HomeMy Public PortalAbout1998_06_30SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE :}0, 1998
A special meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 30, 1998 at
4:30 p.m., in the Lower Level meeting room, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, Virginia 20175,
Municipal Government Center. The meeting was called to order by Mayor James E. Clem.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT
J. Frank Buttery, Jr.
Jewell M. Emswiller
Joseph R. Trocino
Kristen C. Umstattd
B.J. Webb
William F. Webb, Jr.
Mayor James E. Clem
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Town Manager Steven C. Brown
Director of Engineering and Public Works Thomas A. Mason
Director of Planning, Zoning and Development Michael Tompkins
Deputy Town Attorney Deborah Welsh
Mr. Tompkins provided a staff report stating he met with the applicant last Thursday to discuss the
outstanding issues. He referred to the latest set of proffers, stating the word "approximately" was
re-introduced on page 3. The proffers also stated that all right-of-way dedications will take place
at the time of final development plan approval. This change is made on pages 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10.
Another change to the definition of "hard cost/cash in lieu" paragraph on page 11 was inserted.
Finally, the issue regarding "roadway and construction of lanes of others" on the bottom of page 4,
and top of page 5, the applicant believes this language will resolve that issue. This is an issue that
staff will leave up to the Council to decide. There still remains some policy issues that are
outstanding and have not been addressed. The first issue is direct commercial access from
Battlefield Parkway to parcels A and B. Secondly, staff requested an escalation clause regarding
contributions to the regional transportation project. The applicant chose not to put that in the
proffers. Thirdly, there is an issue associated with the actual construction of Fort Evans Road by
others.
Ms. Welsh explained the "escalation" clause and further discussed the addition of the word
"approximately."
Mr. Minchew, representing the applicant stated, "we wanted to keep the ability to establish in the
use mix any of the list of uses. To be specified that no one use can be done inclusive of all others.
We have clarified that but we still want the ability in our planning to have full scope potential of
these mixed uses. That is the purpose of the adverb "any." It is not saying we can have only one
use - all retail - all office.
Discussion was held with regard to the eminent domain language,
Mr. Minchew stated, "we understand that we have no right to come before this Council and ask
this Council to exercise its power of eminent domain."
Discussion was held regarding when the entrances from Battlefield Parkway are to be closed.
Councilmember Emswiller stated, she would prefer the traffic analysis be prepared in Phase I or
before Phase II is started. "Waiting until Phase III is too far down the road."
Mr. Mason stated, "the traffic study will take into account all the development and load the traffic
on in phases to show, either it all fits or at~r Phase II it does not. Staff will ask for this when the
preliminary plans are submitted. However, the developer could choose to do a preliminary for only
a portion of this entire tract."
Councilmember Emswiller stated, "she wants to be sure that a tra~c analysis will be prepared for
the entire development not just for parcel A."
Mr. Mason stated, "it is important to note that with each of the different phases there are
differences in crossovers and entrances. The first phase is a two-lane piece of Battlefield Parkway.
-2-
There is a four-lane that comes in later. Every time you add another road or entrance, you change
the distribution of travel. You could end up with a traffic study that accounts for all that traffic
some time in the future but it does not have the same configuration."
Mr. Mason stated, "one of the issues that came up in the past is that the traffic study that was
prepared so far - the uses and the size of the uses that are currently in the proffers do not match
what is in the traffic study. So we have an out of date study fight now. We want to be sure that
when the first piece of this land comes in, the study comprehensively addresses all the entrances
and all the phases so that we have a clear picture of the proffered uses as a baseline to go on for
each step. Right now, if they were to sell one parcel and a third party comes in and he is the first
one on Parcel B - and he says 'why do I have to look at how the entrance is going to operate across
the way - that is some body else's property - that's their problem. We want a comprehensive study
with the first parcel rather than a study that deals with only the access points that they are currently
looking at. From my prospective, if it is clear in the proffer then there is no argument. It is not a
really big expense and I think that is what they want to do with respect to the traffic study."
Mr. Minchew stated, the proffers have been signed by the applicant/owner. He stated he does not
have the authority from the applicant to change the words, but can clarify the language.
Ms. Welsh stated, the changes discussed will not be in writing. She reviewed the language,
emphasizing that the changes are understood but not written. Regarding the traffic study, the
applicant has submitted to the town a preliminary plan for Battlefield Parkway for review. In the
event this proffer amendment is approved, that will change the condition that currently exists on the
preliminary plan for the median break on Battlefield Parkway. The plan does not currently show
median breaks, however, if this is approved, this provides for median breaks on Battlefield
Parkway which means the applicant would be required to amend the preliminary plan for
Battlefield Parkway now to show the median breaks as part of the amendment of the preliminary
plan. The Director of Engineering and Public Works would require that a comprehensive traffic
study be prepared to address the phases and the development of Parcels A and B to ensure the
safety of the median breaks.
