&OD Trail and, while we are struggling to recover from the broken commitments and promises of our developer, to see the spawn of Leegate Corporation's financial windfall courtesy of Leesburg officials. I reminded the Commission of our developer's discussions with us regarding their I-1 vision of the Leegate Center property-- obviously inconsistent with the rezoning request and its intended use--and the direct effect of Leegate Center development on Kincaid Forest (through the proffers related to the Battlefield Parkway extension). Tonight you will hear impassioned views of Leesburg land use, zoning regulations, traffic flows, the 1997 Town Plan, and so on. But I am here to remind you that the heart of the matter before the Council tonight has to do with the families that have chosen to live in Leesburg. The families of Kincaid Forest that, in many cases, have made the most significant fmancial investment of their lives through the purchases of their homes. These families feel taken advantage of--or worse--by one company. A company that stands to gain significant fmancial gain depending on what you decide tonight given that this particular sale of property will not occur without your rezoning consent. I am speaking, obviously and somewhat dramatically, of Leegate Corporation, N.V. I feel compelled to remind you of this "human element" because the Planning Commission, during its deliberations at its April 2 public hearing, did not address Leegate Corporation, N.V.'s prior-and ongoing-history with its other and failed business venture in town-Kincaid Forest--or confront its Leesburg track record in any way. While I appreciate that they did indeed vote to reject the application, I am very disappointed with the narrowness of the vote. I would like to address one point that was explicitly raised at the Planning Commission hearing and which might arise tonight or otherwise be in the back of your minds. It was pointed out by the representative for the applicant at the April 2 hearing that Kincaid Forest might financially benefit as a result of this property sale. As much was also stated to me in a May 18, 1998 fax from Michael D. Costelloe, Secretary of Leegate Corporation, N.V. through their Chapter 11 proceeding. Given the circumstances, I view this "carrot" as another empty promise. You see, until the fax from Mr. Costelloe on May 18, 1998, I had never received one communication from a Leegate Corporation N.V. representative since their declaration of bankruptcy. As far as I know, none of my fellow directors have either. Not one note. Not one phone call. Not one fax. Not one e-mail. Not one offer to meet and to help square accounts, or to let us (who had just assumed homeowner control of our HOA board just a few months prior to the bankruptcy) know what things we could do to help protect our interests during the court- controlled bankruptcy. No one from Leegate Corporation N.V. or any of the other principal parties in this Leegate Center project has approached me--or, as far as I know, any member of my board--regarding any proposal to commit some portion of the proceeds of this sale toward rectification of Kincaid Forest's problems. Let's examine some numbers. According to the bankruptcy court papers, the selling price is $1.80 per square foot. - for 48.0464 acres (at 43,560 sq. ft. per acre)--the acreage on the rezoning application--that would amount to $3.77 Million and change; - for 25 acres--the initial purchase according to court papers--the amount would be $1.96 Million. - for 523,834 sq.ft.--another figure listed on the application--the amount would be $0.94 Million. This is significant business. For comparison: our defaulted performance bonds are just over $2 Million. The HOA Proof of Claim is a little over $80,000. Terribly relevant to all of this is the April 17, 1998 "Notice of Hearing and Notice of Assumption of Option Agreement and Sale of Real Property Free and Clear of Liens" issued by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for consideration last week. With regard to the innuendo of Kincaid Forest possibly benefitting from this sale, this Bankruptcy Court request by Leegate Corporation N.V., if approved, protects them fi'om actually having to do so. Bottom line: you won't be doing Kincaid Forest any favors by approving this rezoning application. Let me conclude by stating that the Town of Leesburg has the moral, ethical, and legal authority to choose its business partners (both individuals and corporations) and to establish a fair and healthy environment in which business and development is