The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About2011_tcmin0524COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Umstattd presiding. Council Members Present: David Butler, Thomas Dunn, II, Fernando "Marty" Martinez, Katie Sheldon Hammler, Kenneth "Ken" Reid, Kevin Wright and Mayor Umstattd. Council Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Town Manager John Wells, Town Attorney Jeanette Irby, Deputy Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Director of Public Works Tom Mason, Economic Development Manager Marantha Edwards, Director of Plan Review William Ackman, Assistant to the Town Manager Scott Parker, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning Brian Boucher, Zoning Administrator Chris Murphy, Senior Planner Mike Watkins, Deputy Zoning Administrator Wake Burkholder, and Clerk of Council Lee Ann Green AGENDA ITEMS 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION: Vice Mayor Wright 3. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: Council Member Butler 4. ROLL CALL: Showing all Council Member Martinez arriving at 7:33 p.m. 5. MINUTES a. Work Session Minutes of May 9, 2011 On a motion by Council Member Hammler, seconded by Council Member Butler, the minutes of the May 9 work session were approved as presented, 5 -0 -1 -1 (Umstattd abstaining /Martinez absent). b. Regular Session Minutes of May 10, 2011 On a motion by Vice Mayor Wright, seconded by Council Member Butler, the minutes of the May 10 regular session were approved as presented, 6- 0-1 (Martinez absent). 6. ADOPTING THE MEETING AGENDA On a motion by Vice Mayor Wright, seconded by Council Member Butler, the meeting agenda was approved as presented by the following vote: Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright, and Mayor Umstattd Nay: None Vote: 7 -0 7. PRESENTATIONS a. None. 8. PETITIONERS 1 1 Page COUNCIL MEETING The petitioner's section was opened at 7:33 p.m. Melanie Miles, 205 North King Street, stated she and her husband, David, own the Glenfiddich House, formerly known as Harrison Hall. She stated the house has been recognized for its historical significance beyond the local community. She stated a permanent Civil War trail marker was placed in the front of the house depicting the house's significance during the Civil War. She stated on Saturday, June 11, there will be a ribbon cutting to celebrate the marker and invited Council to attend. The petitioner's section was closed at 7:39 p.m. 9. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Butler, the following items were moved for approval as part of the Consent Agenda: a. Easement Acquisition Authorization Woodberry Road Drainage and Street Improvements Project May 24, 2011 RESOLUTION 2011 -061 Declaring that a Public Necessity and Use Exists and Authorizing an Offer to Acquire Right of Way Dedications and Easements for the Woodberry Road Drainage and Street Improvements Project b. Authorizing a Land Use Permit Application for Construction of Battlefield Parkway (Edwards Ferry Road to Fort Evans Road) RESOLUTION 2011 062 Authorizing a Land Use Permit Application for Construction of Battlefield Parkway Edwards Ferry to Fort Evans Improvement Project c. Easement Acquisition Authorization Dry Mill, Wage, and Anne Storm Drainage Improvements RESOLUTION 2011 063 Declaring that a Public Necessity and Use Exists and Authorizing an Offer to Acquire Easements for the Dry Mill, Wage and Anne Storm Drainage Improvements Project d. Initiation of Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Unattached Accessory Structures RESOLUTION 2011 064 Initiate Amendment to Exempt Certain Small, Unfixed Structures from Having to Obtain Zoning Permits and /or Certificates of Appropriateness when Applicable e. Health Insurance Emergency Procurement Award 2 1 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 RESOLUTION 2011 -065 Awarding a Contract for Employee Medical Insurance to Anthem Blue Cross /Blue Shield The Consent Agenda was approved by the following vote: Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright, and Mayor Umstattd Nay: None Vote: 7 -0 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. TLZM 2011 -0001 Wolf Furniture Rezoning Application The public hearing was opened at 7:41 p.m. Watkins• before you this evening is a rezoning application. It's TLZM 2011 -0001 for Wolf furniture. This is a concept plan and proffer amendment. The property is located and outlined in red on the graphic. To the north is Fort Evans road. To the right is Leesburg commerce center. To the south is the Leesburg premium outlets and then to the left are the Hampton Inn and Homewood suites hotels. This graphic shows you two illustrations. One is the land -use policy map. The applicant has provided sufficient justification for the rezoning and concept plan amendment and the application meets the town plan goals and objectives. The graphic on the lower right -hand side is the zoning map. It is zoned B -2. Again, this is a concept plan amendment for TLZM 2005 -0004. The previous rezoning did have a concept plan and proffers and elevations. The applicant's proposal is the redevelopment options. The first being a 46,030 ft. furniture sales building with primary access from Fort Evans road with parking located in front of the building and loading and unloading on the south side of the building. It has frontage to the bypass. Development option number two essentially is the same building footprint, 46,030 ft. however, it includes B -2 uses. Development option three is the larger, 69,970 ft. much like what was approved on the original rezoning. Again, it shares the same development characteristics as what we showed on the concept plan. The application was granted a buffer modification for the screening material located adjacent to the bypass in the rear of the development. The ordinance requires a mix of canopy trees, evergreen trees, and shrubs and the modification conditions included conformance with the elevations that I showed you earlier. Screening material to be provided elsewhere on the property, trees consistent with what's identified in the zoning ordinance, revisions to the landscaping plan and redevelopment requirements are required. If the applicant wants to change the exterior of the building, the land development official will look at those. Again, this illustration shows you the buffer yard modification. The applicant has provided proffers. They include substantial conformance with the site plan, reimbursement of $190,995 to the town of Leesburg for improvements made by the town to Fort Evans road, off-site transportation contribution for options one and three, use restrictions... I have provided you a green sheet at the dais for amendments to the proffers that the 3 1 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 applicant has made. The applicant has included a restriction for access for delivery trucks to Fort Evans road only and there are design requirements in the event that the buffer yard landscaping and screening material is provided. Resolution of staff comments: the applicant has amended the concept plan to reflect the items that were contained in the planning commission staff report. Those included truck turning movements, a loading bay note, additional notes to be adjusted, landscaping, and a note for mechanical equipment. The planning commission held its public hearing. There were no public comments. The planning commission agreed with staffs recommendations and those included minor revisions to the concept plan notes, which have been made already, adjustments to the off -site transportation contribution with 2011 calculations and truck and delivery hour proffer. In addition, the planning commission recommended a proffer to add development option one first such that they were assured that development options two and three would be latter phases and the furniture store building constructed first and a request to consider other restricted B -2 uses. So, for your consideration this evening you have staff and planning commission recommendations to look at an offer to construct development option one first, additional proffered use restrictions, town plan off site transportation contribution for options one and two based on 2011 calculations, a consideration for a proffered amount for the B -2 uses in option two and a proffer for truck traffic delivery hours. Hammier: Mike, thanks for the presentation. Just a couple. Could you clarify your comment that the elevations were approved or not? I'm looking at page 7 of 16 of the staff report." The applicant has not proffered elevations Watkins: in this application, the elevations themselves have not been proffered but are incorporated into the landscaping modification. What is seen in the illustration I showed you before is the applicant's desire to build to those elevations and any modifications and later development options, whether there be two or three, the land development official will look at those in terms of conformance with the landscape modification such that the applicant does not have to come back through the legislative review process. Hammler: just relative to the other glaring example around town which has become an issue for citizens was when we passed up the opportunity to look at the Home Depot roof, for instance. So something like that would obviously be an issue based on a building elevation. Watkins: it was our opinion that the modification dealt with the elevations themselves for this application and this application only. We would look at the circumstances of any other applications as the merits of that application warrant. Hammler: my other quick question is on the next page which is site design C# 1 and the building location, I certainly understand the desire to set the 4 1 page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 building back just given some of the adjacent uses, but how does that tie into the form -based code goals? Watkins: to the best of my knowledge, this property lies out side of what has been designated for the form -based code. So in terms of adjacency, the context which the property lies, moving the building further away from Fort Evans road, which is primarily a separation from the residential uses to the north, to the commercial uses adjacent to the bypass, so it was our opinion that the building location was suitable to mitigate the impact of the use of the building and also to fit in context with the other two adjacent buildings to the north and south of this property. Hammler: okay, I appreciate the clarification. Thank you. Butler: I just want to clarify, so is staff comfortable with the fact that the elevations have not been proffered? Watkins: with this application, we felt that the landscape modification adequately covers the development option one and subsequent amendments to the application would be dealt with by the land development official. Butler: is that a long way of saying yes? Watkins: yes sir. Butler: clarification on the traffic impact analysis... I was a little confused in two places there. You mentioned a TIA for future phases. In one place it said that if there was a future phase like a two or three then a new TIA would need to be done. In some place else I was reading that there was a TIA already done for all three phases. Which one... Can you help me understand where I am confused? Watkins: sure, we have asked the applicant to provide the trips that were generated by all three development options. It seems how the applicant is developing a site plan amendment now, and it's in process, we were comfortable with the traffic analysis for development option one and the TIA. So in terms of adequate ingress and egress to the site, and on Fort Evans road, the TIA that was supplied with this application is sufficient and we wanted to put the applicant on notice that much like any future development, that involved legislative approval, it's two faced. One is the concept plan amendment, the second is the site plan that goes through the Department of plan review. So in development option two and three, the applicant would be required to update that traffic analysis based on the proposed use at that time. Butler: okay, so that's all included and you're comfortable with the status of the TIA. Third question. I just want to make sure that this list of uses is for B -2 and all the ones that are crossed out are the ones that are proffered out. So, the 5 1 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 question that the planning commission has is do we want to review this and see if there's any other uses that we may want to proffer out of phases two and three? Watkins: in the planning commission packet, the applicant actually included three buffer restrictions. That was... Mayor: telecommunications antenna, the indoor movie theater, and there was a third one... Watkins: the lumber and building. So what you have before you is actually more uses that the applicant has included in their proffers in terms of use restrictions. It's more than what the planning commission had seen. Butler: okay, so this is post planning commission? Watkins: yes sir. Butler: okay, thanks Mike. Butler: okay, so we could still look at that if we want to, but at least the applicant has included everything the planning commission wanted, at least in this respect. So my understanding is the other two potentially open issues in the proffers is... One is the proffer amounts... They are not yet at the planning commission recommendation. The second is a requirement that phase 1 be done first. Watkins: right, in addition to the amounts for development options one and three, development option two which is the B -2 uses, there isn't an off -site transportation contribution included in their proffers. Michael Romeo: good evening Mdm. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Michael Romeo, I'm a land -use planner with the law firm of Walsh, Colucci here in Leesburg. Just for the record, the affidavit for notice of posting has been submitted. First of all, I would like to just introduce members of our team that are here tonight. We have Doug Wolf, of Wolf furniture. We have Michael Fiore of Fiore construction. Chuck McLachlan of Wolf furniture, as well. Gary Gordon of OGP architects, Randy Minchew of Walsh Colucci as well. Mark Baker from Bowman, Ben Rose from Bowman Consulting and Chris Turnbill from Wells and Associates. So if you have any specific questions, we have all the folks here to answer them for you. First of all, I'd like to say how happy we are to be in front of the town Council. It has been five years, almost to the day since we received our last rezoning approval. Quite honestly, we couldn't be here without the professionalism and exceptional work that town staff has put in during this whole process. It has been a real collaborative effort and we appreciate that. First off, just to give you idea of the property, Mike did an excellent job already in locating the property. It's located just north of Leesburg bypass and has access at Fort Evans road for the entrance. As you can see around 6 1 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 it there are a number of commercial uses existing on Fort Evans road as well as across the bypass with the premium outlets. If you will recall, some of you were on the town Council or planning commission five years ago when this rezoning was originally approved. It centered around the northern portion of the property, just about an acre and a half of R -6 zoned land, at the time. It was rezoned to B -2 so now the entire parcel is zoned B -2 with the previous concept plan approved for 69,000 ft. This is option one, as Mike alluded to. It's a 46,000 ft. furniture store. This is, what the Wolfs have come back with after five years of trying to get the 69,000 ft. building approved, due to market conditions, and otherwise so this is what they feel comfortable building on this site. It is essentially... Takes up a lot of the design tennants from the previous design, namely the frontage on the Rt. 15 bypass where we are required to have 100 foot setback from the property line. So we will try to get as close as possible and have a real second front of the building on the bypass. Meanwhile having the parking out front. This option obviously has less parking