Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2019_tcwsmin0812Council Work Session August 12, 2019 Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:00 p.m. Mayor Kelly Burk presiding. Council Members Present: Ron Campbell, Thomas Dunn, Suzanne Fox, Vice Mayor Marty Martinez, Neil Steinberg, Joshua Thiel, and Mayor Kelly Burk. Council Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Town Attorney Barbara Notar, Deputy Town Manager Keith Markel, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, Director of Plan Review Bill Ackman, Director of Public Works and Capital Projects Renee LaFollette, Economic Development Director Russell Seymour, Senior Planning Project Manager Scott Parker, Senior Planner Richard Klusek, Transportation Engineer Calvin Grow, and Clerk of Council Eileen Boeing. Minutes prepared by Corina Alvarez. AGENDA ITEMS 1. Items for Discussion a. Traffic Flow in the Downtown Historic District Ms. LaFollette gave an overview of the expected construction traffic impact in regards to the Loudoun County Courthouse expansion, the possible Church and Market development project, and the two Town Capital Improvement Projects. Mayor Burk asked for clarification on the start date and street closures for the Market Street sidewalk improvement project. Ms. LaFollette indicated that the project will start in the spring with one -lane closers and it will be closed both ways during June, July, and part of August in order to bring in the fill and raise the road. Ms. Burk added that there should be an education process. Mayor Burk asked if there are plans for improving Church Street and the caving wall. Ms. LaFollette said that a study will take place in the next 3-4 weeks to see what can be done with that section of the roadway, but that currently there are no definitive plans. Ms. Burk asked for clarification on how traffic will be separated on Church Street. Ms. LaFollette explained that for the Courthouse expansion there is no reason for construction traffic to go beyond south of Market Street; traffic will go in and out through Market Street or Edwards Ferry Road. As for the Church and Market Street project, Ms. LaFollette said that there is no reason for the deliveries to come in north of Loudoun Street. Mayor Burk asked if Pennington will ever open. Ms. LaFollette mentioned that she is unaware of an opening date. Council Member Steinberg said that everybody appreciates the difficulties the Town is going to endure whether it be one or two projects. He believes that the County expansion project will be an interesting challenge and if Church and Market is on, along with the two CIP projects, all combined should make things very interesting for the downtown. Mr. Steinberg indicated that he prepared the map for Ms. LaFollette's presentation because he considers it important for residents and applicants to understand the level of 1 'Page Council Work Session August 12, 2019 development and the effect that it will have on traffic in and around the downtown. Mr. Steinberg said that individual traffic studies may not give applicants a true picture of what their future tenants and leasees are about to experience so he felt that in terms of good planning the Town would be well served to be far more proactive and understand the types of things that have to be considered to make traffic work. He mentioned that the primary reason he brought this up is because he believes the Town needs to be thinking of these things now and cannot wait until all of this development happens and then do a study to realize what is probably already known which is that traffic is a big problem that needs to be dealt with. Mr. Steinberg suggested that the study be initiated now and that given the County's presence and the large footprint that it brings to the downtown, especially with this expansion project, the County might want to consider helping do this study because it is going to affect everything that happens in its facilities when all this work comes online. Council Member Thiel stated that he did not realize how much development will occur at the same time and with traffic already a problem he considers that the routes need to be discussed beforehand. He added that the County needs to come to the table and help with the study because the County's project is a massive one. Mr. Theil asked where the trucks and equipment for the West Market Street sidewalk will come through. Ms. LaFollette responded that the bid documents state that traffic will come through the bypass to Market Street; it will not come through downtown. Council Member Thiel asked if there will be restrictions or a flag person for the intersection of Church and Market Street to let traffic through. Ms. LaFollette said that per her discussions with Loudoun County a flagman will be needed in that area to allow construction vehicles to make the movement from Market Street onto Church Street. Mr. Thiel asked if other flagmen would be needed in other locations. Ms. LaFollette mentioned that staff cannot answer that question until it sees the final construction plan from the selected contractor and added that staff would handle traffic for its projects by placing flagmen with one-way restrictions from 9:30 am to 3 p.m. Vice Mayor Martinez said that his main concern is the added stress on the roads and he believes that there is enough traffic now to warrant changing Market and Loudoun into one-way streets to have a better flow through town. He added that maybe in the future staff could come back with a feasibility study for doing this change. Ms. LaFollette mentioned that regarding the orientation of Loudoun and Market staff is unable to only analyze both streets in a vacuum since it requires a more holistic traffic study. Council Member Fox asked if staff is anticipating that the Courthouse expansion will go beyond January 2023. Ms. LaFollette said that it is expected to be a two and a half year project, but given the size she considers this to be a 3-year project, which is why she presented it this way. Ms. Fox asked to be reminded why the road is going to be raised on West Market. Ms. LaFollette explained that one of retaining walls on that section of roadway is considered a contributing factor to that house being on the historic registry and if the road is not raised to meet the elevation of the base of that wall there is a 2'Page Council Work Session August 12, 2019 risk of damaging the wall during construction. Ms. LaFollette added that geotechnical investigations were performed and there is no foundation under the wall except for a small stone footing and when excavations are done to widen the sidewalk the base will be exposed. Ms. Fox asked if the Town is raising an entire road to not damage the historic wall. Ms. LaFollette confirmed affirmatively. Council Member Fox asked for the schedule of the Morven Park sidewalk. Ms. LaFollette said it is scheduled to start 4-6 months after the Market Street project. Ms. Fox asked for confirmation that the haul route for Church and Market will be through Harrison Street and hit Catoctin Circle. Ms. LaFollette confirmed that this is the route. Council Member Fox asked if much interruption has been seen because of the construction of the King Street apartment project. Ms. LaFollette mentioned that she has not heard any complaints regarding this project. Council Member Fox asked if there are other CIP projects that need to be considered. Ms. LaFollette indicated that there is a project that has not been scheduled which is the storm drainage work at the intersection of King and Market that is pending because of Washington Gas design issues. Council Member Campbell asked that the condition