conducted. A case in point: Pence-Friedel, with whom I do not have issue, points with pride to their track record, such as Sterling's Potomac Run Center, as evidence of their good citizenship and ability to keep their commitments. I would wish that I did not have to stand here tonight testifying as to Leegate Corporation, N.V.'s failed commitments to the citizens and Town of Leesburg.. Leegate Corporation, N.V. has demonstrated with its business conduct that it has not earned the special consideration being asked of the Town Council via the rezoning and special exception applications, and I look forward to your rejection of them. Thank you for your attention. Ir? ° May 24, 1998 Mayor Clem and Town Council Members Leesburg Town Council Leesburg, Va 20175 Dear Mayor Clem and Members of the Town Council: As we move into the 21st century, Leesburg faces the challenge of sustainable growth. That is, growth which keeps us economically, environmentally and socially healthy today but does not rob future generations of the same rights. In addition, Leesburg citizens appreciate and want to maintain its historic character and charm. For these reasons, I ask that you deny the Leegate Center application to amend the Town Plan, and deny the rezoning and special exception requests. THIS APPLICATION UNDERMINES OUR PLANNING PROCESS You must not undermine the Town Plan as a legal document which is designed to provide a consistent reference point in land use decisions. If you were to amend the plan, the Council would also directly contradict its April '96 resolution to reserve the Route 7 corridor for office and industrial employment. You reconfirmed that resolution with the adoption of the '97 Town Plan. Any argument that the Council might have for refusing non-conforming applications in the future (especially retail) would be diminished. This location is one of just two on Route 7 which are suitable for large-scale keynote employment. Without these sites, we effectively take ourselves out of the keynote employment market. Both office and industrial markets have stronger long term economic potential than excessive retail. Therefore retail in this location will not provide as strong an economic base as the intended uses. If we have to wait a while for what we want, so be it. Once we accept a lesser use on this land, we will be stuck with it. In addition, I have repeatedly heard the threat that if the developer does not get what he wants, he will treat us to low-grade by-right development of a Lowes lumber yard. Although it seems that we have, through past decisions, boxed ourselves into having to accept that, again, so be it. Since Lowes is designated to be one of the stores coming into the proposed shopping center anyway, such by-right development would relieve us of the rest of the unnecessary retail that would come with it. Arguments against by- right uses in this location forget that we have the controls to support coordinated, attractive development if we choose to use them. We lose control when we discount the integrity our planning tools provide. THIS APPLICATION WILL CONTRIBUTE TO AN UNSUSTAINABLE ECONOMY The amount of retail planned for Leesburg and Loudoun is already more than adequate for the demand. An overbuilt retail sector is not sustainable. Leesburg has 4.2 million square feet of retail which is built, under construction or already zoned--the equivalent of four super-regional shopping malls. Without proper phasing to match demand, Leesburg will suffer as the volatile retail industry overcompetes with itself. In national studies, the average household is assumed able to support 50-100 square feet of retail space. With what we already have on the books, Leesburg needs a dedicated customer base of 42,000 to 84,000 people, who will grace us with their traffic and congestion to shop here. Yet we will compete with concurrent retail development at Dulles Town Center and elsewhere in the county. Our current growth rate in retail is already alarmingly paced without any additional approvals. The traditional retail industry already faces a variety of pressures: catalog and online shopping take market shares while retailers battle an eroding employee base; high tech firms are willing to train and offer opportunities to the same pool of people who've been the retailers' employment resource; busy consumer lifestyles are changing their view of shopping as entertainment. In summary, we must make our decisions for Leesburg's future with the large picture in mind and not be seduced by apparent short-term solutions. It is not in Leesburg's