than a 69,000 ft. building would have so we have an above ground storm water management pond as well. Option two is essentially the same. This shows the maxed out parking, for example worst -case scenario if there was a high trip generating use in the 46,000 ft. then the additional parking has been provided here. As Mike alluded to, this will require a traffic impact analysis, if it were to go to the site plan stage if for whatever reason this option was brought forward. This is option three. This is essentially the current approval for the site. There's really not much as changed from the previous design other than underground parking. This is showing what is currently approved on the site. All three options to meet town plan requirements in compliance with the town plan. They would not have any adverse impacts on Fort Evans road or the site intersection there. This is a good front view of the building as you come into the site. You will be coming down the main entrance road bright towards the front of the building. You have a nice perspective on what the building will look like. This is the rear of the site, essentially the second front of the site or the building fronting on the route 15 bypass. As Michael mentioned, these elevations are all part of the landscape modification. This is what Wolf will be building, hopefully beginning construction in a few months, if possible. Just a couple examples of what the front entrance and the corner details would look like with the stone. As far as the proffers are concerned, the frontage improvements to total $190,995. This is somewhat of a unique situation for the Wolfs. Back in 2005 2006 timeframe there was frontage improvement project going along Fort Evans road. This is somewhat unique in certain respects because a lot of other projects do not necessarily have to go through this and are reimbursed for road network that is being put in place at the time. So this $190,000 contribution is more so than what is typically provided. At that time, they also provided $79,000 in total off -site road contributions and that's what we are still providing that can be used at the discretion of the town for what ever projects are needed nearby. Before a certificate of occupancy is provided to the Wolfs over $240,000 will be provided to the town as far as contributions are concerned. As Mike mentioned, we have agreed to limit truck access outside and restricted from residential areas on heritage way. The building design proffers that we have added essentially covers this and options to allow the town to come back in and review anything that does 71 ►-'dg COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 not comply with the landscape modification. There is additional coverage for the design in case there is an option that is utilized in the future. This is a whole list of proffered out uses. When we came to the planning commission last Thursday there were three uses on this list. Since then, the Wolfs have added a number of uses after discussion amongst themselves. We have tried to meet the intent including special exception uses on the list. Mike is giving you the list in the attachment. Economic impact: it goes without saying, the site is currently vacant. There is no building on it. The additional 46,000 ft. will add commercial tax base to the site. A 30 person work force and the payroll of about $1 million, hopefully we do increase to option three and can increase that at some point. This is what we are projecting for the first option. Sales tax revenue will also be significant. Options two and three will be very significant. With that, if Doug is willing, I would like to have Doug Wolf come up and say a few words on behalf of the process and to say thank you for having us back. Doug Wolf: I didn't know I was going to speak, but I have a couple notes anyhow. It's been five long years since we were here before and I know this Council and the staff have worked to change some operating practices. I would like to personally thank John Wells and Scott Parker along with the town staff, Walsh Colucci, the Council members and the folks at Bowman because it is been a very different process this time around. There was a high level of frustration for us. If we are approved tonight... our family started in retailing in 1846. We got into the furniture side of things in 1902. This will be our first store in Virginia and we are pleased to have Leesburg be our first home in the state. I do want to let you know your process, the efforts you have put through, have been effective and a much more pleasant.... I told Scott if he needs a spokesman or a reference for somebody I'd have a different story today than I may have had 16 months ago. Thank you, I look forward to hopefully getting an approval and being a proud member of the business community. Mayor: Thank you so much. Any questions for Mr. Romeo? Dunn: how long, again has this been B -2? I think you said part of it was residential, how long ago was that? Romeo: The southern portion of the site has been B2 first long as I can remember. I'm not sure when it became that originally. In 2005 before the original rezoning, it was B2 on the southern half, I think it was about 3.4 acres. On the northern half it was R -6 at the time. Our rezoning essentially rezoned that northern portion to B -2 which made the whole site B2 with the proffered concept plan amendment. Dunn: did you have some numbers, estimates as far as the tax base impact? 8 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 Romeo: yes, we did have... We anticipate about a 30 person work force with $1 million payroll. I don't have exact numbers for the impact on commercial taxes. Dunn: in other areas where you either have current operations or you establish operations, how did you see the impact of furniture shoppers impacting other businesses around you? Wolf: we are generally considered a pretty desirable retailer. We don't generate lots and lots of traffic and impact. It's a larger ticket purchase. It's typically done by middle to upper middle earning incomes, so that's a pretty desirable demographic for most shoppers... They like being near our customers. I really don't have any data whatsoever to support what cotenancy enjoys with us. I know we are low parking yield, low traffic. Most neighborhoods really like that. We don't create noise, trash... It's a pretty genteel kind of retail. I can't answer your question directly. Dunn: I was just wondering if you had any other areas where you may have established your business and then other businesses grew around it. I'm basically trying to find if you had any references to folks who come to your shop and after they're done shopping they want to visit restaurants or go shopping elsewhere. Any type of positive impact. Wolf: there is definitely.. We like working near restaurants because we are a destination shop. Very few people on the way home from work say you know we need a bedroom. I would like them to think that way but they don't. It is typically done with more than one person, usually initiated by a female and looking for some advice from somebody else. Generally they don't shop and buy one at a time. So we do well with restaurant establishments. Also, we have had some people drop their kids off... I noticed we have a new store opened in Mechanicsburg last June and there is a ballet school and some other things like that were family can drop off their children and get some time to shop. Dunn: there will not be, I think I saw that there was only going to be truck access from Market. Wolf: yes Sir. Dunn: I think that's all the questions I have, thank you. Reid: thank you very much and I'm glad that you have shown the confidence in Leesburg to come back. I think that there isn't anybody up here that is not sorry for what happened with the site plan process back then. But we are glad that you have shown the commitment to come back to Leesburg. I really appreciate it. Just a couple of concerns. First of all, I don't mean to complain, but I'm usually used to seeing a rezoning package... This was just given to us last night. It would have been nice to have had this in our packet over the weekend so 9 I t., g COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 I could have had time to look at it. I'm a little confused as to whether we can approve three options for a different size of a furniture store and then leave it up to you to decide which one you want to do. I'm not familiar with us ever doing this before. Usually when someone comes in they have a definite idea, a specific size. So now it's like you can go to the original store, two other types, then there's all these other uses. Please explain. Watkins: if you can recall what we've been doing with the Village at Leesburg. The last amendment you saw was for the theater... But with that application what the applicant did was much like Wolf furniture, give you alternatives and have them reflect on the concept plan. You will notice Villages had a restaurant park, a theater, a hotel, all in the same area shown on the concept plan and demonstrated conformance with applicable zoning requirements. So much like with this applicant and Wolf furniture we've done the same thing. They initially want to occupy the property with a certain size building for a certain use, and have the option to come forward later without having to come back through the legislative application process. So it's similar to what we have done at the village of Leesburg. Again they have the different alternatives there and we have asked for the appropriate traffic impacts, conformance with the goals and objectives of the town plan and conformance with the zoning requirements. list. Reid: and we are now down to whatever has not been crossed out on this Watkins: for permissible uses, correct. Reid: well, there are some that are by right. For instance they can build by right a bank without drive through facility? plan. Watkins: if it is in conformance with what is depicted on the concept Reid: but if they wanted to a drive -in facility, do they need a special exception? Watkins: Correct. Reid: but there still is a process for them to come back if they want to do that. So they are still going to have to resubmit a site plan for the smaller store? Watkins: to my knowledge, what they have been doing thus far is basically picking up where the site plan left off and moving forward. So it's not a brand -new site plan, they have been working with the Department of plan review through the sketch plan process and we have been actively engaged with the applicant to address concept plan issues and site plan issues to expedite their moving forward with the construction phase. 10 1 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 Reid: so if we approve this tonight, they can start building... Do they have a building permit? Watkins: no sir. The site plan still technically has to be approved. But working with the Department of plan review through the sketch plan process... Reid: so they never got the site plan approved the first time around? I thought they were close. Bill Ackman: originally, they were very close. They were down to recording a plan and posting a bond. What they've come forward with is wanting to build the smaller furniture store today. So we have taken that existing application and let them modify that. We've done it through another submission of the old site plan to keep it rolling. But we haven't taken any formal actions on what they have provided us because we didn't want to influence what the Council would do. But what we have been working with them through Bowman consulting very closely. It's been a top priority for us. We have gone through and made some informal comments. We have met with Bowman, we've gone through it. They have given us a second submission of the new application on Friday. We are in the process of making sure it addresses all the comments. Reid: but if it's their intent to use the whole parking lot for the store first, so they want to have the option to put in... Is there room to put a hotel or a kennel? Ackman: if they came back to do a use like a hotel, they would have come back with a whole new site plan. They would have to... Reid: is there room for that? So you're saying what they would do is build the building for furniture store and then use it for something else. Ackman: right. Reid: Mr. Wolf, what ideas do you have be use the building for other than a furniture store? Wolf: I think the concept was if 20 years from now this is not a furniture store, what can it be used for? We are not building a furniture store to be used as a grocery store. We've been asked for these proffers to be in the future on other uses. Reid: we have done this before with proffers, that somebody could come in and put in the store... I thought we had out ruled that the use only lasts for that use and then you have to come back for a special exception? 111 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 Ackman: the site plan would change so they would have to come back to us in the future if they were doing a different option. Let's say they kept that same shell, the same 46,000 or whatever the number was for phase 1, and they wanted to convert that to a different type of retail. The existing site plan would not... There wouldn't be enough parking for that. So they would have to come back to us with a new site plan. Then with the new site plan they would have to give all of the new details for the parking requirements... Reid: but if they wanted to, like with the eating establishment without a drive through, they could build... I use an example of a Dave and Busters in Rockville and there's nothing we could do about it. That's by right. Ackman: if it were an allowable use and they could park it. Yes. Reid: if they can park it, so that's the key. That there's no traffic impact analysis required? Ackman: that would be required at the site plan phase. Reid: oh so it would be required for any of these whether it's by right or not. Okay, so that's where we have the possibility to say you may have to add a lane, are you may have to this improvement or that improvement. That's what I'm concerned about. Because a furniture store does not necessarily generate a lot of cars. Ackman: if that use changes, then it requires a site plan change. We would look at all of those types of things. Would look at the entrance, turn lanes, parking requirements, landscaping, modification that Mike spoke to earlier that changes any part of the side of the building. They would have to come back in and get a new modification from the land development official, who is the director of planning and zoning. Reid: okay so they would have to go back through that process and the site plan process. Ackman: we feel, as staff, that we have enough safeguards in there to ensure that down the road if the use does change there are enough safeguards in place to protect the region. Reid: but didn't they also... In the proffers the first time around there was nothing paid at all, nothing done whatsoever. So this is it. This is the first time were going to get any kind of transportation proffers because they never really did it the first time. How were the proffers the first time, what was the difference in the value? Ackman: I don't recall. Mike do you? 12 1 I' 1gc COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 Watkins: essentially what will happen is any proffer amounts are collected at the time of the building and zoning permit are issued. With the changes the state legislature made, we can't collect those fees until occupancy of the building. So they will go through the site plan process, they will construct the building and when they submit for occupancy of the building, we will collect the off -site transportation contributions. here? Reid: and is this monument sign for Wolf and the other businesses in Romeo: it's a separate application. Reid: so you're submitting a separate application. You're not going to build a monument sign and then rent out space? Romeo: we are permitted by ordinance to have two signs on the property for each business. Those will be the signs on the building. There's a separate process for the extra monument signs and that's something the zoning administrator will come back in to the town Council for. Reid: so we heard last night that that was something we thought they were going to do for the sake of the other businesses on the street. Boucher: if I may, we had a meeting with Mr. Wolf. I think what he said at the meeting was that an additional sign might not be necessary for them because the visibility from Rt. 7 is pretty good. Reid: for them. But I thought we were told last night... Didn't we discuss this last night, John? Boucher: I think what I said was there is a separate issue for the veterinary clinic and I would say, Mr. Wolf said he was looking to put such a sign on his property. The sign is somewhat expensive and what we were looking at approaching some other businesses and see if they would be interested. Reid: and then it would have to go to the BAR? Is that a comprehensive sign package? No, it's not a BAR approved requirement? No? thank you. Wright: can you go back your presentation with the contributions slide? So, the frontage improvements, if I remember correctly back five years ago... We were doing the frontage improvements and there was a pro rata if the sidewalks... Whatever was being done there was a pro rata they could pay into to have the frontage improvements satisfied and that's that top number? Romeo: that's correct, that included the road, the sewer, the curb, it might have included the sidewalk in front of the property. 