of the roads be kept in mind to either improve or recover the surface that may be lost. He believes that the idea of staging all of these projects at a similar time is a good thing, in terms of quality of life, if it is going to be disrupted it might as well be disrupted and make the most out of that time while possible. Mr. Campbell said that some of these projects require impact studies and deeper questions should be asked rather than just doing an individual study of how to improve traffic flow around town and there is also the impact that these projects will have on traffic. He added that when one looks at these impact studies it is also an opportunity to look at the directional issues of the roads and how they can be improved or changed. Council Member Campbell indicated that as one looks at all these things happening, a futuristic look needs to take place and without knowing how much the County may or may not want to participate in that but being realistic these are decisions that have been made. He said that he hopes that these things can be kept in mind as the Town looks at applications coming through the system and that it is not a casual glance at a traffic impact study but one with a broader perspective. Council Member Dunn asked how many traffic studies has the Town conducted for development purposes. Ms. LaFollette responded that the Town has only done studies for Capital Improvement Projects. Mr. Dunn asked if there is a traffic impact study connected to the Courthouse. Ms. LaFollette responded affirmatively. Council Member Dunn asked if all the projects have their own traffic impact study. Mr. Grow stated that the Church and Market project does have its own traffic impact study but that the Town typically does not do studies for Capital Improvement Projects because they are in the Town Plan. Mr. Dunn asked if these studies are usually post construction results. Mr. Grow stated that the studies are done by professional engineers. Council Member Dunn asked if staff had any estimates on vehicle stacking numbers. Ms. LaFollette said that staff does not 3 1Page Council Work Session August 12, 2019 currently have that information but it will be discussed with the contractors so that stacking is avoided. Mr. Dunn asked if staff has planned out the traffic so it does not interfere with busy hours of civilian traffic. Ms. LaFollette responded that staff does not yet know the phasing and how each project is going to be built and that will determine how the construction traffic and the flow will play out. Council Member Dunn asked if staff is planning any advisory signage on the approaches to the historic district. Ms. LaFollette said that every possible avenue will be used to get the word out. Mr. Dunn asked if staff will be working with Economic Development to have staff inform the downtown businesses about the heavy traffic and not dissuade people from supporting the businesses and ensuring that they still get the customers that they have worked hard to acquire. Ms. LaFollette mentioned that Economic Development will surely be a big part of the effort. Council Member Dunn asked if staff has a compilation for each area of the trips a day per the traffic studies that have been done already. Ms. LaFollette mentioned that they are individual traffic impact studies submitted for each of the development projects. Mr. Dunn said he asks because as those projects come on line, they are going to add to the traffic and that staff needs to consider how the construction process is managed. Council Member Dunn suggested putting together a matrix with all the studies and provide the trip numbers per day during construction. Ms. LaFollette mentioned that the Courthouse project is far enough ahead that the Church and Market's traffic study probably took into account the traffic for the County project. Mr. Dunn asked if there are any traffic studies that were proffered that have not yet been conducted. Ms. LaFollette indicated that she was not aware of any pending studies; the projects that were required to submit a study have already done so. Council Member Dunn asked if there is any project that does not have a study and which staff considers it should. Ms. LaFollette responded that staff cannot think of any one, at this time. Mr. Dunn asked when the advance signage will go into effect. Ms. LaFollette mentioned that the longer it is up the less effective it is, and according to the Department of Transportation (DOT) signage should be placed between 5 to 7 days before construction starts or if there is a major change. Council Member Dunn asked in what months of the timeline will there be maximum construction traffic and potentially build out of other developments that may contribute to more citizen traffic. Ms. LaFollette explained that a potential danger zone could be in 2021 when the Courthouse and Church and Market projects are further into their construction, with West Market Street tailing off. b. TLSE-2018-0005 Church and Market — Special Exception Application Mr. Parker presented an overview of the Church and Market project stating the following: • It is a 116-unit multifamily residential building which requires a special exception • It will have a169-space parking structure which requires a special exception 41Page Council Work Session August 12, 2019 • Requires six zoning modifications included in the application • Has a total of 306K square feet including the underground garage Mr. Parker enumerated the follow-up items that came out of the public hearing of July 9 as follows: • Parking • Residential parking • Traffic • Height • Provision of first floor residential Council Member Campbell asked if there was anything new that would help support staffs continued recommendation for this project. Mr. Parker said that the developer has put in a lot of effort and resources into a construction traffic management and a parking management plan and that he has not yet seen anything that would change staffs recommendation for approval of the project. Council Member Fox asked if the developer will present the parking management plan to Council. Mr. Parker said the developer would present, if it pleases Council. Council Member Thiel asked if the applicant received a copy of the presentation given by Ms. LaFollette. Mr. Parker said that everything included in the presentation was previously discussed with the developer. Mr. Thiel asked if staff was recommending that trucks not be allowed during peak hours. Mr. Parker said that he is not a traffic management expert but that typically evening construction is done before the p.m. peak starts, while morning has a tendency to overlap. Council Member Steinberg asked if the Senior Center lot and the Semones lot are County -owned. Mr. Parker said they are County -owned. Mr. Steinberg asked if they could be options for parking for this particular situation. Mr. Parker said they probably are not. He added that staff can talk to the County about the Senior Center lot and from what he knows about the construction of the Courthouse the Semones lot will become handicapped parking so it would not be viable, but the Pennington lot could be. Council Member Steinberg asked if the Pennington lot is within the 1,000-foot mark that was set by Council last year regarding parking proximity to various projects. Mr. Parker said that it is for the Loudoun Times Mirror portion of the project but does not know if it applies to the Church and Market proper. Mr. Steinberg asked if the applicant is aware of the big question mark on the Liberty Street lot. Mr. Parker said he did not have the answer to that question. Council Member Steinberg asked, in reference to acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) C and D for 2040, what factors do those assumptions take into account. Mr. Parker said he would have to defer to the traffic engineer, but mentioned that there is a variety of factors that go into the calculation of a Level of Service. Mr. Steinberg asked if it takes into account background traffic and if so does all the current development, either in the pipeline or under review fall into this kind of a study. Mr. Parker explained that before an applicant comes 5 'Page Council Work Session August 12, 2019 forward there is a scoping meeting about what a traffic study is going to entail such as what intersections, what roads, background traffic and making sure that they are aware of what is approved and what is in the pipeline. Council Member Steinberg asked for clarification on item 5 where it reads: "This condition shall not apply if the mechanical vehicle lift system is utilized." Mr. Parker mentioned that if option A is ultimately the solution that is determined is going to happen, for whatever reason the Council does not want to enter into an agreement, that states that parking will be available to the public after 5 pm at nights and on the weekends and would not apply to Option B because that is a component to provide public parking, and this is at least a way to get public parking for after 5 pm and on weekends. Mr. Parker also mentioned that the applicant wants to make a change to say that in addition to residential parking, employee parking is considered to be off limits as well and that the balance of the commercial and retail parking will be provided after 5 pm and on weekends. Mr. Steinberg asked if it had been considered that perhaps employees might avail themselves of parking at the Pennington lot as opposed to on -site. Mr. Parker said he has not broached this subject with the developer. Council Member Steinberg asked when is the best time to hold a conversation regarding Plan B, since obviously it cannot wait until December. Mr. Parker said that if Council makes a decision to approve this application, a work session item on that probably should begin discussion as soon as possible without knowing exactly what kind of details would need to be worked out or what kind of an agreement would ultimately end up of taking place. He added that if the applicant knows that Council wants to do Option B, and there is an agreement in principle, they would be comfortable with proceeding with the site plan that incorporates Option B. Council Member Steinberg asked if Option B is an absolute, meaning that the applicant cannot suddenly decide that it will just go with Option A, and reiterated if Option B is on the table for Council to decide one way or the other. Mr. Parker responded that this is how he understands it and that the applicant would very much like to entertain Option B. Mr. Blair White, Vice President of Landmark Commercial Real Estate, and Ms. Alice Enz, Associate Architect at Torti Gallas and Partners made a presentation on the project. Council Member Dunn said he appreciated the request for doing more of a double -hung window approach since he believes it looks nicer and that the brick looks a little better. Mr. Dunn added that he still feels that the project overall and the masses are pretty great but that he wishes to have gotten into the discussion much earlier into some of the other options mentioned by Ms. Enz and that there could have been another option had that path been taken earlier. Mr. Dunn said that the option of doing 90-100 homes in that area, with much more limited commercial, would have obviously reduced the need for all that space being needed for parking, which he believes would have been a better solution. He said he appreciated some of the changes brought forward and that the presentation was better served by showing what will be done with the former newspaper building. 6IPage Council Work Session August 12, 2019 Council Member Campbell said that part of Council's responsibility is trying to take a look at impact and as one looks at impacts and projects one also looks at the impact of the quality of work and the adherence to listen. Mr. Campbell said that the developer listened to staff for the last couple of years and understands the value of this particular project and therefore he appreciates the responsiveness to putting in the extra work and time which says that this is more than a project and that this means something to this community. He added that he likes the way it looks and it feels. Council Member Campbell said he does not see this project out of scope and it is what the Town needs and where it is headed. He mentioned that he knows that Council has to make a decision about parking and how parking fits, and with that notwithstanding, he is in support of this project. Council Member Fox thanked the developer for listening and coming back with exactly what Council asked for. She added that this project does blend well with the downtown community. Ms. Fox said that the big issue for her was parking. Council Member Fox indicated that Council had requested a management plan and the developer provided one and she just wants to make sure that guest and employee parking fit into this plan. Ms. Fox indicated that the developer has satisfied Council requests. Vice Mayor Martinez thanked the developer for the presentation and indicated that he looks forward to voting. Council Member Steinberg thanked the presenters for working on the windows, since of all the comments he received the windows came up most often and the other comment had to do with the porch. Mr. Steinberg said that the porch did not seem to match stylistically or colorwise. Ms. Enz indicated that usually these porches are seen in the longer, more traditional, sort of full facade but because of site constraints and also the way that it sits on the sidewalk, the porch was pulled in to allow for a more generous sidewalk on the corner for pedestrian traffic and circulation. She added that one of the challenges across the street at the County building is that the sidewalk is very tight so the suggestion is not to fill the full facade of the porch so that the site is easy to walk around and is pedestrian -friendly. Ms. Enz mentioned that figuring out the actual details and how it works is one of the things that will be worked through with the Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Ms. Enz stated that this was a valid comment and they wanted to explain where this idea of a porch for outdoor living came from and that it feels lighter and more transparent on the street as opposed to having a heavier brick mass. Ms. Enz said that this serves as a three-story transition piece from the small scale porches on Loudoun Street to the parking garage and the County building, so while it is not exactly sort of the very historic vernacular it is trying to take those cues and influences and make it part of the Town. Council Member Steinberg indicated that the concern was more that it did not seem to go with the building it was attached to, but that he appreciates the input. Mr. Steinberg asked if the Town goes with plan B and the Town has made its contribution to the parking, who then owns the lift. Mr. Blair indicated that the company would own the lift, with the exception of any spaces that the 7IPage Council Work Session August 12, 2019 Town and the developer might enter into an agreement on in Option B, which could be either owned by the Town in a condominium form of ownership or they could be leased long term. Mr. Steinberg asked if the developer had any concept or feel for a situation like First Friday when everybody is leaving at once and