long-term best interest to approve this application. Sincerely, Gem Bingol Chair, Coalition for Leesburg's Future 205 Primrose Ct. Leesburg, VA 20175 771-1645 May26,1998 Leesburg Town Council 25 West Market Street NW Leesburg, VA 20175 Good Evening Mayor Clem and Council Members: I am here as a citizen of the Town Of Leesburg to comment on the proposed amendment to the Town Plan and rezoning application with regard to the Leegate property. Please do not approve the rezoning or amendment to the Town Plan. When I attended the Planning Commission Public Hearing, I felt insulted when it was suggested that our current Town Plan's vision for the Route 7 gateway into Leesburg would be a zero for the community and that retail is the way to go. According to the applicant, a 500,000 sq. ff. shopping center is the answer. THEIR 500,000 sq. ft shopping center, of course. Never mind that a 500,000 sq. ff. shopping canter is already under construction across the street from Leegate (Leesburg Corner). Never mind that their shopping center would be nearly identical to one just 10 miles down Rt. 7 (Potomac Run). Never mind that even more retail (Kohl's) is already under construction nearby (and there is already a Kohl's just 11 miles down Rt. 7 also). No, amending the Plan and rezoning the property would not cause other nearby landowners to want to follow suit and rezone their office properties to retail. Oh it would be just terrible if the applicant was to have to build by-right on the property as it is zoned in the Town Plan. This shopping center is the answer! Wrong answer. Proponents of the shopping center may cite convenience as a reason to approve the application. Leesburg residents would not have to drive all that way to Potomac Run to do their shopping. If that is the case, I would then question why these residents chose Leesburg as their home if it was so important to have suburban style shopping canters in their backyards. Proponents may say that a lumber yard built by-right is not nearly as desirable as the shopping canter. According to the plans, a home improvement lumber facility is to be included on the shopping center site, So instead of just the lumber yard WOW we get another lumber yard/home improvement/building material retail center AND another cookie-cutter shopping center. Can we say OVERKILL?? The people that put together our Leesburg Town Plan worked hard to prepare a document that tries to provide sensible solutions to an seemingly insurmountable task - managing sustainable growth. If we allow developers to come into our town and try to tell us that our Plan is not worth the paper its written on just because it doesn't specifically cater to their whims, then what was all that work for?. The Town Plan is there for a reason - to help Leesburg remain the wonderful place that it has been for centuries while it continues into the next century. I love my town and want to help it into the 21a century with the grace and dignity it deserves. Please do not approve the rezoning or amendment to the Town Plan. Sincerely, ~~__~ ~_fl._ ~ ~ Barbara Emmons 775 Gateway Drive SE PO Box 1103 Leesburg, VA 20177 EXETER SQUARE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION 104 SLACK LANE, N.E. LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 The Honorable James Clem Members of the Town Council Members of the Leesburg Planning Commission Leesburg, Virginia 20175 RE; COUNTRY COURTS PARKING The residents of Exeter Square and surrounding properties have received notice from the Town ofLeesburg of a hearing on May 26, 1998, regarding the above-captioned Rezoning. While we are in favor of the architectural plans for the new building, we wish to express our concern over the continuing parking problems which appear not to have been satisfactorily addressed. As you know, our residences adjoin the second block where parking is planned - to be specific, the Semones parking lot. To date, I have been unable to see a concept plan for the Semones parking lot. While we realize this parking lot is not being rezoned, we are deeply concerned that a green buffer similar to the first block has not been shown nor planned by the County. I know we need not remind you again that we are a part of the Historic District and we feel that a green buffer must be provided between the Semones parking lot and our homes. (NOT A FENCE) We feel that a concept plan must be provided now in order to assure the ambiance of the Historic District and the quality of life for everyone in the area. It is the opinion of the owners in this area that the County needs