13 1 P ag e COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 Wright: so that's kind of the road improvements, then they're going to do the sidewalk as part of the actual site plan construction. Then there's the off -site transportation contribution thats variable based on size of the building? Okay, that contribution is that based off the whole parcel being B -2 not just the original R -6 portion of the parcel that was rezoned? Romeo: well the $79,000 figure is actually based on the previous formula that was provided and that was something that the department of public works came up with... That town staff came up with. But the revised amount that town staff has in the packet is equal to a CPI increase over the past five years so it has increased that number somewhat; however, we believe the $190,000 already provided, essentially offsets any sort of increase any future type of use that may go into the B -2... Provides the overall contribution that would more than mitigate any impacts that we would have out there. Wright: okay. A quick question to the staff. This parcel was already B -2, which part of it was before, if it was already B -2 and somebody would simply come in today and as a by right use for furniture store, would we be asking for an off-site transportation contribution or simply reviewing the site plan? Watkins: we would be following what was established in the prior rezoning, which would be the applicant's number they provided today. Wright: if the prior rezoning was just a by right B -2, unleaded, then we wouldn't be asking for contribution, correct? Watkins: right. Wright: so what gets us to this, so to kind of follow on why Ken was saying why are we having to do this, not only when they rezoned, they rezoned to the entire parcel as B -2, they also put a concept plan on. If they just did in unleaded B -2 and said were going to build a furniture store. I believe if they were going to build the furniture store and not put any other conditions on there, we would be doing any this. Since we were more prescriptive, which is good because we have those assurances that they have to come back and say hey we're building a smaller furniture store and in the course of doing that, they're allowing themselves the flexibility of building a larger furniture store and also allow for future market changes that would allow them flexibility of other uses on the property. Is that basically what we're doing? Watkins: that's fair. Wright: I don't have any other questions. I very much appreciate you all coming back out. Mr. Wolf, glad to see you again and very much appreciated your comments this evening. 14 1 Pag COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 Martinez: Thank you for being patient with us. I know you have indoor, but I don't see outdoor. I do have a question though, I think the last time we sat and talked, we discussed the signage and elevation off the bypass. I assume you guys fixed that up. We're talking about how there was a distance issue with the elevation of.... The roof was higher than the building.... I assume you guys took care of that? Romeo: we actually hung a replica, which turned into a kite shortly thereafter... But in order to see it off the bypass because the highway signs were there, we wanted to make sure you could even see the building was there. We do believe we have adequate visibility. Martinez: I know that was a concern of mine when we were talking about the site plan. Okay, well that's it. I'm glad to see you guys back and take care. Hammler: Mr. Wolf, I just also wanted to say thank you and please also send our regards to your father. It was a real pleasure to meet with you when Council was able to meet with you months ago when you were making a decision to come back to Leesburg. I know I can speak for all of us, that we feel very fortunate because it's very rare when one gets a second chance to make a great first impression. That really speaks to the tremendous efforts of so many people based on, quite frankly, the catalyst which was your decision to leave. So we owe you a great debt of gratitude for a significant new business process that we now enjoy. I think it's real game changer for us, quite frankly. A real momentum changer much the same way you see in a baseball game. This is a special new day for Leesburg in terms of economic development and potential. We certainly strongly believe it's going to be a great market for you as well. I very much appreciate everything. Wolf: the hard work you all put through was great. Butler: I just think two clarifications. One is that, maybe whoever has the best answer can answer this. I think if I summarize the proffer issues, Wolf is offering an additional $79,000 in proffers and staff is suggesting that $157,000 or those two numbers added up is more appropriate. The $190,000 is paid. Watkins: the difference in the two numbers, applicants or staffs. The applicant is following the max established with ZM 2005, whereas we have calculated the amounts based on appendix B numbers as of 2011. The other consideration is the fact that both options one and three are covered with the off site transportation contribution, option two is not. The difference in the amounts are based on 2005 numbers versus 2011 numbers. Butler: I understand. But is the difference in the amounts about $78,000. Do I have that number correct, plus or minus? The second one, while he's looking that up is Wolf furniture has every intention of doing option one first. 15 1 P a g COUNCIL MEETING Butler: okay, so there were two amounts. May 24, 2011 Right? But based on everything we are going to approve right now what I'm hearing is that option one is not guaranteed... that option one will be first. Romeo: we can safely say that option one, I have no problem saying on the record, will be what's built out there. We have submitted a sketch plan which was a precondition to the site plan. We anticipate submitting all the site plan documents if we are fortunate enough to gain approval of the application tonight. There was a request for a proffer from the planning commission. We felt that it was somewhat unnecessary given the fact that we have already processed the sketch plan and site plan to the point where it is today. We fully intend to complete that process in the near future. Mayor: Dave, if I could backup was Mr. Romeo was saying. In discussions with staff, it became very clear that Wolf has put a lot of time and money into going forward with the furniture store. I think that staff fully believes it would not be putting that level of effort in if they did not actually intend to build the furniture store. I had wondered the same thing. Butler: I'm just kicking around the idea. I believe everybody. I certainly do. But we may want to kick around, toss around the condition that says we will do option one first. That may be appropriate. Not that I expect them to change but we have seen often times on Council that things can change in a hurry. Watkins: after calculating it, the 79,225 that the applicant is using is for ultimate option three. Whereas staffs number is 94,000, so the difference is roughly $16,000. Watkins: right, what the applicant hasn't shown you is there is an amount set aside for option one... Butler: the 62,444? Watkins: no, there are two sets of numbers. One is the 190,995, that's for Fort Evans road. That's a separate number. The 79,000 is the number the applicant is using for ultimate phase 3 whereas the staffs number is the 94,000. Butler: okay, but what about the 62,444? That staff is requesting in paragraph 2. Watkins: again, the 62,000 is based on appendix B of the town plan. There's is 52,004 option one. Boucher: Council member Butler, says there are options, each figure goes with an option. So instead of adding the two, the 60 some and 90 together as one, 16 I P .�gc. COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 actually those figures will apply based on which option they choose. So the 94,000 is for the larger store and the 64,000 is for the smaller option. Butler: okay, so the difference is between 10 and 16,000. All right thanks. It would be awesome in the future if that was spelled out that way exactly. Here's the difference we are talking about. Mayor: thanks a lot. Mr. Romeo, thank you very much. I'm delighted Wolf is pursuing this. It's a great name and it's a great name to have in Leesburg. We appreciate your professionalism and your close work with our staff and your willingness to listen carefully to the recommendations of the planning commission to proffer out a number of uses based on those recommendations. I am very pleased to have you here tonight. We do not have anybody signed up from the public. Is there anyone who would like to speak to this application and this public hearing who did not get a chance to sign up? All right, I'm not seeing anybody. The public hearing was closed at 8:28 p.m. On a motion by Vice Mayor Wright, seconded by Council Member Dunn, the following was proposed: ORDINANCE 2011 -0 -011 Approving Concept Plan and Proffer Amendment TLZM 2011 -0001 Wolf Furniture, Amending TLZM 2005 -0004 Leesburg Sport and Health, to Allow Three Development Options Vice Mayor Wright noted the blank in Section 1 should reflect the current date of May 24, 2011. Wright: I very much appreciate seeing Wolf come back. I'm trying to remember if I was here or still on the planning commission last time or I saw you both places. I'm grateful that you guys have made the decision to come back to Leesburg. We were certainly sad that you all were not able to build originally and I think we took that as a great lesson learned. It was very gratifying to hear your comments tonight that hopefully some of those lessons have sunk in and we are conducting business in a better manner. Overall, speaking to the merits of the application itself, this is a good application. It is allowing the applicant flexibility to react to the market conditions. I am satisfied with the proffers as written. The cash contributions reflect the original 2005 amounts and based on some of the extenuating circumstances with this particular application and the other investments they have made along the frontage, I feel that those meet the intent of the town plan. Dunn: again, I appreciate you all being a patient partner with Leesburg. Very patient. I've got a number of things here I think by showing unanimously a vote of approval for this plan is sending a great message out to the community, 17 1 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 the business community, that Leesburg truly is a place for business. It is a business friendly community and I hope that we could get a unanimous vote on this to show just that. The reasons for that, just to restate, minimum impact to local residents, proffers for traffic have been taken care of, little impact of auto or truck traffic in the area, a positive impact in the business community, more jobs, more customers to other area businesses. This will increase the business tax base. More restaurant visitors potentially, more water users for the town, or use for the sewer utility plant which these types of improvements are exactly why we spent all the money to build the utility plant. This is why we did it. To supply the needs for new businesses coming into Leesburg. This also then reduces the burden of taxes on our citizens both regular taxes and water rates and it is also supplying a great need to the community in building this business, if you didn't know that our citizens are looking for a place to buy furniture without having to drive to other towns and spend their money there and thereby those towns getting their tax dollars. So building a business space allows us to reduce the overall tax base to the property owners in Leesburg and that's important. So we need a lot more business and if you have friends out there in the business world, bring them into Leesburg. I fully support this and thank you for your patience. Martinez: the only comment I have left to say is where were you nine months ago when my wife dragged me all over Tysons corner, Manassas, and points other unknown looking for furniture when I could've used the excuse that Wolf furniture is here, let's keep the money in Leesburg. Glad you're back. Hammler: I do think there is one potential downside, now that I've thought about it. I don't know where so many members seeking seats on Council will be having their kickoff campaign speeches because I know there's at least one on that empty barren lot which really symbolized what needed to change in Leesburg. So from all of us up here, it really reflects a tremendous new day and opportunity to be very proud, in particular our town manager, our town staff, and everybody who has been involved directly in this application and everyone in the organization. So welcome to Leesburg, Mr. Wolf, and your entire organization. Butler: thank you Mdm. Mayor. I'm glad you are coming into town. We could use a furniture store. So I'm pleased that it looks like all the conditions are met. I just hope that your first step isn't into put in a funeral home or a parking structure... Although maybe that would be a good thing. At any case, I'm glad you're here. This seems to be well done and I'm looking forward to the building. Mayor: I'm going to be voting yes. I'm thrilled to have you here. Kevin you get the last word. Wright: very good. I did also, in your comments, Mr. Wolf very much enjoy how you kind of tiptoed around the shopping dynamic of usually there are two... Usually there is the lady who is kind of picking out the things and I thought he was then going to say there's the guy with the credit card. But you tiptoed around that so I thought that was very gracefully done. I remember my 18 1 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 last shopping experience and there were two women, one of which is not an adult yet. They picked out what all they wanted and then when it was time for the bill to be presented I didn't know where they went. I will be grateful that those dollars will be invested in this town in the future. I'm very glad to welcome them back. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright, and Mayor Umstattd Nay: None Vote: 7 -0 b. T LOA 2011 -0001 Amending Chapter 6 (Density /Intensity and Dimensional Standards) of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance Building Heights in the B -1 The public hearing was opened at 8:36 p.m. Wade Burkholder: good evening. I'm here to talk about the proposed text amendments that would amend the B -1 community downtown business district to permit buildings to be built up to 65 feet in height in portions of the B -1 zoning district, subject to specific conditions. The existing zoning ordinance regulations state in section 6 that residential buildings may be built up to a height of 35 feet, and nonresidential buildings may be built up to a height of 45 feet and mixed -use buildings, which are residential uses over nonresidential uses, maybe also build up to a 45 feet height limit. The existing regulations also talk about the B -1 and its relationship to the H1 old and historic district. The B -1 zoning district lies entirely within the HI overlay district. Therefore, all new and exterior building construction is subject to the Hl historic design guidelines as administered by the board of architectural review. Now the old and historic district design guidelines are incorporated into the zoning ordinance by reference and therefore, it's an important point I wanted to make that provisions giving the BAR the authority to consider the height process as part of its decision making process is important to remember because they do have another layer of review over these buildings once any zoning ordinance is amended. The BAR could still look at height, scale and massing and determine the relationship to surrounding properties and whatnot when they are looking at materials and things like that. It is important to remember the BAR is still part of the process. That is not changing with this proposed height increase. One of the documents that we looked at one we were studying this proposed text amendment is the town plan. The town plan does state that the character of the town is of paramount importance to Leesburg. The original old and historic district is the basis of Leesburg's identity. The original old and historic district is cherished and its character and value should be further protected as downtown is expanded with a major redevelopment and infill within the bypass. The town plan gets a little more specific by pointing to certain sector objectives such as the central sector objective five that states "take advantage of redevelopment opportunities outside of residential areas in such locations as the old and historic district Central sector objective 5a states that "encourage a fine grained variety of retail, service, office and residential uses Objective 5b states 19 1 I g COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 that "architecture, streetscape and public spaces, pedestrian linkages, and height of buildings reflecting the main street character is important in the downtown area and building should be of a human scale that are pedestrian friendly Objective 5c encourages floor area ratios above 1.0 reflecting the development character restricts of the old and historic district. When the staff team was looking at this proposal, we came up with these four points as our guiding points as we develop this language. We had a goal of increasing economic development opportunities in downtown Leesburg. We wanted to protect and maintain the character of the historic district while permitting additional building opportunities. The third is we wanted to avoid any incentive or encouragement to tear down smaller existing structures which are classed as historical contributing structures and we wanted to develop a step back building approach to protect the pedestrian scale and streetscape of the B -1 district. Now taking all that into account, this is the area highlighted in black line where we are proposing the text amendment language take effect. I'm going to draw line right in this area here and mentioned that this part of the district was amended in 2008 to have buildings potentially up to 65 feet in height based on the setback from the town branch. So that area already could see the potential for these buildings at that height limit. The area that we are proposing ties in nicely to that area, makes a continuous path of the downtown area where we could see the increased height take place. I want to explain a few of the symbols you see on this map. The green polygons or rectangles, those delineate the contributing historic structures in this area. I don't think this is all of them in the downtown, this is just adjacent to and within this area. There are many more that aren't colored on this map. Reid: can I stop you for a minute? If I recall with Waterford, I do believe the South Street building was going to be 65 feet. I think the 65 feet area is just east of King St. along the branch, town branch. I don't believe it's along South as well, is it? You haven't marked as if it is. Burkholder: this is the area... Reid: the whole area? Including along South and Wirt streets? Burkholder: the area of the polygons, or shapes in orange are buildings that are currently at or exceed 45 feet in height today. So you can see the County government building, you can see the Leesburg central building, you can see this building that we're in, this portion of the building is 50 feet tall. So where you see the orange shadings that indicates 45 feet or higher today. And then, which is very difficult to see and I apologize for this, you can see to dashed lines sort of in the center of these blocks. That delineates the setback from the street right -of- way, the green line shows a 45 foot setback from the street right -of -way. The red line shows a setback of 65 feet from the property right -of -way line. I'll explain that here in a second and why those become important. The area within the black heavy line is an area 22.1 acres in size. Approximately 6.2 acres could contain buildings up to 65 feet once the conditions and setbacks are applied. Now that inner dotted line. Increased height potentially permits up to two additional floors 201 Fag COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 of residential, office, retail, restaurant, and mixed -use opportunities in the downtown area. That is an increase of 66% over the buildable floor area achieved under the current 45 foot height. Butler: Could you explain how increasing the height by less than 50% yields a 66% increase in the buildable area? Burkholder: sure, I'll skip ahead a few slides. The 45 feet assumes a three story building. Each floor would be 33 If you added two more floors or five stories, which would be indicative of 65 foot height, that's approximately 66 Butler: that's because you assume the first floor is going to be taller for retail on such? Burkholder: Right. The proposed ordinance language changes section 6.6.3, the density and intensity and dimensional standards of the B -1 zoning district and adds a footnote number 7 to E, which is the maximum building height standard. It states that the maximum height would be increased up to 65 feet in the following specified areas shown on the map graphic number one, which is the map we just looked at, due to its low mean elevation below sea level and low topographical relationship to the rest of the B -1 district. If an applicant can demonstrate all of the following criteria have been met: (a) The property must front on the designated areas of Market, Loudoun, Harrison, South, or Church Streets not otherwise covered by number six above, which is the prior amendment in 2008; (b) the height elevations adjacent to the street shall not exceed 45 feet for a depth of at least 45 feet back from the right -of -way line except on Church Street between market and Loudoun; (c) beyond 45 feet, a 1:1 height to setback ratio may be permitted up to 65 feet and maximum height subject to BAR approval in accordance with the old and historic district design guidelines; (d) height shall be measured based on the average mean elevation above sea level prior to site disturbance and or issuance of a grading permit; and (e) all other applicable B -1 setbacks shall be met. So here is the map graphic number one again. Also on this map, you see some topographic lines, red and blue. If you follow these lines the area that we are proposing for the increase in height follows along those lines that are lowest in topographical elevation. The red line being at 325 feet elevation and the blue line being at 330 foot elevation. So this is the natural low point in the downtown. Again, we propose this area to increase the height to coordinate directly with the lowest portions of town to provide some protection to the view shed and the streetscape in the B -1 district. Again, we mention that the buildings need to have a 45 foot height correlating to a 45 foot setback. Anything over 45 foot in height would have a 1:1 setback ratio. So if you're building comes in at 50 feet at this point, you need to be 50 foot setback from the right -of -way line of the street. You're going to get a stair step building effect. One of the points I wanted to make with the slide, is you're going to see a natural trend towards the taller parts of the building in the center of the block. Again, in an effort to protect the streetscape and pedestrian nature of the downtown area. That's another important point to remember as we go forward. 21 1 P age COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 The setback provision is not proposed along the side and rear yards of the property because those are interior to the site. These areas are interior to the block and will be screened by other buildings higher in elevation. The visual impact will be minimized from surrounding streets in higher portions of town by buildings fronting directly onto the street. This is an elevation shot here that demonstrates this depth back provision. You have your street right -of -way here, your building can be 45 foot tall a distance of 45 feet back from the street right -of- way line. Then to go up to 50 feet, to go up to 60 feet to go up to 65 feet this is going to correspond to the setback from the Street. So that step back provision we are proposing. There's one other part of the text amendment that we are proposing and that deals with rooftop HVAC and mechanical equipment. Currently that does not count towards the maximum height of the building. We are not proposing that change. We are still exempting that from the overall height of the building. We are saying is that the equipment shall be placed towards the center of the roof, not covering more than 25% of the floor area of the roof level and that it have a 45° angle drawn from the parapet wall to provide a setback, as you can see here, so it sort of centers the mechanical equipment towards the center of the roof. Again, protecting the streetscape and the surrounding properties from looking at mechanical equipment. I want to point out that this mechanical equipment may be 10 to 15 feet tall. We wanted to provide this 45° angle so this is not added height right along the building facade. This slide is, I need to make the point that just because we have a height limit of 65 feet, it does not mean that the building will be 65 feet. Because we exempt mechanical equipment, because we exempt rooftop HVAC, elevator towers so what this new language does is it proposes the building height be calculated from the average existing grade versus averaging height based on the proposed finish grade. That eliminates a five or 10 foot base that you might then start your building construction on top of. Were trying to get away from an artificially elevated building by calculating the existing height from the existing grade instead of average proposed finish grade. Again parapets, mechanical and screening language, we are proposing minor tweaks that. We are still exempting that from building heights and the BAR, as it has today still has purview over individual projects as they come to the town. Here, I just wanted to point out some of the existing heights. This graphic was provided by Landmark just showing you the peak of the county government building is at 79 feet. Here the building we are in tonight, the peak is 46 feet. Market station highest point is 63 feet in height. You can see here what the height elevations are and I'll point out some of these as we get to the pictures in a minute. Again, looking at how we measure height. When you have a gable roof, you measure that height to the midpoint of the gable. You don't go to the peak of the gable. So you see, for example, this is the town hall building. We would measure the height to that level right there, which comes in at about 33 versus a peak of 52. The Lightfoot building, to the peak is 50, to the midpoint of the gable is about 32. So we measure height to the midsection, the peak level. The PhotoWorks building is a flat roof building, so we would go to the top of the roof, which is right at 42 45. Here are a few more examples, Morningside to the peak is 49 but to the midpoint is 36. This is where we measure the height two, 36. This is the County Parks and building here to the 22 1 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 peak is 45, to the midpoint is about 34. This is just illustrating some heights for reference. The effect of the proposed amendments, buildings located in the designated areas of the old and historic district can be built to 65 feet in height subject to the proposed conditions. Where the building fronts on one of the proposed public streets, and must be step back with a lower building of two or three stories adjacent to the street to be more consistent with the scale of the existing buildings. The lower height must occupy a minimum of the first 45 feet from any public right -of -way line. I also note that the zoning ordinance requires buildings within the B -1 district to be setback from the property line a minimum of 1 foot at a maximum of 20 feet. So your 45 foot building can start either at 1 foot or setback today up to 20 feet. Other operable setbacks must be respected but the front step back provision is only applicable to the front yard. The amendments do not alter the authority of the BAR and the amendments do not guarantee that the height of 65 feet be obtained in any particular case. The BAR would weigh in at where it is most appropriate for taller buildings and look at the height, scale, massing and materials of such buildings. Staff did work closely with both the board of architectural review and the economic development commission. We met with them both two meetings each. Comments from both boards were very favorable. Both boards did fully support the staff language as you see it tonight. On to the pictures. These first few pictures are provided to us by Landmark. Landmark conducted a balloon study test on the side of the Loudoun Times Mirror property. The balloons, you can see circled in red, are in these locations at a height of 65 feet. The bottom slide, you can see with the black lines, sort of get a visual of what a building might look like at that height. Again, this is taken from Loudoun Street. You see in the top picture, the balloons in these locations and, it's a little bit of a ghost building, but it's back here. This is what the 65 foot height limit would look like along Loudoun Street. Again, here we are looking south, southeast from King St. You can see, this may be the hardest one to see, but this pink shading back here is according to the balloons, which are very difficult to see, at a height of 65 foot. That's what 65 foot would look like from this location. The town also conducted a height test with the assistance of the Leesburg fire department to indicate this ability of the maximum height from various points around town. I caveat these pictures to say that these are our best attempt. There may be some setbacks are things that aren't hundred percent accurate. But looking from the top deck of the County garage, you can see that the fire truck is here on the street. There is a 65 foot marker. We scaled to the best of our ability to scale the building back to 65 feet from the right -of -way line there. So to give you a potential visible at another location within this district, that's what this does. Again, from Harrison street looking West down South St. again, the fire truck is on the street, so it's not incorporating the step back provision language, but at any location along here you might see up building approach 65 feet on height. Again here, this is South King, this building here is 222 S. King looking back east you can see the same thing here. On the top deck of the County garage 65 foot height here taking into account a 65 foot setback here, you can see what a building would look like. Again, Harrison street at the W &OD trail. I mentioned earlier that the highest point in market station is 63, that's at this location right here. From Royal Street looking east at