what is likely to happen inside the parking garage. He also asked if it is a single -lane exit and entrance. Mr. White said that the residents will not have to interact with the gate other than to wave a fob or have an electronic sticker that will lift the gate. He added that visitor -wise there could potentially be an issue but there is such a limited amount of open public visitor spaces currently that there is not enough volume. Council Member Steinberg asked for confirmation that parking management and maintenance, parking fee levels, and revenue will be decided by and for the developer. Mr. White confirmed affirmatively. He also added that because none of the parties has gone into the details of what the agreement will look like if Option A or Option B were approved, then the developer and Council needs to mutually agree to go forward with Option B because Council could say it wants to go with Option B but only if it will cost the Town $15K a parking space, to which the developer could say that it puts them at an economic loss condition that they cannot bear. Mr. White said that if Option B is approved he will come back to Council to present the numbers that the contractor has quoted and negotiate collectively the best deal possible. He also stated that if the vendor comes back and says that there is current tariff impact on structural steel which adds a 35% increase on top of the cost already known, then both parties have to have the ability to say if this no longer makes any sense. Mr. Steinberg requested clarification on how the structure is built. Mr. White indicated that it typically is installed once the outer walls have been constructed because it has an electrical component; design -wise it is fully integrated preconstruction but actual installation is usually after substantial completion of the parking level. Council Member Steinberg said he assumed that the developer would like to have this conversation as soon as possible on which way Council would like to go. Mr. White said that they are fine with going in either direction but decisions need to be made because of: a. the site plan, and b. the BAR because there is a slight change to the exterior elevation if the lift system is installed, otherwise it would be a small retail shop Council Member Thiel indicated that the aerial photos were very helpful to understand where the buildings will be located and how they are going to look. Mr. Thiel asked if the old Loudoun Times building will all be office space and if this building's parking space is separate from the parking behind. Mr. White responded that it will be office space and the parking for that building has not been figured out. He added that they would have to make a contribution to payment in lieu or they would ask the tenants at that space to park at Pennington or at paid parking at another facility. Council Member Thiel asked where the dumpsters for the tenants will be placed. Mr. White indicated that there will be an enclosure that will be tucked under the bridge at the building closest to the 19 East Market building. Mr. Thiel asked 8IPage Council Work Session August 12, 2019 if the heating and A/C units will be on top of the buildings. Mr. White confirmed that is correct. Council Member Thiel asked about the white material proposed for the building facade seen directly across from the Courthouse. Ms. Enz explained that the white option will be siding with trim around the windows and the other is the brick alternative. Mayor Burk asked if the developer would take care of the power lines. Mr. White indicated that they will not. Ms. Burk asked how the trash trucks will get in and out of the area. Mr. White explained that they will come in on Church, they will make the turn on Church Street, and then they turn left into the alley, immediately opposite to the egress of the County parking deck. Ms. Burk said that she likes the porch. She added that the traffic study that she hopes that Council will agree to do is very important for this project and that she has serious concerns about the turn from Church Street, and Edwards Ferry and Market and the implications there and so she thinks this traffic study is going to be very important because, as Vice Mayor Martinez said, it is going to end up coming back with one-way recommendations, which will make a big difference in the project. Mr. White said that from their perspective any comprehensive traffic study that is done, if the recommendation is to do one - ways or straight turns from Market, the residents will benefit from any improvements that are made collectively to the network and improve the general flow. Mayor Burk asked if there is a need for another public hearing. Ms. Notar indicated that there is no need for a public hearing. Ms. Burk mentioned that the view from the Courthouse from siding to brick is a huge improvement and appreciates that it was taken into consideration. Council Member Steinberg asked if the Loudoun Times Mirror project and the Church and Market Street project are happening together. Mr. White confirmed affirmatively. Council Member Dunn asked if the internal streets will be public or private. Mr. White stated that the streets will be private although there will be public easements running internally in that area as well as private easements to provide access from existing buildings fronting King Street across the site to get out onto Church Street. It was the consensus of the Council to move forward with approving special exception TLSE-2018-0005, Courthouse Square Development Associates, LLC (Church and Market) to allow 116 mutli-family residential units and an integral parking structure. c. TLTA-2018-0002 Eastern Gateway District Small Area Plan Mr. Klusek gave a brief project update. He added that per Council's request additional photos were included into the plan to demonstrate the desired architecture and character and photos indicating things that are not desired. He added there was a delay due to staff waiting for the Virginia Department of Transportation analysis to be completed and it shows that there will be some traffic increase on the roadways, which is to be expected. Mr. Klusek also mentioned that because of the delay, State Code § 15.2-2226 9IPage Council Work Session August 12, 2019 requires the Town Council to take action on a comprehensive plan within 90 days of the Planning Commission's resolution recommending the plan for adoption. Council Member Dunn said he appreciates the additions to the design standards and he believes the pictures help but what is not in the plan is language about the buildings and how they would relate to the others. Mr. Dunn asked if the language under picture on page 12-11 on the lower right hand side (Projecting/recessed bays to create visual interest) refers to the different ways that each frontage will relate to the one next to it. Mr. Klusek mentioned that each storefront essentially is recessed or comes out to break up the mass of the large building. Council Member Dunn asked what it would take to give more detail to that, for example if one said that "buildings need to project or recess by x number of feet from the space next to it" and would it be something acceptable here. Mr. Klusek responded that this is probably too much detail for a plan and the main reason is that different sites would require different architectural treatments. Council Member Dunn said that one of the things he was going to bring up, hopefully for a future Council discussion, is to see if staff could put on the fast track the ability to come up with much more detailed design standards, because Council has been talking about this literally for years and still