to provide a concept plan which will allow for landscaping to be used to shield the tremendous amount of parking which is planned for the area. Several years back the County asked for and received permission from the Town to install lighting which would be in keeping with the Historic District. We even went so far as to approve the design and intensity of this lighting - nothing was ever done by the County. Now is the time these concepts need to be put on paper and enforced in order that the whole neighborhood isn't looking at a mass of black top and a fenced in car lot. Our homes adjoin the Semones parking lot. This property has been a constant source of concern over the years to try to maintain our property values and the ambiance of the Historic District. We sincerely feel that the Town Council and the Town Planning Commission will take our concerns and see that an acceptable concept plan for the second block be presented and recorded at this time. Fencing this lot would be totally offensive and unsatisfactory. We would suggest creating a berm along Slack Lane, planting trees, shrubs, etc. with acceptable lighting. Thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns and suggestions. Sincerely, Claire A. Larson, President B. Powell Harrison 209 Cornwall Street, N.W. Leesburg, Virginia 20176-2702 May 20, 1998 Peter C. Burnett, Esq. Burnett & Williams, P.C. 105 Loudoun Street, S.E. Leesburg, VA 20175 Dear Peter: I write in support of the proposal for the new courthouse complex which your Courthouse Planning Committee is recommending. Your mission was a difficult one. It is not possible to get everything precisely as one might wish because one encounters conflicting objectives. But you have done it well. My reasoning follows: (1) The most important objective is to keep the courts in Leesburg centered around the old courthouse. This was what started Leesburg in the mid-18th century and has been the heart and soul of the people of Loudoun County ever since. You have accomplished this. (2) The architecture must be compatible with the neighboring buildings and with historic Leesburg. The courthouse must remain as the jewel. Again, I feel you have accomplished this, not to the extent that would satisfy everyone but good enough to work. If some compromises were not made there would be no way to accommodate the courts. (3) It will bring business to downtown Leesburg. To preserve the historic area must always be an economic goal. Your project will most certainly do this. Thus, I wish to compliment you and your committee. I trust the project will now move forward with alacrity. truly irs, Very ~ y~ Bo BPH/ml ~ tI r' Honorable James Clem, Mayor Town of Leesburg P.O. Box 88 Leesburg, Virginia 20178 Dear Mayor Clem: I am a resident of Cornwall Street in the block behind the court buildings and I will see the new building from my house even though I am not directly opposite it. The house I live in has been in the same family for 100 years and was built by distant relatives. I have attended meetings about the proposal for the new bUildings and renovations of the old ones and have been pleased with the process and with the results. At the beginning of the process a few years ago, the project looked as if it could overwhelm the area. In my opinion the design has now been smoothed so that it will add to the overall court complex and not overwhelm it or the houses behind the new building. I appreciated being able to see a model and not just pretty colored pictures. The model gave me a very good notion of what the new building will look like. I like that it is scaled back as it faces Cornwall Street and that it is set back from the street with planting in front. I consider Cornwall Street to be a very significant street in the historic district and I believe the designers have kept that in mind. Sincerely, Teckla H. Cox 10 Cornwall Street N.E. Leesburg, Virginia 20176 RECEIVED ~AY 26 1998 Dept. of Planning Zoning & Development Mary R. Mack 102 Slack Lane, N.E. Leesburg, VA 20176 May 20, 1998 Mayor and Council Planning Commission Town of Leesburg Leesburg, VA 20176 RE: County Courts Complex Rczoning Dear Councilmcmbcrs and Planning Commissioners: Because I will be unable to attend thc hearing on this matter, I ask that this letter be read into the record for the May 260' public hearing regarding the Courts Complex Rezoning. The County is to be congratulated on the architectural plans for thc new building which appear to be very compatible to the downtown and thc abutting anm. My residence is adjoining the second block where the