Mr. Mason stated, "in asking for a change in the plan, the support documents and the traffic study,
we feel very confident will fit within the ordinances of the town's preliminary plat process. We
will have the comprehensive plan for all the parcels with the Battlefield Parkway Preliminary Plat.
As these parcels come in with more detailed information they will update the comprehensive study.
The applicant is willing to make this change and add this comprehensive study in order to get the
application approved."
Ms. Welsh stated, "I am always happier if things are written in the proffers. The Council has a
representation from the applicant that as part of the preliminary plan they will submit a
comprehensive transportation study that is not a part of this rezonmg and is not a part of what is
before you."
Mr. Minchew gave his word to return the Fort Evans Road right-of-way deed tomorrow.
Ms. Welsh stated, there is 45' of right-of-way from the centerline on Fort Evans Road. A Fifteen
foot temporary construction easement is needed to accomplish the construction. At this time I have
not been provided with a 15' temporary construction easement.
Mr. Mason, responded to Councilmember Buttery's concern regarding the traffic study proposal.
He stated, the ordinance/DCSM says there is no direct access to any of these parcels of land on
Battlefield Parkway. The applicant has asked that they be allowed to have these accesses. The
potential problem is that once the accesses are allowed how do you take them away? In order to
allow these to occur either on an interim or permanent basis, staff can't do it so the Council has to
through a zoning action to modify that requirement to allow these to occur. The issue of the
transportation study is the fact that these accesses will dose some day - what triggers the closure?
The interchange construction is one. The through connection on Route 7 all the way to Potomac
Crossing - Battlefield Parkway to Potomac Crossing which makes it a through street all the way to
Route 7 and Route 15 north. The current application does not show any acx~s from these parcels
to Battlefield Parkway. So it automatically makes the application un-approvable because it is
-3-
inconsistent with the zoning ordinance which allows these things to occur. The applicant will have
to change it or get it approved without these, which they don't want.
The Council asked the applicant to provide a letter of clarification regarding the submission of a
Comprehensive Transportation Study for the Preliminary Subdivision Application (Battlefield
Parkway) by 11:00 a.m., on July 1, 1998.
MOTION: On motion of Councilmember B. J. Webb, seconded by Councilmember William F.
Webb, the following ordinance was proposed and adopted.
98~16 - ORDINANCE - APPROVING #ZM-154 POTOMAC STATION RETAIL, L.L.C.,
CONCEPT PLAN AND PROFFER AMENDMENT BY POTOMAC STATION RETAIL,
L.L.C.
WHEREAS, on June 7, 1997 the Town received #ZM-154 Potomac Station Retail, L.L.C.
concept plan and proffer amendment by Potomac Station Retail L.L.C. to amend the concept plan
and proffers for #ZM-134 Harper Park PRC, and #ZM-147 Potomac Station PRC as they apply to
Mixed Use Parcels A & B; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on August
7, 1998; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 1998, following three time extensions requested by the
applicant, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this application; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council held a public hearing on this application on March 24,
1998; and
WHEREAS, the Proffers, dated September 18, 1997, and revised through June 22, 1998
(hereinafter referred to as Proffers) and Concept Plan amendment request are in the interest of the
public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice.
SECTION I. Rezoning application #ZM-154 Potomac Station Retail, L.L.C. Concept
Plan and Proffer Amendment by Potomac Station Retail, L.L.C. is hereby approved subject to the
Proffers and Memorandum of Clarifications, dated June 22, 1998, copies of which are attached
hereto, and made a part hereof and incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION II. The Design and Construction Standards Manual modification is granted to
allow for entrances onto Battlefield Parkway subject to the limitations and conditions set forth in
the Proffers and Memorandum of Clarifications and as illustrated on the proffered Transportation
Plan.
SECTION III. Concept plan approval does not express or imply any waiver or
modifications to any requirements of the Design and Construction Standards Manual, Subdivision
and Land Development Regulations or Zoning Ordinance except as specifically cited herein.
SECTION IV. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage.
VOTE:
Aye: Councilmembers Buttery, Trocino, Umstattd, B. J. Webb, William F. Webb, Mayor Clem
Nay: Councilmember Emswiller
On motion of, and duly seconded, the meeting was adjourned.
6/ ~ames E. Clem, Mayor'
Clerk of Council