Council does not have them in the type of detail that he would like to see. He continued to say that hopefully there could be a discussion about getting this fast tracked to where there is currently development going so that Council can see better results and he knows that Council did not see them in the project that was going on at Lowes. Mr. Dunn said he understands the desire not to go into a lot of detail but he thinks it is important to let people know that Council is looking for "projections and recessions of bays to create a visual effect" and he sees this as an explanation of the picture and did not see it in any of the text for architectural designs. Mr. Klusek said he is correct; this is the level that the plan has gotten so far. Council Member Dunn thinks this would give more importance to Council's desires of seeing certain architectural designs be written into the text rather than just notes of what the picture is. Mr. Dunn asks if staff will be holding people to these picture notes. Mr. Klusek said that the pictures show examples of things that can be done to achieve the desired architectural character and that staff finds itself in a very tight spot because, as discussed at the last Council session, there was no agreement on what would and would not be appropriate architecture. Mr. Klusek added that staff has included one of the photos that Mr. Dunn recommended but with so many different opinions having a specific numerical explanation of what that design would include would be difficult for staff to do. Council Member Dunn said that Council and staff should try to get there and at least come up with some form of consensus because otherwise it will be left up to the developer. Council Member Campbell said he has had problems with this whole process from the beginning and even as he sees more references of what it is that is trying to be created it is really related to only one plot of land that is not developed. Mr. Campbell added that everything in that area is already in 10IPage Council Work Session August 12, 2019 process and he is unsure of what it is that is trying to be solved or created in the context of the character of the Town Plan that is in the process of being reviewed and that it has different information from 2002, 2005, 2012 which has no relevance in 2019. Council Member Campbell said he is in agreement with the Cooley letter on jobs and the misused environment so he is confused about the vision. He added that Council can continue discussions on architecture but the reality is that what is needed is for developers to build and want to be there and the Town needs spaces to be occupied because this is part of the Town's Comprehensive Plan which creates a vision for a footprint that establishes where the Town is going and it is already three quarters of the way there. Council Member Campbell says his questions have to do with what would this do for any work in progress, which has already been approved, any real significant incoming application that makes this a priority to why this cannot wait until Council reviews the Town Comprehensive Plan and this could even change based on the outcome of that plan. He asked what is critical right now about having to add this particular piece. Mr. Klusek responded that back in 2016 the Council asked to have a plan done for this area to change the regional office planning designation and staff took that direction and put its best foot forward in coming up with a plan that better achieved the economic development goals of the Town. Mr. Klusek added that if the Council has no desire to move this forward, then that is a decision that needs to be made. He added that any update to the Town Plan would incorporate this Eastern Gateway District plan. Council Member Campbell said that this plan can then be modified based on the outcomes. Mr. Klusek agreed. Mr. Campbell said that there is work that the Town is paying to be done and that it should wait to incorporate new information rather than having to make all these critical decisions now. Council Member Fox asked what other uses have been excluded from this plan. Mr. Klusek said that staff did not exclude uses, what it did do is, to a certain degree, dictate the form, what they would look like, and how they might relate to one another in a more compact, urban form. Ms. Fox suggested, in regards to phasing, that if residential is to be built beforehand in order to economically feed the rest of the project, she would submit to Council that a provision be put in so an applicant cannot come back and request to build only residential. Mr. Klusek said that on page 12-39 the plan does look for employment uses to come first. Council Member Fox asked what if it is not economically feasible for somebody to build because residential is what will fuel the employment uses. Mr. Klusek said that Council requested that language, so it is up to Council if it wishes to take it out and not require that employment be first. Ms. Berry Hill suggested that part of that discussion can happen at the time of the rezoning and making it clear to the applicant that if they want some flexibility in their phasing, and if that is something that Council wants to entertain that it be made clear that future phases of the project need to emphasize the employment uses or the non-residential uses going forward. Ms. Fox asked if that could be part of an application, if it can 111Page Council Work Session August 12, 2019 be codified. Ms. Berry Hill said that it can be discussed as part of the rezoning or special exception review. Vice Mayor Martinez said that the goal and vision is in the plan. He asked if the Eastern Gateway could be a project where form -based code could be applied. Mr. Klusek said that Council has the option of initiating a zoning ordinance to create a form -based code for this area however the current zoning ordinance, as it stands now with a combination of zoning districts, can be used to implement this vision but staff does not believe it is necessary. Mr. Martinez said that one of the things that concerns him is that the Town will implement what it wants and have a beautiful entrance and then once one gets into the bypass and onto Market Street, how does one get those businesses to look at what is being done at the Eastern Gateway and maybe eventually transition into doing something like that. Ms. Berry Hill explained that the bypass is covered by the Crescent Design District (CDD) and staff has always acknowledged that it will be an incremental process and as property owners wish to develop their projects the CDD vision will become implemented with better streetscapes, and perhaps capital projects that the Town embraces for East Market in a partnership effort. Ms. Berry Hill mentioned that this is something that was discussed when the Form -Based Codes Institute was in town and whether or not Council was interested in looking at perhaps a public sector involvement and making that vision happen. Vice Mayor Martinez said he knows that whatever is implemented is not going to go into effect for another 15-20 years but he is thinking about Market Street from the bypass to Catoctin and Catoctin from Market Street to King Street and how it could all be part of that streetscape with the median and trees and right and left -turn lanes. Ms. Berry Hill said that there will be an opportunity to talk about those things when the process to update and change the CDD, which will happen at the end of 2020. Mr. Martinez said that if the Eastern Gateway is implemented in a good way that it could be the impetus for other businesses to be motivated to do similar things. Council Member Steinberg asked if what