the new 23 I Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 building here on church street. Again, I caveat this because it doesn't take into effect the setback, but it's to show the height of 65 feet. Looking north east from Royal St., looking over Puccio's restaurant, which is center screen down here, again this is the dentist at the corner of Church and Loudoun. Here is a better overall picture. You can see the 63 feet of market station, the 65 foot flag over there. The building here to the midpoint is 45 foot tall. So this building here meets current regulations for height. Staff does recommend that if the zoning ordinance is amended in the B -1 community downtown business district to permit buildings to be built to a height of 65 feet, then approval should be subject to these specific conditions as read in a prior slide. Dunn: you showed a slide, a number of slides back, where you referred to it as a step. Could you go 45 feet high, and then 65 feet in and then build straight up to 65 feet, or are you going to have to build it as you were saying a true step where you go 45, say 55, then 65. Can it go 45 straight to 65? Burkholder: as long as you are 65 feet back from the right -of -way line. Then you could go however you could get that to work. Dunn: traditionally, what is the additional height of the utilities on the roof, 10 feet? What is the current zoning height outside of the Hl? Is Burkholder: it's the same, commercial is 45, residential is 35. Dunn: do we have any buildings outside that are 65 or over? Burkholder: you have buildings in planned unit developments like PRN districts or PRC districts where they set heights by proffer so there are number of buildings at the village at Leesburg that are higher than the 45 feet. I can remember with the original Harrison Park application, they were proffering to go up to 70 feet, I believe with certain buildings. So when you have those planned developments, you can set, in essence your own height limit by proffer. Dunn: how about the commercial buildings over there on Fort Evans road by the water towers. Those seem like they are over 45 feet. Do you know? Do you know the ones I'm referring to? Burkholder: I don't know off the top of my head. Dunn: I don't know if you know or anyone on staff knows this, what was the height of the old opera house that was downtown? Boucher: I don't know, I'm not sure anybody does. But it would be somewhere pushing 45 feet. Dunn: I think it would be over that myself, because I think it was four stories, I remember from the pictures. 241 P age COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 Boucher: it had an oversize first story for commercial. Dunn: what about the old Leesburg hotel, any idea on that one? If we could find out that would be great. Boucher: that might have also exceeded the 45 feet as we compute height now because it was four stories. Dunn: obviously we've got the historic downtown and any reasons for limiting this would be based on historical reasons, yet if we indeed in town had historical buildings that were above that, we kind of defeat our argument for we must remain below this... Like you had that Phantom building there, we have a Phantom line that we cannot go past. Yet, we seem to go past it in many cases not just in downtown but throughout town. What do you know... So looks like from your pictures, you were taking pictures with the fire truck throughout town. I would've liked to see more where this building was at. You did have a couple angles where it was at. I would've liked to see what it would look like from the intersection of King and Market. If you could've seen that building from ground level. Oh I'm sorry King and Loudoun, for example. Just to see how much higher that would've been from over there. I think that's all the questions I have right now. Thank you. Reid: thank you very much, Wade, for the presentation. First, as a matter of disclosure I want to note that I have received for both my town Council and supervisor campaigns contributions from Mr. White or one of his companies. I've been advised by the town attorney that I don't have to recuse myself from action on this. The BAR vote, what was it, was it a vote? Burkholder: it was a 4 -0 -3 vote. There were three absent but all in attendance supported it. Reid: why are we using a text amendment approach for this? Did we do that for Waterford? It is specific to the site, so were not raising the height limit throughout the B -1? Burkholder: Correct. Reid: okay, so it's specific to this location. And that was a text amendment, it wasn't part of a rezoning our special exception. Burkholder: It's this area, not just the one site. Reid: is there a residential impact? Would you say this has more or less than the Waterford, because there some residences close to the Waterford development. There was some concern, I know during that debate, but here... 251Iagc COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 Burkholder: there are a handful of residences near this area, obviously. I think with the provision of the step back, you won't have such a harsh negative wall right on the street so will be buffered were the negative impact of the height will be mitigated somewhat by that setback from the residential properties. We did try to take into account the location of historic properties that were currently residential. This proposed area does affect a few of them. Reid: Not as much as over at Waterford because Waterford backs up to Monroe Street. Basically across from Monroe you have single family houses. Burkholder: I don't know that this area will cause any greater impact than the other area would. Certainly throughout this process I have not heard any negative impact or negative comments or disagreement from what we are proposing by any resident in this area. Reid: what about trees? In order to build the height, are any trees in peril more because of the increase in height... There are some trees back there on the Times Mirror lot. I'm going to assume they are probably going to get torn down anyway whether it's 2 feet or 65 feet, two -story or five story. Burkholder: there are some trees in this area. It's not heavily treed, but yes there would be on individual sites as they come through the review process, there will be some effect to that. With any new proposal we have the regulations, we have the tree canopy regulations so we would still be looking at having tree coverage, tree canopy coverage preservation during any project that would be proposed. So you might lose some mature trees in the construction but you're going to see they are still meeting those requirements. Reid: that's regardless of whether 65 feet or is it? Or is 65 feet going to imperil those trees more? Burkholder: they would still need to meet the current canopy coverage requirements. Reid: thanks again for the report, I would've appreciated it if we had some of those pictures and diagrams in the handout. Thank you. Bob White: as you know, my name is Bob White. I wish to speak in support of the amendment. The managing member of Courthouse Square LLC, which owns the 1.69 acres where the Loudoun Times Mirror is presently located. The preliminary development plans with conceived, while adhering to the spirit and intent of the amendment offer up a case study of why this height amendment should be enacted. Our 1.69 acre site presently contains about 20,000 ft. of warehouse and office space, all well below the existing 45 foot limitation at an FAR of about .27. Without the height amendment, we would likely renovate the existing structure and dislodge the parking lot attendants who currently lease as many as 50 parking spaces from us. We would surface park the entire lot to meet 26 I F' t; COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 our own parking requirements, whereupon our annual contribution of real estate taxes to both county and town would increase from the existing $52,000 plus or minus to something on the order of $75,000. In doing so, the status quo would be preserved, the site and building would perceive a much needed facelift yet little economic development would actually occur. In contrast, has proposed our project would likely contribute about $450,000 in annual real estate taxes and BPOL revenues to both the County and the town. The project will create space for as many as 450 jobs, 318 parking spaces, 5000 ft. of outdoor plaza and seating, 9000 ft. of historic renovation, and 17,000 ft. of restaurant and retail uses to complement 96,000 ft. of office space. In effect, we will convert a parking lot and production facility into a vibrant, office and retail center at an FAR of about 1.43. In addition, the added building height and the floor area provided enables consideration of green building initiatives including environmental amenities, green roofs, use of recycled building materials, geothermal energy and other desirable environmental enhancements. I appreciate the desire among all of you on the Council to remain true to your constituents and am respectful of your concerns over height and mass however, in the amendment before you, you are not relinquishing the stewardship of the downtown to developers and their architects. The additional setbacks that are contained in this ordinance prevents the placement of a 65 foot structure on the front property line on major streets while requiring use of the existing lower building height as a buffer. I would suggest when the additional setbacks are provided, the result is a less imposing mass and scale than that which we create when we place 45 feet of height on the front property line with a pitched roof peak at about 52 feet. The very same burden historically placed on the developer to comply with the H1 design standards that existed before the passage of this amendment, will in fact exist after it. Rest assured, there will be no land rush associated with this new opportunity. No great onslaught of construction cranes and dump trucks up and down Harrison Street for the economic feasibility that we have so clearly analyzed remains razor thin at these densities even with this amendment. In the foreseeable future within the height district, only those sites that are low of elevation and largely vacant or without material value in their existing buildings, therefore without heritage buildings altogether, are likely to even consider the higher development option. For all these reasons, we hope you agree this amendment deserves your unanimous support and I hope you will send the message that Leesburg is in fact open for business, for jobs and for those mixed use projects of variable height that can be successfully assimilated into the downtown. Terry Titus: I'm Terry Titus, I live at 805 Wage Dr. and I came down here for a wholly different reason and I'm surprised this issue had gotten this far without my comment. As all of you know, I'm a lifelong resident of Leesburg. I know Leesburg like it is now and the downtown like it is now and the old historic district like it is now. I'm very concerned that putting buildings 20 feet or 30 feet higher, and their massing, is going to change the downtown. I think it's a mistake. It's done only for economic purposes. Mr. Wolf never mentioned, never mentioned raising raising the height by two stories. He mentioned the economic 27 1 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 factors. That is a factor, but think about the tradition that this is been here for 250 years without a 65 foot building. The 65 foot buildings that are being cited in the report are cupolas, air- conditioning, mechanical equipment mostly. I'm appalled as a resident of Leesburg who is been here as long as I have to see this change because I can remember when there were two cars, two parking spaces on both sides of King Street. Nothing has changed. Nothing needs to change in my opinion to raise those levels by two floors. Nothing. Where is the parking going to be? You know I'm very familiar with that project, very familiar with it. You have a dearth of parking in this town and if you don't recognize it, everybody else does. You know what I'm talking about. You can't find a parking space even with this structure next door. So where these developers going to find it when they go up 65 feet and have a 1.0 FAR? It's going to have to be a parking structure built. I'm not very excited. The County did an admirable job and what they did and what the town did. I'm at a loss of words, to be frank about it. I ask you, please look at this thing from Leesburg history, Leesburg tradition. It's meaningful. It doesn't need to be used as an economic tool by a developer to get some money out of a need to get some revenue. It's just not necessary. You had a nice presentation tonight, Mr. Wolf, for the furniture store and I think it was a positive response the first time. That's the kind of development that you're going to get big revenue from. Thank you. Another thing I have to say is after last night's session, I'm going to call each one of you to see if I could set up a time to meet with you to discuss briefly the subject. The public hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m. On a motion by Council Member Dunn, seconded by Vice Mayor Wright, the following was proposed: ORDINANCE 2011 0 012 Amending Articles 6 (Nonresidential Districts) and Article 10 (Density /Intensity +Dimensional Standards) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Leesburg to Establish Reasonable Regulations Pertaining to the Increased Building Height in Certain Locations in the B -1 Community (Downtown) Business Zoning District Dunn: thank you, I would like to hear from staff if they could find the heights of those historical buildings I mentioned. I think that this is a good use to a piece of property that is pretty much hidden by many other buildings. It will be siding the parking garage for the County. It will be along the same massing of the County building that's there. Not to say that I'm thrilled about the massing of the County building or much of what goes on in it, but that's another story. This isn't a 65 foot increase, or bringing the height to 65 feet. We've already seen that there is businesses or buildings that have this height are near to it, not just in the historic district but throughout town. This is 65 feet. It's not 65 stories. It's not going to turn Leesburg into the Reston town Center, as the manner some have tried to state. This is actually going to only bring this building in some cases barely above the height of other buildings that are surrounding it. I think that staff 28 1 r agc COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 has done a good job at projecting the way the building is going to look to the community as they drive by so they don't feel like they've got this brick wall surrounding the town of Leesburg. Again, mentioning while those who know me know my interest in history goes way back. It's what I studied in college. I try to bring history into a little bit of everything I do. So the history of Leesburg is very important to me. Also, the history of Leesburg does involve economic growth. We do have more than two cars on King Street and that's a result of economic growth. Many of us are here living today because of economic growth. So, history of this country is based on economic growth. It's part of our society. As mentioned, this and the Wolf property, basically can bring in tax dollars that are equivalent to reducing the tax rate by one full percentage rate. I think another way we can relieve the burden to the citizens of having to carry on most of our taxes coming from residences where they can actually start shifting to where they're coming towards businesses. I think this is a needed and well deserved improvement to a piece of property that is just a hole in the center of town. Wright: one of the things, and Tom had alluded to it, it's been one of those interesting quirks. If we were to rebuild some of the historic assets within the town, specifically the opera house or the Leesburg Inn, our ordinance wouldn't let us. Actually this ordinance doesn't even address these particular ones. I did learn something interesting by being a friend of the Thomas Balch library on Facebook. The opera house, amongst its uses was actually town hall. I