parking is planned. As of today's date, I haw been unable to see a concept plan for that block, because one has not presented. My concern is that a green area similar to that provided in the first block be shown in order that the Cornwall Street vista be pr~erved and also to allow for landscaping to be used to soften our own view of the vast amount of parking that is planned for the area. This request is very vital to the quiet enjoyment of my home and the remaining homes on Slack Your consideration is appreciated. Sincerely, 102 Slack Lane, N.E. RECEIVED Dept. of Planning Zoning & Development gwmE G^vts. P.C. F T(~=HqI:" y $ AT ,SUITE 700 ~OONK ~OU~KVARD /I~NNA, VIRGINIA ~1~-77~ Stanley M. Salus, Esquire Virginia Bar No. 464 Christopher L. Rogan, Esquire Virginia Bar No. 30344 Wiekwire Gavin, P.C. 8100 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700 Vienna, Virginia 22182-2642 (703) 790-8750 Counsel to the Debtor IN 00"7-.?: r'.')..,'.IRT U.S. R' :-,,m;,'.--:-v CfiURT UNITED STATES BANKR~T~ COURT FOR THE EASTER~ DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA (Alexandria Division) INRE: LEEGATE CORPORATION, N.V. Debtor. Case No. 97-13030-AB (Chapter 11) ORDER APPROVING ASSUMPTION OF OPTION AGREEMENT AND THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY FREE AND CLEAR OF LIENS This cause came before the Court upon the Debtor's Motion to Assume Option Agreement with Pence Corporation (the "Option") and for authority to sell the property described in the Option' free and clear of liens, and it appearing to the Court that the assumption of the Option and the sale of the property isin the best interest of creditors; it is by the court, ORDERED: that the Debtor's Motion to Assume the Option is hereby granted, and it is further; ORDERED: that the Debtor be, and hereby is, pursuant to 11 Id.S.C. § 363, authorized to sell the real property described in its Motion to the Pence Corporation, its successors or assigns, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Option, as amended, free and clear of all interests, liens, claims and encumbrances, it is further; :ltWIRE GAVIN, .TTOi~N~'YS AT LAW ,.~UI Tt,'' 700 ~ BOONE BOULEVARD VIENNA. VIRGINIA OKDEKED: that all interests, liens, claims and encumbrances in, on and to the real property to be sold, shall attach to the proceeds of the sale, equal in priority and extent as such interests, liens, claims and encumbrances existed on said assets, prior to the entry of this Order; and it is further; OKDEKED: that the Debtor is authorized to execute contracts, bills of sale, settlement, deeds of conveyance, statements, afl~davits and any other documents necessary to effectuate the transaction authorized by this Order, and it is further; OKI)EKED, that upon the Closing of the Sale of the Optioned Property, the Debtor is authorized and directed to pay to the Town of Leesburg and Loudoun County, Virginia fi-om the proceeds of the Sale all real property taxes that have been assessed against the parcels being sold through the date of the transfer, and it is further; OKDEKED, that this Court shall retain jurisdiction to issue any orders necessary to cure any defect in the documents, pleadings or orders and memorializing this transaction and/or to remove any impediment to the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Order. Dated: Chief Judge Stanley, M. Salu,, ,~fEsquire,CV~B No~ 00464 Christopher L//Kogan, Esquire, VSB No. 30344 Wickwire, G~avin, P.C. 8100 Boone Boulevard Suite 700 Vienna, Virginia 22182 Counsel to the Debtor 'NOTICE OF JUDGMENT 0R, .RI:)E I ENTERED ON DOCKET 2 :KWIBE GAVIN. ~.C. TTOI~NEYS AT LAW .~Ul TE 700 ) BOONE BOULEVARD VIENNA. VIRGINIA ~_~.1~-77,3~ SEEN: . Assistant County Attorney v ~ ~ Office of the County Attorney P.O. Box 7000 Leesburg, VA 20177-7000 ~0csharK/dngG~ tTeOethl, t~nu ita~e P2.0C(~ Alexandria, VA 22314 COPIES TO: Stanley M. Salus, Esquire Wickwire Gavin, P.C. 81 O0 Boone Boulevard Suite 700 Vienna, Virginia 22182 Robert Pence Pence-Friedel Developers, Inc. 1359 Beverly Road, Suite 200 McLean, VA 22101 Craig B. Young, Esquire A. Lindsey Crawford, Esq. Andrews & Kurth, LLP 1701 Pennsylvania Ave NW #200 Washington,' DC 20006 G:~CO~EOAT~P~~ON2.WPD 3 FROM 05. tS. 1998 88:16 P.84 ~ of thu Com~ At-torttey P.O. Box 7000 Le~burg. VA 2017~-~"/000 9o8 Ktng Street, Suite ~0 ~ia, VA ?-?_~14 COPIES TO: Wtckwire Gavt~ P.C, 8100 Boone l~nslovard Sui~ 700 Vienna, Virgi~t~ 22182 1359 9~*verly Ro~ Suite 200 McLean, VA 22101 Craig B. Young, .Esquire A. Llndsey Crawford, Fact. Andrews & Kurth, LLP 1701 Pennsylvania ~.ve.NW' Washington, DC