staff needs from Council is a vote to send this plan to the Planning Commission so they can recertify and then if it is coming back to Council. Mr. Klusek said that staff is looking for Council to endorse the plan as it is presented, make the Planning Commission (PC) aware, and then hopefully address the stakeholder requirements by bringing it back to Council for a vote within 90 days of the PC's certification. Mr. Steinberg asked if the height limits are established in the plan. Mr. Klusek responded that this plan does not establish height limits it does however call for a typical height design, dependent on the location in the mixed -use area which will be 4-6 stories at the maximum with 2-4 in the surrounding area. Council Member Steinberg said that one of the functions of Council members is to have great thoughts and grand plans, whether they are realistic or not, since at least they are indicating the direction in which they would like to see the Town to go. He added that the more desires that can be noted, then the better. Mr. Steinberg said he concurs with the Vice Mayor's idea that the entire length of East Market from the bypass to Mom's Apple Pie, and of 121Page Council Work Session August 12, 2019 course Catoctin Circle, has public infrastructure that the Town puts in place and then the developers follow and this is something that should be thought about. Mr. Steinberg reiterated that the extent to which the groundwork to the Eastern Gateway can be laid, even in the face of the current development, the extent to which the Town can tell applicants what can be built, the better. Mayor Burk asked where on the map is there a light -industrial component. Mr. Klusek indicated there is no light -industrial component. Ms. Burk said that this was one of Council's biggest requests. Mr. Klusek responded that the technology and employment area and the Cardinal Park area serve as light -industrial area and also the area underneath the power lines and on the east side of River Creek Parkway/Crosstrail Boulevard. Mr. Klusek added that Council can shrink the mixed -use area to make it light - industrial but reminded Council that the plan is not dictating use, it is dictating design so as long as a light -industrial type use can fit within that mixed -use design character, those uses can certainly come in. Council Member Campbell asked if an automobile dealership is considered light -industrial. Mr. Klusek said that some might consider them a light -industrial use, but the challenge would be fitting them into the design that is called for in the plan. Mr. Campbell asked to take the time to make sense of whatever grand ideas and schemes and be realistic about what has already been done, combine that with where the Town is going, and then there will be a very significant planning process in place. He said that in essence there is only one piece of property left for development and all the rest is redevelopment. Council Member Campbell asked that Council be reasonable and prudent in using the citizens' money and time wisely. Council Member Dunn said he would like to hear more from staff in regards to design and what is meant by leaving it open for other considerations, instead of determining what those designs will be. Mr. Klusek said there was a slide in a past presentation where Council looked at the Comprehensive Plan, the Small Area Plan, the Gateway standard zoning ordinance and the role that each of those filled in terms of dictating design and that this plan puts forward a design concept that it wants applicants to bring forward. He added that then it is up to the Council and the Board of Architectural Review to determine how it fits within the plan and the desired vision, how it fits within the zoning ordinance, and how it fits within the Gateway Standards. Mr. Klusek said that this takes it one step further in at least having a general concept of the design. He added that if the Council wants to go forward with additional design work, staff can and it is currently occurring with the update to the Gateway Standards. Mr. Dunn said that almost every Council member has talked about the vision, moving forward, and having this carry from this area to other areas and redevelopment and the talk is still on the same old stuff. He added that he does not see staffs willingness to hold anyone accountable and there has to be some direction from Council and staff has to be willing to accept that direction. 13 'Page Council Work Session August 12, 2019 It was the consensus of the Council to move forward with endorsing the Town Plan Amendment TLTA-2018-0002, Eastern Gateway District Small Area Plan. d. Council Rules of Procedure Ms. Notar stated the three items that were brought up by Council in a prior meeting for discussion. 1. Adding unplanned discussions to work sessions (Section 11) 2. Changing the requirement to add new business (Section 9) from unanimous consent to super majority (5 people) 3. Adding language to differentiate a work session from a regular business meeting Ms. Notar mentioned that she added the following language: "...and the ability to conduct limited business at its work session" because the Town Manager and other directors have asked her about that. She added that if Council is going to change the language of the work session maybe Council would also like to consider having closed sessions on the work sessions. Ms. Notar mentioned that in the past there were closed sessions on work session nights. She explained that it would not be a committee of the whole anymore; a committee of the whole under Robert's Rules is a discussion committee and no formal action is supposed to take place. Ms. Notar said that if Council wanted to change the committee of the whole to a work session where Council only does closed sessions, language could also be added or the rules can be tightened. Ms. Notar mentioned not knowing what Council was thinking when the suggestion was made to add language to differentiate a work session from a regular business meeting and she is suggesting making them more similar to give Council flexibility to add closed sessions to the work sessions. Mayor Burk stated that regarding item 3, what she recalls from the discussion is related to when a work session and a business meeting fall on the same night. Ms. Notar proceeded to read a comment from Vice Mayor Martinez that was registered in the minutes, as follows: "Vice Mayor Martinez also requested a discussion on the difference between a work session and a business meeting". Council Member Steinberg asked what the point of differentiating the work session from the business meeting; what the goal is. Mayor Burk explained that in the work session Council is supposed to discuss the issues before they are voted on while in the business meeting the discussion is more limited and making more statements than asking questions. Mr. Steinberg suggested, regarding number 2 that instead of having to do the math that the language could read: • with 7 council members 5 are needed, • with 6 council members 4 are needed, • with 5 council members 4 are needed, • with 4 council members 3 are needed Mr. Steinberg added that the idea of having a closed session during a work session maybe has some merit only because sometimes work sessions run 141Page Council Work Session August 12, 2019 a little shorter so it has a certain attractive sound to it rather than having to do everything at a business meeting. Council Member Thiel said he would be in favor of adding closed sessions to work sessions. Mr. Thiel asked what is meant by adding unplanned discussions to work sessions. Mayor Burk said that it means it would not be on the agenda. Ms. Notar