did not know that before. We spent a lot less building that than this building or even its predecessor that was on the other side of the Tally Ho. So if you're not a friend of the Balch on Facebook, it might be worth the trip on over there to see some of the information that comes out. Speaking to this ordinance, I'm comfortable with it for a couple of reasons. One it's narrowly defined and its narrowly defined in an area based on the typography and where it sits and how it relates to what is around it. So it can minimize the visual impact as well as the actual impact. It respects the character of the town, highlighting preservation of the contributing resources. It preserves the other protection elements that we have in place. The historic protections and the BAR review, which my good friends on the BAR like to tell me, yes the ordinance says you can go this tall but if your scale and massing and how you're treating the building is not correct, you're not going that tall. I am satisfied that there are adequate provisions in place that would allow for appropriate and respectful redevelopment within the historic district without adversely impacting it. Reid: I just wanted to say that I agree with what Kevin and Tom said. The additional height is not necessarily for additional economic development purposes. I think we have to think back to about four or five years ago when then Mike Banzhaf representing the Times Mirror directly, came to the board of architectural review and the town Council and they had us come in for briefings and they showed us buildings that literally towered over the small buildings on King and market Street. It literally scared the bejeezus out of everybody. It was not exactly the best public relations move on the Times Mirror's part showing these kind of elevations. What's happening here, the applicant working with staff 29 1 f' ag c COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 have come up with a way using the step back proposals to limit this impacts. We learned earlier that the impact on residences which is the one thing we always have to be cognizant of in Leesburg, is going to be less than it is on the Waterford development which was of great concern to most councilmembers. It was the first time we had done a text amendment to raise the height to that limit. Notwithstanding that I have certainly talked to the applicant and I've talked to my appointee on the BAR to really make sure that this building has materials that are going to blend in with the brick or colonial look of that part of town. We really don't want to see a building coming back that's going to look like the new courts complex with those modern style Windows or the government center. I want to see something that's going to have a colonial look to it, latticed windows, using good brick or good stone, the type that we see on several buildings in town, for Loudoun Street. That's something that the BAR has in its power to do. I hope that staff will also take that into consideration. This is the closest that would come to developing the site and the site, I believe needs to be developed because a lot of storefront retail space in downtown Leesburg is small and it's not conducive for us to attract the type of retailer that we need to make the downtown viable. It's going to have offices, I wish it was going to have some residences but the market is not good for that. So with that in mind, I have comforts from staff and the BAR that what is going to be built here is going to be dealing with the massing and that issue in a very good way and certainly much better than what was done with the County government center or the courts complex or some of the other buildings that were built over the past few years. Hammler: building on what Kevin said, I'm the liaison to the Balch and I had the pleasure of going on the historic walking tour of Leesburg last Saturday, finally, which was led by Jim Morgan. I really appreciate that the staff report talked, initially about the importance of our old and historic district, which is the basis of our identity. What I was most struck by on that walking tour would Jim Morgan was talking about the fact that the first house that he showed us was where his great- grandmother lived, who was a slave in her generation, and when he went to school he was completely segregated from the white students. He talked about getting up when he was 12 Years old to go light the stoves before dawn, walked home to Loudoun Street, walked back again. So, the thing that struck me is yes we have an incredibly historic, wonderful downtown, so we needed to evolve socially and were much better town today because we have evolved socially. In a similar way, I think it's really important that we develop and integrate uses moving forward and we essentially evolved in terms of our developmental practices. I see here that we have the ability to have greater integration of uses by allowing aesthetically appropriate increased density here that will essentially preserve our historic character, yet really prepare us for a very prosperous future. I will be supporting this. Butler: thank you Mdm. Mayor. First I would like to know when do we start to sing for Council meetings if were trying to integrate Opera in the Council Chambers? Yes, I hear a rumor that the chair of the public art commission also has an interest in performing arts, so maybe we could hold some kind of a show 30 1 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 here. In any case, there are a few reasons why I really don't like this application or this ordinance change. One is, the heights of the building aren't 65 feet. Staff has mentioned, they really could be 80 feet and 80 feet start to get into the realm of Reston town Center regardless of how much councilmember Dunn prefers that there's not a comparison there. The comparison is quite apt. An 80 foot building is not appropriate for most of Leesburg. I also prefer that ordinance changes like this are not driven by a single application. Councilmember Reid is talking about what he would like to see in the Loudoun Times Mirror application, but that's not the issue before us. The issue before us is whether we raise heights in a section of the B -1 district. I firmly believe that passing this will eventually lead to higher heights all around in Leesburg because this area will become "65 feet buildings" that are really 80 feet tall and then it will be in next steps to move this area further around into the town. However, I will very reluctantly support this application for two reasons. I'm sorry, text amendment. One is because of the setbacks from the buildings... We had some discussions on this a few years ago and I was in favor of greater heights if there were setbacks because the view from the Street will be minimized as long as there is the setbacks. I actually prefer the 45 feet in front of a 65 foot building. I wouldn't want a lot with just a 65 foot building stuck in the middle. That would probably look even worse. The other reason is that the area of the text amendment will apply to is, as staff showed, lower in height than the area around it. So, there's a 10 to 15 foot advantage that it has. A building that's 10 to 15 feet higher than the ones around it will actually in fact be the same height. I'm not sure I completely buy that argument but sufficiently I will swallow hard and support this. Mayor: thanks Dave, I so very much like and respect Landmark and Mr. White. If I were to go with my personal preferences as to great people, I would want to vote for it. I think Dave Butler and Terry Titus made the strongest points of the evening. It doesn't just stop at 65 feet, it can go to 80 feet as we heard from the staff report because of what goes on the roof and how we measure heights of buildings. As I've said to Mr. White more than once, and we met again this morning to talk about this, my vision of Leesburg and what makes it a desirable community is that it's a lower scale, old- fashioned historic downtown. This does raise the image of Reston town Center as both Mr. Dunn and councilmember Butler have alluded to. Reston town Center is great in Reston, but I'm afraid we're getting in here now in Leesburg. I voted against the Waterford application several years ago. There were only two of us that voted against it, Dave and I did because we felt the additional height was the beginning of a fundamental change in Leesburg. To my mind, not a change for the better when it comes to trying to retain that small scale, human feel that is the charm of this downtown. Now I'm seeing another application coming in this one, not an application but another text amendment, that would significantly expand the area in which 65 feet would be allowed as a height. And 65 potentially means 80 feet with the various mechanical second be put on top of the building. I didn't even like the idea of going to 80 feet in the Crescent district outside of the downtown. I respect Dave's thinking that this is palatable to him because there's a step back and he's absolutely right, I think that step back and help lessen the impact that this will be 31 1 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 a huge building in the middle of the historic district. It will be impossible to miss no matter where you're standing. It obliterates the light, open feeling of the historic district. You won't be able to miss it. I didn't support the building of the County Government Center because I felt it was too massive. Even this building which we're in now, which is relatively small compared to the other two projects, is far more massive than what it replaced. I don't think that's moving the town in good direction. People love, families love, small downtown Leesburg. They did not move here because they want large buildings that are 65 to 80 feet tall. They didn't move here because they want to live in Reston. They want to live in Leesburg. Although it saddens me, because I really like Mr. White quite a lot and I think he's a great member of our business community, I just have to side with Terry Titus and say I'm going to have to vote no. So Mr. White, I'm so sorry and you've put so much effort into trying to convince me. I wish you all the best and you're going to get a win tonight. I just can't support it. I appreciate your efforts. We go back to Tom for closing comments. Dunn: In 1860, the County of Loudoun was one of the most prosperous counties in the state. It was noted for some of the highest corn production in the state of Virginia. One of the reasons Leesburg is here and has prospered over the years is because what we use for a bike trail now, was a railroad that made Leesburg a hub for the economy of this whole Northern Virginia region, just as it is today. And we march forward. However, it is incumbent upon us to preserve our history and do what we can to continue to advance the community and yet still preserve the past. I think that we are doing this and I will rely upon our BAR and our staff to ensure that this building does not have an adverse impact on the historical nature of Leesburg. Currently I don't see a lot of families touring the parking lot that exists where this building will go. They may be there, I just didn't see them. I think trying to compare this again, I think I've heard this before, to any height advancement in Leesburg to the town center of Reston is just using scare tactics, chasing votes, and creating your own facts. Well you can't do that. Keep in mind too that the 45 feet that you claim is the height now in that you want to say 60 feet return and 80 feet, keep in mind is 45 foot buildings are 60 feet. So you have to take your comments and rearrange them because if you want to add on to it the utilities that are on top of them, those utilities are there now so those 45 foot buildings or some of these 50 foot buildings are 60 feet buildings we have now in town are actually 60 feet, 70 feet, 80 feet. So it already exists. Again, I think that the efforts that have been put in relying on the developer being a steward of the town, I want to make sure they put in a good property that is conducive to the town of Leesburg. It would be ridiculous for them to do otherwise. But if they were to consider it, I rely on town staff and the BAR to look out for the best interests of the community. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, and Wright Nay: Mayor Umstattd Vote: 6 -1 32 1 }gage COUNCIL MEETING c. AT &T License Agreement The public hearing was opened at 9:41 p.m. 11. ORDINANCES a. None The public hearing was closed at 9:44 p.m. 12. RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS a. H -2 Resolution May 24, 2011 Tom Mason: good evening Mdm. Mayor and Council. The item tonight is a public hearing for public comment on the renewal of the license agreement with AT &T. The renewal is for a license they obtained a little over five years ago. When they obtained the license and right -of -way permits to install conduit system from approximately Dry Mill road coming in from the West, along Dry Mill to Catoctin Circle, around Catoctin Circle to Harrison, up Harrison to the little AT &T point of presence building next to the old Perry engineering yard, approximately a mile and half. The term of the license was five years and expired. They have come in to renew it and are not planning to put in new conduit. Some of the conduits are empty and they are going to run some new fiber lines through those. From that standpoint, the basics are pretty much the same. Two things that are different in this renewed license than the old license since is they are paying a fee that the Council approved a few months ago to cover our costs for processing the review of the license and the application, which is $5000. The second part is that we've negotiated an annual payment from AT &T for the use of our right -of -way kind of equivalent to them obtaining an easement. I think that amount is somewhere around $4000 a year for the five year term each year. The drawing what you have here, you can see the heavy line that comes in along Dry Mill up Catoctin, around Catoctin and up Harrison. I'll be happy to answer any questions. There were no members of the public wishing to speak to this public hearing. On a motion by Council Member Reid, seconded by Council Member Butler, the following was proposed: RESOLUTION 2011 -066 Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute a Renewal of License Agreement Between the Town of Leesburg and AT &T Corporation The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Reid, Wright, and Mayor Umstattd Nay: None Vote: 6 -0 -1 (Martinez absent) 33 1 <t n c COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 On a motion by Council Member Dunn, seconded by Council Member Reid, the following was proposed: RESOLUTION Initiating Amendments to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance to Change the Review Authority for Certificate of Appropriateness Applications in the H -2 Corridor from the Board of Architectural Review to the Planning Commission Dunn: well, we had a pretty good discussion on this the other night so I won't belabor the issue. I think that there is a number of things just as we got through talking about preserving our town and the historic nature of it, I think it's evident by what is now the H2, we just haven't done that. The state ordinance does say that a body may review this, not that we even have to have a body review, we don't even have to have a BAR for that matter. That is an option for the town. I think that what this does is it will allow for a streamlining of the process for what it really is now, which is a planning decision. It is not a historic preservation decision. I would love to and I believe the planning commission in talking with the chairman of the planning commission, and you may know better too, Mdm. Mayor because you are there, that they are actually taking those steps to move this forward to have form -based code features be in those corridor areas which I think will go a lot longer to really reaching the goals that we want to have for our corridor areas. I did want to give you just a couple of examples that since we have even considered form -based code, a couple of properties that we missed by not having that, that