said it would fall under Section 9 under new business and that currently there has to be unanimous consent to add something. Mr. Thiel said he would be in favor of super majority. Mayor Burk clarified that item 1 and 2 are two different things. Ms. Notar explained that the items are combined, because right now if Council wanted to add an item that is unplanned either to a work session or the regular business meetings there has to be unanimous consent. She added that Vice Mayor Martinez broke them down. Vice Mayor Martinez clarified what he had asked for: 1 Have a simple majority if Council wants to discuss an item that night 2. Do away with the unanimous clause and have a super majority, but the problem with this is that if there are only 5 or 4 people it is hard to define what a super majority is because the simple majority becomes the super majority Vice Mayor Martinez suggested that point #2 be done with a clause that there has to be 5 or 6, whatever Council agrees on, in attendance to be able to bring it forward. Mayor Burk read the following: "Changing the requirement to suspend the rules and add new business items under Section 9 to regular business meetings from unanimous approval to two thirds". Vice Mayor Martinez said that on item #1 just a simple majority for discussion items and agreed with what the Mayor read for #2. Mr. Martinez said, in regards to #3, that there are times when there is a work session on a holiday and there is work that Council needs to do, so discussions need to be held and therefore Council should go to the Tuesday meeting and have the first part as an abbreviated work session to discuss items and then move into a regular business meeting. Vice Mayor Martinez said that there are things that could get done on an abbreviated work session that were missed the day before. Council Member Steinberg asked if what Vice Mayor Martinez wants is a minimum of 5-6. Vice Mayor Martinez believes there should be at least 6 people present to make a super majority, unless the Town Attorney wants to correct that. Council Member Thiel said he would be in favor of a super majority for getting an item added to the next agenda. Council Member Dunn said if that if the rule will be super majority then the super majority will exist based on the number present. He added that for years he has been trying to get Council members to have a more free - flowing process by which items can be brought forward and Council limits itself more than it limits the Town Manager or even people in the public. He indicated that it is harder for Council members to bring things before Council than it is for almost anyone else. Mr. Dunn said that Robert's Rules allows for something to be brought forward by making a motion and if there is any 15IPage Council Work Session August 12, 2019 discussion on it, it requires a second; if it does not have a second then whatever effort that Council member wanted to bring forward will die. Council Member Dunn indicated that this is the cleanest way to do anything and if staff time is needed as a result of that discussion then it can be requested and the item will be brought forward at a later time. Mr. Dunn said that unanimous consent versus super majority is there because if a Council member is bringing something up on a short notice it is so strict that it requires unanimous consent and he is unsure if that is because of Robert's Rules for unanimous consent to suspend the rules or if it is one of Council's definitions of the rules. He stated that this is such a major issue since it is not about bringing things forward but about suspending the rules on any topic and that is the guideline, not just bringing things forward. Council Member Dunn reiterated that it is a major issue to suspend the rules by busting the guidelines loose because someone feels that his/her issue is so important that it has to be discussed the next night of even that night even if no one else is prepared to discuss the item. Mr. Dunn suggested that if Council wishes to suspend the rules then it could change from unanimous to super majority. He also said that he does not believe there has to be a detailed issue over the one-off Tuesday meetings and have to be split between work sessions and regular meetings because if that is done, the argument then is that the first half is a work session the second half is a regular meeting and now on a same night an item is brought up as a work session item that had no previous review and it is on for the next meeting which is in 5 minutes to vote on. In regards to closed sessions, Council Member Dunn said that Council should keep in mind that voting to go into a closed session and having a closed session may be allowed at the work session but it depends on if that work session has an actionable item that is going to require a vote afterwards. He says yes to having a closed session at a work session, as long as that item is not an actionable item coming out of the work session. Council Member Campbell said that it is frustrating because part of the problem is that Council does not know the rules. He said there is no rule that says how to add an item to a future meeting and therefore it was proposed to discuss the Rules of Procedure. He added that the rules can be suspended with two-thirds of a vote, but one cannot be in a meeting and then ask what the rules are. Mr. Campbell said that he asked for something to be added at a work meeting and he was told it needed unanimous consent and this is not true because there is no policy to cover adding items at a work session. He said that the other issues about unanimous consent can be changed, but to him it does not matter. Council Member Campbell indicated that what does matter is what items Council is talking about and as a general rule of thumb in the Rules of Procedure, which did not even say that certain conditions should exist that it has to be non -controversial, or it has to require staff time and that this is not the policy. Mr. Campbell said that either the policy is made specific or leave it general, but if it is general it will be wishy washy. He added that the policies need to be updated to what Council wants, not generally speaking because that is not a rule and it leaves room for different interpretations. 16jPage Council Work Session August 12, 2019 Council Member Campbell stated that the rules should be very specific as to what Council members can expect and do and how to hold each other accountable. He suggested that Council review some of the language in these documents and not just these three points and make it very specific. Council Member Fox said she agrees in making specific policies. In regards to adding an unplanned discussion to a work session, she agrees with Council Member Dunn that if that does happen there is more preparation on one person's part than there is on the rest and that is why Council brings it up for a future work session to be able to study out the issue. She indicated that she would not be in favor of adding an unplanned discussion to a work session. Ms. Fox said she has no problem with the super majority. She also said that there should be clear language that indicates that there are no votes during a work session. Council Member Fox said that Council needs clear language on what happens during a work session and a regular meeting to avoid different interpretations. Mayor Burk said that she would never support having an unplanned discussion during work sessions because of the public and the concept that one person will have all the information and the rest are at a loss. She added that in regards to suspending the rules, if everyone wants that, it could happen. Ms. Burk mentioned that adding language to differentiate the work session to include "no votes during the work session" would not be a problem for her or having closed sessions on the work session day. Mayor Burk said that most Council members are always present at the meetings and therefore sees no need to add the super majority count. Ms. Burk indicated that Council might regret suspending the rules on any topic. She also indicated that she is not in favor of Mr. Dunn's suggestion of bringing an item forward by making a motion. Council Member Dunn said that under Section 11 the third sentence from the bottom "No formal action shall be taken at the committee of the whole work session" so he does not know how this is different from what is being discussed. Mr. Dunn also read the following text in regards to work sessions: "...for study purposes only". He added that these are Council rules and Council is not there to debate the rules with staff but there seems to be some misinterpretation of Section 13, line 3, of the phrase "As a guideline..." since all of a sudden this turned a rule into just a warm -fuzzy feeling. He recommended removing "As a guideline" to avoid confusion. Council Member Dunn stated that there are clear rules for adding items to work sessions and they are in Section 14. Mayor Burk asked Council Member Fox if she still wanted to add the terminology to the language that Vice Mayor Martinez suggested, which is adding language to differentiate a work session where no formal votes will be taken. Council Member Fox responded affirmatively. Ms. Notar said that she will draft a revision to the text in Section 11 to read: "No votes shall be taken at the committee of the whole work session". Ms. Notar made Council aware that this means that Council cannot go into a closed session at a work session, since Council has to formally vote to go in and out of a closed session. 171Page Council Work Session August 12, 2019 Council Member Steinberg suggested an exception to the vote to go in and out of closed sessions during work sessions. Council Member Campbell clarified that he did not say that there is no procedure to add something to future work session but that there are no procedures for adding on the same night. Mayor Burk asked Vice Mayor Martinez for clarification on adding an abbreviated work session to a business meeting when Council has skipped a work session. Ms. Fox asked what is meant by an abbreviated work session. Mr. Martinez said he leaves that for Council to decide but he believes that if the Town Manager has an issue to discuss at a work session, then he should be able to add it. Mr. Steinberg said it should not be limited only to the Town Manager, since Council members might also wish to add an item. Vice Mayor Martinez said that he just wanted to make sure that anything essential to Town business is addressed in a timely manner but he will withdraw this suggestion if no other Council member is interested. Council Member Dunn read Section 14, item 1: "The Town Manager may add any item to business meetings or work sessions as previously directed by Council and are of a legal nature or required for normal Town operations". Mr. Dunn said that the Town Manager already has the ability to bring an item forward any time he likes. Vice Mayor Martinez reiterated than when there is a holiday on a Monday and therefore no work session, then those items have to be delayed until the next work session and issues are not addressed in a timely manner. Council Member Dunn suggested that under Section 13 the language be changed to: "During work sessions you may request an item be added to the next day's regular business meeting". He added that if Council is having the business meeting 10 minutes after the work session that you want to add something to, because it is so important, you need to take out the "next day's business meeting or regular meeting" because technically that next day would be in 2 weeks. Mr. Dunn said this requires that more language be cleaned up and will take more time. Council voted to revise the Council Rules of Procedure to include the following: 1. Change the requirement to suspend the rules and add new business items under Section 9 to regular business with a two-thirds majority (In favor: Campbell, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg; Opposed: Dunn, Fox, Thiel, Mayor Burk) — There was no consensus by Council for this item. 2. Add language to differentiate the work session by allowing no formal votes during work session, except to go in and out of a closed session (In favor: Campbell, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg, Mayor Burk). It was the consensus of Council to move forward with this item. 3. That an abbreviated work session be added to the business meeting when the work session is skipped (Withdrawn by Vice Mayor Martinez) 181Page Council Work Session August 12, 2019 4. In Section 13, change the word "should" to either "shall" or "will": "As a guideline, additions to next -day meetings shall/will be limited to..." (In favor: Dunn, Fox, Thiel, Steinberg, Mayor Burk). It was the consensus of Council to move forward with this item. It was the consensus of the Council to move forward with amending the Town Council Rules of Procedure. 2. Additions to Future Council Meetings Council Member Dunn said that if there is a desire for Council to ask that staff expedite design standards to be able to come back to present by the first meeting in December or add it to a work session if staff needs more Council direction. It was the consensus of the Council to add this item to a future work session (Dunn, Fox, Steinberg, Thiel). Council Member Fox asked for an information memorandum on the status of the lights at Fort Evans Road, Plaza Street, and East Market Street. It was the consensus of the Council to add this item to a future work session (Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Steinberg, Thiel). Council Member Fox asked for a discussion of the sewer services at Graydon Manor. It was the consensus of the Council to add this item to a future work session (Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Thiel). Council Member Steinberg requested a discussion on a memorandum of understanding between Council and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), similar to the one that the Leesburg Police Department has with the NAACP. It was the consensus of the Council to add this item to a future work session (Campbell, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Thiel, Steinberg, Mayor Burk). Council Member Steinberg requested a discussion on creating concrete disciplinary measures for future Council member actions, as deemed necessary. It was the consensus of the Council to add this item to a future work session (Campbell, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg, Mayor Burk). 191Page Council Work Session August 12, 2019 Mayor Burk said she would like to add for discussion the request for a consideration for a donation for the Veterans of Foreign Wars for its sewer connection. It was the consensus of the Council to add this item to a future work session (Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Thiel, Steinberg, Mayor Burk). Mayor Burk requested a discussion on how the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program can be extended to Leesburg. It was the consensus of the Council to add this item to a future work session (Campbell, Fox, Steinberg, Thiel, Mayor Burk). 3. Adjournment On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Steinberg, the meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p. m. Clerk of Council 2019_tcwsmin0812 201Page