we could have had we instituted some light forms of form -based code, the McDonald's, I forget the name of the bank but it's next to the McDonald's, Chase bank, now Capital bank, possibly Sandy Springs bank. I don't know if it had anything to do with it, it may are may not have had, and just tonight Wolf furniture. We could have form -based code features in the village at Leesburg. Not that any of these properties are bad, but that we get to have a say in what that is. I think there's more potentials here and I would really ask my colleagues other than just perpetuating what has been a government function, big government, keeping some commissioners or board members happy, I would ask you as you discuss this tonight to say well why keep it in there. I would like to know some historic benefits to the H2 other than just in theory. Reid: well, in looking at the resolution, I don't think the second one is mutually exclusive. I really don't. To get the design guidelines and going or form based lite, what I would like to know is whether councilmember Dunn would agree to a friendly amendment to... In the whereas at the bottom to be reassigned to the planning commission for H2 cases involving special exceptions and rezonings, so that way what I'm envisioning... I just wanted to explain to my colleagues that I wanted to see if we could narrow the scope of this to have the BAR handle the design only in the cases of special exception are rezoning in the H2 corridor. Therefore the BAR could review a case where an existing building has to come in with the new design like an awning or something like that. You 34 1 P age COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 don't except that? Okay. That's okay. Well I would like to offer that as an amendment. Mayor: Ken has made his proposal, a motion to amend. Is there a second? Alright, it dies for lack of a second. Ken are you still supporting the main motion as it's second? Reid: yes, it's just initiating the process. It's not really actually adopting an amendment. Wright: thank you Mdm. Mayor. Jeanette, if I recall the enabling legislation for the H2 has some specific parameters, so if the end goal is to have an overlay district that is reviewed by the planning commission, was it not your opinion that we would then have to create a new district that would be the H2, it would have to be something else? Irby: the H2 was enabled under a particular statute. It was a particular corridor that was attached to a historic district. So, if you want to do form -based code lite or whatever it is you want to do, it can't be H2. It has to be a different zoning district. I don't know how much plainer I can say that. It just needs to be something different. Wright: with that in mind, it seems... Actually I don't understand why the first option is the one that went and I'm not convinced the second option is the way to go. It seems that what we are continuing to tiptoe around is we don't like the H2. We don't think it has worked. But we don't really want to get rid of it. As long as the H2 is there and is providing those architectural controls, then a body that is created for architectural review is probably the one that should be reviewing it. I assure you, I'm not keeping any members of the BAR happy in saying that because quite frankly, they would love for us to come up with something better but have basically said until you come up with something better, we have to live with what we've got. I don't think there's anybody on the BAR that's wed to the H2, but they do feel that it's important that we have something in place. I think we would be better served if we want to have a conversation about the H2, let's talk about the H2, not who's reviewing it. If we want to get rid of the H2, then the motion should be to get rid of the H2. Ken's proposal was interesting, but I think we get into the same problem from streamlining on an SE are rezoning where they have to go to the planning commission anyway, streamlining that to not have a redundant architectural review by the BAR but again, we run into the same enabling legislation challenges. This is not how we solve what we have continued to discuss about the H2. I will not be supporting this. Martinez: I kind of feel the same way I do with Kevin. I'm not quite sure... I know the BAR is not raising his hands in protest. I'm just concerned about passing this on to the planning commission. I know the planning 35 1 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 commission has kind of said that they are okay with it too. I do have my reservations. I probably will be voting for it but I'm still a little concerned about it. Hammler: I have always appreciated Tom's initiative regarding form based code lite so to the extent that I certainly agree, as well appreciate, Jeanette's point that we can't continue to have the H2 if what we really want to do is come up with something better. I would support a work session and a future resolution that would actually disband the H2 and initiate the appropriate zoning ordinance changes to be able to define a district that would allow us to pursue form -based code lite. Butler: I think I find myself in substantial agreement with councilmember Hammier. I see no advantage to this resolution whatsoever. I don't understand the problem that it solves. It's not changing the process, it's not reducing bureaucracy, it's not helping in any way. It's just changing the review board to folks that deal with land -use from folks that deal with architectural review. I really don't see the point. It's increasing no efficiency whatsoever. There are a lot of other options that we could deal with, one is to disband the H2, which we talked about that, form -based code lite, simply changing the H2 guidelines to more reflect what we want to see out of the H2. Those are all, in my opinion substantially better alternatives than this one. I think our attention should be focused on the second resolution and putting constraints around what were going to look at from that standpoint. The first resolution, I don't see the point. I won't be supporting it. Mayor: interesting points made. I guess we will go to Tom for closing comments before we go to a vote. Reid: we had a committee look over the H2 two years ago. They made some recommendations and we didn't really act on them except we did hand over the signs for administrative review. That was the only thing we accomplished, we never dealt with the boundaries, we never dealt with the district. At least by initiating these amendments, you put it in the hands of the planning commission and staff to come back with something. They may come back with something very different. That's what this is, we're just initiating amendments. Hammier: Mdm. Mayor, point of order. That's not the resolution that we're addressing. Reid: We are addressing the first resolution that says the Planning Commission.... Butler: Right, and you are commenting on the second resolution. Reid: It says the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider these amendments, so they have to come and deal with the details. 36 1 Page COUNCIL MEETING Wright: But it's referring to section I, changes in review authority. Reid: That's exactly right. They may come back and say we don't want to change the review authority. They may say we want to come up with a different district, but we have to get the ball rolling. We can't just sit here and talk and talk and talk and everyone has a different idea. The second resolution I'm going to support as well, because its not mutually exclusive. It is coming up with design guidelines and it is coming up with a possible alternative. So, really folks, I don't see why we can't just work with this resolution and maybe wordsmith it a little bit. I made a proposal to try to limit this.... One stop shopping so therefore an applicant that has a special exception or rezoning can at least bring the design to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission is just as qualified to look at this as the BAR as long as we have guidelines or you have a code like Form Based Lite. We ought to at least initiate something. My personal feeling is to narrow the boundaries. I have always wanted to narrow the corridor. I know that, Kevin, but it was shot down... Martinez: Point of order, Madam Mayor. We should be talking about the resolution, not about what we want. Butler: He has already had a chance to speak on this, so... Mayor: All right. Tom does get the last word, though. May 24, 2011 Hammler: I would like to make a motion to stop debate and call the question. Dunn: I was going to comment for a lot of other people to comment, but if you just want me to put it in my wrap up, I'll do that. I, too, look at these resolutions as really letting the Planning Commission know that we would like them to review this. I think they are really basically about the same. As Ken said, they can come back with some other options that we would need to consider. I think the direction is there. By the way, the Planning Commission is already doing this. They have already started it. I think too, Ken was being kind. This resolution first came to us back in September or October of 2008. We then sent a committee to go out and work on it and they came back in June of 2009. So, nothing has happened since June of 2009. I think its two more years have gone by. They gave proposals at that time, we had form based code worked on. Nothing happened there. The opportunity to add form based lite into this area was not picked up. I think that this is just causing more delay. Also, we keep using the term that the BAR has architectural review of this area. It is material view. I don't consider... while that is a portion of architecture, the BAR cannot determine any design of a building in the H2, they can only determine that it is metal, brick, glass, wood. That's really the basis of it. I think that we have got a failed policy. We can continue to delay it. We can say no, I don't think that we need to take this up. We can continue to lay this on the table. By looking down the street, we have a failed policy that I don't think any one can say that we just 37 1 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 got through talking about especially those who were against the building in downtown, that the downtown is not being translated into our historic corridor. As Jeanette has pointed out, if it's just a matter of removing the word historic or H2, then almost we have to do, for example Katie, is call it FB1, or form -based one corridor or whatever we want to call it. Renaming it is another process. It's going to take a first step. I think that's what this is. We've had well over 2 1/2 years to sit on this. To tell the planning commission yes go ahead and move forward. You are the planning body of the town. This is what we'd like you to consider and planning, please come back to us with something. That's all this is doing. Finally taking a step after over 2 1 /2 years of having it sit on the table dead. The motion failed by the following vote: Aye: Dunn, Reid, and Mayor Umstattd Nay: Butler, Hammler, Martinez, and Wright Vote: 3 -4 On a motion by Council Member Reid, seconded by Council Member Dunn, the following was proposed: RESOLUTION 2011 -067 Directing the Planning Commission and Staff to Review and Recommend Options for Zoning Ordinance Regulation and /or Design Guideline Revisions for the Portion of the H -2 Corridor in the East Market Street Area with the Goal of Improving Architectural Design, Site Planning and Streetscape Planning Reid: I think it's pretty straightforward. We are asking them to look at design guidelines which I thought they had been doing. I wish that we could narrow the boundaries but I think the Council doesn't want to do that. There is resistance here to deregulate so I'm just going to leave it as is. If somebody wants to take the leadership role to have them look at additional items such as limiting the review, looking at the boundaries, I would love to hear it and I would love to support it because I feel that there are several properties that have been snared into BAR review that don't need to be there. Dunn: again, this is just initiating the process. The planning commission, by the way is already working on this process. They are already for it and they are going to continue to work on it. This is just Council showing some leadership saying we encourage you to continue working on it. We are not afraid of change. We are not afraid of regulations. We want to see a better looking town. We're not just regulation mongers. Those who voted against this are showing themselves to be just that. Mayor: Well, that's pretty in your face. Okay, Kevin, anything? Wright: (Inaudible). 38 1 COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 Dunn: Show your true colors. Wright: Seriously? Martinez: as well, I just think it's funny how when you don't get your way you start pointing fingers and making accusations. You know you can't do that. I'm not going to sit here and deny you that right to whine complain about people who don't agree with you. I personally am just going to go and see what happens. Hammler: just for the record, without naming names, you had a swing vote on your last except for the way you did determine with your tone and comments the two members of Council at the end, you lost your swing vote. I won't mention anything in terms of specifics. I had fallen into that once where I inadvertently decided well despite the fact that I actually agree with the person, I am so offended by how he has communicated, I can't support it anymore. There are very real ramifications for communication styles. I don't know how best to try to determine a friendly amendment. Jeanette, given your earlier recommendations from a legal perspective. I think what we are trying to get at is the recognition that we actually don't want to try to fix something that we think is broken rather initiate something new and develop the guidelines for form based code lite. Do you feel there is a way from a friendly perspective to amend this resolution to achieve that? Irby: I think the resolution says that. It is pretty broad with respect to... Hammler: Do you feel we could initiate a new district and determine how to initiate a form based code lite set of parameters? Irby: Susan Berry Hill can correct me if she thinks it says something different, but I think it says options for the Zoning Ordinance, regulation and /or design guideline revisions for the H -2 corridor in the East Market Street area. I guess the only thing that I would add, we could add "the corridor presently known as H2 because it may change to something else. Hammler: okay, if I may add that as a friendly amendment, presently called H2, which may be called something else. Mayor: Ken, do you and, except that? Reid: we are not getting rid of the guidelines? Berry Hill: This just suggesting that the planning commission look at study guidelines and the form based code district to see which is the best application in the existing H2. Reid: That's fine. 39 I [gage COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 14. NEW BUSINESS Mayor: Tom, do you accept it? Dunn: I will say, with a smile for Katie's purposes, yes, I accept it. Hammler: Thank you for brightening the room, sir. Butler: I'll bite my tongue and not comment. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor Umstattd Nay: None Vote: 7 -0 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council Member Dunn: One's beliefs should not be compromised by another person's delivery. If you hold those strongly, you should go forward with them and not have it based on the tone of the... you should rely on the message, not kill the messenger. I just wanted to remind folks of Memorial Day coming up and to remind everyone that we do have a National cemetery here in our town, that you do not have to drive to Arlington to give honor. There is a National cemetery here at Balls Bluff and it is a good learning experience, especially for our younger kids, taking them up there, laying flowers, decorating with flags, those who have given the last full measure. I know that we tend to, in this building, take things very seriously in what we do, but what we do here is of such small importance when considering what those people who have given their lives for our country. I did want to read a very quick letter from the Executive Mansion in Washington: Dear Madam, I have seen in the files of the War Department, a statement of the adjunct general of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be my words which should attempt to beguile you from your grief of loss so overwhelming. But, I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the republic they died to save. I pray that our heavenly father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom. Very Sincerely and Respectfully, A. Lincoln. Council Member Reid: Memorial Day this year is going to take on very special meaning given the heroic and courageous action by the Navy seals and our CIA in capturing and killing Osama Bin Laden. It is really heartwarming to see the Washington Post doing a positive story about the training that these folks do, the seals. So, I am looking forward to the ceremony this Monday. I am very glad that public works has the Hope Parkway light up. I am looking forward to that light as I am sure Council Member Butler is. Getting that thing started as soon as possible is a necessary 40 1 E' c COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 improvement that is long overdue. In terms of the H -2 vote, I would be more than happy to work with the majority that turned it down to deal with this resolution and a neat way to bring it up at some future point in terms of doing something with the corridor itself. I hope that the planning commission does not come back with a form based code per se, because I don't think that form based code is necessarily going to work where we adopted it. I think having design elements of Form based code is a good idea for the H2 corridor. But again, we have boundaries that are way too wide. We have areas that don't face the street that have frequently been snared into the process. Madam Mayor, you know very well with the day care center and so forth. I regret...I think that it would have been a lot better if this resolution had been in the packet over the weekend. I am a little concerned that this plus some other material was not available and I hope that does not happen again. Finally, Lyme Disease. I attended the Lyme walk in Lansdowne and I met folks who are in really, really serious, serious ...having serious problems with this disease. Met a young man named Chris who is 15 years old and is in a wheelchair because of this. Another lady who's three sons all have it. People have been crippled with this disease. I hope that we can do our part by maybe reviving or reconsidering spraying or some kind of action at least in our public parks or public facilities. The governor has appointed Monty Shall to the Commission and they said the commission is going to be recommending that towns and counties spray public areas. There are several areas in Loudoun that I am sure are far worse. I think the town needs to take a look at this. I look forward to us getting that memo to see whether it is feasible and practical for us to do it at least here in Leesburg. Vice Mayor Wright: I thought we were suffering from lost time there. The H2 item that we initiated was fairly broadly defined to give the Planning Commission the latitude to address the whole breadth of the H2 corridor whether it is feasible and how best to move forward with it. So, hopefully Mr. Reid's comments were already addressed in our second vote. Relay for Life is coming up the weekend after next, the 4t and 5` Overall, Relay is at $120,000, which is where it will be by the morning. There are 60 teams and 860 participants. The town's team is up to eight participants registered. We are about $1255 raised by the team and obviously looking to add to that. To that endeavor, Pie in the Face is coming up the day before Relay, First Friday, June 3 at 5:30. Bidding is now open, so contact Debi Parry with your bids. To remind us going down the dais, Town Manager John Wells is up, Ken Reid is up, I am up, Marty is up, Katie is up, Dave is up and also Technology and Communications commission chair, JB Anderson is also up. I am sure amongst that group, there is one or more of them that are worthy of your investment to go to benefit the National Cancer Society and you get the pleasure of decorating us with a pie. Also looking forward to our Memorial Day ceremonies coming up this weekend and did very much appreciate the opening of Northwest Federal Credit Union, this past weekend. Was there for the ribbon cutting and have been impressed with their entry into our community. They have invested in several of our community events as sponsors and participants leading up to their opening and that seems to be kind of a key part of their business is being community stewards. So, I think they will be a great addition to our community. They had lots of tents, events out there, kind of family focused. The other thing they did, and I think it was in combination with Debi Parry and our economic development team, is they had specific shirts made for the Leesburg branch opening that had various images 411 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 of the Town of Leesburg on the back as well as the actual bank sign. They seem to be very excited to be in Leesburg. Thank you. Council Member Martinez: not happy with all these thunderstorms and all my games getting cancelled. Not happy with it at all. The other thing is Memorial Day. I am attending the event we are having on the County Courthouse lawn at 10 a.m. Continue on with the Relay for Life. I have sent all the emails out. I just need all of you to bid and, like I said, if you want to give $25 for another pie, I'll take it. I just want to raise money to fight to get a cure for cancer. For me, that's the most important part. I'll take whatever abuse I can get just to raise money. Council Member Hammler: I'm proud to say I already have the great support of Don Devine who wants to raise a lot of money to throw a pie in my face. So, it's going to be a lot of fun. It's official. I am looking forward to that. Hopefully, I have a little support for upping that ante. All in good fun and in good spirit because the great thing is we really realize the community is coming together with a great compromise on the downtown parking. I certainly agree with Council Member Dunn and appreciate his points about Memorial Day. I guess the only key point I would disagree with is that what we do up here is of small importance. I actually think it is of enormous importance because it is in fact our democracy in the small corner that we represent is in fact what our soldiers have given their lives for. I just wanted to mention that we were busy last night and we missed an important milestone historically, which was the 150t anniversary of the local vote to ratify Virginia's succession from the Union, May 23rd, 150 years ago. A prominent Leesburg lawyer, John Janney, was in fact the one that served as president of the Virginia Succession Convention of 1861 and we missed a great event on the Courthouse lawn. It is fascinating. He lived on Cornwall Street. There is so much history in and around and we will be celebrating so much of it in the coming days. Balch and the participants of the Balch Commission are so deeply involved in so many of the reenactments at the Balls Bluff cemetery and so forth. A lot of great stuff coming up on that. Speaking of a historic structure and the poetic significance of moving the business awards from the Birkby House, which was where we built carriages in the day, we have since moved our business awards to the airport, so there was some nice symmetry to going from the historic downtown to really looking at the future of Leesburg. I thought the Business Awards was just an amazing evening and really builds on so much great news tonight. Wolf Furniture, everything is happening with building a significant infill future for the downtown and protecting our historic assets and so forth. I have just been so pleased with so many of the great things that are going on. Just walking into that hangar and seeing the sheer number of businesses that were represented and the energy that was there. Madam Mayor did a wonderful job and thank you for that and the Economic Development Commission and so many others who were involved. Marantha did a wonderful job. I know that Tara stayed late that evening and Debi Parry, of course. It came up earlier about the W &OD, but I feel when we talk about the historic district being one of the most important decisions that any council ever made, which was to protect it, it did occur to me when I went on the walking tour and we were walking past the W &OD, I'm curious why no one thought of keeping light rail going from DC down that W &OD. Wouldn't that have been a good idea? I'm curious to think back why we did not do that. A couple of final things. I 42 1 Page COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2011 received a very kind offer from Virginia Dominion power in the mail this week which is to contribute to a green resolution and to provide additional money, $15 more per month, which is a great idea so they can increase production of renewable energy and improve the environment and help our country move towards energy independence. I love the idea so much but why do they not think about creating a similar fund to be able to underground utilities? And finally I just wanted to echo the sentiments in Kevin's invitation this evening that those impacted by the horrid fake tornadoes in the Midwest in Joplin Missouri and in Oklahoma that they are in my prayers and I hope the weather settles down. I look forward to seeing everyone on Memorial Day. Council Member Butler: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yes, if Dominion power would underground utilities, I would give them a $50 donation. In any case, I echo Katie's comments about the business appreciation awards. It was wonderful. It turns out the entire economic development commission was there all of them. I thought that was excellent. Council member Reid, the light and hope Parkway and Sycolin and is scheduled to go live on June 20. I would say not a day too soon because with the opening of Bolan Park the traffic has increased even in more. What used to be a suicide left to get out of Stratford is now like an insanely stupid suicide left so I'm looking forward to that life as are virtually all of my neighbors. The bank, I'm glad the bank is there now. I actually have a bank I can walk to. My son thinks it's a cool idea too, but he did ask me why we are getting yet another bank. It's a small square looking structure that has money, right? At any rate, I did have the opportunity to go to the good Shepherd alliance and they doubled the size of their store and prosperity center, which is a wonderful place to go and get some clothes and other types of goods. For councilmember Hammier, there's a little history on the W &OD trail. The reason they took out the railroad tracks was it was a money loser for a number of years and they finally gave up on it. But you never know 50 years in the future what you might find. For my 20th wedding anniversary, I went to a dinner theater outside of Hillsboro and it was excellent and maybe that's something that some folks who own some restaurants around here might be able to do at some point. It was a great activity. I saw Joe May there and had a nice little chat. Last, but not least just before I got here we had a groundhog running around our property. We think it lived in our neighbors house and their dog flushed it out. That my dogs were running around. Finally it went into the bushes in the front yard and we call up animal control and Whitney Dodge the animal control officer came out and she got a little scratched up in the bushes but managed to get the little gizmo in there and get the groundhog and took it away. When the groundhog is in the cage, he's very cute looking the least hissing at the dogs he's less cute. They can look very fierce. Anyway, one of my dogs got scratched a little bit but seems fine. So they're going to go back and check the groundhog for rabies only for the groundhog it's not a very pleasant thing. A little bit of excitement around the neighborhood. 16. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Two disclosures. I met today both with Bob White of Landmark and also with Doug Wolf of Wolf furniture. I'm really pleased that Wolf furniture is going to be here. I want to thank Kevin for handling the ribbon cutting at the Northwest federal credit union. Thank you very much, that allowed me to show for a family member around that 43 1 E j g COUNCIL MEETING 17. MANAGER'S COMMENTS Mr. Wells had no comments. 18. ADJOURNMENT May 24, 2011 morning. I want to thank Pro jet aviation for hosting the business Awards that Katie and Dave mentioned. Kevin was there, Ken was there and Marty. I think it was a great event. We had over 260 members of our business community there that night. I really appreciate Ron Rust and Judy coming to it, we really have outgrown unfortunately one of the loveliest venues, Birkby house. I think the business community will grow and grow. Thank you to Marantha and Debi Parry and Tara for putting it all together and taking care of everything. Was able to brief Kevin last night. The Virginia Department of Aviation is very interested in getting a list of all our proposed capital projects. Staff has been working on this. They are going to get them down by deadline, which is Friday because the Department of Aviation just wants to have an accurate sense of all the needs of all the airports throughout the Commonwealth. Staff is doing a good job working on that. There are some exciting ideas about next generation tower technology, which could be a remotely manned tower that would allow planes to land even more safely. We have ILS, this would be another step in the same direction. I want to thank also Sheila Johnson, and of course, Shye Gilad for helping to highlight the business awards. Dave and Supervisor Kelly Burk were both at the Hope's Treasures expansion. If you haven't been there, it is a wonderful thrift store in the mall that we sometimes refer to as the Blockbuster mall, but its where Sal's is. It is great. As they told us, people come in and buy clothes there, toys, children's books. They have all kinds of things. They may show up on foot or they may show up in a Land Rover or a BMW. The customer base of this store cuts across all demographics. Finally, I would like to thank the Town Police and especially Master Police Officer Chris Tidmore along with our Citizen's Support Team and our fire department and INOVA Loudoun Hospital for putting on a really good public safety day at Ida Lee over the weekend. I cannot strongly enough urge any parent with a child who has access to the internet to go to one of these briefings. They also had a wonderful briefing by, I think, Rick Smith on how to better protect your business from internet crime. But, especially the session for parents of kids, How to Protect your Kids from being Bullied Online, how to protect them from all kinds of predators online. It is a very effective presentation. I recommend the next time the police department does it, I think it is well worth going. Hammler: Madam Mayor, I thought John was going to mention this, but there was a wonderful award ceremony for Town employees as well. Kevin was there and there was a lovely luncheon. I just wanted to say congratulations to everybody who received awards including 30 year employees. As John mentioned aptly several times, the importance is not the longevity, but the incredible productivity and wonderful things they have contributed to the town. If you could just indulge me, the most important point I wanted to make about John Janney was actually how important his role was in trying to keep Virginia in the Union. Just thought symbolically, it was an interesting point that what fell apart was in fact the firing on Fort Sumter. So throwing jabs and things like that can change the course of history. 441 Pi COUNCIL MEETING On a motion by Vice Mayor Wright, seconded by Council Member Martinez, the meeting was adjourned at 10:29 p.m. 2011 tcmin0524 is en C. mstattd, Mayor Town of Leesburg May 24, 2011 45 1 ,t